Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Ivanka’s TERRIBLE DAY in Court, Trump COMPLETELY LOSES IT

Episode Date: November 9, 2023

Michael Popok & Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back with a new episode of the midweek edition of the Legal AF pod. On this episode, they discuss: developments in the NY Civil Fraud case against Trump and others, with Ivanka taking the stand and her confessions and concessions; developments in the DC Election Interference case, with the Special Counsel telling the Court that Donald Trump can’t hide behind his purported belief that he won the election to commit criminal conspiracies, and the Court ordering Trump to put up or shut up about his “reliance on advice of counsel” defense, the US Supreme Court’s oral argument as to whether violent domestic violence abusers can be disarmed under the 2nd Amendment, what the recent wins for a woman’s right to choose in Virginia and Ohio mean for the presidential election, and more from the intersection of law, politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSOR! GREEN CHEF: Head to https://GreenChef.com/legalaf250 and use code legalaf250 to get $250 off! AG1: Go to https://drinkAG1.com/LEGALAF and get 5 free AG1 Travel Packs and a FREE 1 year supply of Vitamin D with your first purchase! EIGHT SLEEP: Go to https://eightsleep.com/legalaf and save $150 on the Pod Cover SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Control and T-Rex at the Ontario Science Center. Dinos in motion, our new interactive exhibition lets you move life-sized dinosaur sculptures made of recycled materials. Explore biomechanics, robotics, and more as you dig into the art and science behind these fascinating creations. Book your visit today at OntarioScienceEn Center.ca BET ON THE NFL WITH FANDUAL, EFISHAL SPORTSBOG PARTNER OF THE ANNIFELL. Download the app today to see why we're North America's number one sportsbook. 19-plus and physically located in Ontario, gambling problem call 1865-3126-200-ERIS-ACONNECTS-ONTARIO.ca

Slay the holidays with Real Canadian Super superstores PC Holiday Insiders report. Serve Appies under $16, like PC Pellenta Fries, PC Cranberry, Bree Pace Tribites, and PC Eggplant Parmesan Espoir Le Attelle. Only at your Super Holiday Store. It would be a tragedy if we were losing one person to drug overdose every day. Even five, seven, or twelve people. It would be unimaginable if fifteen families a day received news of a lost loved one to overdose. But in Canada, we lose 20 people to overdose every single day. That's a crisis.

At CAMH, we won't back down until there's no one left behind. Donate at CAMH.ca to help us treat addiction and build hope. Think about me, Alan's cranberry, all by myself on the shelf. I'm sweet and I'm tart, I'm a work of art, and delicious if I say so myself. Are you aware that I'm made out there in this country that you call home? Myths, Mr. Ernie, shake me and where me. Make up a thing all your wrong. Go in for a sip, I'll say I'm a trip where I go, I'm giving big flavor, I'm your cool red refreshing drink savior. Alan's grandberry cocktail.

There's nothing like it. Ivanka, we hardly knew you. In the judge's joke that he didn't even know who she was before she started her testimony. I mean seriously, after a full day of testimony in the New York civil fraud case, seeking to take away all of Trump's everything, Ivanka Trump Kushner, or what I like to call witness number 25 for the state, was the most polished and rehearsed witness called by the Office of Attorney General, and feigned moderate interest in the old post office transaction, but did nothing to defend the core allegations against the Trump organization and her father that he lied on his financial statements and those statements

were relied upon by third parties to extend credit, loans, bonds, investments to obtain approvals, and then Trump being cheap, turned around and deflated the cooked assets to save on taxes. Nor did she do anything to rehabilitate her brothers and what they testified about all, which ultimately supports the Office of Attorney General's case. Despite an unusual cross-examination by Trump's lawyers, Ivanka really didn't help the defense.

But it did show why most observers and insiders have long considered Ivanka the smartest of the bunch and the heir apparent to take over the company from Pops. She just trotted out the same tired turns of phrases she used when she was shown the same documents by the Office of Attorney General last year, while Trump's lawyers continued their unhinged assault on the court, but not the staff for a change, as they lay the groundwork for an inevitable but failed motion for a mistrial, spoiler alert, it won't be successful. Next Jack Smith prepares for trial in Washington against Trump, hoping to finish off Trump's lame motions to dismiss the indictments once and for all, have the DC Court of Appeals

affirm Judge Chuck Gensgag order and to start the jury selection process right after the new year on the way to the March 2024 trial date. And finally, we have the Department of Justice's Tarte response to Trump's continued efforts to tell the American people and the electorate that he has a First Amendment right to lead a coup. And that is purported subjective belief that he won is enough to inoculate him from criminal liability for using a series of specific lies about the election to his benefit and as part of the criminal scheme. And Justin, Judd Jutkin is calling Trump out on his advice of council defense requiring a disclosure of who he relied on and what documents he's using for that defense by no later

than January 15th. In its first second amendment case on gun control since 2022's brewing decision, the Supreme Court heard oral argument of the case of a violent domestic abuser, Zaki Rahimi, who while under a restraining order for domestic violence and beating up his girlfriend and the mother of his child Then went on a deranged shooting spree at five separate locations over two months with a gun He never should have had under a law from 1994 which disarms Violent people who are the subject of restraining orders

people who are the subject of restraining orders. MAGA gun rights activists want to allow all violent people to have guns unless there is an exact historical twin in regulation somewhere from 1787 to 1865 in US history. But even this right-leaning court, based on the Swix oral arguments, may believe that this is way too literal a reading of their recent pro-gun ownership precedent, and will have profoundly dangerous outcomes if they side with Rahimi. Speaking of the Supreme Court and they're not usually caring about real-world consequences, also in 2022, they took away a woman's right to choose. A fundamental constitutional right since 1973 and left it to the states to do something about it.

Well, are they ever? Women's rights advocates have mounted successful campaigns to take the issue directly to the people state by state and obtained huge wins this week in Kentucky and Ohio. Not only that, they plan to drive Democrats and women freedom-loving people everywhere to the polls in 2024 by placing bills to enshrine a woman's right to choose in state constitutions in battleground states like Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. All this and whatever else we can think of in the time allotted on the midweek edition of the Legal AF podcast with your co-anchors, Michael Popeye and Karen Friedman, Agnifalo exclusively on the Midas Touch Network. Hi, Karen.

Hello, Popeye. How are you? I'm doing fantastic. It's a fantastic midweek. We've got great developments in New York. We've got abortion rights on the move. And obviously going to be a tremendous issue for Democrats come. The all important presidential election in 2024 that we'll talk about. And just great developments in DC with Judge Chuck and you and I both done hot takes on that. What's your overall sense of where we are at the midweek in terms of these consequential legal developments?

Well, I mean, we all woke up this morning with some amazing news, right, that the Democrats faired much better than the MAGA Republicans. So, you know, that's not legal news per se, but it certainly was heartening, especially in the areas of abortion and and just the future of our country when it comes to legal news. Because sometimes when I read whether it's what people are saying about certain issues, sometimes I think to myself, I don't, I'm, my living in the same world as, as, as these people are living, like it's shocking to me. And so it feels, you know, like the gun case that we're going to talk about today, it feels like there's still some rationality out there somewhere that we haven't completely gone insane. Yeah.

Whether it's Trump related, whether it's the election of abortion, guns, there's hope. And that's always a good thing. Well, you and I put a lot of trust in juries, for example, and I usually do the overall American people when they're given this kind of really critical choice. And I think it's appropriate for us to talk about what happened yesterday. We sit at the intersection of law politics and justice, and you're comment about waking up like, what world do I live in?

