Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Jack Smith and Fani Willis COMPETE to INDICT TRUMP First

Episode Date: January 26, 2023

The Midweek Edition of the top-rated news podcast, LegalAF x MeidasTouch, is back for another hard-hitting look at this week’s most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this episode, co-anchors national trial lawyer Michael Popok and former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo analyze and discuss: Fulton County DA Fani Willis’ earth-shaking announcement in court this week that her decision to seek “multiple defendant” indictments, is imminent; the DOJ obtaining a conviction of 4 more Oathkeepers for seditious conspiracy in a DC courtroom; the indictment of one of the highest officials in the FBI for conspiring with Russian oligarchs close to Putin and being on his payroll, at the same time he helped lead the Russia Collusion investigation against Trump; the latest update on classified documents and Jack Smith’s willingness to prosecute Donald Trump for the Mar a Lago scandal. Easter Egg alert: KFA talks about her recent appearance on CNN concerning a high-profile prosecution. 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 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF and today we're going to cover three stories ripped from the headlines that we've curated just for our listeners and followers. Fawni Willis, Fulton County DA and Rockstar Hero in just 10 minutes during her part of a hearing in court yesterday. She said more in that 10 minutes about multiple defendants and her imminent decision to prosecute than of course we've heard from Jack Smith or Merrick Garland in the last, you know, two years. And we're going to dive into it with my co-worker and former prosecutor, Karen Friedman,

like Nifalo. Then we're going to go to, boy, the Department of Justice must just be tired of winning. Winning, I mean, we're up to like 10 and 0 now. You go to trial against the Department of Justice and you're a Jan 6th insurrectionist, you're gonna lose. And we're gonna talk about the oath keepers, the second half of the oath keepers

who found that out the hard way in a Washington courthouse in front of a jury just this past week, having been convicted again for seditious conspiracy. You know, it's getting old talking about the Department of Justice winning, but they went for the maximum count they could and they won, and there's benefits to having been bold and courageous and we should talk about it again with our former prosecutor Karen Friedman-Ignifalo. And then as Karen and I were talking just before we started podcasting tonight is Donald Trump like the luckiest guy in the world. The FBI agent and counterintelligence head in New York and cybersecurity department

head in Washington same guy, Robert McGonagall, apparently when he wasn't quote unquote, investigating in quotes, Donald Trump and a potential collusion between his campaign and the Russians to take down Hillary Clinton, which became known as the Mueller, ultimately the Mueller report, crossfire hurricane, if you're really into projects with crazy novel like names, that FBI agent, apparently was on the Russian payroll the whole time. And at least a major oligarch connected directly to Putin, paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars to help him get out of a bind with the with the US government. So I mean of all the FBI agents that have to be on the take the the news, and we felt it was necessary, we're gonna play the game of who has classified documents

at their house or office this week. And today's contestant, come on down, Mike Pence. Apparently, all the former people in the White House, the West Wing, from administrations past, decided that, hmm, maybe I should have somebody search my home office and see there's any classified folders in there since there seems to be a a big uproar about it and Mike Pence is the latest one to reveal that he also has classified documents we'll talk about that and we'll talk about just as a reminder how it is not the same thing as Donald Trump's battle with

the Department of Justice and the National Archives over the things that he stole. And we'll talk about why they're different with today's show. And I'm joined every Wednesday with my co-anchor and friend, Karen Friedman, Ignatifalo. Karen, that's my opening, how you doing? I'm good, I'm good, I'm getting a lot of mileage lately on this former prosecutor thing. Last week I was, was it last week? Yeah, last week I was on CNN to talk about the Alec Baldwin case.

And as dumb luck would have it, I was in, they have like a waiting area, they call a green room. And let's just say there was someone else there that was a former, um, who's formerly, uh, on the Jan 6th committee. And I asked him to come on our podcast. So it's a long shot. Like see if you'll, if he'll do it.

Oh, I know who it is. But I can't, wouldn't it be, I'm not going to blow it. Oh, yeah. But wouldn't that be amazing? If, yeah, that would be a really good one. Wait, that guy was there to talk about Alec Baldwin. He was there for the next second. No, he was there for exactly. No, he was there for something else. And it was just funny because I didn't recognize him at first.

And I was like, Oh, are you here to talk about Alec Baldwin? You know, and anyway, we figured out who each other. We introduced ourselves, but anyway. He said, no, I'm, and oh, exactly. Well, I said, oh, do you want to be on my, I said, do you want to be on my podcast? When you let us, I think, I think people like this kind of stuff. And if they don't, I'm going to do it anyway. We went, we went back and forth on a little bit of a chain with you.

And I called you Booker, Booker Extraordinary Podcast Booker Extraordinary. Just so everybody knows, I'm going to give credit where credit is due. I always give credit where credit is due. I never take credit for something I'm not responsible for. I like to acknowledge and reward people in my life. So Karen brought in some amazing prosecutors as guests. Karen was able to land Alvin Bragg.

We might get Sy Vance on the show one day. We're hoping some other interesting former prosecutors. We might get on the show one day. So I'll come in from Karen Friedman, a Knifalo at her connections. I brought in Robbie Kaplan because I had a connection for Robbie Kaplan. But look, this is what we're doing here. Where you're just ripping.

