Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Fighting the Doomsday Docket: Texas, Scotus, Jan6, Gaetz, & More

Episode Date: October 10, 2021

The top-rated weekly US law and politics news analysis podcast -- LegalAF -- produced by Meidas Touch and anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, is back for another hard-hitting, thought-provoking, but entertaining look in “real time” at this week’s most compelling developments. On this episode, Ben and Popok take on: SCOTUS’ secretive “relist” and its impact on this term’s cases, including those involving reproductive rights and sexual and gender identity, and limits on a jury’s ability to use punitive damages to create proper awards to injured plaintiffs. All things “Jan6,” including the Senate Judiciary Committee’s report finding that Trump and certain DOJ officials “subverted justice” by attempting a coup to prevent turning over the reigns of power to President Biden, and the likelihood that the House Select Committee will make criminal referrals to the DOJ if Bannon, Meadows and others refuse to testify and produce documents. The Matt Goetz case including the current state of Joel Greenberg’s cooperation with the Feds. Judge Pitman’s temporary restraining order on Wednesday finding the Texas Abortion Ban (SB8) Unconstitutional followed by the 5th Circuit’s stay of that order on Friday. And so much more! Please visit https://Policygenius.com/LegalAF right now and compare insurance quotes today and support this show!!! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to Midas Touch Legal AF. If it is Saturday, it is Legal AF Live. If it's Sunday, it is Legal AF. Ben Myceles joined by Michael Popak, the Popokian Breaking Down Complex, legal issues that impact our democracy every single week in digestible ways. You could understand you could use to fight back against the fascist threat facing our democracy. Michael Popak, how

are you today? Good evening. I'm glad I'm here with you and I'm glad I'm here with you live and people are going to know it's lives because there's going to be a dog interruption at some point by either your dog or my dog, but we're ready. You and I are ready. We are ready, Pope, and at my dogs, for those who don't know, I have a maltese named takito. I have a toy poodle named chakito and their mother, Sochi is a way in Seattle for the weekend. So it's just me and the boy dogs that we've got here and they're missing their mom.

So if we hear them in the background, apologies in advance, I'm giving them a little bit of a dirty look as I'm recording this to make sure they don't bark while we're recording this. Little stink eye. Hope, what kind of dog do you have? Oh, I got a dog named Gabby and Gabby is, I don't know, some sort of chow or sharpay, Labrador mix. She's a rescue. I've had her

for 13 years and she's, she's listened to a lot of legal discussion in my life. She should be a graduate of legal AF. She's listened to more conference calls that I cared to tell you over the last 13 years of her life. But we're here. I'm surprised, Popoq, knowing you, your Papaki and Habits, that you didn't do like a dog version of a 23 in me truly isolate your dogs DNA to really analyze what specific breed the dog is. Didn't even consider doing that, Popoq. DNA to really analyze what specific breed the dog is. Didn't even consider doing that Pope. No, because you know why?

Because I've had so many friends of mine do the human version of that and be terribly disappointed because their own personal mythology about their ethnicity is one thing their entire life. Like I'm Italian. And then they find out they're nothing Italian. And that has completely blown their mind and I'm like, you know what? I don't need to find that out.

I like the myth of the Gabby is some sort of Asian breed of indeterminate mix. I'm happy with that. I don't need to find out whether I am really what I've thought I've been all my life or not. I'm cool. Popoq, we're getting very philosophical. We're getting very deep. We're learning a lot about you, Popak. But what our listeners, what our viewers want to learn

about Popak is not your views about your dogs, breed. Popak, that's not what they want to hear about. They want to hear about what is going on in the law this week. And we have a week of many important pressing updates, updates, updates. We usually have a section on the podcast that's based on updates, but there's been so many updates, Pope, Pope, based on, and it's a drinking game every time I say Pope, Pope, everyone in the chat room has a drink apparently. Uh-oh.

All the listener, you have to problematic. That's a problematic game right there. But so many updates that I think we need to just focus on what is going on with the January six commission, what is going on with the horrible, horrific Texas SB 8 law, the status of that at the district court level, at the appeals court level, what happened recently at the fifth circuit?

Let's start Popak though by talking about updates from the Supreme Court. There was a process called re-listing. Maybe you can talk to what that processes, Popak, where there is a re-listing of cases. There's the long conference that took place at the end of September where Supreme Court justices meet, they decide on the cases where they're going to grant cert, meaning that these are cases that will come before it during its term, the Supreme Court's term just started, but there was this re-listing process where additional cases are now being considered for certs. So what's that reisting process? Popak and then let's talk about some of the cases that may be considered,

not definitely being it's, but may be considered this term. Yeah, listen, there's a good reason where why updates, updates, updates for you and I started out as a little bit of a joke and a jingle and why it's no longer updates is because you and I have a body of work with our listeners and followers that now is 27 episodes. And we've been very mindful of providing going back now five and six months, the beginnings of observations about cases

and then following them through to show the wheels of justice. And so, yes, some episodes like this one are gonna be a lot of what we used to call updates, but it's really just you and I following developments in cases that are important to those that follow us. So let's start with getting in what we like to do, the molecular level, giving our followers information that they normally wouldn't get anywhere else about the Supreme Court process. And in this one, there's a term you used called

re-listing, which is really a relatively new, I mean, given the fact that the Supreme Court is a couple hundred years old or more, the fact that they just started using a re-listing conference process in 2017 or so, is sort of remarkable. It was an attempt by Roberts to kind of get control of the agenda and to give sitting justices

the ability to try to advocate for cases that they wanted to have before them on the Supreme Court docket. To remind our followers and listeners, it takes four votes of the nine justices to put a case on the docket for the year, four out of nine. And that's called granting surgery or granting cert. And so there's a process by which potential cases are

discussed and vetted at conference to decide whether there's gonna have a, they're gonna be able to count to four and get to four votes for cert. And sometimes when you're on the losing end of some case or some putting a petition on the full docket, like a Justice Thomas or Justice Gorsuch, you try again. You try to advocate for the addition of that case onto the docket because you want to address the underlying policy, policy merits of that particular case. So in a recent long conference, the Justice is sat around with their clerks to talk about cases that had sort of fallen off the docket or the list in previous, let's say last

year. And the question is whether they're going to be added or re listed for discussion and ultimate vote for this year. You and I talked off line before we started about how many cases in general is the Supreme Court taking this year and we've talked about that last pod at about 70 or 80 total cases for the year on average. And then how many of they already filled in

other words how many how many punches on the dance card have already happened. And I think that's around 20 or 30. So there's there's room to add cases as the October through April term continues. And many of the cases that get added come off the realist. So what's on the current realist is really important because