It reminds me of last week or so, the comic Nate Bergazzi, who I like a lot, did the Saturday Night Live. And he started his monologue with, I'm from the 19th century, which I wake up thinking I'm from the 19th century, because it's in certain ways, certainly not when it relates to women's rights,

because there I want us to be as progressive as possible, but like on gun control and different things, it's just like, what world am I living? And having we already resolve these issues, and the problem is with this Supreme Court, things that we thought were resolved have been disturbed in the wrong direction. And now it turns to us, state by state, but maybe the best thing, and we'll talk about it at the end of the podcast, maybe the best thing that can ever come out of

the Dobs decision that got leaked in March of 2022 and published in June of 2022, but Judge Alito, Justice Alito, ripping away a woman's right to choose after having it for 50 years as settled precedent, as super precedent, as many of the current members of the Supreme Court said about it when they were in their confirmation hearings, then they ripped it away when they ruled on doves. Maybe the best thing that's ever happened of it come from it is it is motivated tremendously women and people who support women and the right to choose to go to the polls in large numbers and we've seen the outcome. So I know there's a lot of hand-wringing about Joe Biden and some recent polling that's absolutely ridiculous and can't be believed

Joe Biden getting 12% of the black vote and 2% of the Hispanic vote just not credible and we're so far out from a year from now in terms of polling that make them wholly unreliable. And when we see the opportunity for the voter to actually go to the polls, not be pulled, not be questioned by somebody randomly, setting them a questionnaire, phoning them on the phone or knocking on their door. But actually going to a ballot box, they vote overwhelmingly for Democrat, Democratic ideals and positions. Every special election that's matter, the Democrats have won. This off-year election, the Democrats have won overwhelmingly one and sent the message that they are ready for the 2024 election. And if that ends up being a choice between a 94 time, 91 time, indicted, felony indicted ex-president against Joe Biden, they're ready to make that decision. And I don't think it's going to fare well for Donald Trump, even though he's winning the

media war in terms of attention grabbing, because Donald Trump having a fit and throwing food in the hallway of a courtroom is a lot more interesting than Joe Biden cutting a ribbon about a new chip manufacturing plant or bringing the internet to rural America. And that's the problem. Problem is, Joe Biden's long, long list of accomplishments domestically and foreign policy wise is not given the same kind of coverage. The way it should be that when Donald Trump throws, throws his feces at, you know, at the, at the zookeepers. And that's been our problem. And that's why I think legal AF was invented and why we dive right into these kind of topics. So speaking of feces throwing and Donald Trump, let's return to the sixth week of the

Trump trial, the civil fraud case in which if successful, there he is, if successful letitian James, letitian James, the New York attorney general will take away everything that matters to Donald Trump, but you'll find it actually is no other way to put it. And that's why you're seeing so much acting out outside the courtroom in Alina Habo, all sorts of ridiculous things. Let's start with, Karen, what you, because you've done a couple of hot takes on it. What have you observed about this split screen between what is going on outside the courtroom, way outside the courtroom, and what is going on with the sober presentation of evidence and now 25 part be total witnesses and documents being used in cross-examination

against Donald Trump is the children in now Ivanka. What have you given us a big picture as former prosecutor as somebody and that too? And what do you think it means for the future prosecutions and current prosecutions of Donald Trump about what's happening in these courtrooms? I think there's a big disconnect between what's going on inside the courtroom and outside the courtroom. And as a result, Latisha James has started making these, what I would call unusual, impromptu speeches, public speeches almost every day, where she just says very short and sweet, she kind of corrects the record

because she sits in court every day and she watches what's happening and she'll see exactly what went on and then she'll see that Trump goes outside or makes a statement about and says something the opposite of what was done and she's been correcting it and you know I say it's somewhat unusual because the government, especially prosecutors, even though this is civil, this is like a civil prosecution, don't typically talk about an ongoing case or a pending case. It's not something that you do publicly. There's ethical rules, local rules, and laws

about it, and you have to be really careful, especially if there's a jury. I don't think she would be able to because you have to worry about potentially prejudicing the jury with information that you can't do. So because this is a bench trial, I think she's allowed to correct the record, which is what she's doing. And you know, it's just interesting how they can just say something that's false. They could just go out and say something different. But the other thing I've noticed that's been happening is when the case is going well for the attorney general and not going well for the defense, that's when the defense attorneys get louder and more

indignant and more angry to try to distract, I think, away from what's actually coming out. We always had this saying, there's this saying in the law, you can argue the facts, argue the facts. If you don't have the facts on your side, argue the law, if you have neither, then you pound your fists and make a lot of noise. And that's sort of what they're doing.

And it happened with Ivanka as well. When Ivanka was starting to answer some questions that she couldn't deny, if you will. She admitted what she had to, but also couldn't deny certain facts, especially when confronted with certain emails. That's when we saw that the defense attorneys became quite boisterous and they've started to take on the persona of Donald Trump and accuse the attorney general of bias and being a political hack and all that.

And of course, going after the judge over and over and over, it's just relentless barrage of accusing the judge of bias. And it's a strange tactic. It's clearly not going to, I think they've clearly made the calculation that they're not going to win the case. And so they want to create an appellate record.

And the more you say buy, they've preserved the issue. But the more they say bias, bias, bias, bias all day, every day, I think at one point today, the lawyer for the defense was putting on the record that the prosecution was laughing. They just want to create this record and create this show and this appellate record that will hopefully,

if you say it enough times, maybe you make it true, even though there is no facts to support any of that in this case. Certainly, just because the judge already ruled on a motion for summary judgment, something that is entirely proper for a civil judge to do in a civil case based on all of the evidence that has been taking all the facts that are at issue, and the ones that are not in dispute. And he already found that a violation of Executive Law 6312 of persistent fraud, and Trump doesn't like that. And so that's why they're trying to call that into the question.

They don't like that it's a bench trial. I mean, they're doing everything they can. And we'll see if they're successful, right? I haven't seen anything yet to demonstrate that, but that this is, I think, what the tactic is. Do you disagree with that? No, it's the tactic, but it's not it's not going to be successful because it's not an element of 63-12 persistent fraud. What we're watching is the wood chopping, as I like to call it, the stacking of wood every day, 25 witnesses in six weeks, who each one of them scored some sort of point in the dots that are being connected. So efficiently.

And so obviously by the New York Attorney General and her happy band of, I was called them prosecutors because they really are, but happy band of attorney generals, they take turns. I mean, there's about, there's 10 total, there's about five that have taken turns in doing the cross of the direct examination, and they always have the right document ready to blow apart a witness to show that this is not a complicated case just to just to make this clear for for the umpteenth time on legal a f. This is a very simple fraud that is being painted. This is primary colors fraud red, blue, green, this is not like some sophisticated Ponzi scheme. This was Donald Trump didn't like the numbers that reflected his net worth on his personal financial statement. So he had the numbers changed to to as Michael Cohen put it to

reverse engineer. They would say, what's the number you want boss? I want to be net worth six billion or four billion Okay, then we got to raise the value of each of these things They weren't instructed go out and get me new assets that have a lot of equity in them to increase my net worth Because I would add debt onto his balance sheet, too They just pop up the numbers and so because I would add debt onto his balance sheet too. They just pop up the numbers. And so every one of these witnesses has either established

that they cooked the books, including insiders, people that still work for Donald Trump, at least at last reporting. I don't think for long, ex employees that are either went to jail or almost went to jail, like Jeff McCawney and Alan Weisselberg, then bankers who said that we relied on these personal financial statements in order to make the loan, to give the insurance, to give the surety

bond to allow for the construction of the building. So you have the reliance on it, like emails, we need your dad's statement of financial condition. Here it is. And then that the thing that was attached is the thing that's been cooked Transmitted by one of the kids or Alan Weisselberg or Michael Cohen or whomever and then the testimony Sometimes not willingly sometimes they had to pull some teeth from bankers like the woman who was the wealth management banker at Deutsche Bank, who extended the line of credit. Oh, yo, we're so excited. We'll be in business with Donald Trump. That didn't mean that underwriting in the back, she's the banker, right?

She's the salesperson. But she has to go through a loan committee and an underwriter in a bank. This is bank 101 for enough for our audience for Donald Trump apparently. And they're not gonna allow like, what's his name, Donald Trump? Oh, that's enough. Well, how big, two billion, 500 million,

let's give it to him, come on. They're like, we gotta see his tax returns, we gotta see his personal financial statements. For instance, they use this as an example with Ivanka, particularly, who was very involved with the derailleur country club, which I knew well from being down in Florida for 20 years. And this is where the big blue monster is. And we've seen a lot of this Saudi Arabian golf being played there.