I'm shameless just so you know. I'll have to get you buddy. I'll have to get you buddy. I'll have to get you buddy. But I, that was a good show. No, but I am shameless. I am like, oh my God. Hey, do you want to get, you know?

It's a very good quality for a podcast toast. And for everybody, I want, let's just talk logistics and then I'm gonna get to the stories rip from the headlines Just so it's I think it's obvious after two and a half years of podcasting and maybe a year and a half with Karen We're not often in the same room We were once remember that time we did it together Karen. That was fun. That was fun That was so we had technical difficulties. We had crappy Microphones that came with the podcast studio that we will never do again,

but we're going to do something like that again. I got a set up in my office in New York that I think will work for you and me. But we're not, Ben and I are not the same. We're at least Karen and I are sort of close in terms of we're within 50 miles of each other. Ben and I are, you know, whatever the distance between New York and California is these days. And so what happens is, and we don't really, we're not, because we don't see each other's body language

like we are in the same room. Occasionally, we step on each other's words because I wanna laugh at a joke she's made or she wants to comment about something with me or I just want everybody to know. We love doing the show. and we love doing it together and We don't take offense to each other like raising our hand or not raising our hand and button in and making a comment and make the show better and make the comment Kind of continue the dialogue, but some of the stepping on each other's lines so to speak for those that were theater majors or

Thespians is because we're not in the same room and we can't see each other and there's a little bit of a nanosecond of a delay when you're doing it this way. But there's no other way to do it. We like doing it. If I only could do it with people that were in my house, it would be me, my dog was sitting on the couch behind me. This is the way you got to do it. So nobody take offense on how we produce the show because we certainly don't we we love it. We we it motivates us and propels us

to come back each week. All right, enough about. All right, get to the show. Get to the show, pop up. Come on. That is the show. I don't know if this is like sign fell. It's a show about nothing. This is the show. It's part of the show. All right, let's talk about the thing that people come here to talk about or listen to, which is news, news, legal political news. So I'm a fawny Willis. I did a hot take on this. I know that Karen, you prepared for today's segment. I'm going to probably turn it over to you in one minute. Fawny Willis was in court this week in an hour and a half

hearing. I got to watch it on it was a Zoom Zoom hearing, got to watch it, couldn't participate, but I got to take notes. And the purpose of the hearing is a judge McBerney wanted an oral argument by hearing after briefing about whether the special purpose grand jury that issued a report and also a recommendation that the report be published. And I'm assuming it's like four times the size of the Jan 6th report filled with witness testimony and tabs and appendix and all that. And there are recommendations I presume, although no one's seen this report except for Fawni Welles and Judge McBurney.

The question is, should it be published into the public record on the public docket? The presumption is most everything in a courtroom, court house, ultimately gets put into the public record for the world to see, because that's our system of justice, except for things that are protected by secrecy laws, like the grand jury process, while it's still operating until it issues its indictment or no indictment. And other things that are kind of confidential in the business world or sensitive to the

business world like, I don't know, the secret formula for Coca-Cola, you know, things like that. And the media has a role in all of this. They as judge middle Brooks, one of my favorite judges, people know who just sanctioned Trump and Habba, the Lena Habba for a million dollars, he said rightly so, that journalists write the first draft of history. So it's okay that the media intervened

and wanted to get their hands on the report. And in a little bit of a surprise, I thought, although I want to hear from your perspective as a prosecutor, Fawni Willis stood up. She spoke about 10 minutes out of 90. She let her colleague do most of the heavy lifting on some discussions and debates with the judge about the esoteric body of law in Georgia about publication of a document. But she said the things that got all the headlines, which were

I don't want the report published at at this time Because and then she listed the reasons first of all she said there were multiple defendants She didn't say maybe defendant. She didn't say there may be defendant She said there are multiple defendants and I'm concerned about them getting a fair trial. She'll say, I don't want an appeal. I don't want to buy an appeal. I don't want to give them grounds to say that their trial wasn't fair. Also very good prosecutorial approach. She also said, I don't want to be rushed. I don't want to be rushed to judgment. I've done things methodically up until now. And I'm making a decision about whether to to

methodically up until now. And I'm making a decision about whether to to bring the indictment. And so I don't want that I don't want that impacting me. The fact that it gets published. News media comes out, you know, and I get a lot of pressure on me. And then the last thing she said, which I then said, and then she sat down, last thing she said was, um, judges, only two people who have seen this report. And that's me. She pointed to herself and you and she pointed to judge McBerney. And then she immediately said, you've seen the report, judge, and you know, my decision as to whether to seek an indictment is imminent. So in other words, you've seen what I've seen, judge.

You know, you know, I'm not going to be sitting on this that long. And look, it's public, 17 to 19 targets have, or 17 to 19 people have been told that they're targets of the grand jury, a special purpose grand jury. And then, Fawney Willis saying her decision to seek an indictment from a regular grand jury is imminent. That's my sort of beginning takeaway. Karen prosecuted, what do you think about Fawney Willis' performance? What do you think about the issue? And would you, you, Karen Freeman, Agnifalo, prosecutor extraordinaire, would you at this moment want that report published or not? Absolutely not. And I'll explain why.

