Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Insurrectionist Meltdown & Other Legal News!

Episode Date: April 17, 2022

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF x MeidasTouch is back for another hard-hitting look in “real time” at this week’s most important developments. This week Ben and Popok discuss and analyze: 1. The DOJ going 3 for 3 against Jan6 insurrectionist, racking up another conviction on all counts. 2. Whether the Federal Prosecutors’ case against disgraced former attorney Rudy Giuliani is for undisclosed foreign lobbying is heating up, as Rudy is forced to provide the passwords for some of the 18 phones seized last year. 3. Governor DeSantis’ efforts through redistricting to eliminate House districts for primarily Black representatives and increase White republican seats instead. 4. A $137 million dollar verdict against Tesla for a racist culture allowed to exist in its main manufacturing plant, and a Federal Judge’s efforts to reduce the jury award. 5. Whether Elon Musk is serious about his Twitter “4:20” based takeover bid, or is it all about to go up in smoke. 6. A Federal Judge’s consequential decision about whether Georgia can keep Marjorie Taylor Greene off the ballot for her part in the Jan6 attempted overthrow of the Republic. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: AG1 by Athletic Greens: https://athleticgreens.com/legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 Zoomed In: https://pod.link/1580828633 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Another one bites the dust. Ohio insurrectionist who stole booze from the capital building is found guilty in a federal trial. His defense, Trump made me do it. The federal judge in that case calls Trump a charlatan, disgraced ex-Trump lawyer and Borat Fluffer, duty Rudy Giuliani unlocks his phone devices for the special master as the Department of Justice starts getting closer to its charging decision. Want to be fascist, Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida proposes a racist, jerry-ered map violating the US Constitution, the Florida Constitution. Florida's anti-2010 anti-political gerrymandering amendment, even the Florida GOP believes Governor DeSantis has gone too far.

$137 million verdict against Tesla in San Francisco in favor of an employee who experienced terrific discrimination is reduced to 15 million dollars. Tesla argues this was only garden variety emotional distress. Elon Musk attempts a hostile takeover of Twitter and Twitter responds with the poison pill. We will break down the corporate intrigue and what it means. Marjorie Taylor Green uses the Madison callthorn defense that Congress somehow granted perpetual immunity and amnesty to all interactionists forever into the future to go ahead run for federal office insurrectionists. And the judge says not so fast than that case in Georgia. The most consequential legal issues of the week affecting the lives of all Americans.

We break it down. This is legal AF Ben Myceles joined by Michael Popeye. Michael Popeye, how are you? I'm doing great. I'm breathless by your introduction. We can only halfway meet the expectations of our audience based on that presentation, but we're gonna try really, really hard.

Oh, we have to run back the introduction, though, that you did with Karen Brieman Agnifalo. Y'all need some work on that one. I'm gonna have Salty. Did you see the one? Michael Popak and I'm Karen Brieman Agnifalo. It seems like a joke. SNL and show you guys did last week.

This is obvious payback for the hamper comment. And I want to address the hamper comment. And by the way, you're looking quite dapper today. And I think my hamper comment made you move up your game. Level up. Well, I think Popock that I've been getting DMs and messages from lots of our viewers who say do you know that Popok takes these shots at you at the beginning of the midweek legal a f with Karen Friedman Agniflo? I know it because I watch it but every time I watch it like the one you brought up about my outfit Karen Friedman Agniflo, So, Syvance is number two who does the midweek legal AF with you. She was complimenting you. She was saying, you look dapper today, Michael Popak.

And somehow you turned the compliment of the way you dressed into an insult of me into me just finding clothes out of the hamper. Popak, what's up with that? I had a reminder. I had it. It was my way. I always have a list of things I've got to get through on the midweek. And one of them

is to remind people about our full blown one and a half hour pot on the weekends. I said, here's a good way. I'll remind people about Ben in reference to his Sartorial Splendor. Great work. Popon. Speaking of Splendor, the DOJ did a splendid job in prosecuting this action. A jury took about three hours to deliberate in another insurrectionist case that went to trial. This individual Dustin Byron Thompson, no, he was not on home improvement growing up. That was a different, that was Jonathan Taylor Thomas. But this is Dustin Byron Thompson, an Ohio native who he gave the defense Trump made me do it.

His whole defense was I did it. I violated the law. I know what I did was wrong, but I was following orders by Donald Trump. And the judge in that case, district judge Reggie Walton already said basically in the middle of the case, you know, that's a really dumb defense. That's not a way like we could address the issues of Trump at another time. And Trump's culpability is actually an issue that district judge Reggie Walton interestingly addressed after the verdict and called Trump a charlatan and said that our democracies under attack by charlatans

he didn't mention Trump specifically by name by charlatans who are encouraging people like you to engage in that but you engaging in the illegal conduct you can't blame others when you engage in the conduct and this the story popuck when you even dig deeper in this guy's life is an interesting one. His wife's a Democrat. His wife said she voted for Obama and Biden. She described her husband as being libertarian

but a fairly moderate guy until 2016 when he was radicalized by Trump, radicalized by Fox News right after he lost his job and went down this conspiracy theory echo chamber and that was basically their defense. I was brainwashed. I went down to conspiracy theory echo chamber. I invaded the Capitol. I stole booze. He stole booze from the parliamentarians office and a coat rack and a coat rack. But he was found guilty in three hours. Popeye, anything you want to add or did I just know?

No, I was always if there's nothing I need to add, then it would just be the Ben Micellus show. Yes, something I like to have three for three Department of Justice, three for three in cases, in prosecuting Jan six insurrectionists. That's not any small feat. People are like, well, of course, look at all the evidence. And they did. They plowed through hours and hours of video evidence. But they're O and one in the governor Whitmer case in Michigan, same department of justice,

different set of lawyers. So we don't take anything for granted, but it is a good day for democracy when the department of justice is three for three against insurrectionists. And they is three for three against insurrectionists. And they're one for one against insurrectionists that decide to take the stand in their own defense and say, Trump made me do it.

I was following presidential orders of President Trump. Now, I think the mistake that was made, and there were many in this case, is I don't know why for the life of me, and I wanna get your opinion on this, they put the wife on. The wife can't testify normally for the life of me, and I wanna get your opinion on this, they put the wife on. The wife can't testify normally or the husband can't testify normally

because of spousal immunity. But the defense decided they needed besides their own guy going on the stand, they needed the wife, the things that you quoted at the top of the segment about, she's a Biden supporter, she voted for Obama, she voted for Clinton, she voted for Biden, We only know that because she testified at the trial, but under cross-examination, she had to admit some very important facts. I'm sure resonated with the jury, one, our husband

is really, really smart. Two, yes, he was unemployed because of COVID, but he fell down what you referred to as kind of the rabbit hole into QAnon and Trump during that period. And at the end, the prosecutors turned all that against him and the wife against him in their own way. And they said to the jury at the NC, he's a bright guy. He was exercising his own independent judgment when he grabbed the liquor bottle from the Senate Parliamentarians office when he grabbed the coat rack and when he did all of these things. And he went down and claimed six counts, charge, six counts found convicted. And then what I liked about the Reggie Walton comment. And I don't want to leave that judge that quickly because for those that don't know Reggie Walton, sort of a rock star in this area.

First of all, he's black American, but he was appointed by three separate Republicans to serve in office. Reagan appointed him, Bush appointed him, George W. to the federal bench, and Roberts, the Supreme Court Justice Chief, appointed him as the head of the presiding judge over the intelligence surveillance court. So this, he's a big guy, you know, he's in senior status now, but he's a big guy. He's presided over aspects of the white water trial involving the Clinton's way back when he's involved with the Scooter Libby conviction, you know, and for him to come out and you

said he didn't name it by name, but he actually did. He didn't say Trump, but he said the former president. He said, we had a Charlotteson as a former president. And then he turned fire after the trial was over at Thompson and said, you are weak minded. You are gullible. I don't believe that you were being sincere when you testified. And I'm going to have you go with federal marshals now and go sit and jail awaiting sentencing as opposed to letting them out. I think even a couple of the others have gotten out awaiting sentencing. He says, no, no, I don't believe you showed humility. I don't believe you showed a truth telling when you testified. So it backfired again because now he's going to jail immediately, you know, it'll be time serve until he sentenced. And this is the judge that's going to sentence him.