But it's a failing venture. They bought it for $1,530 million with a Deutsche Bank loan back in the mid-2000s, poured $200 million into it, and it's currently at a lost position because there's just not enough people to stay at that hotel, use the Convention Center, and play golf to make it work. And the banker said, we gave the loan, the commercial loan department of the bank didn't want to make the loan. The private wealth part of the bank, which is what this banker testified about, gave the loan, but on the condition that Donald Trump's personal net worth being no lower than $2.5 billion at any given time that he has a certain amount in cash of that. Well, in order to stay at that number, they cooked the books because there were times

where his net worth dropped below that number. Now, there's reporting this week that Bloomberg put his net worth at like four billion, but that's today. We're talking about in 2012 when he was taken out the loans. His net worth wasn't anywhere near then unless you cooked the books. And so you had that going through Ivanka, where she had to admit, based on documents put in front of her, that yes, there was a requirement of 2.5 billion net worth for my dad. Yes, there was a cash on hand requirement. Yes, we submitted the at the statement of financial condition because

the bank relied on it. And so that defeats the whole argument in the defense, which has been, we took out loans, we repaid loans. Nobody was injured. The people that were injured is you shouldn't have gotten those loans to begin with. And so there was always an risk that the bank didn't know they were taking because they were lending to somebody whose bank statements were fraudulent and whose financial statements were fraudulent. And that is the fraud that is being alleged. And then you have the intent that has to be proven over this next, let's say next month overall because that is the last part of the fraud that's up for grabs in this particular part of the case, the judge having found six weeks ago that there was already persistent fraud accidental or otherwise in the operation of all things,

the Trump organization. So that has been the problem. Now, I know it's the New York Attorney General's case in chief. So we're waiting to see the defense case. There has to be one. But as of right now, on the key witnesses that they're likely to use, defense case. There has to be one. But as of right now on the key witnesses that they're likely to use, understanding that I guess they could still cross examine these people in their own case, that there's very little, if any, pushback on the narrative that's been established, and the evidence has been established

by the New York Attorney General, that they cooked the books in order to satisfy Donald Trump's penchant because he wanted to be one of the richest men in the world, people in the world, and for him to obtain loans. And there was reliance on that, and it was done intentionally. And they got a big road to hoe on the defense side when the case finally turns to them in a couple of weeks, and they put on all of their witnesses, including ones we've already heard from. So I think the case is going in a very, very positive direction

for the New York Attorney General. And don't be fooled. Our listers and followers and audience, when you see Alina Habba with her banjo in tambourine on one of these right-wing news media shows saying, the New York Attorney General's not very bright Talk about projection. She doesn't really understand real estate. She doesn't really understand what documents say I mean Alina Haba should just stop talking you did a really great. I'll take about her and competence

She should really stop talking today. She jumped up in court with an objection I've never heard in 32 years, which was when they used the document against Ivanka to signal and coach Ivanka. She stood up, Alina Hava, and said, that email that you're showing her wasn't even sent. By the way, it was. Well, that's what I was about to say. So first of all, that's not a proper objection. That's a coaching objection in order for the witness

to be queued in. And we've all got all upset like her father, hmm, that's true. And then they broke and Ivanka went the hallway. And then the next set of questions from the examiner established that not only was it sent, but that she responded to the email in the next chain. It was only done to break the rhythm of the examiner,

really obviously, and to coach the witness, but that's not an objection. You want to redirect the witness across exam and the witness and establish somehow that it wasn't. You can have your turn. First of all, and I don't even know why the judge is allowing different lawyers for Donald Trump

who are not doing, because Alina didn't do the cross examination of Ivanka. Suarez did. And I don't know why she was allowed to make objections. I've always been in a courtroom. One lawyer is that your witness, if that's your witness, you make the objections. Not like gang objections from whoever woke up and feels like yelling something

out in the courtroom. None of this is going to have, I'll leave it on this, I'll turn it back to you. And I did a hot take on this. None of this is this acting out, this running away, this hallway press conferences, this coming back late to court, this yelling and screaming is not going to happen in the federal criminal trials with Jury's present. I assure you as God is my witness. And Goran is letting them have free run in his courtroom, subject to gag orders and fines, because he just wants to get the case over with and have us little for them to argue about due process or appellate issues as possible. But if there were a jury in the box, there is no way on God's green earth he would be allowing what's going on right now.

And certainly Judge Chutkin won't, I don't know about Judge Cannon, Judge Chutkin won't allow it and Judge McAfee, even with Cameras present, isn't going to allow it. There's not going to be cameras in federal court. There's not going to be cameras outside federal court. There's not going to be cameras outside federal court. There's not going to be press conferences. So Donald Trump's going to have to hold something at six o'clock at night at his peril at the end of each trial day, but he's not going to be able to he's not and he has to sit in a chair every day of his trial. Even though the primaries are going on and campaigning, he'd love to be campaigning. He's going to have to sit for that two month, three month trial every day in trial. Come March period. We'll talk about that trial.

Next, Carol, what else you think about it, and then we'll move on to our other topics. Yeah, it's funny. You know, on Monday, when Trump testified, I was on CNN for a couple hours and I get home that day and My husband says to me. He says Trump is winning and I looked at him and I said what are you talking about? He's like what a job I didn't do today, you know Nobody's talking about or any of the other Republican candidates Nobody's talking about it. All we're doing the entire day is talking about Trump So I don't know that Trump having to sit there every day in a criminal trial with the media, including us, you know, we're going to be talking about it all day, you know, because it's outrageous, right? When

you, the facts are outrageous, we have to cover it. And he also, after court, he comes out and he tells, he lies, right? He says something different than what actually happened. But somehow he is using that to his advantage and it gets very depressing and very, I don't know, it gets very defeating. So I think the more we can call out the truth, the better. A couple of things just about Ivanka today that I just wanted to point out.

Number one, the thing about Ivanka, she was sort of the opposite of her father who was, you know, he was described by people in the courtroom who were there just as this unhinged, bombastic person who was out of control and didn't answer questions in any kind of linear way didn't make sense very emotional and Ivanka on the other hand was apparently very poised and And she did a little of what the other her brothers did which is the I don't recall

piece of it, but there were other parts that she was extremely animated and gave a lot of detail. And it really, I think, helped the government's case because it really showed that she was intimately involved in the negotiations of these loans, right? And as you pointed out, the whole part of the, you know, at first the Deutsche Bank, the asset, whatever they call it, the wealthy part of the, you know, at first the Deutsche Bank, the asset, whatever they're called, the wealthy, the wealthy part of the wealthy people part of the bank, which is different than our part of the bank, that they wanted him to have a net worth of $3 billion and she ultimately negotiated it down to the 2.5. So for her to be able to say, oh, I didn't know about his assets or, you know,

they were all fixated on his statements of financial condition because they needed them and to get all those, these loans that they were, that they were trying to get to fix up whether it's the golf course or the, the old post office in Washington, D.C., that they turned into a hotel, also something that Ivanka was very involved in it. So, so it really kind of, you know, at the same time, she didn't throw her family under the bus, but of all the trumps she's known to be the most, I guess, she's not gonna purge herself, but at that way.

So she kind of did what she could to, you know, thread the needle to not throw her family completely under the bus, but also not to commit perjury. And I think it really helped the government's case. One other thing I just wanted to say is maybe I misheard you, Popoq, but I think you said there's another month left, you know, the intent part of the case. But I believe that the attorney general's office rested today.

They rested their duty. Was that today? Was the rest? Yes. They rested today. All right. So they're done with their 25. I thought they were going to go another couple of weeks.

I know the trial was going to be done before December. They reserved the right to call Alan Wieselberg, but otherwise they rested. So now it's up to the defense to present the case It'll be interesting to see if Donald Trump does what he promised to do which is bring bring in the big bankers You know to to say oh, we didn't rely we were gonna give him money anyway They have the big bankers. They had rose look his banking was primarily through wealth management Meaning private private banking the private banking section of the bank, not the bank where regular people go to get commercial loans.

And that's the reason. The other reason, on the rest thing, you're probably right on that. I probably, I probably was still on my cough syrup when that happened. They'll have a rebuttal case if they want a rebuttal case at the end. But yes, that's a, well, after 25 witnesses and all the documents, I think that's probably a very efficient presentation. But the reason that some of these issues that Ivanka seems to be talking about are old, and some people might be wondering, oh, I thought that's the reason she's not a defendant because statute of limitations. Yes, but if it's a

continuing fraud issue, even though the loans, let's say, were taken out in 2012, which is beyond the statute of limitations, because let's say the loan wasn't paid off until within the statute of limitations, it therefore makes it relevant and the ability for the judge as the trial effect to hear these issues. But no, everything she did, Ivanka, did on the stand, is the reason that Michael Cohen, who knows better, said that she's the smartest of the Trump children. And there was long, not even rumors, it was well known in New York circles that you and I, if we're not in them, we at least are adjacent to them, that would often comment that Yvanna was grooming her to be not the brothers, to be the head of the organization when pops finally kicked it or whatever.