First of all, I thought you or hot take on this was excellent. And it was great to have your perspective from, you know, you were literally in the room, you know, whatever, virtually in the room. And so you were able to describe exactly what happened. And I thought that was excellent in anyone who hasn't seen it, should go and watch that to get a very detailed description of what happened. No, but no prosecutor would like this to be released because what would happen is that you're basically giving, she had to take the public the public stance that she didn't want it released because if it does get released,

the defendants will likely in the future say I did not get a fair trial. There was no way that the the jury I could get a fair jury here in Georgia because every one of them will have either read the report or read the media coverage about the report and so there was no way to get a fair trial here. And so if the prosecutor was also saying sure, go ahead and release it, that could hurt the case in that regard. So she had to take the position that she didn't want it released to just protect her record for appeal

later on down the road. I agree with your take on this that there's no doubt an indictment is coming and there will be numerous defendants. I don't think her decision that she's working on right now is whether or not to bring a case. It's what charges and which defendants is what she is bringing. I was curious why she said there are only two people who've seen the report, her and the judge, because I assume all the grand jurors would have also seen it and I'm surprised there were no, because they wrote it, right?

So, and they voted on it. So, I was surprised why there was no leak from that. The decisions, the one thing that I did not quite understand is why she does, what's the hold up? Because this has been going on for a while and they've been the it's not like the witnesses came to the grand jury on their own the Fulton County DA's office chose which witnesses to present chose which testimony to bring wrote the report knows what the witnesses said. I just don't know what they are waiting for. That just seemed odd to me. So I think, I did a little legal research

reading about this this morning, and I'm pretty sure that in Georgia, you can put hearsay in the grand jury, which, well, the reason I looked for that was because in New York, you cannot. In New York State, to charge someone with a crime hearsay is not allowed. So you have to have, if you're going to charge someone who's talking about a case or saying I was assaulted, the person who got assaulted has to be the person to testify under oath in the grand jury in order to bring a case against someone for assault.

Federally, hearsay goes in the grand jury. You don't need that. You can have an FBI agent say, I talked to someone who was assaulted. They said they were assaulted. I saw their injuries and that's enough. You don't need the live person hearsay is enough. And Georgia is similar to the FBI.

And so for all we know, there is an agent or an officer or whatever, an investigator in Georgia literally sitting in the grand jury and reading the report, reading the witness testimony and saying, this is, charges should be brought against this person or that person. For all we know, that's happening right now as we speak. So, she doesn't have to convene any special grand jury.

There are grand juries that are always sitting and she could just walk into any one of those. And in case if she wanted, sure. Is it then you, that's a fascinating observation about the differences differences about New York and I want to get to that in a minute But here's my question that does that mean for you then That's in storage is closer to federal in terms of the the quality of witness testimony That can be brought into the room for For indictment My working position or supposition is that the when she gets her goes before her regular

grand jury to get her indictment, which is the next step and people are worried about it. Oh, it's going to be a long delay. No, as as Karen just outlined, they can step into any ongoing grand jury and say, I we're here. We're convened for this now. We're going to talk about all of these other things. I think she can use and present the report and not have to, of course, bring in the 70 witnesses again. I think she can she can read the transcripts and the evidence that was developed by the investigatory grand jury, special purpose grand jury, and then see current item. What do you think about that? Yeah, I think legally, that's what I was suggesting. I think she could do that. I mean, she'll have to have somebody do that.

She can't do it, right? She'll have to have an agent or an investigator do that. Oh, that's the reader you're talking about. I guess somebody else would have to do that. But the thing that that strategically, what she will probably do, So you don't know who, so grand juries are usually 23 people typically who sit in a room and listen to it and you have to get a majority. So 12 people to vote to indict. And Georgia is a purple state, right? There's

a lot of red, I don't know Atlanta not so much, but you don't know who the people are. And Georgia is a purple state, right? There's a lot of red, you know, I don't know Atlanta, not so much, but you don't know who the people are. And this is a big decision. And so even though she could do that in New York, you could easily, if you were allowed to have here say, in New York, you could go in and do that and Trump and Giuliani and everybody else

under the sun would be indicted. There are a couple reasons why you'd put witness in, though. One would be to lock them in under oath. You want them to testify and be locked into a statement under oath, but she has that already with a special purpose grand jury. They all came in and testified under oath. So she already has that, but she might want to put certain witnesses on to basically go in and tell the grand jury and look them in the eye and say,

this is what happened and this is what they did. Because it otherwise, this is such a big decision. You don't want to have them say, you know what? I don't know. I didn't see those witnesses myself. I don't I don't I'm not in dining Trump or I'm not in dining Giuliani or whatever. So I think she will put in some live witnesses just to make sure. The other thing is, you talked about this in your hot take that she's an expert in RICO. And RICO is the racketeering influence corrupt practices act.