Things are not looking up for Dustin Thompson. Let's think about what just occurred in the past three weeks from coast to coast, California, Clinton appointee, Vietnam vet, decorated vet in, uh, in judge David Carter out here in the Central District Southern division who said it's more likely than not that Donald Trump engaged in criminal conduct and obstruction. So we have that finding on the West Coast. And we go to the East Coast to a bush, a pointy, and you mentioned someone who Reagan appointed as well who's saying that, you know, Donald Trump, former president is a charlatan.

I can imagine Popeye as the January 6th committee starts preparing for its presentation and its findings. It should be quoting. This is what I would do if I was that I'd be pulling the quotes from federal judges. And I would say, look what just what judge David Carter said. Look what judge Reggie Walton said, federal judges from bipartisan administration said this. That is a very effective rhetorical tool. I would recommend the January 6th committee. Do that. But the January 6th committee has

many, many, many smart lawyers who are members of that committee. And I'm sure that's exactly what they're thinking of someone who is not a smart lawyer, someone who's not even a lawyer anymore is duty Rudy Giuliani. I call him duty Rudy because of course there was that scene where he was dripping duty down his forehead that might as touch. So incredibly brilliantly beautifully put out there when he was going to the fake four seasons and he was, you know, undermining all of the election. I mean, just horrific stuff. But we've talked about it on legal AFP for that there was a search warrant and a search that was issued.

How long ago was the pop-up over one year ago, you and I talked about the 18 devices being picked up by a dawn raid, a 6 a.m. raid by the Southern District, New York prosecutor's office. And so we broke down the issues and past legal afs because Rudy Giuliani, the same way that guy Eastman, the professor that was the subject of the California David Carter case. Yeah, all these things work together, you know, asserting attorney client privilege with Trump, same thing that Rudy Giuliani is saying, as why they don't have to turn over devices. Because that case on the West Coast involved in David Carter's federal court with, with

John Eastman was a case in the judge who was presiding over that case was just resolving the Discovery dispute the judge did an in-camera review the judge review those documents on the West Coast on the East Coast in Rudy Giuliani in duties case because this judge is presiding over duty Giuliani's case itself the judge over duty Giuliani's case itself, the judge would not be the one reviewing those devices because if the judge is making decisions on attorney client privilege, you can't unring the bell if the judge were to see something in the documents or in the cell phone records that the judge may then have to rule on, that could create a conflict. So what happens in situations like that is a special master, a former judge, or a well-respected, independent attorney

takes devices and looks through it. So after the search of Rudy Giuliani's home, he had all these devices that were recovered, the devices then went to the special master. There was like 25,000 documents or 25,000 messages. The judge had the task or the special master, rather, had the task of going through these messages. Uh, duty Giuliani made some privileged claims over certain ones.

The judge had previously ruled that a lot of those privileged claims don't apply. Some did apply, but a lot of them didn't apply. There were, yeah, there were 94 privileged assertions by Giuliani and Judge, former Judge Barbara Jones, a special master found that he was wrong 50 out of the 94. 40 she found were privileged and are not turning over the government and the rest she turned over to the government. And now Giuliani had to unlock his phone devices. I mean, you sure he had an, you know, an Apple phone, you know, and these devices are fairly, they have strong encryption, you know, and it's hard to get in without the

passwords, you know, even like FBI struggles to get into these devices without the passwords. So Giuliani had to give over the passwords and that's going to facilitate the final review of these documents before the charging decision is made. Popeye, what's going on here? One, one, yeah, a couple of comments, you know, Rudy, having been disbard facing a billion dollar dominion voting verdict and a bunch of other lawsuits, even says nutty things on television.

We have a local NBC affiliate here and we see New York and he gave an interview last year where he's, he basically taunted the Southern District, New York prosecutors. He said, if they were nicer to me, I may provide them my passwords. I'm sure that was part of the behind the scenes negotiating between his lawyers and the Department of Justice where they said, you know, we didn't appreciate when you're like taunting us on the passwords. If you make us go through the exercise of breaking into your phones, which as you know,

to pen are very difficult to break into, even if Apple helps. It's very difficult to break into the encryption of these phones. So he's now given them either the passwords for three out of the 18 devices or he's given them a series of potential passwords. The media reports on this are a little bit a little bit dodgy, but they've opened up three of them. And what people think and just remind everybody, this is the prosecution focus is on whether Rudy Giuliani was an undisclosed foreign agent representing elements of the Ukraine and trying to get the elements that the elements that want to destroy Ukraine, the Russian oligarchical elements that wanted to help Putin with his invasion of Ukraine. Yeah, it's it's hard to believe we're talking about Ukraine before they have now been the

victim of a major assault on their sovereignty and a war, but at the time it, you know, under the under that moment, it was whether Rudy worked covertly to try to get the American ambassador to the Ukraine, Maria Ivanovich removed from office because she wouldn't do somebody's bidding to have Zalinsky appoint a prosecutor to look in a hundred Biden and barisma to bring down Joe Biden. And this is how convoluted this all is. And that's what they're in his, his, Rudy Giuliani's former office that he used to head, the Southern District of New York, US Attorney's Office, is investigating their former boss to determine whether he committed those crimes or not. And, and the text message is back and forth, get to the bottom of it. So,

I assume even though they've had these devices for a year and they're just getting around to getting some passwords, this thing is moving at a more rapid pace and they're gonna have to, I would hope that in 2022, they make a decision whether to prosecute Rudy or move on. Isn't it obvious, Popak, what Trump told Putin, in Helsinki, what they talked about, or what. What do you think he told him then?

Well, based on what we know now, especially all of the plans that Russia had, not just, you know, starting with the annexation, their invasion, a lawful invasion of Crimea, but their invasion plans were underway to take over the whole of Ukraine. And all we hear about is, Dudi Giuliani dealing with Ukraine. You know, Trump threatening Zelinsky. Isn't it obvious that Putin was just relying that Trump was actually going to win the election

and that he was just gonna get a free pass to go into Ukraine and take over the whole of Ukraine or a G. Because of the sun. It's just so obvious. That's what Chad, that talk about a thinky. Jen Sixth has been, I mean, many, many commentators, including you and your brothers,

I think rightly, rightfully have pointed to Jen Sixth as lighting the fuse for Putin to do what he was gonna do in Ukraine as well. And yeah, it's mind-boggling. I don't know if you caught it, but you probably did. Trump was given another one of these rambling phone in interviews to his favorite media outlets, like Fox. And he actually, instead of attacking Putin,

and trying to start World War III and the genocide and war crimes that he's committed, he attacked NATO. He had a former president of the United States during wartime, where we are working through a very, very difficult period in trying to avoid World War III yet to support Ukraine, who attacks NATO during the, I mean, this is like FDR. If he lived while Truman was still alive, phoning into a radio show, taking a pot shot at Truman during World War II and how it was being managed. I mean, it's just mind boggling that he's allowed to even take to the airwaves any longer.

And you think about the alliance of fascism around the country and what they're trying to do today to still intervene and intrude on our democracy. And you think about authoritarian regimes across. You think about, you know, Putin's collusion with Trump. And you know, is this even a headline anymore or did the media just somehow forget it? Or is it just one day news that Saudi Arabia and their sovereign wealth fund gave Jared Kushner who's never been an investment manager $2 billion to which Kushner will get at least a two to three percent management fee and get to put that money in all of the various Trump

endeavors. We don't talk about that or that, you know, a footnote in that story is that Steve Mnuchin got $1 billion like, and Mnuchin got $1 billion. And Jared Kushner got $2 billion. But what about the Hunter Biden laptop then? Is it more important? But the thing is, Popak, that proud pro-democracy media needs to educate people on what is really going on there, because the that, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, appointed by Bush, who's out there saying, our democracy is in peril by Charlottes. It's funny. It's funny.