I'm not in just because she moved down to Florida to get away from this trial basically. It doesn't mean that's not in the works in the future. She is the smartest of the three. She is the most like her father in terms of of acumen, business acumen. You saw Don Jr. is always trying out for cocaine bear and Eric Trump, there's a reason that Sorry Night Live made him out to be an infant. She is the most, has the most poise,

but don't be fooled. There were a number, you know, if you're, if you're playing bingo and you're the New York attorney general, there were a number of times that she hit the bingo card positively for the attorney general in terms of things that she said. And that's all that they're doing. There's just, just to be clear, there is not a chance in heck. There's a snowball chance in hell that judge and gore on having already found persistent fraud in the violation of 63-12 in New York executive law is going to somehow find that the other remaining six counts for fraudulent financial statements, fraudulent

insurance documents, fraudulent documents and record keeping is not going to be proven by the state. I think, I think, Judge Engoron, I think what he's going to do is he's going to throw them one bone. He's going to find not responsible for one of them. Because with all this accusation, I don't tell you why, with all this accusation of bias, bias, bias, bias, bias, you had your mind made up ahead of time. I would want on the record, if I were him to say, no, I thought about it and I found for you. I mean, if it's there, if you can do it.

I think he's going to do that. He'll do it on remedy. I think he doesn't give all seven of the remedies that the government is looking for. He may shave off a couple of dollars on the discouragement. You may not replace the trustee. Take Donald Trump out as trustee. But I don't know. I think you're in for a penny, in for a pound with this fraud.

And I think it's binary. The lights either on or off. I think they either did all these things or they didn't do them. I'm not sure there's a way. But we'll see. That's not. No, you might be right. I think he'll look for a way to do that. That's the thing, whether it's the way you said or I agree. They'll be bone throwing. I'm not sure which bone it will be, but they'll be they'll be bone. But look, that's what keeps us on the air. This kind of this kind of speculation, good faith speculation about what will happen next.

And what will happen next on our show is going gonna be a breakdown and a discussion of an update on some really interesting developments that matter in the DC election interference case presided over by Judge Chuck Ganesh. He prepares this case for a trial in March of 2024, but also talk about the Supreme Court and what we think based on an oral argument and some comments made by some unlikely justices about what they're going to do in the first case

they've had about gun control since they opened the floodgates to guns back in the summer of 2022 in the New York Rif versus Bruin case, and then we'll end it with the developments on the abortion rights front using the, this week's tremendous success by the Democrats in Ohio and Kentucky, and talk about what that means for the, where the abortion rights are at present, sort of a snapshot, and what it means for the future in terms of ballot initiatives in the various battleground states.

But first, it's one of my favorite times of the show. It's time for our sponsors. Green Chef is the number one meal kit for eating clean. Let Green Chef take the work out of eating clean this healthy season with chef-created nutritionist approved recipes featuring fresh ingredients with nothing artificial. Choose from recipes featuring lean proteins like turkey and sockeye salmon, baramundi, tilapia, scallops and shrimp, certified organic whole fruits, vegetables and eggs and plenty of whole grain options. Eat clean the easy way with recipes that help manage your weight and support your wellness goals without skimping on flavor. Feel your best this November with seasonal recipes featuring certified organic fruits and vegetables, organic cage free eggs, and sustainably sourced seafood.

Also, green chef offsets 100% of their delivery emissions, as well as 100% of the plastic in every box. Plus, nearly all packaging materials are curbside recyclable in most areas in the US. Deliver everything you need to eat clean the easy way this November. Feel your best with chef crafted, nutritionist approved recipes packed with clean ingredients that support your

healthy lifestyle and taste great too. I love Green Chef, my absolute favorite is the spicy chicken and broccoli stir fry. It's delicious. For Green Chef's best deal of the year, get $250 off with code legalaf250 at greenchef.com slash legalaf250. That's greenchef.com slash legalaf250 with code legal AF250 at greenchef.com slash legal AF250. That's greenchef.com slash legal AF250 with code legal AF250. You can't beat this. It's a great deal. Greenchef, the number one meal kit for eating well. Thanks for sponsoring this episode. Our next partner is HG1, the daily foundational nutrition supplement that supports whole body health. I drink it literally every day. I gave HG1 a try because I was tired

of taking so many supplements, and I wanted a single solution that supports my entire body and covers my nutritional basis every day. I want a better gut health, a boost in energy, immune system support, and wanted a supplement that actually tastes great. I drink AG in the morning to start my day.

It makes me feel unstoppable and ready to take on anything. And on top of it all, I'm doing something good for my body. I'm giving my body the nutrition it craves, and I'm covering my nutritional basis. I've tried a ton of different supplements out there, but this is different. And the ingredients are super high quality. I got started with AG1 because I used to take all these different pills and gummies, who knows what, and frankly what I was taking was expensive, and I didn't even know if it was good for me. But with AG1, I know what I'm consuming has the best ingredients, and also taste delicious. AG1 makes it easier for you to take the highest quality supplements

period. When I started my AG1 journey, very quickly I noticed that it helps me with improved digestion, energy, and overall I just feel great. It's just one scoop of powder mixed with water, once a day making it a seamless and easy daily habit to maintain. I'm asked all the time about the one thing I do to take care of my health if I could only pick one. It be foundational nutrition, and AG1 is a top foundational nutrition product. Just one daily serving gives me the comprehensive foundational nutrition I need, and supports energy, focus, strength, and clarity with 75 high quality vitamins, probiotics, and whole food source ingredients.

I can't think of another daily routine that pays off as well as AG1, which is why I trust the product so much. If you're looking for a simpler, effective investment for your health, try AG1 and get 5 free AG1 travel packs and a free one-year supply of vitamin D with your first purchase. Go to drinkag1.com slash legalaf. That's drinkag1.com slash legalaf. Check it out. You know what I like about doing ads?

I can show videos to my dermatologist and he can point out things that he wants to biopsy or check. Right, right, I went recently, he was like, no, we're gonna do that one. So if I didn't have like daily videos of my appearance, you know, the little byproduct. My mother, by the way, changing the subject, just started using AG1, thanks to legal AF and the podcast.

She loves it. Yeah, no, that's good stuff. I like that's one of the few kind of drinks in that family of types of drinks that I like because it's not sweet. It's more umami as I like to say. I know people are riding in the chat. Do popok just say mommy? No, he can say mommy, but he didn't say mommy.

It just has a more earthy, you know, sort of mushroomy type taste. Well, that's AG one. So now let's turn to, I don't know, have I said I love Judge Chutkin lately? I really love Judge Chutkin in so many ways. Let me outline a couple of things that are going on, a couple of spinning plates in DC and then turn it over to my illustrious co-anchor. So we got Judge Chutkin, reimposed the gag order after full briefing. It then goes up to the court of appeals on a standard of review that is very favorable to a trial judge. It's the abuse of discretion standard, which means only if the other side shows that she Abuse abused a very liberal standard of discretion

Quality of discretion is is it going to be overturned? They don't go over like all over and again, like all the case law. I mean, they look at the case law, but they really say, did this judge abuse her discretion in imposing the gag order? And none of the facts, I'd be shocked if they did. Now, some of the reporting people got upset because, oh, the appellate court did an administrative stay. Yes, they did. And just like Judge Chukkin did, an administrative temporary stay of her order. So they temporarily put a pin in the gag until they have time for full briefing.

And they set a very aggressive briefing schedule, which will time out for a November 20th hearing, right around the corner, just a couple of days before Thanksgiving. And then they'll issue their ruling. In the meantime, if Donald Trump wants to make more evidence to support the gag order, he is free to do so. And the government is free to have the Appalachor take judicial notice of all the dumb and stupid things that Donald Trump says.

Now, he's been eerily quiet about attacking witnesses and doing all the things. It's as if he's still under the gag order, at least at the moment, it could change, some four o'clock in the morning, screed while he's sitting on the toilet where he's known to do his social media posting. It could change all of that, but for right now, he seems to be abiding by it.

Then Judge Chukkin, all right, they'll rule one way or the other, they'll thumbs up or thumbs down on the gag order. The meantime, there's a case. Donald Trump filed four separate motions attacking the indictment, really late in the game. We're already here, you know, six months after the indictment, and they're just getting around.

And it's not like they needed to get, I could see if they needed evidence that was in the millions of pages of documents and audio and video that they were given, and they needed that in order to file the motions, but they didn't need any of that because they didn't cite to any evidence that has been provided to them and discovery by the government. So, the only excuse for the late filing is they just want to, you know, throw sand in the gears of justice and try to avoid the March trial date.

They figured that the timing of it, which Jack Smith called out in his papers, he said, this is just a timing, a weaponized timing of filing motions that they could have filed six months ago that they didn't to try to stop the trial in March. Because that's the Donald Trump's goal here. We know from recent reporting that Donald Trump fears having to be in trial and or convicted obviously before the election in November despite his whistling in the graveyard issues with there's new reporting

that a new book by Jonathan Carl of ABC News called Tired of Winning his third book in the trilogy about Donald Trump where he yelled and screamed at Todd Blanche when they set the trial date for the Stormy Daniels case to land in March at the time. And he said, you just cost me the election, you effing idiot. He understands, even though he acts like this is every indictment, every, every munch shot, every bad ruling against him. And gag orders great for him. It's, oh, this is amazing for my please, more tired of so much winning and it's not.