It's basically what they charge for mafia and other organizations that require a structure and it requires overt acts in further, of like a pattern act and you have to have done something toward, toward your crime, toward your criminal enterprise. And that's a complicated charge. And that would take time because there you do need to put a lot more evidence in than just a witness, a phone call, you know, that kind of stuff. So it seems like this is going to be a big indictment that's coming. To me, there's no doubt that it's imminent. As you pointed out, and in both your heart taken here, she didn't say, you know, her words,

you listen to her words, you know, she didn't say if there's an indictment, you know, how she didn't say, you know, potential future defendants, you know, that kind of stuff. Her language was very clear, right? And she said, not to interrupt, but her body language. Oh, did you, well, I saw the video. Her body language was worth a thousand words. I mean, she was a, you know, it was interesting. I haven't really seen much of her in the courtroom So I have my own impression kind of of her beforehand and she was knows she was no nonsense. She was a little bit I Don't want to I don't want to scribe emotional content to somebody that I don't know well

But she was a little abrupt Which is fine with me. I mean she was no nonsense on all business. I don't think she wanted to be there I don't think I think she thought it wasn't a hard decision to make not to release it. That her word in that area should sort of be final, although the judge is struggling and he made it clear from the bench. He did not rule from the bench. He will not. It said he will not rule from the bench because he needs to be thoughtful about this and give the party's time to appeal his decision because he's not going to release the report. Even if he sides with the media, he's not going to immediately release the report and

not give her time to go to a pellet court to stop it because he knows once that genie is out of the bottle, it's out. So he's going to be very, he's been thoughtful about this whole thing from the very, very beginning. She seemed a little bit like, you know, why am I here? I don't want this release. And that should sort of be the end of the story. But the thing that I picked up the most content from is when at the very, very end before she sat down is what I said

at the top of the pot. I said, she said, so two people that have seen the sheet, I think she meant two people in the room that day, two people in this room have seen this me and you. And you've seen it, judge. She didn't wink at him, but she almost did. And you know, based on what's in there, my decision is imminent. I mean, whatever is in there, you know, whether it's a recommendation from the special purpose grand jury to entict Donald Trump, you know, 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 when she goes to the regular grand jury gets her indictment, we're not going to scratch our heads with who are these people that she just indicted. I've never heard of these people. It's not going to be, maybe it's the fake electors, but that's not going to be the top of the pecking order. be the top of the pecking order. This, she did not get this far

because she wants people to go, who? If she's got the goods on Donald Trump, everything that we know about Fawney Willis is that she's got the, you know what, to bring this indictment. Period. Anybody question that she doesn't have the brass to bring the entitement? She will bring the enti- if the evidence leads her to that conclusion.

She doesn't want to be rushed. She doesn't want the media to make the decision for her. She doesn't want people taking pot shots. The reason I want to ask you this, the reason I said the beginning of there was a little bit, there was some speculation among probably people who don't know anything about prosecuting cases. That's why I want to ask you that maybe she'd want a portion of the report released so that it would give her some political cover when she made her decision. But I know you're not in that camp, right? Well, no, I'm not in that camp. I don't think she doesn't want pressure.

Politics in a prosecution don't mix together. And I don't think she wants pressure from anywhere either way. And look, the report voted on whether or not it should be public. We have no idea if it said whether or not each person should be charged and with what. And what if she makes a different determination that Giuliani should be charged or not charged with something? I mean, I just think I just think you don't you don't want, you know, the other thing too is she might want to put some of these witnesses in the grand jury like we talked about and if you release the report presumably it's going to have who testified and what they said, and that could lead to witness intimidation, and which we know that Trump is not above doing. So for many reasons, I think she doesn't want it released, and she wants to just be able to let any indictment speak for itself, which is really what a prosecutor should do.

I suspect also that the judge, because it's such a tricky question about whether to release it, because, you know, the media has a first amendment right, and that's why courtrooms have to be open and everything has to be public and it's a it's a first amendment issue that that comes into play about keeping something sealed and you could be reversed on that. And obviously this judge doesn't want to get that wrong. And there's not a lot of case law to lean on. And so I suspect he's going to reserve decision and not make a decision because then he can't be appealed and let Fanny do hurt because that's why that's why I think she kept saying over and over again, it's imminent. It's imminent judge. I think she was signaling to him. I think she was signaling to him. You don't need to make a decision, Judge. Reserve. Very good.

But me do my thing. And then you can do whatever you need to do. That is a very excellent observation that comes from your years of experience. That she's basically saying, just judge, it's going to be quick. You don't have to make it any quick. Don't force my hand. I love that.

Let me, speaking of prosecutors got instincts. Here's, here's the dumbest, I don't know how you can say the dumbest comment of the week for Donald Trump. There's just so many, but his comment, I love, I love his comments. I've been exonerated. You know, Mueller report totally exonerated, even though Mueller in his report said, I'm not exonerating the Donald Trump. Here, they actually had the temerity to have a spokesperson come out and say, we're not going to participate in the McBurdy hearing on the issue of the release of the special purpose grand jury report. And since we were an asked to be interviewed or compelled to get tested about it, it's a better way to put it in front of the special purpose grand jury. We can only conclude that it completely exonerates our client.

All right, let me get this straight. In your view of history and criminal justice, defendants who are the targets have to come in and give testimony or the whole grand jury process is somehow invalidated or because you were it as the actual criminal or about to be indicted criminal, you weren't asked to participate in the grand jury process, it must be exonerating in your behalf.

I mean, Sir Karen, did you read that comment? Yeah, that's not the way things work. And again, I can only speak for how it's done in New York. In New York, any person who testifies in the grand jury is given what's known as transactional immunity. So it means just by going in there, you cannot ever be prosecuted for the crime that you're talking about.