when you're reading the T-leaves and Supreme Court Watchers read the T-leaves about I wonder what cases can end up this term being on the docket. A good place to start is the realist. So I think there's some cases on the realist that you found interesting then. Yeah, you know, you have a lot of cases that are trying to undermine the rights of the LGBTQ plus community. You know, you have a lot of cases that are trying to undermine the right of women and childbearing persons for their right to choose and their constitutional rights,

to an abortion and their constitutional rights. Generally, there's a lot of anti-union cases that are being reconsidered on this list, and there's a case on punitive damages that I want to discuss as well in a little bit more detail. But one case, for example, that's on this realist Roman Catholic diocese of Albany versus Lace Well is whether New York's regulation that mandates employer health insurance plans, cover abortions, which burdens a subset of religious organizations by forcing

them to cover abortions is neutral and generally applicable under a case called employment division versus Smith and church of leukemi Babaloo versus the city of Hailei. And whether New York's mandate interferes with the autonomy of religious entities and violation of the religion clauses of the first amendment. And again, Popoac, you talked about this on the last podcast, the framing of that language kind of tells you what the outcome is going to be and where the agendas are, people who are trying to push cases like that. When you say? Yeah, exactly. And a little bit of a, again, agenda setting, that case you just talked about,

Roman Catholic diocese versus Albany New York, of Albany New York versus Lacewell, that is going to be combined in discussion with another case involving a Catholic organization called Dignity Health, one of the most ironically named entities I can think of for Supreme Court case, Dignity Health versus Minton, in which a Catholic hospital has refused to perform a hysterectomy on a transgender patient. So those are going to be combined together in a discussion as to whether

the underlying issues, Catholics being able to discriminate against transgender and other and women about their right to choose, they're going to combine those together. The fact that the Supreme Court is even considering locking those things together to have religious freedom in their view and sexual rights, sexual, the right to have the sexuality of your choice and to control your own body together in one already is sort of heavy with ominous overtones of where this court heavily Catholic now with Amy Coney Barrett could take that type of decision if they can count to four and get four votes for surgery. Absolutely. And the right to your bodily autonomy, the right is to be who you are is what's going to

be on this Supreme Court's docket and in Supreme Court dockets in this term and current and future terms as well. You have this Arlene's flower ink versus Washington case. Seems like this case, the Supreme Court is obsessed with this case. In this case for those who don't recall, it's whether a state violates a floral designer's first amendment rights to free exercise and free speech by forcing her, this floral designer, to take part and create custom floral art, celebrating same sex weddings or by acting based on hostility toward her religious beliefs.

Again, acting based on hostility toward her religious beliefs and framing it that way versus hostility towards the LGBTQ plus community, who simply just wants a floral arrangement so they can celebrate their love. I mean, you know, you think about the GQP and we talk about, you know, all the things that they talk about is if you elect Democrats, the government is going to get involved in your life, it's quite the opposite here. The GQP, the judges they are appoint, are obsessed with getting into the lives of people and saying, hey, your sexuality is wrong.

Here's what the government believes. Your sexuality should be. Hey, you don't have rights over your own bodily autonomy. At the end of the day, all these people, all people want and are asking for here is, Hey, I want a flower design. Hey, I'd like a wedding cake that celebrates the love that I have. And GQP judges trying to get on this agenda. No, you can't do that. We want to be able to discriminate

against you. I also think there's a lower, much lower standard for the first amendment expression when you are in interstate commerce running a florist shop selling flowers to the public. I don't think you get to be both the creative artist with first-of-the-medic expression of how your roses and p&es and daisies are going to look. And then take money from the commercial public that walks through your doors. And then when you don't like the looks of the person that comes through the doors, you don't like their gender, you don't like their sexual identity, you don't like same sex marriage, you can say, Oh, first of them, it's oppression. I don't want to make that flower arrangement. I mean, if the Supreme Court

a takes surgery on this and gets four votes, we already know two people are in favor of it. Gorsuch and Thomas have already declared the last time around during the last realist that they would vote in favor of having that case be brought up. Now they're hoping, it's obvious that it's Thomas and Gorsuch again. Now they're hoping they can get Amy Coney Barrett and one more to take the case up and then we're going to have a full blown case about whether florists can refuse to make floral arrangements because they don't like the looks of their customer. I'm hoping to God they don't get the floor and they let this die but you're right. This is like the bad penny that won't go away. But it's because despite what they said all summer, all these

justices who are on speaking tours and paid speaking events all summer, which is what they do when they come off of the docket. Despite what they said about we're not political, we're not partisan, we don't have agendas, we just say what the law is, we're umpires, balls and strikes, that's bullshit. This is Thomas and a gorsage wanting to make a constitutional announcement that people who are in same sex, same sex marriages don't have the rights that everybody else does when they go into a stream of commerce, which is very surprising to me. I want to get your opinion. Gorsuch is also a rule that he's okay, generally, with same sex marriage. So I don't really get where he's coming from. And I'm thinking it's Thomas that's pushing this. What do you

think? You know, I think that there is no cohesive moral way to link the logic here. I think that at the end of the day, Gorsik could claim that he supports to some extent same-sex marriages and the LGBTQ plus community generally, but actions speak louder than those words in trying to push an agenda where you're investing significant resources of the United States Supreme Court over floral arrangements over trying to destroy the most incredible day in the lives of someone who's getting married in the same sex marriage. And you want to ruin that by empowering floral companies and cake companies to discriminate against them.

You think about the arc of history, what's just a disgusting and disturbing precedent and another waste of governmental resources to be supporting that heinous conduct. And do you think the Supreme, this is, I want to get your opinion. I'm asking this honestly, do you think that Supreme courts in the past, in the 30s and 40s and 50s, those with justice, Frank Futter and Brandeis and all the Titans of our Supreme Court that you and I studied in law school. You think they would have taken a floral arrangement case like this in order to make a constitutional ruling seriously. Well, I don't, but I also don't want to give the institution of the Supreme

Court a pass that it was and create a mythology that the Supreme Court has always been this great institution. I think in many ways, the Supreme Court is a anti-democratic institution by nature and gets it wrong a lot of times. The overall arc has been in the direction of equality, of more rights, of treating people with respect and dignity, but they do get it wrong, you know, going back. But just the fact that they're focused again and again on floral arrangements and cakes

is so disturbing, but what they're really trying to get at though and it's to your point with Gorsuch is, okay, you wanna say that you're for LGBTQ plus community. There's one thing to say it. But by making a ruling like this on such a microcosm issue, but a profoundly important one to people getting married like floral arrangements, it's from there, it's everything. From there, once you got floral arrangements, they could discriminate against you on essentially everything. And that's the plan. The flower is the poison pill. Wouldn't you say?