And he realizes it in his deepest, darkest moments when he lets the cat out of the bag and the mask slips and he says, you just cost me the election, right? Because these aren't good things to happen to accountant despite the base of the MAGA base. So, and the any graphs of it, right, which is fine. He needs the cash obviously. But then you have this last two developments. I'll turn it over to you, Karen. One is, we're going to, we're going to the jury selection process. The judge wants a questionnaire finished and developed to be used in early February for

the selection of the jury and wants commentary about that. It's not going to be a televised trial just to make sure everybody understands that under the federal rules and long standing precedent. And in other aspects of jury selection that she wants the jury protected in a certain way. And then just today, actually, as we were going on the air, the judge is calling out Donald Trump on his advice of council defense and telling him that if you're going to use it, you got to tell me by the 15th of January, who were the lawyers you were relying on, and we can make the list. They're all now indicted criminals.

Evidence, what evidence do you have that you actually relied on them? So, you can't, the end result of, and I'm doing a hot tick on this later today, but the end result of, you can't use reliance on advice of counsel to try to defeat criminal intent in a courtroom casually. You're not allowed. You're not allowed to blow the jury's mind and have them question, well, maybe he did listen to a lawyer. This has, there's a rigorous process that's required under the law to use the common

law defense of reliance on counsel. And the judge is now setting the ground rules for how that defense is or is not going to be used. Who did you talk to? Well, were there names? What are the documents or emails, communications that support that you gave them? All of the information that they were that was required in order for them to render advice and that you relied on that advice in committing the crimes that you've been charged with. So that's now just come out. So from a prosecutor, a prosecutorial standpoint, walk us through what you're observing about

Chutkin, gag order, and now this issue about Reliance on Advice of Council. I think, look, the one thing she's been doing is, it's clear that the defense attorneys want to delay and want a different trial date, right? And they keep asking, every motion is, we need more time, we need more time, we need more time, delay, delay, delay. And she sees right through that. And the one thing I will say is she's very,

very conscious of the trial date of March 4th. And she doesn't let it slip, unlike Judge Cannon, who keeps giving every indication that she's going to let it slip. Judge Chutkin has said, this is happening. But what she does do, she gives, if they say they need more time, she said a deadline for filing a motion, and they say they need more time, she'll say, okay, I'll give you another couple weeks to do that, but I'm not pushing the ultimate date back. I'll give you a couple more weeks to file this motion, or I'll extend the deadline for something here. And so I think she's being very, making sure that she's being very reasonable. She's listening to the defense, and she's giving them a little

bit of leeway when they say they've asked for it. So I think she's definitely being a thoughtful down the middle judge and not just only ruling for, you know, she's not a Trump hating biased racist judge the way Trump likes to say she is, right? She's being a judge, a really smart judge. You know, there's still some very substantive outstanding motions that need to be ruled on, right?

Trump submitted, I think, four different motions. You know, when you add them up, there was like over 120 pages worth of motion practice. You know, and we surmised when he did it that this was, this was, you know, they did it that way because there were page limits for each motion because judges don't like these huge opuses. So they often put page limits on motions to say, this is what the amount of information I think I need to help me make this decision. And rather than having the page limit, abiding by it for all his motions, he

broke them up into four different motions and made this one long one. And, you know, there's still outstanding. And, you know, there's been some government response to it, but these motions are going to ultimately, after there's a reply, you know, there will be decisions on them. And, you know, they're fairly substantive. And some of them, you can appeal interlocatory appeal and go up if either side can appeal. So for example, presidential immunity

is a big one that he's arguing. He's saying that his argument is basically, I'm above the law. President is above the law. And since the law allows for immunity in civil cases, it must also apply to criminal cases, even though there is no case law that's ever held that. It's unclear one way or another, but it just defies common sense, right? That, that, that Trump, you know, that a president, any Trump any Trump could bribe officials or could sell nuclear secrets to a foreign government or could, you know, whatever.

Like, there's so many things they could do while president that it makes no sense that they couldn't be prosecuted for, right? Even if it's technically, he'll say, well, it's within the bounds of what my job was, right? I'm supposed to deal with foreign governments, but you're not allowed to illegally sell nuclear secrets kind of thing. So, you know, it doesn't make any sense that that would be this, you know, ultimate kind of, you can do whatever you want and not have any consequence, but, you know, what they're

going to make this argument and they're going to, the judge is going to have to rule on and find even if there is some form of presidential immunity for some criminal activity, the judge will have to make a finding that this conduct falls outside of what's allowed. So that's still something that needs to be resolved and could be appealed. And, you know, let's say the Supreme Court would want to rule on any of these motions that are still outstanding.

You know, I still worry a little bit that the trial that could be slightly slippery as a result. You know, the other motion, one of the other motions had to do with constitutional grounds. And I think this is why he hired Chris Keiss, who was a former solicitor general of Florida. And for non-lawyers out there, a solicitor general is the government version of the really smart lawyer

who argues to the highest court of appeals, right? Whether it's the Supreme Court or in the state. And they're the ones who bring these arguments on behalf of the government at this high appellate level. So if you're a solicitor general, you're a constitutional lawyer, you're a decent lawyer, and Chris Christ has that reputation. And I think these four motions that were submitted, and Chris Kice, has that reputation. And I think these four motions that were submitted, I think, were really what he was hired to do.

But so this next one, the one on constitutional grounds, there's a couple of, he wrapped up a bunch of arguments into this one. One was, he had a first member right to give voice to the millions of people who thought he won the election. Number two, that double jeopardy applies because he was acquitted in the Senate for the same charges. And so therefore, you can only prosecute him once. And he also says that since the Constitution says the remedy for a president is to impeach and then convict

and impeach, and then it says in the Constitution, and then he can be indicted if he's convicted on the impeachment, impeachment, that that bars any ability to prosecute him if he's not convicted. But again, it's like he's reading something into the law that's not necessarily there, and it's unclear, but who something into the law that's not necessarily there and it's unclear But who knows what the Supreme Court would do and then the third constitutional argument he made was a due process violation saying You know, he didn't have notice that he basically said the laws vague The third motion that that they filed was was on

statutory grounds they basically said was on statutory grounds. They basically said, they don't like the way the indictment reads. They said it doesn't give enough specific information, but that one's going to fail for sure because indictments are supposed to be bare bones on their face, so I don't have any worry about that one at all.

And I also am not worried at all about the fourth motion that they submitted the selective and vindictive prosecution, those rarely succeed. And that argument there is where Trump said, about the fourth motion that they submitted the selective and vindictive prosecution, those rarely succeed. And that argument there is where Trump said, they went after me in a vindictive way, selectively, and that doesn't work usually because you have to show that the prosecution, that the decision to charge him had a discriminatory purpose. And I think he's going to fail on the law and on any facts there. So those are still very substantive motions that are out there that Judge Chutkin, I think

will make a great record on those. But it's the interim, appellate piece of it that I'm a little bit worried about. What about you, Popoq, on those? The thing I like, no, the thing I like best about Jack Smith's Columbia to snack, we started again. Sometimes I snack on Michael Eikers, stays in the pot. I liked about Jack Smith and his responses. He's solving the riddle that Donald Trump keeps putting out there that since I believed in good faith that I won the election, everything I did is completely absolved all my criminality. No.

Even the Jack Smith actually said in his recent filings, even if Donald Trump reasonably believed and he can provide evidence to show that he had a reasonable belief in any given moment that he had actually won the election and not lost it, the specific lies that he used at any given time, which are all listed in the Jack Smith opposition papers, dead Georgia voters, dead Nevada voters, dead Colorado voters, software flipping votes from Trump to Biden, all lies. Oh, okay, we got it. We got breaking news.

We're going to break into here. I'll come back to my point, but I think this is important. There's been a trial in Minnesota, and it went up to the Minnesota Supreme Court at the same time the Colorado was trying the case of whether the 14th Amendment Article 3, banned Donald Trump from the ballot, Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan.

They're all considering these cases in different ways. And while things are looking good for banning Donald Trump in Colorado, we, on the weekend edition, Ben and I speculated based on the oral argument there, we'll be talking about oral arguments later in the Supreme Court. The based on oral arguments and statements

paid by even the Chief Justice of Minnesota that it was unlikely that they were gonna bar Donald Trump in Minnesota instead finding that it was a political question and that it was something for Congress to take up. Exactly the opposite of what the Colorado, the Denver Colorado trial judge has already ruled. She said it's exactly the type of thing that judges have to consider, which is the interpretation of the Constitution.