And so prosecutors in New York are very careful about who they put in the grand jury because you don't want to inadvertently Immunize someone who you thought was a witness, but turns out he's the shooter or whatever, you know, so you got to really Be careful before you put someone in. I don't know if that that's the case in But he would take the fifth amendment anyway He would never have testified in front of the grand jury would have taken the fifth exactly So another one of those you know medium moments for Donald Trump and all that.

Okay, let's move on to our second segment in the podcast today, which is to talk about that the Department of Justice can walk and chew a lot of gum at the same time. They can try cases simultaneously with different prosecutor, prosecutor teams all over the country in the same courthouse. At the same time with different FBI agents, different people assigned. They can do that four, five, six times simultaneously or more while they're arresting people like active duty marines in the intelligence community last week who thought, oh, two years, they haven't caught my social media where I posted about barging into the capital on Gen 6. They're going to arrest you too. And they're going to win.

They're going to go for the highest crime possible, high risk, high reward for the prosecutors. And they're going to win. So the people might be saying, might be saying to themselves, didn't we finish with the Oathkeepers already? I thought they were all convicted in November, but you may recall from prior Legal A.A. podcasts, if not, I'll tell you, the judge Mehta, who we like a lot on this podcast, because of the way that he rules and the way he runs a courtroom, he literally believed that he could not have eight or 10 defendants in his courtroom at the same time, because of the amount of people that would require to be sitting at tables, and he didn't

have the room. So he split them about six or eight months ago into two separate trials. He put Kelly Megs and Stuart Rhodes, the one-eyed leader of the of the proud boys, sorry, the oath keepers into one trial, which concluded in November with a conviction for roads and megs on seditious conspiracy and the other two on obstruction, other two people that were joined there. And then he had four more left. And so they went to trial. And now the trial after five weeks of trial came back

with a verdict this week in in in front of Judge Mata in front of a different jury. And this one involved gentlemen's by the name of Manuto Hackett, Moschel and Vallejo. And they are now convicted of seditious conspiracy in front of a second jury by this, you know, rolling on, you know, just keeps rolling along the Department of Justice and just keeps winning. And this one had a cooperating witness who testified. The only interesting thing for me that I'll turn it over to you, Karen, is that this is one where the Vallejo particularly was sitting across at a motel across the Potomac, but he was like the armorer.

He had all the weapons that they were going to bring in at a moment's notice with this rapid reaction force or whatever cockamami name they gave it, but they were going to arm the attackers and the rest of these idiots, these insurrectionists, these anti-patriots. They were the ones that kind of did that flying wedge, what they call a stack, to kind of push their way into the Capitol under military training and technique and actually burst their way into the Capitol. So now they're convicted of seditious conspiracy.

What did you think about, you could talk about the trial, but by particularly I wanted to ask you, what do you think about the Department of Justice at its record and going for the highest charge, which is a very difficult charge to make, swinging for the fences and actually obtaining it and accomplishing it in front of two separate juries while at the same time, just up the hall in front of a different judge, the proud boys are also being prosecuted, including in Rico, Tario, for same things that this just conspiracy. Talk a little bit about, because you, you know, as the number two in the Manhattan DA's office, I know that you had at the same time going on in the office, multiple trials,

high profile trials, not just one. Talk about that. What do you think it's like for the Department of Justice to have so many simultaneous high profile trials going on at the same time and being able to accomplish all that? Yeah, I mean, it's very common in big offices, like the Department of Justice or the Manhattan DA's office to have many trials going on at the same time. Sometimes we'd have as many as 10 trials at the same time, if not more. I mean, it's not really a big issue because different lawyers handle different cases and, you know, it's in different courtrooms, everybody's set up that way. And in this

particular instance, however, you would have had to, these prosecutors had to coordinate because this was one big giant investigation and they would just decide, okay, you take these group, you know, I'm sure they broke it up where certain people took the oath keeper, certain people took the proud boys, other people took other people, there were ways to break it up and that's how they did it. But look, they had to coordinate with each other

because as they are interviewing witnesses, you might as a prosecutor get information that about your case, but it turns out it's a sculpatory for someone else's case that's called Brady. And so because you're one big office, you are considered to have knowledge of that. And so you have to make sure you give that information to the other prosecutor.

So it's very, very important in a case this big to have coordination with the prosecution, the supervision, the investigators, there would be some kind of way that they're keeping track of everything, whether it's having certain investigators that crossover or certain databases with information. I know somehow they're gonna be doing this

so that they can coordinate and share information. Similarly, what somebody who's investigating the oath keepers and talking to that cooperator may have information that's helpful against the prob boys. And, you know, that kind of stuff. So there's going to be a lot of sharing of information, but the ability to try multiple cases at the same time is really what prosecutors like this do every single day.

What was interesting about this case to me, what prosecutors like this do every single day. What was interesting about this case to me, what I thought was interesting was, was as you said, for just how many people fit in the courtroom reasons, and also how many lawyers do you want to cross-examine witnesses' reasons? I mean, if you have eight defendants, don't forget you have eight lawyers, and that means you have eight, if you have eight defendants, don't forget you have eight lawyers.