You took a rightful criticism of mainstream media last week. And somebody on one of our Twitter feeds or reviews of the podcast said, oh, I turned it off immediately. Don't they realize they're on media? They are that that Pope, Ockin Pen, or are media? They're on social media? That is not the criticism. You're missing the nuance of the criticism then that Ben has just made about the intellectual divide and the necessity of mainstream. Look, as as well as we're doing with our audience and as exciting as this is

every Saturday night, it is it pales by comparison to the numbers of people to get their news in other ways, including from the New York Times, the Washington Post, Fox News, Facebook, and all the other places. And there has to be, unless we're going to live in a world of proff, we're just, you know, the Russian, the Russian government controls the news media and everything that it portrays. And so we're doing our small part, but let's not fool ourselves. It's small in the ocean, the vast ocean of media presentation. What we're doing is an important drop, but it's a drop. And we'll try to make that drop into a puddle.

We'll try to make that puddle into a pond. We'll try to make that pond into a river. We'll try to make that river into an ocean and eventually a blue tsunami. And we thank you for your help. But, you know, our platform is, you know, Poe Poc and I is practicing lawyers. All we want to do is educate you on the facts. What's going on? What the law is behind it? You could decide for yourself, but when you follow the logical conclusion, this is why when Trump put forward all of their bullshit cases in front of federal courts, it collapsed because you have to use the logic and the illogical judge, Janine Piro bullshit that works on Fox News where she says, we need to know whether immigrants are alcoholics.

That's what she's talking about. That's what she's out there, Randy, that's the true thing that she ran to about. That stuff doesn't provide that. That's why she's a TV judge and no longer a real judge. Real judges are judge Reggie Walton. And I'll tell you in real politician, real leaders don't do the things that Governor DeSantis is doing out in Florida.

And so people said it's Governor DeSantis's racist map in Florida. Governor DeSantis's racist map. And you think to yourself, wait a minute. I thought the legislators are the ones who do the redistricting and do the maps. Well, if you thought the latter and you're confused, you have every right to be confused because it is the legislator that's supposed to be the ones who do the maps and frankly, the party that's in power

gets to Jerry Mander and you can Jerry Mander usually across the country in politically motivated ways unless your state enacts anti-political gerrymandering laws. And guess what? Florida is one of those states. There's actually an amendment to the Florida Constitution in 2010 that has anti-gerry political gerrymandering provisions.

Nonetheless, you could still try if you're a political party like the Republican party out there, be as aggressive as you can to manipulate these maps. And that's like the Republican party out there, be as aggressive as you can to manipulate these maps. And that's what the Republican Legislator did. They made a very aggressive map that probably was a violation of those anti-Jerrymandering political provisions from the 2020 amendments. But what did DeSantis say?

He goes, you didn't go far enough. And I'm going to veto your law i'm going to veto the uh... the the the map that you proposed because i want a map that's far more aggressive that's completely where he doesn't say this but it is that's completely you know strips away voting rights of african americans that dilutes their votes i mean it cuts it in half like in the florida's thirteen congressional district that literally cuts the vote like you know you know cut Americans that dilutes their votes. I mean, it cuts it in half like in the Florida's 13th congressional district that literally cuts the vote, like, you know, cuts representation by 50%.

And DeSantis says, I'm going to veto the Republican map that the Republicans in my state, because I want a map that's even worse. You know, that's far more relative of the Constitution. So his general counsel, they do their own map. They go, this is the map that we're agreeing with. You have to pass this map. And of course, Republicans have no backbone whatsoever. That's the staple of Republicans and states and across the country. Oh, good, good, good to file. Follow a DeSantis's map. And so DeSantis's map to be clear violates the United States Constitution, violates the

Florida Constitution, and violates what his own Republican party said. And it would create what five or six, a plus five or plus six advantage plus four plus four advantage for Republicans picking up congressional seats there. So that's what's going on there, Pope, and Pope, and Pope, you, you're licensed in Florida. So that's what's going on there, Popebeckin. And Popebeck, you're licensed in Florida. So what the hell's going on there? I love that. Popebeck would fix it.

Fixed. When I moved to Florida in 1998, seems like a lifetime ago. There were exactly zero black house of Representative members from the state of Florida. From 1887 until the early 1990s, there was zero black representation in the state of Florida. At all. There now is, well, before this map, there were five out of the 27 districts districts represented by black Americans. That's it. He targeted in the new map to very outspoken, and I mean that in a positive way, black legislators. One is Val Demings. You will recall she's the former Orlando police chief and was on the short list for the vice presidential slot that was given

with that Kamala one, Kamala got from Joe Biden, but Val Demings, who's thought about running for Senate as well. And Al Lawson, who represents Jacksonville down at Tallahassee, a historic black district, the fifth district, where 50, 50, 50% of the population in that region of Florida up by Jacksonville and Tallahassee at the top of the state of black. Now the number of disgusting and immoral things that happened on the day that to Santhus went forward with this map, let me count the ways.

One of them he signed it on Martin Luther King Day. That's one, because that's what the Santhus does. That said, FU, big middle finger to all blacks and thinking progressive people in the state of Florida. Second thing he did is he said, with I guess biting his tongue, or tongue in cheek, he said, I'm going to, I'm going to pass a race-blind map. Well, race-blind map would create more black seats and

in Hispanic seats in the state of Florida, not less, but his map actually increased by white, by white Republicans for, for more. So every 10 years, there has to be redistricting off of the census. We've talked, we've touched on it, we haven't really talked about it. This census was marred by COVID because they had it completed during COVID and lots of people didn't answer the door and and as it or didn't participate because they were sick dying ill or other or had moved. And so the census numbers are off, but frankly, the US Constitution doesn't account for a national nationwide pandemic that adversely impacted more minorities than white people in terms of the numbers and in terms of counting, but that's the result we have.

So the legislature, which is what you just said, the Spine, the Florida legislature, went one step further than they passed in a special session. They turned the map over to the governor because DeSantis, while he's a leading candidate to be the Republican nominee against Joe Biden, he is right now the Leviathan of Florida. He is getting everything done that he wants. He has ultimate up, you know, up nip it in power right now in the state government. He just passed, we won't talk about it today, but we'll talk about it again, we talk about abortion. He just passed a 15 week abortion ban in the state of Florida to match Mississippi. And so anything that the Sanctus wants right now in the state of Florida to match Mississippi.

And so anything that the Santa Swans right now in that state, the Democrats don't have the numbers and the Republicans don't have the spine. And so to Santa, this is getting it passed. And you have people in his party that say, every conservative, this is, you know, I know you hate that word when they use it. Every conservative measure out there, our governor is gonna fight for it. And of course, he's gonna try to undermine the democratic ability to,

forever for the next 10 years to have political power in the state while he's in office. And that's where we are. Now, I think you're right. I think it does violate the US Constitution, certainly for our constitution. And we'll have to see what there's gonna be a federal challenge to this.