And I don't need help from Congress in order to do that. But Minnesota has just come out as we're on the air with a ruling that is going to permit Donald Trump to be on the state's Republican presidential primary ballot. They said that a new petition could be filed challenging as eligibility for the general election ballot. But based on their, didn't hear denying the petition without prejudice for the general election, you've got to, you and signed by that chief judge, Hudson, that I said out loud during the oral arguments.

And why, if it if we could do this, should we do this, this seems like a political question for Congress. You know, Ben and I were like, there's no way that we're gonna win in Minnesota on this issue. And there's the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. We've got the new ruling that just come out. Karen, you wanna comment on that before I double back on Jack Smith

that we complete the segment? Yeah, like, these are ones to watch all of these. I'd be very surprised if he's kept off the ballot. I mean, of course he he's kept off the ballot. Of course, he shouldn't be on the ballot because for the obvious reasons that the 14th Amendment disqualifies him, but again, I hate that it would then allow him to say the election was stolen from him if he's not on the ballot. I want him to be on every ballot and I want him to lose Farron Square. And, you know, he'll still claim it was stolen, you know, somehow, but I do have very mixed feelings about the...

Yeah. Well, continue to follow it. Colorado's got one that's going to... I think we're going to get a ruling from that judge any day now. Minnesota, no surprise, nobody should be shocked by this one. And my last point on Jack Smith was he having outlined all the fake lies that Donald Trump relied upon to pressure election officials, elected officials, Mike Pence, dead Georgia voters, dead Colorado voters, software that was fraudulently flipping votes. None of that was true. All of that was debunked. None of that could a reasonable person have lied upon. They said in their filing, even at some point, if he had a reasonable belief that he won the election, and we don't see it, the use of these specific lies in and of themselves is the conspiracy, is the crime. And so you don't get a

pass because at some point in the continuum, you may or may not have been right. You were wrong about these things and you knew or should have known that they were fake and false and you use them anyway. So that's what we got going on with Judge Chutkin, who I agree with you. There could be some slippage, Karen, on the date.

We got two backup trials ready to step in. We've got one that's still in the books for the 24th of March with Judge Mershon in the Stormy Daniels Hush Money Cover-Up Affair and the Books and Records fraud as it results. And we got Judge McAfee and Fawni Willis-Waiting. I think champion at the bit to get their Trump-Georgio election interference and conspiracy Rico case up on the map. So if it slips, I think there's two backups that'll quickly slide into that spot, one

already being on the books. We're going to talk next about the US Supreme Court considering, for the first time since last summer, if any gun control and disarming of violent people is going to be permitted under the US Constitution and their interpretation of the Second Amendment. And we're going to talk about all those things. But first, our final word from our sponsors. With my active recording schedule and law practice, I can't function without a great night's sleep.

And the bed's temperature in my old bed always seemed wrong. It was either too hot or too cold, but never just right, making for a terrible night's sleep. But I'm so excited to say that this episode is brought to you by 8 sleep. There's nothing worse than tossing, turning, or sweating in the night because you're uncomfortably hot or cold. The pod cover by 8 sleep will keep you cool all night, all the way down to 55 degrees if you want to, or make you feel warmer for the fall and winter months. So you wake up fully refreshed. The pod cover by 8 sleep fits on any bed like a fitted sheet. The pod cover will improve your sleep by automatically adjusting the temperature on each side

of the bed based on your and your partner's individual needs. It can cool down and warm up and adjust based on the phases of your sleep and the environment that you are in. I love 8 sleep. Look, we spent almost half our lives in bed, so improving our sleep routine habits and overall sleep quality should be a priority for everyone. I love the temperature control, and that both my wife and I can set our side to each of our likings.

I also love the gentle vibrating alarm option for each morning. I wake up feeling refreshed after a great night's sleep, allowing me to start the day off right. Eight sleeps technology is incredible, while temperature is the biggest game changer, the pod cover has other amazing features. For example, thanks to the pod's sleep and health tracking, you can wake up to a personalized sleep report for each morning that offers insights on how certain behaviors, like late-night exercise or that cup of caffeinated tea or coffee, can impact your sleep in overall health. The pod cover by 8-Sleep truly provides the ultimate sleep experience. cup of caffeinated tea or coffee can impact your sleep in overall health. The pod cover by 8Sleep truly provides the ultimate sleep experience. I've never experienced sleep like this, and the pod's cooling and heating technology

has been a lifesaver. Invest in the rest you deserve with 8Sleep pod. Go to 8Sleep.com slash legal AF and save $150 on the pod cover. That's the best offer you'll find, but you must visit eightsleep.com slash legal AF for the 150 off. Stay cool with eight sleep. Now shipping within the US, Canada, the UK, select countries in the EU and Australia. We're back time to dive in to our last two topics.

First, it's going to be the Supreme Court and a total argument about what type of disarming a violent people are we going to allow or this Supreme Court going to allow since it ruled last summer in the brewing case that everybody gets the right to have a gun and there can be no legislation of gun control. Unless there's a historical antecedent, historical twin showing that there was some sort of regulation, that was either identical or similar on the books between the time of the Bill of Rights

passage in 1797 and the Civil War in 1865, just a random period of time that Clarence Thomas chose when he wrote the decision of the Bruin decision. Now courts, federal courts have been struggling with what the heck that means ever since. Most of them siding with, nope, that regulation wouldn't have been between 1797 and 1865. So let's get rid of that. Age limits on the ability to buy a gun in Texas. Take that off the books. There were no age limits, 12-year-olds, six-year-olds can buy a six-shooter in Texas at this rate. In other states, I've also struggling with it. Now it's come to a head in a very disgusting and ugly case, factually, which are this Supreme Court led by the right wing usually doesn't care about the facts at all. They don't care about the case. They were

just ready to issue rulings, even if there's no live controversy in front of them. We've seen that time and time again, especially in the religious sphere and the separation, the non-existent separation of church and state under the current Supreme Court composition. But here are the facts, I think, really mattered and disturbed the justices and woke them up out of their slumber about real world consequences of their decision making. And I'll lay it out and then we'll talk about it. You've got a, talk about a terrible vehicle for the issue. Gun control activists, sorry, gun rights activists have been saying that since there was no regulation on the books during the historical period that I outlined, an old

timey days, to take away a person's right to own a gun subject to a restraining order in for domestic violence, then that person should not be disarmed and they have a second amendment right. Let's set aside for a minute, the back person should not be disarmed. And they have a second amendment right. Let's set aside for a minute, the back in the old timey days, women were not considered equals of men. And they were considered in many places to be property owned by their husbands. And men, let's put that aside for a minute. So of course, there weren't like the concept of restraining orders for domestic violence during that period. And so you had the fifth circuit, Court of Appeals in Louisiana, which has been the bane of the Biden administration. And most of their, most of the rulings against Biden's policies have come out of the fifth, which is really right tilting, right, right

leaning. Two-thirds of their judges are right, right wing appointed. They first ruled before the gun control case that I, the gun rights case I talked about, the brewing case in the summer of 2022 written by Clarence Thomas, they first ruled sure that seems to be a legitimate public policy not to have violent and dangerous people own guns and have guns And so that felony that's been on the books since 1994 is fine Then Broin came out and they reversed course and they said nope. There's no Domestic violence kind of law in the book story in that period. So it's okay that it had a gun Now let me explain who this guy is and all people that, right? He is the prototype of what we're talking about.

He abused his girlfriend so terribly. He threw her down in a parking lot, dragged her into his car, hit her head, damaged her head inside the car. She was also the mother of his children. She got a restraining order against him on these facts and others, which would have prevented him under the 1994 law to own a gun. But he got a gun and two months later during a series of a shooting spree lasted over two months in six different locations. He pulled out his gun during a car accident and fired at the person that he had the car accident with. He fired at another

woman and missed her. And then my all-time favorite, he was at a fast food restaurant with a friend whose credit card was declined for the fast food and he pulled out a gun and fired it into the air like he was in the wild, wild west. That's the, that is the case that's traveled up to the Supreme Court for the proposition that this guy and everybody who's a violent offender like this guy has the right to have a gun. And he was charged with 11 other felony counts in Texas, but the one that he's fighting is the one related to his ability to have a gun. So the Supreme Court held oral argument. We're in Supreme Court season. Starts in October, ends around June,

and they're now in the second month of hearing oral argument on cases that they've decided. These are fully briefed. This is the final opportunity for the advocates to make their case in front of the nine member Supreme Court. You've got Liz Elizabeth Prolinger, who's the solicitor general, as Karen described what a solicitor general is

for the United States, advocating for the United States of America, the Biden position, and you had this lawyer, I'm not sure who, this random lawyer, for the plaintiff, for the appellant, who got all tied up and not really, really quickly, by some relatively easy questions.