And that means you have eight openings, you have eight closings, you have eight cross-examinations of each witness, that just becomes unruly, untenable, and very clunky. So for various reasons, judges will usually split court rooms up and have four or five, it says, is the maximum in multiple defendant cases. And they just do it for judicial economy reasons.

And what was interesting to me though about this is in the first trial, don't forget, there were five defendants and only the two top ones were convicted of, you know, Stuart Rhodes and Kelly Megs were convicted of seditious conspiracy. The other three were not. And I don't know because I wasn't in the jury room, but I think probably the equation there was that even though the others were definitely guilty of seditious conspiracy, they're not like Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Megs who are higher up and more guilty. And so sometimes they just make a compromise

and do something like that. Whereas here, the four defendants who came together, although yes, one of them was across the river guarding the weapons, but he was standing ready to show up at any time. These four were more similar. There wasn't like the Stuart Rhodes of the pack. These were more similar.

And so all four of them were convicted of seditious conspiracy. I think if the other three had been with these four, I wonder whether they would all have been convicted. But it's clear that the jury made a slight distinction there between the guys in charge and the guys following orders. But they didn't put that different jury. It didn't make that distinction here. And so it's all about the jury, right? It's all who you get for the jury.

But I thought that was the interesting part about this. Yeah, that's a great observation. I agree with you. If you put similar situated people together, they'll come out. If the jury's in your favor as a prosecutor, similar situated people together, they'll come out if the jury's in your favor as the prosecutor, they're gonna lump them together for the prosecution. And it sounds like you're right,

that there was a compromise sort of verdict which you're not supposed to do. You're supposed to, you know, the jury's supposed to make a decision. And the case is supposed to rise and fall for individuals, even if they're all there to gather, they're supposed to get individual justice. But that's not the way it really works in a jury deliberation room as you just astutely pointed out.

And I think the Department of Justice learns every time they win, or in the case of the other trial, they lost a couple of counts, but they won overall. Every time they win, or every time they do a trial, they learn more. They're getting better at it. They know what is turning on a jury, what's turning off a jury, what evidence is powerful and resonating and vibrating with them and which, and resonating with them and which isn't. And they will now learn from this about, and they'll probably fight harder about having, maybe the leaders, maybe the leaders should have been in their own trial, the four others in this trial,

and maybe there should have been three trials based on your analysis, Karen. And that's something that the DOJ will be mindful of, but the lesson for me in talking to the insurrectionist out there, you wanna go to trial against the Department mood. I'm not sure if you're going to be in a good mood. I'm not sure if you're going to be in a good mood.

I'm not sure if you're going to be in a good mood. I'm not sure if you're going to be in a good mood. I'm not sure if you're going to be in a good mood. I'm not sure if you're going to be in a good mood.

I'm not sure if you're going to be in a good mood. I'm not sure if you're going to be in a good mood. I'm not sure if you're going to be in a good mood. I'm not sure if you're going to be in a good mood.

I'm not sure if you're going to be in a good mood. I'm not sure if you're going to be in a good mood. I'm not sure if you're a Jan 6 insurrectionist or not. I mean, you get convicted for it. If the government goes to a trial with you, you're going to lose. That's just the statistics. And now it may not be as high as, you know, over 10, but it's, if you're, if you're not taking the plea, you are going to lose to this department of justice and a jury in Washington, T.C. on Jan, on Jan six issues. And all of your arguments that I've seen some of them make on the courthouse steps afterwards to the extent that they're let out. Mata did not let this group leave and go out the front door. He sent them into home, strict home confinement, limited use of the internet. And we'll see you for your sentencing.

But an earlier conviction this week, another judge, Judge Cooper, he thought, you know, with the guy that put his feet up on Pelosi's desk, but also had a stun gun, he said, nah, I'm going to let him go home. He can come back in March for sentencing and he went out the front steps with his wife and started saying, I, you know, I need a jury of my peers. I can't, this liberal jury in Washington's not gonna do it for me. You know, they all wanna be, they wanna look at a jury that's comprised of Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, Racists, KKK,

you know, then they think they'll get off. Fortunately, that's not how the justice system works. So, you've got that. And in a crazy way, in this crazy, the crazy cabal that's developed, you said the Department of Justice often works together in teams. You know, it's also working together, but it's not working for them is the defendants and their families.

When, when the guy that just got sentenced earlier in the week, who was the Pelosi desk guy, sitting next to him, and I talked about this on a hot takes it next to his wife was the following rogues gallery of crazy. It was Ashley Babet's mother. No, I'm not making this up Ashley Babet's mother and Rico Tario, the proud boy on trial, his mother. I guess she got bored with his trial. She decided to come over and watch the jury verdict and conviction of somebody else next to Guy Reffett's wife, who's become sort of the leader on the internet of all this whackingness. And they're all sitting there together. I mean, again, back to the, if you wrote a screenplay with all these people in it, you know, the producers say, cut that. No one would believe that. So they're all

working together. And they're all working together. And they're all trying trial strategies together. None of them are working. Sometimes they take the stand and try to tell the jury that they were just effing idiots caught up in the moment. They're accidental terrorists and accidental seditionists. Jerry doesn't buy any of that. But in a weird corrupt way, they work together.