Question is, when it makes its way through the 11th circuit, many of those judges who hold their allegiance, oh, their allegiance to DeSantis, because they were appointed, for instance, as state court judges, and then they were elevated to the federal bench. Or they were made federal judges under Trump by a recommendation from DeSantis

that are now sitting on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. I don't really have any confidence that the 11th Circuit is gonna be a firewall to protect the constitutional rights and to make sure this map goes down in flames. And then it goes to the US Supreme Court, yes, with our newest justice on there, Katanji Brown Jackson, but they don't have the numbers at the Supreme Court either. And with the way they've approached the Voting Rights Act, I'm not confident, even though

it is plainly unconstitutional, that it stops, that the Santa's has stopped and has struck with this new map. What do you think? The Supreme Court right now, we'd say it over and over again to our legal AF audience, is a radical right extremist controlled Supreme Court, six three radical right extremists, six radical right who control the Supreme Court. And one of the most radical things that they're doing that they've been focused on for generations is destroying the voting rights act of 1965 and section two which prevents discrimination in voting and the Supreme Court dating back to 2013 destroyed what was called the pre-clearance

2013, destroyed what was called the preclearance requirement. We've talked about this in prior legal aafs, which had the department of justice or three judge panels reviewing maps before they can actually go into effect. And so preclearance for the first time has been removed since the new census has been created. There's also been this principle dating back to a case. I think it was in 2006 or 2008, the Purcell case called the Purcell Principle, which the Supreme Court basically uses

to rubber stamp the racist, gerrymandered maps of Republican legislators, kind of in a hand in hand, kind of collusion conspiracy, if you will, although conspiracy makes it sound like, oh, it's hypothetical, but this is what is really going on. So the Purcell principle says, as you get closer and closer to an actual election from taking place, the court should not be stepping in to rule to alter maps at that given point in time.

So the strategy by radical right extremist governors, as the radical right extremist Supreme Court uses this Purcell principle, this is what the radical right governors say, let me wait and do our maps, let me kind of delay this process until very close right before the elections are going to take place. Because doesn't it seem fairly irresponsible that all of these states are just doing their maps now or like the maps are just kind of coming out like isn't like elections are coming up what's the incentive to do it early right there's no incentive to do it early no incentive to do it early because you put forward the races yeah you put forward the racist maps very close and then when

civil rights groups be and remember with pre, the maps would never be approved in the first place. So now without pre-clearance, the racist maps get approved. And the burden has shifted to civil rights groups to challenge the racist map versus the burden being put on the map maker. And so then when the challenge comes in, the argument that's made is, oh, we're too close to the election now.

We can't do anything. Sorry. And that's actually being bought by the Supreme Court to uphold these racist maps, then installing the fascist to then put more racist maps and install more laws. So that's what's taking place. That's just the object of facts, Popeye, right? I mean, that's it. Yeah, it's a terrible biofeedback loop of bad racist behavior. You know, and it's not

complicated. Like I just explained it, people like it, it's really not more complicated than what I just said. But again, how do you fix it? So we like to tell people how do you fix it? It starts and ends with the election cycle. Get, of the governors, get Democrats and Progressives into office, and the state legislatures are really important. Sometimes people only focus on the federal. Who's running for president? Who's my senator? Who's my congressperson? Those are important. Who's your school board member? Who's your municipal mayor? Who is, because those people are now in the feeder stream to get higher elected office in your state, right? So get good Democrats into mayoral positions,

Board of Education positions, County Commissioner positions, left them run and be elected to federal judge, I'm sorry, state court positions, because then when there's an opening at the federal level, at the governor level, at the state house level, those are the people. They don't come from nowhere. I mean, some business people try to buy a seat and that happens all the time, but usually it's done through, you know, grass roots moving up through these different positions. Start now, get officials that you like or run for office yourself

and get control of the governor mansion and the state legislatures because those are really, really important to voting rights, to voting restrictions, to voting suppression to maps. And it starts with also education and talking about the issues that you and I are talking about that simply are not being covered in other places.

You know, our media is so focused on the wrong issues, on telling the wrong issues. You know, if you have an hour show, so what I described, you know, I said this yesterday I was being interviewed by an In-Of-Court for one of their views on like the intersection of law and media. And I was like, if you were to see like two cars in road rage, like meeting on the street and see them kind of yelling at each other back and forth and then say, can you tell me what's going on? You would have no clue what's going on. Like that's the state of the media right now. You know, and that's what's being framed by the media

that is supposed to be the ones that are objective. The CNNs or even the MSNBCs. You put up like two boxers, one that represents this side, one that represents this side. You spend two minutes on an issue. You have them yell at each other, you know, like two chihuahua's. And then you go to a commercial.

How are you as a consumer of information? How are you as someone trying to get news even supposed to learn what's going on by watching two chihuahua's bark at each other? Instead, the whole framework of media needs to be changed. People need to be spoken to and educated and talk through in intelligent matters the way we're doing here because what Fox is doing is they don't really have that back and forth the same way you have on the other media. They just have the injecting the fascist stuff right into the veins constantly on a loop. So going back to the very first story we covered, the people like that Thompson guy in Ohio, who was a moderate libertarian person,

whose wife was a Democrat, he lost his job. He's looking for data. He's looking for truthful information in 2016. And the truthful information is, look, Democrats are fighting for unions, Democrats are fighting for apprenticeships, Democrats are fighting for the jobs, for job security, and Republicans are trying to break all of those things. That's not being discussed. Instead, what's being discussed is, it was the illegal immigrants who did this to you. It was this group that did this to you. It was that group that did this to you. You are a victim of everything else, and that's what Fox is telling them.

And then when they engage in this conduct, they're completely accountable for their own conduct, but we have to recognize they are being radicalized affirmatively by these networks. And the mainstream media is not doing anything to help. Well, legal AF, we're not to Chihuahua's. That might be our new motto. I know. But we're not. But we're not to legal AF. Not to Chihuahua's. Not Chihuahua's to human beings. Who, who have an educated conversation knowing what their audience wants to hear and is thoughtful

and mindful about it and the responsibility about it. I told you on the brothers, I had a very heartwarming inadvertent experience recently. First time since we've been doing this podcast, I was out to dinner on Saturday night. No, I'm sorry on Friday night in Manhattan and with my girlfriend, we were just having dinner in a place. And I noticed that there was another table near us and a couple of times I caught, I made eye contact with the person at the table. For no reason, it just like they were next to us. But on the way out, that person came over to the table and said, are you Michael Popock? And I said, I am. And she said, I'm a legal a a flisner. I live in Brooklyn. And I just want to tell you that I have learned so much.

This is like a direct quote. I've learned so much of what you do is so important. I just wanted to thank you. And I push, I didn't push back. I said, thank you so much for that. Are you on Twitter with us? Are you on you know like what's your handle? Are and she just I give her credit she was like no, I'm not really on any of those things It's like the silent group that's watching us. It doesn't participate at the nighttime and the Twitter and all that But it but but we're resonating with and the second thing that I I take away from what you just said is the importance We're on now episode 60, 60, not including what we do on the midweek edition. We're up to about 14 or 15, so 75 episodes. And we use this to

build. We don't forget about our stories in the past. We tie things together. You'll say or I'll say, remember five pie cast ago, remember last year, member this, remember this concept that we taught, we took who right now, for instance, beside the brothers on the brothers podcast, or legal IF, who's talking about Jenny Thomas and Clarence Thomas anymore now that the mainstream media has moved on completely from it after two weeks of Chihuahua's, oh my god, Jenny Thomas, Clarence Thomas should recuse himself. Oh, what do we do? They've moved on, because it's no longer interesting to them, because it's only interesting. If it bleeds, it leads in journalism, that's not bleeding anymore.

But you, me, your brothers, all the other podcasts in the Midas, and the Midas Mighty, the Midas Touch Stable of podcasts, talk and think about these things every moment, every day, to bring it to our listeners followers and audience. Absolutely. You're going to talk about the Elon Musk drama, if you will, and real problematic behavior

that's going on at Tesla for which a judgment in the amount of $137 million out of a federal case in San Francisco from Judge Aurex Court, a jury awarded this employee who was the subject of horrible, horrible systemic discrimination. The state of California has even conducted its own independent investigation that's ongoing right now into Tesla's conduct. I also want to tie that into, because I think it's a related concept to Elon Musk's attempt that a hostile takeover

of Twitter on the Poison pill. We're gonna talk about that in just a second, but before doing it, I want to tell you about our partner. Athletic Greens, this podcast is brought to you by Athletic Greens. Everybody knows the difference Athletic Greens has made in my life. There was always, you've seen me before, you've seen me after Athletic greens, everybody knows the difference athletic greens has made in my life. There was always you've seen me before you've seen me after athletic greens.