The questions like, where do you draw the line? What class of person do you think should be disarmed in our society? And he basically couldn't come up with one. And they said, well, what about why is this statute relative of our decision in the summer of 2022? And he said, because there's no historical twin, there's no matching law from that old timey period. And therefore, it won't survive. And they, and to which the government said, you're being too literal. If in the past they regulated and disarmed people who were dangerous. This is a class of cases where

this is a law that disarms dangerous people, dangerous people, disarmament seems to be okay under this analysis that we're using. This is this phony historical analysis that Clarence Thomas came up with. It doesn't even make any sense. But you look at it that way broadly. You don't look at it like, was there a thing on the books against women being beat up by their husbands? The answer to that is no. Unfortunately, that's the world that we lived in back then. And the judges, including the right wing, bought into the Biden administration position

and said to, and this is my favorite part, Karen, they asked the question of the advocate for the appellant, the violent appellant and said, is your client a violent person? Would you consider him to be a violent person? And rather than maintain your credibility as an advocate of the Supreme Court, and basically say that a person that, you know, shot up people in six different incidences and beat up his girlfriend was a violent person. He said, instead, I don't know what that means. I don't know what that means to which chief justice Roberts, who didn't ask the question, jumped into the oral argument and said, well, somebody that shoots at other people is probably a good start, right?

That, that went quickly downhill for this advocate. At one point, Justice Kagan said, pardon me, I'm getting over it called, Justice Kagan said, you seem to be running away from your argument very, very quickly because you can't stand for the logical conclusion or the extension of your argument. Since it makes no sense, you seem to be trying to run away from it right here in front of

us, aren't you? So based on the view, what do you think based on the reporting of the oral argument, Karen? What do you think this, even this right wing Supreme Court is going to do with disarming violent people subject to restraining orders. Are they going to have a gun in our society or not? Well, thank God. It seems like they're going to do the right thing. And for once, I mean, because so many of the decisions that Supreme Court has come down with are just these head scratchers, right? Doves being one of them. And then the New York State Rifle Association versus

Brewin, which is the gun case you talked about that came down in New York recently, was another. You know, they start talking about this, you know, if it's not in the law, from the olden days, at the time the framers were drafted in the Constitution, then it has to be legislated. You can't just, you can't just, you know, you can't do it. And so, you know, it's really, it's really looks like they're going to maintain that if there's a domestic violence restraining order in effect, and looks just for a minute unpack what that is, right?

That means that a person, could be a woman, could be a man who's in an intimate partner relationship with your partner, and you can be married or not depends on different states have different laws with what makes it domestic violence as opposed to just violence. And it means that you've gone to law enforcement and you've gone to court. Either you've gone to criminal court and you have started a prosecution and there a judge will issue what's called a restraining order or you've gone to family court and initiated a family court proceeding and a judge there has issued a restraining order. So there is some judicial finding that there is enough,

it's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you have to show to get a restraining order, but you do have to allege facts that are saying that there's been some kind of violence, a crime has been committed, whatever. You can't just go in and say, oh, you know what, I don't like my husband anymore. He's, you know, he's choosing with his mouth open and I wanted to bore. So I want a restraining order.

He bugs me. You know, that you won't get one. You have to make a finding that the person is in or an allegation that the person is violent. And you have to put facts on the record. It has to be requested to a judge. And then the judge orders it. And you have to serve it on the person. And then they put it in a database. And the database is what, when you go buy a gun, that they do a background check. One of the things they check is this database. And one of the things that came out in these oral arguments was that more than 75,000 attempts to buy firearms were by people who were subject to a domestic violent restraining order,

but it was rejected because of the federal background check program, which means the law's working. That means 75,000 times somebody who's already been found by the court to be violent or dangerous to their intimate partner has gone to purchase a gun and the background check and they enter the federally licensed firearm dealer enters the information in the background check system. And they rejected it because of the restraining order. So it shows that it works. And there's so many statistics out there about how the, you know,

in terms of violent crime, you know, you're, you're very, you're much more likely to have something happen at home than by a stranger or by someone you know kind of thing. And there's so many, there's so many examples and statistics and studies about domestic violence and gun violence. And so I think this is just so rational, right? This is so incredibly rational and it's not infringing upon a second amendment. You know, the second amendment is not absolute, right? And I think this is where you, where the balance is struck, where there's a judicial finding

and there's a judicial order. And, you know, I think they're going to, I think they're going to uphold it. You know, this is one of those cases that you wonder, why would they have taken this case up to this pream court? You know, they say bad facts, make bad law, you know. And this is one of those with bad facts, right? This guy is such a bad guy, right? He was a drug dealer, he assaulted his girlfriend,

he threatened a shooter, if she told anyone, she went and got a restraining order, which suspended his already, he had a handgun license, but then he defied that order and threatened a different woman with the gun. And as you, all the facts that you said, and in the space of two months, open fire in public five times,

like this guy is not somebody that anyone's gonna go out and malimb for. So I was surprised actually that this was the fact that went up. I think they're concerned of the world they created with the brewing decision and the federal courts all struggling with what it means. And most of them interpreting it, I think, wrong to say, oh, we can't find historical twin that matches exactly and maps exactly with what we're looking out here.

Let's get rid of it. And you know, listen, Clarence Thomas wrote a terrible decision. You know, the court that wrote the Roe vs. Weight decision gets a lot of grief for, you know, indefensible, scientific pseudo science leading to the results of a woman's right to choose. And it was wrong when written and void abubniscia and all the arguments they made when they ripped it apart in tops. But this framework that Clarence Thomas just created,

which is one historically inaccurate in looking at medieval times all the way up to our time of, and his random pick of the Bill of Rights through 1865, no later, no earlier, I mean, just the whole thing, just smacks of reverse engineering in order to get people to be able to carry firearms at all costs. I mean, there wasn't a database for people to register as firearm owners back then, but

you see between the ghost guns. There's really been two cases that they've heard. One is the ghost, the ghost guns and what they're going to do with that, you know, being able to manufacture them at home, that, you know, being able to manufacture them at home with home kits or 3D printers and not having any rule, but it is, but it's a gun and not have it registered in any way. They're going to make a ruling. I think about that. That's going to say you can regulate those. And then this kind of case, which you said is just terrible facts. Maybe it's, maybe it's to give them cover from the gun lobby group to say, well, what do

you want us to do? Look at the facts here. They're terrible. I pulled out a gun, fired two different women and fired it off at a fast food restaurant. So, but we'll see. But good news is that if we don't like what the Supreme Court does in terms of federal constitutional rights and laws, we, the people have the right to change it

at the ballot box state by state pursuant to our own individual state constitutions and that is the angle of attack that abortion rights Right to choose advocates are using in all of the states wherever they can get it in 2023 and Coming up in 2024 for the election. And the good news is we just saw two really amazing wins in Virginia, young kin who was touted to be a presidential candidate

even this year, you know, for 2024. Just got his head handed to him and both both houses, whatever they call the assembly there, and the senate in Virginia, went totally blue. They flipped to one of the houses. They flipped the assembly. And now whatever he, Junkin, was on his legislative agenda, is over. Here's some very happy celebratory people there on getting that to happen. And he had on his desk just waiting for him to get the numbers and have

Republicans in control. He was ready to pass a 15 week, what they like to call the Kunder gentler abortion ban at 15 weeks with an exception for incest and rape, but that's not what the right to choose. And Democrats really want as part of the right, a woman's right. So he's now not going to be able to shove that down their throat at all. And people, the women are back in the driver's seat in Virginia. Ohio took it one step further. They actually had a constitutional amendment on the ballot along with one about weed. With marijuana, I love the pairing of that. Both of those won, by the way. So issue

one, which is how it was framed in Ohio, is a constitutional now enshrined in the Constitution of Ohio, a woman's right to choose up to 24 weeks to have an abortion. It currently was 22 weeks. They even bumped it up to 24 weeks, which is even beyond row versus weight. So that is a tremendous win and a blueprint and a roadmap for what these advocates will do. And it is, it was such a powerful galvanizing policy and vote that it drew so many Democrats to the polls to win this by overwhelming numbers. It wasn't even close. It was seven point victory for women's rights and for democratic ideals.