They're counting on 2024, or pardoned. That's what I think. My heart stopped by heart. I know, but that's in their delusional mind. Yes, I know. It's the same thinking that they're waiting for JFK to return. I know it's the same thinking that they're waiting for JFK to return and Trump is, no, it's, I'm with you. We have to move on just from my own blood pressure. We have to move on.

Let's move to our final story, talking about something that no Hollywood producer would ever produce. The story of an FBI agent who's heading a major division in department at the FBI, and is charged with participating as a leader in the Russia collusion investigation to find out if anybody in Donald Trump's inner circle and campaign is coordinating with the Russians to try to bring down Hillary Clinton. And who better to be on the double agent side of all of this than Charles McGonagall, a now indicted former FBI agent, former special agent of counterintelligence in the FBI New York

office. He also held the title of Chief of Cybersecurity for the FBI in DC. And he is literally, literally, if you're doing the Kevin Bacon six degrees of separation. He was, he got the phone call about somebody in the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos, who claimed that he had an inside relationship with a Russian diplomat and they were going to talk about the Hillary Clinton emails and the email server and use that against her together with the Russians on behalf of Donald Trump. That sounds familiar to you. That was the flame that lit the fuse and became ultimately Operation Crossfire Hurricane,

which was the FBI investigation ultimately led by Robert Mueller to see if Donald Trump and his campaign were colluding directly or indirectly, wittingly or unwittingly with the Russians. We all sort of have a working theory that the Russians and their trolls and their operatives as part of their espionage to change the hearts and minds of people, wanted Donald Trump to win, because they thought there was a better opportunity for him to play ball with them and wanted Hillary Clinton,

who was virantly anti-Soviet Union anti-Russia to lose. That's our working theory. Now, it looks like we'll never know if how corrupted the investigation was because Charles McGonagall decided to get on the payroll of Oleg Derapaska, Oleg Derapaska, which apparently was profiled in 60 minutes recently, is a Russian oligarch, he's a aluminum baron, very tied to Putin, who paid McGonagall while he was in the FBI, while he was participating in Operation Hurricane $250,000 to help get him off the sanctions list for the United States.

So he's basically on Putin's payroll at the same time that he's allegedly a leader in a co-encharge of operation across fire hurricane looking into the Trump collusion. So what do you think Karen? What do you think about all of this and what it means for Donald Trump if anything? Yeah, so this was a shocker. You know, this is this isn't just an FBI agent. This is the special agent in charge. They call it a sack, you know, a special agent in charge which is a supervisor of or a chief of the FBI's counterintelligence division in New York. That is so high up and this guy had top secret

sensitive super you know sensitive compartmentalized whatever you have you have this individual, this Charles McGonagall would have had the most the most highest level of information, of top secret information, and the most amount of information about who these people are, who these oligarchs are, who they're connected to, what the sanctions, the Russian sanctions laws actually are, what you're allowed to do, what you're not allowed to do. I mean, honestly, this is as close to a trader or a spy as you could possibly get.

I wouldn't be surprised if further indictments, superseding indictments will come with further investigation because this is huge, in my opinion. And I think when you look, just what they talked about, there's two different indictments that he was charged with one in New York, one in DC. And the New York one had to do with violating sanctions and money laundering and conspiracy.

And DC was what you were talked about taking $225,000 of secret cash payments while still working for the FBI. I think this is just the beginning. I think this is going to get bigger. It's huge. And not he's someone who would have known. It's, you know, he's not just moonlighting on the side, which whatever.

He knows exactly what he's doing. He had a shell corporation that he used to try to obfuscate the money and who was doing what. I mean, this is corruption and potentially even espionage. And this is a big deal. There was also an allegation of that he got someone's daughter, a kind of a sweetheart position at the NYPD as an intern and she was bragging there that she had close ties

to an FBI agent that raised eyebrows. I think that's gonna come out with the NYPD. I think there's just much more to this story that we're gonna keep learning about, but this is bad. To answer your question, what does this mean? I think that the Department of Justice and I think the Department of Justice now has to look at every case he's ever been involved in every investigation he's ever been involved in. And if I was a defense attorney, I am a defense attorney. If I was a defense attorney representing somebody who had a case involving mechanical, first thing I would do is I'd bring a motion that my client was wrongfully convicted,

that he lied, that there's, that, I would question the integrity of my conviction. Because at this point, I don't know how you can trust him or believe him, he's corrupt, he's a double agent. I mean, he's so many potential things that are, that are, that are, that I, we don't know all of the details yet, but this was a shocker for me, this was something out of a, you know, one of those novels that, you know, John Likaree novel or whatever, I just, I just couldn't believe it.

Yeah, it seems to be potentially the equivalent of all Dr. James and the CIA, but for the FBI. And you're right, I think they have to go back and look at every one of those investigations. And the one who gets sort of off the hook is, it's not so much the investigations that he corrupted that led to people's convictions. I mean, I assume they're going to look at the investigations that he corrupted in terms of herking, crossfire, herking. He took his foot off the pedal and shaped the result to his liking to help, you know, basically his Russian handlers to take the eye off the ball and get them out of the spotlight about the connection because there was ultimately a in terms of his recommendations about what he found, but he did, you know, while he concluded that he didn't have enough for a crime on Trump and others for a Russia conclusion. He also made it clear that he did not find that Trump was blameless and what north was he exonerating him in his recommendation. But if we find out, as you said, from follow-up investigation,

that it's the call not made, the witness not interviewed, the follow-up not performed that helps that the body of work that results from it isn't totally infected by a corrupted turncoat double agent in the form of Charles Mechanical. We don't know the total impact and injury to investigations, including the Trump investigation about Russia collusion. That comes from this, and I think you and I are going to be reporting on Mr. Mechanical for a long, long time on legal AF. So why don't we move to our last topic for today?