You can see the difference between the energy I had before the energy I had after and I know that thousands and thousands of legal a efforts and Midas mighty have tried a G1 have tried the athletic greens green powder product. All you got to do is you scoop the powder, you put it in the cup, you shake the cup, you drink it, you've got all the vitamins that you need for the day. And before I had athletic greens, I would choose the gummies, I would choose the pills

on my own. And I thought I was getting the nutrients and stuff that I needed, but I really, really wasn't. And I clearly wasn't when you see the photos, but with athletic greens, it all clicked, it was all made simple. And I didn't have to have that whole regimen that I was basically trying to make on my own.

With one tasty scoop of A.G.1, it contains 75 vitamins, minerals and whole food sourced ingredients, including multimineral, multivitamin, probiotic, green, superfood blends and more and one convenient daily serving. This special blend of high quality, bioavailable ingredients in a scoop of AG1 work together to fill the nutritional gaps in your diet, support, energy, and focus, aid with gut health and digestion, and support a healthy immune system effectively

replacing multiple products or pills with one healthy and delicious drink. And as the research changes, so does AG1 and most nutritional products come to the market, never changes. Been over 53 improvements over the last decade and counting with AG1. It's lifestyle friendly, whether you eat keto, paleo, vegan, dairy free or gluten free, endocontains less than one gram of sugar, no GMOs, no nasty chemicals or artificial anything while keeping it tasting good. So join the movements of athletes,

life le ats, legal a efforts and take the nutritional product that they and you really need in the simplest manner possible take ownership over your daily health. That is essential nutrition. And to make it easy athletic greens get this is going to give you an immune supporting free one year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. If you visit athletic greens dot com slash legal AF today, again, simply visit athletic greens dot com legal AF and take control over your health and give a G one. A try. I promise you, I use athletic greens.

It's made a huge, huge impact on my life. Athletic greens dotcom slash legal AF. Pope, I want to talk about these two stories. They're really, to me, a continuation of the same story in many ways. They're being covered as two separate stories someone in the media, but I think that they're very similarly an interlock.

So the first one though is, is that the judgment we heard about, we covered this, I believe on an earlier legal AF judgment against Elon Musk. There was a trial held, was an employment discrimination case, an individual working at Tesla's facility out here in California, sued in federal court, Tesla for this conduct, I mean, repeated uses of the N word against this individual. I mean, just some of the most distasterly despicable conduct, retaliation, intimidation that you could ever possible imagine. Test to all N word written over and over again against this one elevator operator and it went down hill from there.

So $137 million verdict awarded in favor of the employee, which was one of the largest, not the largest employment in California. Major part of that was punitive damages, the economic damages and the emotional distress damages. I think the emotional distress damages were in the $6.6 million range. There's economic damages. Then the rest were $100 million of punitive damages. 130 million impunitive damages. So 130 punitive, 7 million in emotional distress and economic damages.

When you get a verdict like that, this, Pope, we'll talk about kind of the criteria for punitive damages that the Supreme Court has ruled on that is, you know, is one of the reasons you can't have punitive damages over a certain multiple of a certain amount of damages. But here, the judge reduced the emotional distress and economic damages on appeal. So Tesla appealed, wasn't a formal appeal to the court of appeals. They filed a motion with the district judge

who was overseeing the case. The district judge, Judge Oric, looked at their motion to reduce the verdict. So after you get a verdict, you can file a motion with the judge that basically says, Hey, the jury got it wrong here. We need you to step in, judge, and reduce the amount. That's what Tesla filed here. So to be clear, it didn't go to the ninth circuit quarter of appeals and may in the future go to the ninth circuit quarter of appeals. But here the district judge did reduce the $137 million verdict to $15 million in a verdict and said that the economic and non economic damages, the maximum he believed

here was 1.5 million. and then the rest of the damages, the remaining 13.5 million, which satisfies the constitutional limits. It's the max for punitive damages, was 13.5 million. So a total verdict of $15 million reduced what the jury awarded from 137 to 15 million. I'm a little disappointed honestly in the judges ruling reducing the economic and the non-economic damages from 6.6 to 1.5, but in terms of the, you know, in terms of the punitive damages, he gave the max that you could award that once the, once he reduced the economic damages and non-economic to 1.5. But I thought that reduction of the economic and non-economic damages was a bit. I don't know where that came from. I trust

the jury there that they heard the evidence. $6.6 million is a lot of money, but in the swing of things of what the person endured doesn't sound like the jury didn't know what it was doing there. Yeah. All right, so we get to teach something here. And not to gasulate our audience, we never talked about this Tesla verdict before, but we will now. The, I don't know the scramble back of, find the episode where we talked about this. So federal court, federal jury, jury renders, it's verdict. And I can tell from looking at it, I think I have a guess of where the math came from. He wasn't alleging, he was an elevator operator working for a contractor that worked in the

Fremont, California Tesla. I guess that's the main Tesla factory at the time. And he was subjected to horrendous, I won't go over it again, horrendous racial abuse. To the point where he himself suffered tremendous psychological and emotional damage, which he put on into evidence. So he didn't sue for what you and I call economic damages. Like I lost my $9 an hour elevator operator job

because I couldn't take it anymore and I was constructively discharged. He said, no, I personally cry at night because of the trauma of what I went through. It was so bad in this in this in this place. And I want to talk about a comment that the HR director national for Tesla made after hearing the judges ruling. And I want to get your opinion about it. Just remind me at the end if I don't cover it.

So the jury set emotional damages, it's the number that you already described then. And then we're going to penalize under the punitive damage ability that the jury has for wanted and malicious conduct, an amount that hits this company where it lives. OK, let's think about where this company lives. It has a profit last year of $1.3 billion. A hundred and thirty million dollar punitive damages

is 1% of the profit of Tesla. That's sort of where I think the jury came up with the numbers. The plaintiffs lawyers having put on, which they're allowed to do in this circumstance, the amount of profit and revenue that a company makes. It's the only time you're allowed to get the jury to have that information about a company's profit and loss in this kind of case is at punitive damage time. So the jury said, fine, 1% of that's going to go to this poor gentleman. The largest verdict in the history of racial discrimination in history of the country for one person. And that's what they came up with. And here's what we think the emotional damages are. The judge in his ruling took it out on Tesla again. And the motion that Tesla made to be clear was a motion for new trial or because the verdict was so outside

the legal boundaries of what's permissible, they're entitled to a new trial, possibly probably on damages and not on liability, or judge, reduce it down under a doctrine called remitteteter, remitteter under rule 59 of the federal rules, reduce it down to another number. Now, remitator is unique, and as you know, it only works if the plaintiff accepts the judge's substitution of the number for what the jury had found. So the plaintiff actually has to say in the remitator process, okay, judge, I heard your number. It's not the number that jury awarded me, but I can live with it. And I accept that number. If that happens, you have remitted or you have the reduction of the jury verdict by the judge and the acceptance of that amount by the plaintiff, meaning the plaintiff would not be able to appeal that

issue. Tesla can still appeal, but the plaintiff has taken himself out of the appeal process by accepting what the judge has done. Otherwise, he'd have to appeal the issue. Oh, I don't like with the judge. I don't like that number. And then the judge has said, if you don't accept the remittor amount plaintiff, we're going to have a new trial because I do think on the damages the jury went too far. And where was he pulling this from?