So smartly, the abortion rights activists are putting these things on the ballot for major battleground states. I don't want to say to help Joe Biden because it's important independently that these things occur. But what did you think about it? Give it to, you know, I'll shut up. Give it to me for your perspective. And then what do you think it will do as a, to help the Democrats in Joe Biden in 2024, even if people are holding their nose for some reason about Joe Biden?

And I can't for the life of me figure out why. What will this, in your view, be enough to get people to go to the polls and while they're there, by the way, vote for Joe Biden? This issue, you know, at first blush seems like, oh, I'm a major victory for abortion rights, and it's going to be in the Ohio Constitution, and this means abortion is protected for all time in Ohio. But I want people to not get too comfortable, because yes, that is true, and it will be great for Democrats.

Hopefully, if the Republicans continue to push on this, hopefully, that'll push people over to the Democrats come 2024, who are on the fence. But the reason I'm hesitant is there's still a lot of nonsense and mischievous stuff that the Republicans and the pro-life anti-abortion crew can do in places like Ohio. For example, they can still... there are laws in the books right now in Ohio in addition to the six-week abortion ban that will obviously be now unconstitutional under their law. But there's all sorts of other laws on the books in Ohio, like parental consent is required for minors, okay. Some people might think that's reasonable. However, there's

also laws about who can perform the abortion. It has to be a doctor. What kind of facility? You have to have a facility that's licensed and part and that's affiliated with a hospital. Well, what if one clinic is not that close to a hospital? And what you must have informed consent, you must own, I mean, just all that kind of stuff. Who are the ones who can dispense abortion meds? Can it be a physician's assistant, for example, or only a doctor?

So the Ohio considers abortion clinics to be like ambulatory surgical centers and therefore they already are highly regulated, but they could still make it really difficult for women to be able to have access to abortion or to abortion pills. And so, just this is something that you just got, you can't ever let your guard down because they can make a lot of mischief And and they're gonna have to clean up some of these laws I think in order to really increase the access, but I do think it's Incredibly hopeful and I think it's going to look you know women

I think at the end of the day you can't take away women's rights without consequence and women are gonna come out And they're gonna they're gonna support that and they're going to make sure that the right, the crazy right extremists don't go too far. Even if they're right-leaning. And what does it mean for Democrats and Joe Biden? I think it's tricky. I spend a lot of time talking to close friends, close family, and even among very liberal

Democrats, Joe Biden is just not popular. Most people think he's too old to run, and he doesn't have the stamina. He's just too old. And other people, they really just think the economy is in their pocketbook and their wallet, they feel like they're not better off. And that at the end of the day, I don't think Joe Biden, I think he can't do anything about the age, the economy, hopefully he'll focus on.

But I think we have to stop just looking at polls and saying, oh my God, there was a poll that came out the day before the elections basically that seemed like it was going to be a red wave on election day, but it wasn't. So I think we can get used to the fact that people might not love Joe Biden and might not even like him, but that doesn't mean they won't vote for him ultimately, right? That doesn't mean at the end of the day when it's just you in the ballot box and you're thinking about what to check, you know, I think people are going to think long and hard picking Trump.

I don't know how anyone in good with a conscience actually is going to be able to vote for him whether you like Biden or not. But I do think people are a little disheartened that that's all we have are these two. You know, I love Joe Biden. Don't get me wrong. But, you know, it is, I think people would love to have someone younger and someone who, you know, isn't in their 80s. Trump as well will be well into his 80s if he were to win, you know, the presidency. So it just seems kind of strange that this is the best we have in this country.

And I think people are feeling that, but I do think that that when you look at the results of the election, you look at the abortion, the way people came out for abortion, I do think people have had enough. And the right wing has just gone way too far in the dobs decision. You know, as tragic and horrific as it was, I think has done a decent job at propelling Democrats in various elections, because I think people can see how dangerous some of the extreme right wing Republicans are.

So I think that's where we are, but a lot still has to be done in places like Ohio to make sure that women have access to this medical care. Yeah. Yeah, I think I'm encouraged by it. And I think it's going to be a good wedge issue that the Democrats can use to their advantage.

Hand-ringing about Joe Biden has to stop just like the hand-ringing over Hillary Clinton led to Donald Trump, which led to a super majority on the Supreme Court taking away of women's rights to choose at a certain point. Democrats have to stop with the hand-ringing, have to stop with the older nose and vote for the only person that's on the ballot

that has a D next to their name happens to be the incumbent president. And it's a fun parlor game to talk about what if and I wish and maybe there was somebody else and what about Gretchen Whitmer what about Gavin Newsom and O you know if Kamala was stronger but we're gonna stop at the parlor games because this is we're talking about real life consequences here and as I told people back in the day with Hillary Clinton, I don't care whether you like her or not. I don't care whether you want to have a beer with Hillary Clinton. The choice for me then was clear, it is clear now. You either vote for the Democrat and hope that the Supreme Court, we have a few openings there to kind of change its composition, but certainly don't make it any worse, and avoid

a the restoration of Donald Trump in every way that I mean that, including a retaliatory president that uses the Department of Justice and weaponizes it and hollows out all other agencies that we care about. So while I think it's interesting and it's fun and not fun, but it's interesting and it's great conversation. It there's just no other option other than to reelect the president. And if 91 or whatever it is, felony counts and two criminal trials and impeachment

and a rape charge that's proven in a civil court doesn't do it. I don't know what will, but I have more faith in the American people. And if anybody questions Joe Biden's stamina, then they should have been on the plane with him for his visits to Israel and flip turn to other places in the Middle East and come back into his job,

as opposed to go golfing or hang out in one of the Trump properties, which was what Donald Trump did all the time, spending very little time and very little interest in the White House. I don't know why people think Donald Trump has more stamina. The reporting is he spent no more than five hours a day being the president of the United States.

He didn't really walk into the job until 11 or 11.30 in the morning. He quit by four. He spent most of his time not reading his briefing books and being briefed by people that knew what they were talking about, but watching Fox News. And we're going on Fox News and surrounding himself with a bunch of synchofants that shouldn't have been

within a mile of the White House. And I don't know why people, I'm not even sure who those people are, but I'm not sure why people would want him to return to the White House. The economy is humming in a certain direction. It is generally good overall and all the indexes say it is. Gas prices, sure, what are they? They ticked up a bit during wartime're the middle of two major wars in that region

that are very important to America's principles, but that I think the stewardship of Joe Biden and his secretary of state and all of that is doing exceedingly well and is having the desired outcome in those foreign places. So foreign places I think are doing well and domestic places are doing well. The analogy, as we talk about history, the analogy for Donald Trump, I mean for Joe Biden

is Harry Truman. Harry Truman took a lot of crap during his first term. He came off of a very popular president and even when he left office, Harry Truman, he was ranked in the bottom quartile of presidents when he, in the first five or ten years after he left office. He is now considered a top five president. And I mean, that's, you know, a little bit of solace for Joe Biden. I don't think he's going to be a one-term president at all. And I think if his closest analogy historically is Harry Truman, we'll all be doing pretty well.

But he just doesn't. There's just a disconnect that has to be closed, a mismatch between his accomplishments and the electorate's feeling about him, at least in polling. He's got a year to make his case. I mean, it's like a trial lawyer. He's got a year to make his case. I mean, it's like a trial lawyer. He's got a year to make his case to the American people that he is. There is no other alternative, but, but to Joe Biden.

And we'll continue to watch it here. Karen, me, Ben, my cellist at the intersection of law, politics and justice. One place on the Midas Touch Network on legal AF, the leading podcast of its type. And then we don't do it here. We do it in hot takes about every hour between the leaders of legal AF and our 75 years of collective experience, Karen on the primarily on the defense on the prosecutor side and Ben and me on the defense side. So we've reached the end of another edition of legal AF midweek and we'll pick it up again on Saturday with whatever happened between Wednesday and Saturday.

We'll pick it up with Ben, my cellos and me. Then Karen, do you want to say something last word? You love the last word. Well, I want to congratulate you. You have a big weekend coming up. I do. Do we want to share it with everybody? People love hearing.

Yeah, I have another personal development. But people think rightly so. I got married already in September. But we're having what I like to joke, I'm having my third wedding to the same woman in a three-month span. We had a civil ceremony in September. We had a religious ceremony in October, and we're having sort of a non-sectarian ceremony

slash party in in in in Zalphlora where we both have a lot of friends and people are flying in from different places and if it wasn't for some other issues Karen would be there with me and Ben's gonna be there with me. I wish I could be there. Congrats to you and your lovely bride. Thank you very much. Have the best time ever. I will. And until the next hot takes for Karen and me and the next Legal AF, this is Michael Popock, wishing all the Legal AFers and the Midas Mighty shout outs. Until next week.