No, yeah, it's the poison flower. I agree with you. I think that this is a, they're warming their way into undermining all of our civil liberties, all of our personal rights and responsibilities. When you went, when I was in law school, you know law school, the one of the things that I took away from Supreme Court rulings was the Supreme Court had set a barricade or a barrier at my bedroom. The government had no right to be in my bedroom. That was a takeaway from law school. And I graduated in 1991, so it wasn't that long ago.

And many of these cases are at least the antecedents for these cases that already been decided or being decided. Now I don't feel safe anywhere in my home at all against government intrusion. And I don't expect at all this Supreme Court to protect me from the government. I mean, the government is great until it's not. And when it's out of control or others are out of control as state actors, I no longer expect this constitution of the Supreme Court to protect me.

How weird is it, Popak? You graduate law school in 1995. I graduate law 1991. No, 1991. 1990, I was trying to make you younger. You graduate. I don't need to be younger. I'm debatable.

1991, you graduate law school. 2010, I graduate law school. Your view of the Supreme Court is one of providing more freedoms and liberty than my view. Not only that, someone graduating law school in 2021 views the Supreme Court probably the way someone would have viewed the Supreme Court in 1880 in 1870 and that's not a you know and maybe even further back

I mean the anachronism of the current Supreme Court the scales of justice as we like to joke but we say the scales of justice of justice as we like to joke, but we say the scales of justice turn slowly, but often the arc is in the right direction. Here it is actually not turning that slowly. It is turning rapidly in the wrong direction. We talked about those issues as it relates to human rights and human dignity, but there are other issues, Popeyes, on this agenda as well. And we see where the Supreme Court is going. And one issue is on the issue of punitive damages.

And just to explain to people, we've always heard the terminology punitive damages. But punitive damages are punishment damages. There's compensatory damages, which are intended to, when someone is injured in a lawsuit to compensate them for the wrong, to make them whole. And compensatory damages could have general, emotional distress damages, past, present, and future. It could have consequential damages,

like loss of income, past loss of income, future loss of income, and then there's another category of damages, punitive damages, which are, if the conduct by a defendant, if a conduct by someone that causes injury is egregious, is outrageous, is caused by fraud, but reaches this higher standard of the wrong that was committed, this higher standard of reprehensibility of the act. Additional damages can be awarded by a jury to deter future wrongful conduct

and to specifically punish the defendant or defendants for their wrongs. And there is a case currently called Epic Systems Corp versus Tata Consultancy Services. This was in one of the realist cases. And this is what it says, whether a statute that expressly caps punitive damages at two times compensatory damages, satisfies the notice requirement of the due process clause such that a punitive damages award

that complies with this statute is constitutionally sound under the due process clause. And so the Supreme Court has said about these broad principles regarding punitive damages. In past cases, these are procedural and substantive constitutional limitations on punitive damages. There's been no specific caps that were set, but the due process clause of the 14th amendment according to the Supreme Court in past cases prohibits the imposition of grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments on a tort phaser. And to ensure that unconstitutional punishment is not imposed in the form of punitive

damages, the court set forth three guideposts for courts to consider in reviewing punitive damages award. One, the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct. Two, the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the Punitive Damages Award. And three, the difference between the Punitive and Damages Awarded by the jury and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases, there's been no bright line ratio set by the Supreme Court, but it has concluded

that in practice few awards exceeding a single digit ratio, meaning like at most a 9-1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages will satisfy due process, but anything above that 9-1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages would likely be unconstitutional. And so what happened though is a lot of states, since these rulings have initiated their own caps to lower punitive damages. And so here what the Supreme Court is looking at

is one such cap that reduces punitive damages. And I wanna get you take on this, Popakas. I think the Supreme Court, though, the direction they're going in here, there was this maritime case as well. That was decided a few years back as well. It was a case involving exon, I believe. I think it was the exon versus Baker case in 2008. And there, the court basically held, it should be a one-to-one ratio of compensatory deputative damages, but they justified that saying that was maritime law. But I do think, as we see the Supreme Court protecting corporations eroding our civil liberties, you're going

to see a decrease in significant caps on punitive damages. And I think you'll probably end up seeing a two to one ratio, a three to one ratio at most, and maybe even like the exon case, a one to one ratio. The the the canary in the coal mine for litigation and protecting people as plaintiffs who have been injured, whether economically, physically or otherwise. The canary in the call mine is to look to see how a Supreme Court handles punitive damages and the lower the multiple for punitive damages of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of the community of a very good point earlier about the snapshot of time in which you and I and others went to law school influence how we see the Supreme Court, although I'm

not an idiot, I know it's happened since 1991. And so when I left a little more optimistic, a little more hopeful about the role of the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch of government, you obviously didn't leave your law school with that same optimism because of the set of cases that were being taught at that time, and that's what the Supreme Court was doing at that time. And I thought that was actually a very fascinating observation and totally and totally right for those that graduate today. It'll be a completely different body of law for them to experience. A case that the punitive damages came out of and all of this discussion that you and I are talking about in the last few minutes is a case that came out around the time I

graduated from law school, which is the $4,000 BMW issue, which was the BMW versus Gore back in 1995, in which a doctor who owned a BMW, who had a problem with his paint job, sued BMW and the jury awarded him $4,000 to fix the car and $4 million against BMW impunitives. And that was the first case that the Supreme Court BMW versus Gore. They had an opportunity, at least, you know, in the more modern era, to decide punitive damages. And they said, no, that's out of whack. If you've got 4,000 and there has to be a link between some sort of connective tissue between the amount of the compensatory damages, at the amount of punitive damages, understanding that punitive damages do something as you've outlined completely different than compensatory. Compensatory is what is what it sounds like.