The judge said on the punitives, he thinks that under the Supreme Court precedent, he's probably not wrong. Ten times the actual or consequential damages or emotional damages is the most that you can award. You can't do a hundred times. You can do somewhere in the one times to ten times the first number, in this case, the emotional damage number. And he said, look, the Tesla conduct and that atmosphere, that hostile work environment was so bad that I'm going to put it at the far extreme of the 10 multiple. I'm going to give a nine multiple on punitive damages. The problem is what you better will judge. But the federal judge said. Yeah. Yeah. All right. He does. This is not a free pass for Tesla. Tesla argued 600,000 is the most in damages. 300,000 for emotional and and one times that for punitive and we'll go home with 600,000

judge. We'll pay it. We'll pay it tomorrow. Judges, I'm not so fast. We're going to do nine times because it was really, really bad what you allowed to happen to this gentleman and to others that work there nine times. But the problem is what you pointed out then, he took a low emotional damage number times the nine, which is why he ended up with, I mean, it's not nothing. $15 million is a huge recovery for a single plaintiff in a race discrimination case. You and I do this for a living. That is a very high number. It's not the hundred and thirty seven million, but it's a high number. I the plaintiff has 30 days from yesterday

to tell the judge whether he's going to agree to the remittor or the judge has said it's conditional. If you don't agree to it, we're going to a new trial. So my god, I don't want to hear your opinion, is that they may not like the number ultimately, but the plaintiff is going to take the number, leaving it to Tesla to appeal. What do you think? I agree. I think the plaintiff is going to take the number. I do think, though, that like you have a whole trial, you have a jury hearing, everything that this individual, this employee endured, the jury ruled, you know, that it was $6.6 million in damages. That's not like a billion dollars, not a hundred million. It's not even 20 million dollars. It's a big number, 6.6 million in emotional distress,

but that's what the jury saw. And so after a jury going through that experience, that's why we have juries. The whole idea of a remitted or there of a judge to say, it's not 6.6. It's 3.2. Or in this case, it's 1.5. You know, it's kind of like at that point, then the judge based his $15 million by reverse engineering the 1.5 times the constitutional limit of punitive damages that the United States Supreme Court allowed. And that's how they got the 15. But for example, if the judge would have kept the 6.6 million in damages, the constitutional

limits of about nine to ten times $54 million or to $60 million verdict, which I think that's what the plaintiffs Thought was gonna happen. I think they thought it was gonna be more like 30 or 40 and now it's 15 But we'll see what happens there, but Pope I want to tie this into the 10 I want to make that I want to make it related to our director. It's related to it All right, good and this is why because I because we read each other's minds at this point. The HR director said it was garden variety, emotional distress. The argument that was made by Tesla is this conduct actually wasn't even all that bad.

And one more thing. And one more thing because you and I read each other's mind. The second, then one more sentence to her press release. She said, and Tesla will continue to remind everyone that works for the company not to be racist. That's what she's reduced her legal obligations of the company down to, that she has to do a reminder. And we know is practicing employment lawyers that it goes well beyond that of just reminding people not to use the N word when they're at the office. Well, because to me though, what's worse than that piece of it though is when they say it's garden variety,

emotional distress that this individual experience, that was Tesla's argument to the judge, which is horrific. And so why is that related to the tender offer? Because a entity in Tesla and Elon Musk that believes it's garden variety, emotional distress, like it's okay basically to go out and say horrible racist things and that there shouldn't be repercussions for it. That's who wants to take over Twitter. That's who wants to do the hostile take over of Twitter.

That's why you have to read it in context. A company that's being investigated in Tesla by California for systemic racist practices and for its horrible treatment of employees. And Elon Musk who didn't even wanna have a background check to be potentially a board of director of Tesla who's been to be a background check of Twitter, who's been in SEC investigations for his pumping

and dumping of stocks before. And, you know, the way he's gone about communicating stock acquisitions on his Twitter account, he's the one who wants to take over Twitter. So he made an offer this past week, a hostile offer, after it was revealed about a week and a half ago or two weeks ago, and he had acquired more than 5% 9% in total actually of Twitter stock making him the largest single shareholder. There was then a discussion of whether he was going to be on the board or not Twitter invited him to be on the board, but you can acquire more than I think it was 15% of outstanding shares and be on the board of directors under the existing shareholder rights plan that Twitter had. And then so there was this weird press

release from the head of Twitter, the new head of CEO of Twitter, saying it's going to be drama and suing them there coming weeks, but we're always going to be valuing, you know, Twitter and what Twitter represents. And so then it turns out that Elon Musk was making a offer, a hostile offer, not an invited offer, Twitter doesn't want him acquiring it, to the board of directors offering, you know, what was it? It was about $54 a share. $55,000, $54,000, $24,000, $24,000, $24,000, $44,000, $43% or so premium on existing outstanding shares. And this is not a there's a difference is not a tender offer. This is an offer to the board.

The tender offer is an offer to existing shareholders that isn't made directly to the board and to stave off a tender offer where an individual and entity like an Elon Musk or an entity like a Tesla or someone wants to acquire a company like a Twitter, companies have a shareholder rights plans where they could adopt something called poison pills to stave off or try to stave off a hostile acquisition. And Popoq, you were deputy general counsel of a large publicly traded company when we talk about the companies, but you have experience in this area and poison pills and hostile takeover. So I'll let you break down what kind of took place and what the strategy was by Twitter to prevent Elon Musk from taking it over.

Actually, that's thanks Ben. Actually, the company that I worked for did the first hostile takeover of another broker dealer since the 1970s in 2015. So I was there for those war stories and strategy. So first of all, you have to look at whether Elon Musk who has a running battle with the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission over his behavior and conduct, and what he says is his first amendment rights to do whatever, including not properly disclosing to the investing public, what he is doing in any given time with his publicly traded company. Look, he has the right to have a company, he has the right to have it in private hands. But if you're going to go to the market, which Tesla has done to raise capital and have

shareholders, then you're going to be regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators. And he doesn't like that. He chaps under any regulation. He thinks it's complete. This should be really complete. Anarchy. There are many, many things I like about Elon Musk,

including that he sent satellites to Ukraine to help them overcome the Russians. And he did it on a moment's notice off of a tweet from the foreign minister of defense minister of Ukraine. But there are many things that I look at him and think what the actual F is he doing. I never believed and neither did anybody that had a think a thought in their head that he was going to actually take Twitter private in 2018. I'm sorry, take Tesla private his own company in 2018 when he tweeted with an inside joke about his pot, his marijuana use, because

he always puts a 420 that famous marijuana totem somewhere in his suite or in his pricing that he was going to take his own company, a private at an amount that had a 420 in it. I mean, that he had the investors all lined up for it and had financing for it. That turned out to be false. The SEC went after him and they entered into a settlement agreement related to him never tweeting like that again to the investing public because all that led was to a gyration of the stock price which benefited him and hurt other people in the marketplace when he wasn't really serious. Fast forward now Now, for more years, I'm in the

Mark Cuban camp. I never, I don't think he's serious about the Twitter either. He has another joke price that he's offered, $54.20, which is $5.20, another marijuana smoking reference. He says he has engaged, I think it was Morgan Stanley as his investment bank, but as wealthy as he is, all of his, most of his disposable income is tied up in Tesla stock. He would have to either sell it and there's limitations of what he can do in his own governing documents of Tesla. He can't sell more than 25% of his stock. He can take loans out against it.

He could tank the Tesla stock in order to buy Twitter, but no one believes he's really going to do that. Or he can get somebody like Morgan Stanley to go raise for him or give him the equivalent of $40 billion to acquire 90 percent of Twitter. No one believes he's really going to do this. I don't even think Morgan Stanley really believes he's going to do this. Twitter has had to retain their own investment bank and Goldman Sachs. Twitter is in a unique place because unlike some of the other media companies like Meta, Facebook and all that, that where there's a controlling shareholder, like Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, who founded Twitter, is not the controlling shareholder of Twitter. It's own, it's a public company, and it's

owned by a lot of public shareholders, including one Ben we haven't spoken about, except in passing about Saudi Arabia and Jared Kushner, a Saudi prince, therefore the Saudi family owns about 5.5% of Twitter. Let's think about that. A country, Saudi Arabia, which still uses a capital punishment, which killed Kishoggi, a journalist, and cut him up into pieces, who does not respect women's rights or human rights. And we know this. It is public. Owns 5.5%. Probably the number one first amendment free speech expression of vehicle in the United States called Twitter. That's a separate problem for a separate day.