It's the compensate you dollar for dollar to make you whole for the loss or the injury that you've suffered. If it's $4,000 to paint the cards for that's your compensatory damage. Plus interest give or take punitives. There's another thing altogether. That is to that is to punish. It's in the word wanton malicious conduct by usually a company, a corporation, a a giant against you. And and depending upon the dollar amount of

their revenue and their assets, a punitive damage award in order to really be punitive and make the giant feel it has to be at a certain level. Otherwise, what are we doing to to to award punitive and make the giant feel it has to be at a certain level. Otherwise, what are we doing? To award punitive damages against, I'll just fill in the blank Fortune 500 company that has billions and billions and billions of assets in revenue and to award a million dollars in punitive damages because that's two times the compensatory or less is that's like pocket literally pocket change. That's a rounding error in their finances. Pardon me, they'll never feel that at all. And so the purpose of punitive damages in the law has been completely undermined by a Supreme Court that wants to continue to water it down every chance they get to get it to be as close to zero or one multiple as

possible. And I think you're right. We're heading down towards a one or two multiple. I will fill in the blank of that Fortune 400 or 500 company Tesla. We saw in the news that Tesla must pay. They were a defendant and a racial harassment lawsuit brought by someone named Owen Diaz who worked as a contract elevator operator at Tesla's factory in Freemont, California from 2015 to 2016. And he said in his lawsuit that he and others were called the N word by Tesla employees, that he was told to quote, go back to Africa and then employees drew racist and derogatory pictures that were left around the factory on not just an isolated incident, which would be disgusting and despicable itself, but on a consistent basis.

The suit said that Diaz was excited to go to work for Tesla, but that instead of a quote modern workplace, he found a seam straight from the Jim Crow Erie jury awarded Owen Diaz $6 million in compensatory damages $6.9 million to be exact. This was his compensatory and emotional distress damages. And then they awarded him $130 million in punitive damages. So right there, you're already exceeding the nine to one ratio that we see. Yeah, we can say,

and just to keep the math going here, in 2020 Tesla's gross revenue was 31 and a half billion dollars. So that what was the total number 100 and something million? 130 million in punitive data. You're talking about a 4% only of their gross revenue for one year as the punitive. They're barely going to feel that, which is the opposite of what punitive damages. Punitive damages are supposed to hit them where they live and make them change their corporate culture and pay a price if they don't do so. How do you do that? If he was only going to get one times or two times his compensatory damages

from the jury, it undermines the function of the jury in our American jurisprudence system. They are supposed to, when they have the facts and the law present, they're supposed to send a message to defendants and corporate America under the punitive damage, their role in the punitive damage process, the judges aren't setting punitive damages. The jury is setting punitive damages. And if you're going to gag them and amasculate them from being able to send that message, what are we doing in a democratic society with a jury process? As the Gen Z would say, story time, story time on TikTok pop up.

So I got a story for you about my law firm that relates to this specifically and talks about these large damage numbers that you hear. A lot of times you hear $300 million verdict, $500 million verdict, $50 million verdict, and you don't really hear the full story after that headline. Very frequently, you'll see a headline like this, $137 million Tesla must pay. But what you really don't hear is what happens after. Because after a verdict like that, there's post trial motions. And people don't even know what that is.

Crazy. There's post trial motions where the defense lawyers, the people who represent the Teslas basically say, yes, Judge, the jury just sat here for three weeks, five weeks, three months, and heard all of the evidence. We in panel the jury, you said this case should go to a jury. We went through all the phases of a case that Ben and Popocht taught the legal a efforts about from a complaint being filed. It gets past the demurs or the motion to dismiss phases to determine if is there a claim.

It gets through the summary judgment, which says, do you have facts to support your claim? It gets in front of the jury. The plaintiffs argue, the defense argues, the jury reaches a decision, the jury rules for the plaintiff, then there are post trial motions where they say where the defense is, the jury got it wrong, the jury misinterpreted the evidence, the jury reached their conclusions based on information that they should never ever see. The jury awarded a number that's astronomical and too high judge, we want you to reduce the number and very frequently the judges do that.

We saw that with the story time case that I'm about to tell you that my firm had a case against a large pharmaceutical company, the jury verdict before even assessing the punitive damages, interest, all that stuff. It was about $50 million. We spent all this time working on this case. It was one of the most, what it was, great, great day in everyone's career at the firm. And then the judge didn't just

remove the $50 million, the judge reduced the award to basically under $1 million. At that time, the cost was above $1 million to even litigate the case. And so the judge took away a $50 million verdict to a one made in a $1 million verdict. So he did a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the JNOV, which the judges are allowed to do after a jury verdict on a motion. And lawyers like you and I, who take cases and are probably investing upwards of five or 10 million dollars of time and cost in a case. And with the expectation that if we win and we don't win every case, that not only will

the plaintiff be rewarded and compensated, but we're in a business too, that we're going to be rewarded and compensated. That's just now been reduced unless you take an appeal and are able to reverse that. Yeah, and so that course went on about an eight year appeal process. The case was eventually retried. We were no longer the lawyer for that individual or individuals who were the plaintiff.

They ended up winning the next trial, but in that next trial, they were only awarded $250,000 or $300,000 by the next lawyer. And so you go into this eight-year process and went from what would have been a $200 million to even $500 million verdict with what the punitive should have been assessed to about a $250,000 and this large pharmaceutical company basically got to take away the will of the jury from 10 years prior. And I want our list of the legal aifers.

I'll sum it up with legal aifers. It's a good shorthand. I want them to understand because I know they get frustrated. Like, why isn't Trump and jail ready and it's been seven months and we're not getting results. You know, I gave on my Twitter feed, I gave a historical timeline point of reference, Watergate, the investigation of Watergate and all the bad things that happened there. And as bad as we think and Trump was bad, I'm not comparing.

I'm not saying he wasn't bad. Nixon was pretty bad himself in his own way of undermining the government and his role as a president and got impeached and left office as a result. That was a two year investigation from beginning to end. I ran Contra trading arms for hostages and supporting the Contra when Congress said that Reagan couldn't. That was a two-year investigation. So we're only less than halfway up the mountain here on the Trump investigation. But the thing I want people to know, because this might be shocking, because this is not consistent with watching TV shows and movies and Twitter feeds about cases. You and I have been involved with cases that are eight years

old, 10 years old. I have a case that I'm involved with. It's 15 years old. That's how long it's been going on. Like children are replacing their parents as lawyers and judges on the case. That's how all these things are. So it's not, you know, this isn't television justice, you know, we're, you know, law and order, we, you know, the beginning, you see the crime at the end, there's a trial and a conviction. Some of these cases, I mean, the normal case takes two or three years, but some cases that are complicated and the other side is fighting like the Dickens against you can go on for a decade or more. I tell law students, particularly law students who want to become plaintiffs lawyers.