They've come out and said on this hostile takeover proposal at 5420, the intrinsic value of Twitter is worth much more than that. It was worth $60 a share in October. We think it's worth up to $70 a share. And the market, which has its own way of communicating what it thinks about a deal in the way the stock price moves, decided I believe that they don't believe that Elon Musk either has the intention or money to pull this off.

And it's another joke. And they, instead of going up, the stock floating up from $45 a share where the market was on Thursday or Friday, up to the bid of $54.20, it went down 1.7%. Meaning the market looked at this and went, no, we're not falling for another Elon Musk play to get the stock price up so that his 10% is benefited and the rest of us, you know, sort of like the pump and dump you and I've spoken about in

the SPAC world with Trump. So credit the market to saying enough is enough with Elon Musk tweeting out. Do you know how, Ben, did you see how he has an obligation to inform the securities in exchange commission about his intention about a public company. Do you know how he did that? I saw in the filing, he like had his, what was they have the phone call? They did the transcript of the phone call that he had. He did a tweet. He sent them a tweet about increasing shareholder value. This is how he notified because he doesn't, you know, middle finger. He doesn't care about the securities in exchange commission. He's always looking for a way to poke his finger in their eye. And he doesn't really care, frankly, about the investing community, you know, from people that have like one share of Twitter, you know, they're not Elon Musk, the trillionaires.

He doesn't really care about them. You know, he says things out loud like, don't worry if I take the company private, like with Tesla, all the public shareholders will remain shareholders of Tesla. That's not a thing. That's not, public shareholders are squeezed out when a company goes private and it's held by a group of institutional investors. So what did Twitter do?

It did the only rational thing to try to protect value from whether he is, whether Musk is or is not serious. They adopted what's called a rights plan, RIG, HTS rights plan, commonly referred to as a poison pill, which says that for the next year, we're going to stop the assault of the hostile takeover. And if somebody acquires up to 15% stake of our company, and I think Musk is at 10, if somebody acquires through a buying blocker himself 15%, then every shareholder has the right at a discount to buy more shares of Tesla at one half the price. Why do they do that? Because that will dilute, that will drive down the percentage ownership of the potential hostile acquirer unless they go into market and at the market price, buy more and more shares to re-concentrate their position.

So if the rights plan leads to a dilution, let's say from 15% down to 7.5, that acquire has to go back into the market and buy at a premium. The additional shares that get back to 15% while the rest of the group that doesn't want this to happen has their market price go up and the value of their shares go up. That's why it's called a poison pill. The company swallows it so that they won't be eaten by this anaconda who's trying to swallow them whole. It's a way to stop it. Now, they're only going to do the rights plan for a year. They think that's enough time to back him off,

find out if he's serious, and there are other companies that want to acquire, Twitter wants to be acquired. Twitter has been in play for quite some time, and they just want to sell themselves at a higher share price, $60 or $70, and they don't want to go at a discount to some, you know, nutty professor in Elon Musk.

So that's, we've gone over rights plans, poison pills, tender offers, hostilety professor in Elon Musk. So that's we've gone over rights plans, poison pills, tender offers, hostile tender offers, dilution. We've done a lot. That's why I'm glad when you said, let's cover a non-political story today. I'm glad we came up with this one. Absolutely. One thing I also want to point out though is although Elon Musk did agree to provide some starlings to Ukraine, he was actually paid for it by the US agency for international development. USA paid him approximately $2 million, $1500 per terminal.

And so, you know, I just think it's important to say that so that it's not just like out of the goodness of his heart. Like he was actually, he didn't even donate the two million, that's such, I mean, two million bucks is like his dry cleaning bill. And that's being reported by a mashable and wow he even donated crazy. SpaceX previously claimed the US didn't give them any money to send the Starlink to Ukraine, but as of April 8th 2022 this article says that they did in fact get paid This article says that they did in fact get paid for it and significant money for it. More money for it than the money that they had to pay for the economic and un-economic damage

just to the employee who suffered under their hands. So going to the last topic of the day, Pope Pocket, comes that time where we talk about this Marjorie Taylor green insurrectionist body of cases under the 14th amendment under section three of the 14th amendment, which is the date we'll call it the anti insurrectionist clause, which basically says if you participate in an insurrection, you can't hold office. And the question is, was this section of the 14th Amendment self-activating?

Like, how do you bring a case under section under the 14th Amendment section three that says no insurrectionists shall serve office, or they shall be removed from office. And this section of the 14th Amendment and the 14th Amendment was passed following the Civil War when there were insurrectionists. And following the passage, though, of the 14th Amendment in section three,

Congress passed a law which basically gave immunity to certain insurrectionists who participated in the Confederacy to hold office. It was an olive branch to try to reunite the country. So recently, there's been groups that have been filing these lawsuits against politicians, right wing radical extremist insurrectionists participated in January 6. So one case was against Madison Cawthorn. And Madison Cawthorn raised the defense that you and I both thought was absurd at the time. And Madison Cawthorn's defense as well, this law that Congress passed after an amendment was passed by the United States Congress, that this law that said that certain insurrectionists

for the who were in the Confederacy could serve in office, that actually what Congress intended to do by passing that law in the late 1800s was to give immunity to all insurrectionists forever and ever and ever in the future. So if you're an insurrectionist in year 3000, what Congress was legislating in the 1800s was you can serve in office.

It was it was it was immunity forever. And I thought you thought that's the dumbest argument ever. The judge, a Trump appointee though, bought that argument and dismissed a election board challenge to Madison, Hawthorne because that's how these groups have been attacking insurrectionists. They file claims at the local election board saying, you can't allow this person to, you know, be certified to run for office in your district. Then the Madison Hawthorne's and the Marjorie Taylor Greens, they've gone to

federal court to basically say, you need to enjoy or stop these proceedings from taking place because of this law that Congress passed in the late 1800s that somehow supersedes the United States Constitution and amendments to the Constitution. And so here, Marjorie Taylor Greene paraded the Madison-Cawthorn argument. She said, even if I am an insurrectionist, this is the argument. Even if I am an insurrectionist, Congress said that the Confederacy, that the Confederates can serve an office. So therefore, I'm good. I'm good for all of my conduct.

Stop the election board from even ruling on it. And this judge, though in Georgia, was not having it, oh, fuck. Wow, there's a lot to unpack there. Why not want to start with? You saw the comment that she made, Marjorie Jelligreine, who's, who's a favorite of the pod, always has been in the Midas brothers. Well, which comment? She makes this stupid comment every day. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, this is, this is, you can't rank them. They're just dumb.

No, it's the one where she said, why are we still talking about Jans sex insurrection? It was one day. It was just once. It happened just once. Like Pearl Harbor happened just once, World Trade Center happened just once, you know, just once. That's, it's mind boggling that she keep, that she's even able to find her way onto a primary ballot let alone possibility of getting elected. Let me pick up with Madison Caught Thorn first. The judge there may get overruled. I'm hoping the fourth circuit which sits I think in Virginia has now called the case up on appeal. Now they have not issued an injunction to allow the Virginia State Board of Elections to, no, I'm sorry, I keep

saying Virginia, it's North Carolina, I'm sorry, but stays in the pot. I may, I could correct a corrective my own error. The North Carolina Board of Elections stays in the pot. The North Carolina Board of Elections is not going toions is not going to be able until the full briefing and oral argument in early May by the fourth, they're not going to be able to decide on caught turns, ability and disability, if you will, to be on the ballot. But the fourth has called it up and questioned in their own way what the lower court judge, the Trump appointee judge has ruled. Fast forward, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and we've talked a lot on the pod about federal court, and it's important who sits there.