I say, look, if you want to become wealthy, become a banker, you know, do something where the where the actual goal is to make money. If you, if your goal is to become super rich, you shouldn't, you shouldn't become a lawyer. That's not what this process actually really is. I think people who do well in the legal profession do well because they love the law. And then the money comes in the profession if you truly love what you're doing, but it could be and for the reasons that we just discussed, it could become an incredibly frustrating profession, you know, from if the goal is purely, hey, we need to get money,

you know, on this case or that case, because it could take substantial time. And then there are situations where you get a verdict against the corporation, but the corporation declares bankruptcy. When a corporation declares bankruptcy, there's a way for them actually to extinguish the liability of your verdict against them, and you may either get pennies on the dollar or your verdict can get completely wiped out in the first place. So that's just a personal advice I want to share. But people want more updates, Popeyes, people want more updates.

But we've been talking about a lot of cases already. This is a jam packed episode of cases. But let's talk about Gates Greenberg, Gate. What is going on in Florida right now, Popeyes Greenberg associated with gates or gets or whatever we call them, just the disgusting human being was probably the better way to refer to him as this involved sex with miners Greenberg and gets apparently were out you know you know for the GQP and all their craziness talking about peto rings and pizza parlors or whatever you know the real kind of petal rings seems to be right here in, you know, front and center

in the GQP. And so greenbergs, pled, guilty. We're waiting on greenbergs, sentencing. I think the update here, and correct me if I'm wrong, Popeye is that that sentencing is being pushed because greenberg is cooperating against against gets, gates, whatever. And a lot of these transactions to pay the money for prostitutes was done through there. Venmo apps and it's a whole,

you know, Apple Pay. Yeah. It's a whole thing. What's going on there, Popeye? Yeah, just one minute of reminder that we'll get into where we are with Greenberg. So Greenberg, Joel Greenberg was a wingman for lack of a better term for Mr. Gates, Congress person Cates, while he was, I think they're better words, but I gave you.

I don't, I mean, I was going to tie it to something, but it's all right. It's okay. You know, in surfing, looking for underage women, the two of them would, you know, play off each other and Greenberg apparently is admitted that he would bring women to gates and they would find ways to pay these women. And usually they were underage, which means they were engaging in prostitution and sexual abuse. The Greenberg, of course, flipped because it's the only way out of a long jail sentence is to dump on and testify truthfully about gates. This is gates as big as nightmare. Besides the fact that there is a paper trail on an electronic trail, as you said, on Venmo,

on Zell, and on Apple Pay, of paying these people to give sexual favors to them. So Greenberg was about to be sentenced. His lawyers in collaboration with the US government and the prosecutors filed a request to the judge that their his sentence be put off for another five months because he's continuing to cooperate and proper evidence to the government against gates. Government has joined and does not oppose that motion. I believe that the judge will

grant that motion and that Mr. Greenberg will continue to sing his song to under penalty of perjury and other criminal convictions, if he lies, against representative gates. And then we'll ultimately be sentenced once they've sort of mined and drained them of all the information possible that the prosecutors can

get out of them. And then they're going to go against gates and they're going to say, you know, Greenberg flipped and they're going to have a meeting with the with the gates as lawyers soon one day, maybe six months from now, eight months from now and just lay out on a PowerPoint. This is our evidence against you. These are the wiretaps. This is the financial records. We've reconstructed everything in your life with Mr. Greenberg and these women from Genesis, you know, one, one to now. And you should plead guilty now and leave office. That'll be a presentation that will happen sooner rather than later, but only after they're done with Greenberg.

And following the trail of Greenberg through all the other witnesses, including the victims, to gather evidence. So Gates running around town with all of his rallies and all of his BS and going after the joint chiefs of staff about Afghanistan, this is all a charade. He is going to be going down in flames. He's going to leave office and disgrace. It's a matter of when, not if, but we just have to let the wheels of justice continue to roll.

It's not only a charade or as Jordi would say a charade. That's what Jordi thought, as I thought you pronounced the charade, but it's a fundraising tactic that's being used to fund his legal defense efforts here so that he could do a complete, you know, he just wants to delay this thing forever. It's going to be a complete slash and burn litigation. I mean, he's going to try to take everybody down with him at the end of the day. And Poe Pock, I don't know what if you saw also Patreon Takes, posted, made some posts, the Patreon Takes name, I think, was they changed their name that said Gates is a peto,

and Gates didn't see that and thought that Patreon Takes was posting something positive and did, like, two retweets of Patreon Takes and wrote, like, Fact Check True, so Gates at Fact Check True, and did like two retweets of Patriotakes and wrote like fact check true. So Gates said fact check true because Patriotakes changed the name and then said like Gates says that Kimberly Gellfoil is an incredibly intelligent,

you know, superstar. And then Gates said fact check true and then the fact check true. Patriotakes name said Gates is a peto. So it looked like what Gates was actually saying was that he's a pet the fact check true, Patriot takes name said gates is a peto. So it looked like what gates was actually saying was that he's a peto fact check, fact check true. Gates is also one of the dumbest human beings that occupies office.

It's also, that's all. It reminds me of that character from Veepe who I always draw a blow down the name. Have you know what I'm talking about? Which one, the tall one? The tall one, but it is an evil version of that. And you can't even do a beep and Jonah Jonah Jonah. He's he's a worse more parody.

I agree. Criminal version of a Jonah, but you really can't even do a beep anymore because what we've seen over the past four years is beyond parody. It's sickening and it's tragic. Do you know that's true? Do you know that's one of I've seen Louis, uh, Julie Louis Dreyfus interviewed and she says one of the reasons they ended the show is because truth became

stranger than fiction and they could no longer, you know, when they did it, it was Sarah Palin and, you know, God, it seems like a million years ago, uh, Sarah Palin and John McCain, late John McCain, and it was sort of funny and sardonic and social criticism. And they ran out of gas because Trump beat everything they could possibly have thought about. And they had to stop the show. So he, you know, Trump did a lot of bad things. He also killed one of my favorite shows, Deep. That amongst other more significant horrible things, but absolutely. And Popoq, I've been getting a lot of compliments lately in the chat through my various work zooms

about the background that I have here. People are saying, Ben, we didn't realize how festive you are. Big shout outs to my girlfriend, Sochi, for helping make me this festive person. I've got the Halloween background here and I'm getting in the spirit of Halloween and look, Popeyes and I, we can't tell you what to dress up as for Halloween, but what we can tell you is that you can say 50% or more on life insurance by comparing quotes with policy genius. This podcast is sponsored by policy genius

to properly provide for their families. I don't know if you know this Pope Pope, but most people will need 10 times more life insurance coverage than they will get through their employer or anywhere else. It's a real serious issue and people need to be really attuned to the importance of having the right amount of life insurance and having real good policies. Policy genius makes it easy to compare quotes from over a dozen top insurers all in one place. Why compare?

You could say 50% or more on life insurance by comparing quotes with policy genius. You could save $1300 or more per year on life insurance by using policy genius to compare policies. Yeah, I'm glad this is a sponsor of ours because life insurance is something you and I don't think about on a regular basis and our followers don't either. But the licensed experts at policy genius will do the work for you. They're not the insurance company, so you can trust them to help you navigate

every step of the shopping and buying process. They are a marketplace, not a broker. That kind of service by policy genius has earned them thousands of five star reviews across trust pilot and Google. And eligible applicants can get covered in as little as a week. Thanks to an award-winning policy option that swaps the standard medical exam requirement

for a simple phone call. That sounds good. I'd rather do that. This exclusive policy was recently rated number one by Forbes advisor higher than options from Ladder, Ethos, and Bistow. Getting started is easy. First head to policygenius.com slash legal AF in minutes. You can work out how much life insurance coverage you need and compare personalized quotes to find your best price when you're ready to apply. The policy genius team will handle the paperwork and scheduling for free. Policy genius doesn't add on extra fees. So head to policygenius.com slash legal AF to get started right now.

That's policygenius.com slash legal AF. Policy genius, when it comes to insurance, it's nice to get it right. And we try to get it right and do get it right every weekend breaking down the legal issues. But I know where I need to just pass the mic to Popo. I know where I need to not give the Mycelesian intro. I know where I need Popo to break down an issue of the utmost importance to our legal

aeifers, to our country, to our democracy, to basic human rights, a dignity. And I'm talking about SB 8, a number of rapid developments taking place this week, changing development so much so that another update happened the day before this podcast is being recorded in the fifth circuit court of appeals. A Papakian prediction came true, my Celicy in prediction came true. We told you what the district court was going to do. We were right that the district court was going to block SB8 and they were going to issue a temporary injunction. What an order, Judge Pittman wrote. What an order. I mean,

one of the most detailed, beautifully written support of opinion. And remember, Judge Pittman did not initially grant the emergency relief that was filed. And a lot of people were saying, Oh, no, what's going on there? What's going on in Texas? You know, we thought that this judge, he's an Obama appointee, someone who's support the Constitution. He's not a crazy Trump. Why would he deny the initial release?

Popo and I told you, we said, the judge wants to have a full record. The judge wants to be able to write along. Go back, we'll go back, listen to the other legal a efforts. We told you exactly what he was going to do. Listen to all 27 of them. Exactly. The opinion was very similar to what we said. We thought the opinion was going to be. We also told you what was going to happen after it, that the fifth circuit was going to be, we also told you what was going to happen after it, that the fifth circuit was going to have a say and likely stop pitman's order from blocking the underlying SBA papopock break it down first. Yeah.

Well, let's start with judge pitman, who's become a profile encourage judge pitman. There's really two cases that are going on here almost simultaneously, both coming out of judge pitman's Jamerson courtroom. Judge pitman is the same judge that in Jackson health in September had a ruling that was an attack on SB 8 and it went up to the fifth circuit and the fifth circuit as I expect they'll do again. Basically, when against Judge Pittman stayed his order when the first case was filed, not by the Department of Justice, but by the earlier attacks on SB 8. So you've got the Jackson health case which is sitting waiting for full briefing at the fifth. That went to the Supreme Court

on an emergency application and got denied at the emergency application juncture by the Supreme Court awaiting what they said would be full briefing in December. That case also Judge Pittman has now met it met its match with the new case filed by the Department of Justice just three weeks ago. So you've got those two cases both coming out of Judge Pitman that are running and are orbiting each other and the US Supreme Court at the same time. Why is this a profile encouraged by Judge Pitman? Because he didn't just write a five or 10 or 30 page decision and then just sit back and hope the Supreme's ultimately rule in his favor. He wrote

a hundred and thirteen analysis, starting with standing as to the federal government having proper article three, standing to bring the case and ending with an injunction against clerks and courts of Texas to prevent them from taking any lawsuit filed under this bounty law and also requiring them to post on their public facing websites his decision so that the whole world knows what the ruling was. He not only wrote 113 pages, but he leaned in on the descent by Chief Justice Roberts when they when they elected to not take the emergency appeal up and and the descent by justice so to my R, which sort of gave him his framework. Everything that's in Judge Pittman's decision, and we'll post it on our Twitter feed, 113 pages, are going to be the framework, the blueprint going forward. When in this case, ultimately makes first a pit stop at the fifth circuit, where managing

expectations, the fifth circuit, which is the most conservative circuit among all the circuits, all 11 circuits, it's the most conservative based in New Orleans. They're probably going to rule somehow with some contortionist, you know, back flipping that this is somehow constitutional SBA, making its way up to the Supreme Court. I just want to get everybody ready. The fifth circuit as of last night on an emergency application by the state of Texas to get a stay of judge Pittman's injunction, meaning to stop the enforcement of judge Pittman's ruling that SBA does unconstitutional. The Texas state

actors and attorney general asked judge Pittman, you know we're going to appeal you, please stay your order. Don't enforce it while we take the appeal. And judge Pittman looked them in the eye in 113 pages and said, you do not get the right to ask for that because you have been egregious and underhanded in flouting the US Constitution. And I'm not going to allow it to stand one more second. I'm going to bring your law down and I'm not going to issue the stay. If you want to stay go to the fifth circuit, while they went to the fifth circuit yesterday and a three judge panel, not the entire fifth circuit, but three judges of the fifth circuit decided

that at least temporarily until Tuesday. So we have another update next Saturday. Till Tuesday, it gave, they want full briefing by Tuesday on the issue of whether there should be a stay of judge pitman's order at the fifth circuit, understanding the fifth circuit, already stay judge pitman's order in the prior Jackson case. So I doubt there's going to be a different result here. Now, you always talk about then elections have consequences. Judges have consequences, too, unfortunately, and they're linked together. The three judges that got picked by random assign that to handle this case at the fifth. And I just want to get my notes straight on it. One of them was Judge Carl Stewart, a Clinton appointee, African-American man who who used to be a judge in Shreveport,

Louisiana, a Katarina Haines, who is a former Texas state court judge who was appointed by Bush too, so W put her on the bench, and she had been a partner in a well-known large national global law firm. And then I'm sure this is the reason the stay got issued. Judge James Ho, who was a Trump appointee in 2018, not just the Trump appointee. He was the solicitor general of Texas following Ted Cruz. He was a clerk for Clarence Thomas, and he is on public record. And we can look it up that he is a virulent anti abortion anti choice. Judge Clark solicitor general and all of those things. I am sure it was

judge Ho and judge Haynes that elected to put the stay in place. Now, eventually, the full panel of the fifth circuit, which is, I don't know, 14 or 15 judges, will ultimately hear the issue of the underlying merits of judge pitman's decision to find SBA on constitutional. And then that gets framed on a probably a fast track up to the supreme. But Ben, what were you, you took a look at that opinion by pitman. What struck you by the language that he used about SBA really starting from the first sentence of the opinion. You know, first off, let's put this in perspective.