Well, in the Northern, and I would not have thought this going into this case, the Northern District of Georgia has a federal judge who is Nina Totenberg's sister from NPR and the Supreme Court watch fame. And Judge Amy Totenberg, appointed by Obama, sits in the Northern District of Georgia, and when the wheel of lottery spun to see which judge would get the Marjorie Taylor Green case, it came up to Tokenberg. And that was a bad day for Marjorie Taylor Green because Amy Tokenberg in her full day evidentiary hearing has already questioned how possibly the 1872 law could be prospective to give a carte blanche to future insurrectionists. She commented,

she has a rule jet, we're still waiting on the ruling. Her comment out loud was, I don't think it applies prospectively to people's future conduct. I think it applied to the former elected officials off the Civil War who had participated in the Civil War. And that, and that we're being allowed back into the union, if you will, to be able to serve again. And that a federal statute doesn't override the US Constitution. In the hierarchy of laws, just to be clear,

rock paper, sciss scissors, it's US Constitution first, federal laws next. And that's it. US Constitution always trumps a federal law. And so the judge said, yeah, I get that they remove the disability from a certain subset of civil war veterans and people that went with, you know, Robert E. Lee to go lead the Confederacy, but that was a one-time pass and it doesn't apply to you, Matt, you know, to you Marjorie Telegrain. If she rules that way as the federal judge, it is going to go back to the

Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Rathman's burger, the guy that got the phone call from Trump to find those votes, who we know is not a Trump fan, who's going to be in charge of the process with the board of the supervisor of elections, to determine whether Marjorie Taylor Green is an insurrectionist and if she is, whether she goes on the ballot. Now, there is one thing that you we've never spoken about and I want to get your opinion about it. Not one, not one of the people that are being charged by the Department of Justice who, who marched on the, who led the ins, the, the, the riot on the Capitol, the insurrection, not one of them, even though we call it the insurrection, not one of them have been charged with the crime of insurrection under 18 USC 2383. Not one of them. They've been charged. The highest charge that any of them have gotten is has been obstruction, which is a 20-year sentence in a federal penitentiary, but none of them have been charged with insurrection. What do you think that does if anything? As the Department of Justice moves forward on the

elected officials and those around Trump, do you think they're never going to charge in direction and do you think that impacts this type of analysis about whether they belong in the ballot or not? In other words, why has the Department of Justice charged any of the people that charged into the capital with blood loss to stop the peaceful transfer of power? How come none of them have been charged with insurrection? And what do you think that does to these kind of cases? I think it makes the cases ultimately very difficult if I'm just being fully candid.

I mean, they did start charging and there was a guilty plea, Popoac. Correct me if I'm wrong for sedition though. Against a proud boy within the past month or so. Yeah, seditious conspiracy. Yeah, sedition, which is as close as you could kind of come to insurrection, but you raise a problem that is a, that's worth a debate on this or a future episode. And the debate is this.

I think we all know that Marjorie Taylor Green is an insurrectionist. We based on our conduct. I think that is not just, I think we all see it. I think Madison Cofford, we see them engage in conduct consistent with that of an insurrectionist and reasonable minds can draw that conclusion based on their conduct and their statements

about overthrowing a peaceful transition of power. The only place that where I get nervous, Popo, just generally, and seeing the ways our systems are co-opted, the way local school boards and election boards are kind of constituted and the way things happen is, Republicans will call anybody an insurrectionist because you want to have diverse books in schools, because you want to teach mathematics,

because you want to support LGBTQ plus equality. Republicans would view that conduct as insurrectionist conduct against American culture and against American principles. And if they have a sympathetic ear on a local board and there's no criminal charges that, and they go, well, no criminal charges were brought against Marjorie Taylor, green yet, no criminal charges were brought

against Madison, clothorn yet. And we're just basing it on what the election boards feel. Could you basically be creating a system at the end of the day where the outcome is everybody just challenges everybody as an insurrectionist before election boards. Now it shouldn't be that way because we know Marjorie, telegreet and Madison, Quatherne engaged in conduct on January 6th. But we also know when you have people like Newt Gingrich saying that if Republicans take power, they are going to arrest January 6th committee members and that January 6th committee members are worse than insurrectionists. That's what Republicans are saying. And so in my own view of it, Popak, the DOJ charge of insurrection or a sister to that of a

seditious conspiracy is to me an important prerequisite ultimately in it. Like I still think that as much as I personally believe Marjorie Taylor Greene and Madison Clawthorn are insurrectionists, the way I read the 14th Amendment in section three, though, my own personal view of it would be, there should be a due process criminal proceeding. And if someone has found guilty of the criminal proceeding as an insurrectionist, therefore,

they're forever banned, as opposed to it being a preponderance civil theory. But I think that Marjorie Telegram, Madison, Quatherne should never serve ever, ever again, our traders to the country, our insurrectionists. I just think through this unique area of jurisprudence and some of the intricate problems that could be created just knowing the truthful dynamic of our country. I think that was a very, very cogent and very eloquently put.

And probably some of our audience is thinking, no, that's not what we want you to say. But we're not here, and you're not here as the audience for what we want. But you're here. Thank you, and I want. I know, right. We don't blow smoke or sunshine.

And you know, I, I really appreciate that because I think that's what's attractive and why you have cultivated with your brothers, this audience and these supporters is because we just did what we just did there, which I think is, and I agree with you on that. I think it's really, really important. Before we get off, I just, as you asked me at the end of what closing points, I'll be remiss if I didn't say one thing. I wanna apologize for something that happened that was important to me to apologize for

from Wednesday's legal AF. Now you might be thinking Ben, you're gonna apologize for that lame opening that you try to do. I'm just thinking what happens when I'm not on a show, you're issuing apologies? Oh my God. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, that's what people love us. No, I'm never going to change why I do it opening. You

and I are not the same person. I know that I know some people are surprised by that. I'm not Superman. You're not Clark Kent. We're not the same person. No, however, in I made two flip comments in sort of the same segment. And I want to apologize for it because it wasn't right. comments in sort of the same segment. And I want to apologize for it, because it wasn't right. I did it as a joke, but it wasn't right. I was talking about the prosecutor down in Texas, who for now is decided not to pursue crime against the young woman who used abortion pills

and then went to the hospital and got reported. And initially, the indictment went out for her for murder of her unborn child. And we talked about that. And I made a comment about star county, Texas, which is down by the border. And I said something like wherever that is, as if it's not important. And there's a couple of things wrong with that. One, I didn't mean to do it. I didn't mean to suggest that Stark County is not important that there aren't Democrats and thinking human beings and women in need of our help, in need of democratic policies in those places.

And it was dumb of me. I'm very respectful of all 50 states and the people that watch and follow us and people that even disagree with us in all 50 states and around the globe. So that was wrong. I should never take a potchetta where somebody lives, where they reside, especially considering I was born and raised in New Jersey. Secondly,

I made a comment about Marjorie Taylor Green of all things, which I did not think was that offensive, which is referencing her former career and saying she will never be confused with a constitutional scholar. Some people who share that former career with Marcheerteligrein thought I was taking a pot shot at that career. I was not, I was taking a pot shot appropriately at Marjeerteligrein not being confused with a constitutional scholar, but you know what?

You know, there's a lot of responsibility that comes with sitting behind a microphone and having an audience like ours, and I don't wanna ever violate that trust. So I apologize for those that took offense to me taking a shot at Marjorie Taylor Green and what she did before she became a sitting congress person. Well, Popak, I always appreciate you ending our episodes

on a high note with, we should do the end of the episodes will be just the Popak apology for things he does when I'm not on the pod. It could be a new segment. Where when you're on it, I don't care. Let's Popeyes apologize for. Next week, anyway, thank you very much for watching this episode of the Midas Touch Legal AF podcast. We truly appreciate all of your support.

Check out the merch that we sell at store.mitistouch.com. Store.mitistouch.com to get your merch. Special shout out to our sponsor, Athletic Greens. I love Athletic Greens. It's just the greatest. Thank you to all the Midas Mighty for watching. We'll see you next time on Legal AF Shoutout to the Midas Mighty. [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪

to the Midas mighty.