Oral arguments in the case were basically a week ago. You know, it was like October 1st was oral arguments which lasted several hours. And so the fact that you have a 113 page opinion in a course of basically five days, four days, that isn't just an opinion on the law. It studies the right to choose. It talks about abortion generally. It talks about the safety of procedures. It delves into the statistics around when abortions are generally sought, why they're generally

sought. The disparities that laws can affect between low income, individuals and others, it goes on to explain the history of Texas, antecedent restrictions on abortions, these other serious restrictions that date back, some that have been declared unconstitutional, but reading just the history of how Texas has tried to take away the right to choose. And even the onerous requirements right now that exist in Texas that you have to go back multiple times before being able to get an abortion. You have to go through consulting sessions. Like there's so many steps and hurdles and hoops to have to go through right now. There has to be parental consent

depending on certain ages and so there's so it then analyzes abortion regulation generally in Texas. It goes on to give the SBA analysis and it says that you know the cornerstone of SBA is basically to So the cornerstone of SB 8 is basically to remove the constitutional right and to do an end run around what the Constitution allows in Roe v Wade and Casey and all of the cases that we discussed. So here is the perfect recitation of a lot of the 113 pages. Here is the very first sentence of Judge Pittman's 113 page decision. A person's right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established

and fully aware that depriving citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional. The state in this case, Texas contrives a strategy and a scheme to do just that. I mean, that is the opening sentence of 113 pages and everything else is just is just analysis to support that sentence. And then you have the fifth circuits order was half of one page and says it is order that appellants alternative motion for temporary administrative stay pending the court's consideration of the emergency motion is granted. That is essentially the full order

by the fifth circuit in Paxton, Texas attorney general applauded that decision. I mean, it's one sentence. You know, it's not like I actually a well-reasoned decision, which lasts until Tuesday, because Tuesday there's full briefing. And then Ken Paxton wrote, he said, great news tonight. The fifth circuit has granted an administrative stay on SBA, Paxton tweeted, I will fight federal overreach at every turn because for the GQPers, like the Paxton's of the world, they only know how to communicate via tweet. Like they have no semblance of what their job actually is. And another, I guess, indicia of being a GQPer

is not just giving these edicts by tweets. It's also being a fucking criminal because let's not forget that Ken Paxton has been under indictment for securities fraud since 2015. And him and his legal team has been using every bit of resources they have and every connection that they have in Texas to try to move the venues to favorable venues and to delay this thing from actually being tried. I think the most recent update on the Ken Paxton criminal cases because he's appealed this every which way and you know most of these judges in Texas at the appellate level are Republican kind of GQ peers who know Ken Paxton and who many

ways owe their jobs to governors and other political leaders who have relationships with Ken Paxton. And so one of the most recent updates in that Ken Paxton prosecution is that the securities fraud case can be tried in his home county in North Texas and appeals court affirmed Thursday when it denied the prosecutors plea to reconsider the decision. That was from September 9th, 2021. And that's the president Texas, right? And let's and let's and let me bring it home. Let's go through the rogues gallery of Texas attorney generals and solicitor generals

in the most recent history. Ted Cruz, Paxton, guy named Mitchell, he's the guy that wrote an amicus brief to the Supreme Court that said, the way that women can avoid having an abortion is to close their legs and I'm paraphrasing. And judge how, who's the current judge on the fifth circuit, who just ruled for the stay. That's the rogue's gallery of attorney generals and solicitor generals in the state of Texas. Poe Pock, you're such a wealth of knowledge because you don't not even know that I was going to go there and talk about Ken Paxton and you just knew all of the prior attorney generals of Texas.

I mean, that's some real impressive knowledge and research, right? The mighty, the mightest mighty have forced me to become expert in arcane knowledge. It's really impressive stuff right there. But switching gears, Popak as well. And I think that one of the things that probably are listeners and viewers think is less than impressive, but I think there is some movement taking place here is whether or not the January 6th commission was going to enforce subpoenas whether or not the executive branch and the Biden's not really waving executive privilege, but whether or not they would be asserting executive privilege over documents from the National Archives that the January 6th Commission is seeking relating to Trump and Trump's involvement in the insurrection, which we know previously from DOJ, Internal Memoranda, that they are not considering the insurrection to be an executive privilege type function.

We also hear this week that the Trump administration will be claiming executive privilege, though, and that Donald Trump will be ordering or has told all of the people in his administration that have been subject to January 6th, Commission subpoenas not to respond and to object to the subpoenas under executive privilege grounds. And I think what our listeners and viewers are just getting fed up with though, is the pace of this. You know, what's going on? Like, why is it taking so long? And do you see any of the updates that have taken place here, though, are any of them cause for us to be hopeful and optimistic about what's going on?

That's, that's my middle name, hopeful and optimistic. I am sort of, let me, let, let, let me start it with something that got little press, but is all interconnected here. The, the interim Senate report by the Senate majority by the Senate Judiciary Committee and Dick Durbin's Committee issued just two days ago a 400-page report.

So we're about seven months out from Jan 6th and there's already a 400-page report prepared by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The title of that report, I don't know if you spotted this, committee. The title of that report, I don't know if you spotted this Ben, the title of that report like was jaw dropping. And I don't think I've seen it

in the annals of Senate reports. I mean, I've seen it on headlines of novels, titles of novels. This is the headline quote, subverting justice colon, how the former president and his allies pressured Department of Justice to overthrow the 2020 election. That is breathtaking that

that was written by the Senate Judiciary Committee about a former president that he forget you know we have all these cute nicknames and I know might have touched does an excellent job at trending and tweeting and hashtags. But this was the, the, an attempted coup by the president of the United States, who in the first time in 232 years did not peacefully turn over the reigns of power to his successor. Plain and simple, this was a coup by any other name, and the Senate report says it's so, and it's based on the testimony of two Department of Justice officials who are high ranking in the Trump Department of Justice, starting when Barr resigned in December, prior to Jan 6th,

up to Jan 6th and Jan 7th. And based on their testimony of what happened behind the scenes, behind closed doors with Trump in hour-long meetings to try to concoct away, to execute a coup, and to remain in power, they issued that report. That is running parallel to the House Committee, which is led by or vice chaired by Cheney and Benny Thompson. We have not yet issued their report, because remember, this report by the Senate is based on basically Department of Justice testimony about what went on behind the scenes with basically Department of Justice testimony about what went on behind the scenes with with with Trump pressuring members of the attorney general Department of Justice office to try to go after US attorney sitting in Georgia. Start fraud, bullshit, fraud investigations in various

states and do everything to remain in power and not peacefully turn it over to Joe Biden. The House Ex-Scope is is broader. It's about all of Jan 6th, how we got to the point of insurrectionists preaching the cradle of democracy for the first time since the Civil War. Even then, they didn't enter the cradle of democracy that way. And why it happened, who's responsible for it? How do we make sure that pardon me, it doesn't happen again. So we have two parallel investigations going on.

So the optimism is the Senate already issued its report. It's a scathing indictment and hopefully a criminal indictment ultimately of Donald Trump and everybody around him that pin their fortunes to him. On the Jan 6th committee side, it's exactly what you and I laid out three or four podcasts episodes ago. This Congress, while we have the majority, and I'll say it again, before the midterms, while we have the majority, this congressional select committee is going to make criminal referrals

to the Department of Justice for prosecution and arrest of those people like Steve Bannon, like Meadows and others who have said they're not gonna testify or cooperate with the Gen 6 committee. They are not, we used to talk about a couple of episodes ago, oh, the historical, but little used powers of Congress for contempt. Forget all that. This congressional committee is going to make criminal referrals. People are going to be arrested. There's going to be court proceedings related to it that

you and I are going to be talking about when others try to throw up executive privilege. I mean, look at Bannon. Bannon to throw up executive privilege. I mean, look at banan. Banan is throwing up executive privilege. He wasn't even in the White House. He had already been removed from his position. And he was citizen banan. There is no executive privilege of Trump talk to banan while he was outside the White House. There's not even an argument for that.

And as Jamie Raskin, who's the constitutional scholar on the committee, said eloquently yesterday or the day before, there is no coup exception to the executive, to the executive privilege. You can't say, oh, I was planning a coup, and I'm going to cover all that by executive privilege. No, that is not executive privilege. That is supposed to be for normal, non-treasonous presidents to have deliberations with their advisors and consultation so they can make policy behind closed doors and not have to worry about it leaking out. Not for crazy treasonous co-leading presidents. That's why Biden dropped the executive privilege and the courts are now going to have to struggle

with this issue as to the limits of executive privilege when that person in office is no longer entitled to it and has forfeited it. I think our listeners and viewers, though, have the right to be frustrated, though, on the latter part of what you say, Pope, which is there are all these great steps that are being taken. The Senate issued a scathing report. Oh, those words are so scathing in the introductory. It's scathing and they call it out of former president for a coup. So what though? Like so what? If there's no teeth behind it, so what? Biden, Biden saying there's no executive privilege. So what if you're not seeing Steve Bannon,

the Ken Baxterns of the world, and these people perp walked in cups, go and improve it. But you will. And this is where you and I, well, there were almost always on the same page on these things. I hate to say it, but there is no fast track like a Disney

to justice when it comes to these weighty issues of presidential politics. Nixon didn't go off in handcuffs. He should have. Didn't go off in handcuffs. Those involved with our in contra didn't go off in handcuffs within the first seven or eight months. You have to have as predicates the events that you and I are talking about. You have to have a scathing Senate report. You have to have a house committee that does an investigation. You have to have the referrals to the Department of Justice. You have to have the lawsuits and ultimately the Supreme Court making rulings before people get the justice that you and I think they deserve. It's, I don't, and I'm going to be clear here. I don't want to live in a society or an American democracy where things like this happen in

the streets, like the Taliban and Afghanistan where people are hanging from cranes. We are a deliberative process. It may go slower than our followers and listeners and legal efforts care, but I want to live in a deliberative society, even if it takes longer than any of us would like to say, I'm all about picking up pitchforks and torches, although I'm not like man and on his podcast, telling people there should be armed in direction again, which I think is another count, another count for his indictment. But I, I am obviously more patient in the process because there has to be due process in the way we do things.

We can't lower ourselves to the barbarians that we just replaced. The barbarians, Popok, are already at the gates, the Taliban with the pitchfork and the torches. We saw that on January 6th. And the question ultimately is, will we still have a democracy? Can the scathing reports the footnotes in page 37, the deliberative process that you just discussed? Can that process stand up to the Taliban, pitchforks, shamans, people who are breaking into the capital building. And that is ultimately the question that we leave our listeners and our viewers with.

I think you and I both share a sense of optimism. We also share a realism. And our realism though is to believe in the greatness of our country and our democracy that we need to fight each and every day for our democracy, and we can't take it for granted. I get incredibly frustrated when we have these great reports and these great things, and ultimately it goes to the fifth circuit, and the fifth circuit has Trump appointees who don't give a shit about our democracy. And they wear the draping of article three, they wear the draping of our democracy.

But in reality, it is no different than the draping of the Taliban. It is the draping of authoritarianism that frightens me. But I am buoyed by the fact that there's something to fight for. I think all of the things that you're talking about are great, but if we don't win the election in 2022, if we don't keep the White House in 2024, if we allow GQP judges to take over our system, democracy, as we know it will be gone for the foreseeable future. The next election will be the most important election of our lifetimes until we eradicate this GQPism.

And I hope that you and I are just doing our small part each and I know we are each and every weekend with the show and through the other work that we're doing. I want everybody listening, watching wherever you get this podcast, however you enjoy this podcast to know that you have the power and just being on the sidelines is not an option. Popo, including thoughts. I'm going to end it on an optimistic note. There is the great philosopher Michelle Obama said, when they go low, we go high. And I'm going to, I'm going to ask our legal a efforts and others to do both things

that we've talked about on this podcast to use this information and this analysis in the way we're presenting it, to arm yourself in a mental way, to debate the issues with your friends and family and to understand clearly what's going on. But to get involved and now we're moving over to the Brothers podcast, get involved with politics and understand

that those elections have consequences and that's all that Ben and I have been talking about for 27 episodes are the consequences of elections in the hands of the judiciary the judiciary that's selected through those elections Popoq you are a philosopher and scholar. Thank you for joining me on the mightest touch legal AF podcast every weekend if it is AF podcast every weekend. If it is Saturday, it is legal AF live. If it's Sunday, it is legal AF. That was Michael Popak. I am Ben Mycelas. We hope you enjoyed this episode. Shout out to the Midas Midas. you