Well, at last, but we're gonna do a special Easter egg at the end for those that we usually have, our audience usually stays with us for the whole podcast, but there's gonna be a special Easter egg at the end. Stay tuned. But let's talk about the one that's on the books, which is Vice President Pence, come on down. You're the next one that's got classified documents hidden

somewhere that you didn't know were there, have now been disclosed, and he did exactly what Joe Biden did. He said, oh, they're there. I'm gonna have my lawyers contact, the Department of Justice and the House of Judiciary Committee, and everybody else and say, I got them, pick them up, didn't know they were there, and sorry about that, my bad. Okay. So you got Biden who had a similar issue

in reaction from his 50 years of service to our country, including two terms as vice president and one term as president, all this happened before he was president. And he had a couple of things in his boxes, all right, in different places. He's dealing with it. He's got lawyers that he hired privately. He's working with the Department of Justice and their special prosecutor, special counsel. He's letting the FBI spend 13, 14 hours running through his house. He's probably going to let him do the same thing at Rahuboth, his beach house in Delaware. Okay, that's, that's Biden.

Pence, okay, good on him. He found classified documents and he, and he doodifully reported it. And I'm sure of every former president or vice president who's still alive, including George W. Bush and all the rest. I'm sure there's a cup now that I understand how Lucy Goosey, this classified document stuff, has been in terms of document retention and preservation on the way out. I'm sure you'll find something in everybody's boxes. But Karen add to that, but then let's get to the thing that everybody that watches us

cares about. How is this different or the same as what Donald Trump did? And why should Donald Trump continue to be prosecuted while all these other people also effed up, so to speak, with classified documents? Why? That's the question that they're asked on the street and dinner parties over pizza with their friends. Like, see, everybody does it. Why is the big orange being criminally prosecuted? Why?

That's why they come to this show, Karen. Why? Well, there are two questions. There's the legal question, and then there's the political question. The legal question, as everybody's talked about, and we've talked about, and you and Ben have talked about, at Nazim

is really totally different scenario, right? You've got Biden who's cooperated 100% with everybody and you've got Pence who did it on his own and turned things over and then you've got Trump who refused to give stuff back, you know, lied to investigators about their existence, had an affidavits warrant that they looked and there wasn't there, etc. etc. etc. So these are completely different scenarios legally. That being said, politically, I think the classified document possession case is unlikely to be brought by the Department of Justice, given how widespread and Lucy Goosey this is. And I don't think anyone knew. I think that this

has to change. You know, there's, I've heard people say we classify, we overclassify too much, but also we don't keep track of classified secret documents, which is outrageous, right? This shouldn't happen, it can't happen. Nobody should be able to take stuff home and lose it for 13 years or whatever it is that's happening. So I think that's going to, something's going to come of that for sure, but politically I don't see any prosecutor bringing a case against Trump about possession of the documents given how widespread this is and how the public has just decided to see everybody does it. However, there's one caveat. I do think that Jack Smith and Merrick Garland can and should still prosecute Trump for obstruction

of justice. Because that, so forget the possession of classified documents and whether or not that is a crime. There really is a crime that he should be prosecuted for, probably along with other things. I'm not sure it's its own thing, or maybe if it is, its own indictment, it's unsealed at the same time as the others who knows. But obstruction of justice, which, because what he did there is once he was told there are classified documents, we know they're there, he refused to give them back. He lied to investigators about their existence.

He knew that they were there and then had someone certify that they looked and they weren't there. And I just think that he removed them from room to room with a video. He did, yes. Footage to demonstrates that the day before or the moment before the Department of Justice arrived for a meeting, they were moved. Right, that's true. And look, the Department of Justice already has established in their search warrant that there was probable cause

that those documents were there, right? And to search at Mar-a-Lago. So there is probable cause, and the probable cause is that some crime occurred and that there is evidence of that crime there. So I do think that that obstruction charge is potentially still alive. However, given the political analysis of now that everybody does it, I'm not sure that anyone would bring that case stand alone or as the first case. I think I

thought before that the Mar-Lago case was simple and they would just bring that case, but I no longer believe that given this, everybody does it, everybody has it. Here, yeah, I like that, but I like, let's talk about obstruction for a minute. It'll give you my view. First of all, I think it's also going to depend on some other developments that are happening here in terms of the pace of other prosecutions. For instance, the weather in the room may change for Jack Smith if Fonney Willis indites Donald Trump for something in the next 60 days.

I'm not saying it takes the pressure off of him, but you know, she's out of the gate first and she prosecutes first. I'm not she's not going to get a conviction first, but she'll prosecute first. That's sort of breaks the glass ceiling. And it's a good thing. It's a good thing that Fawni Willis breaks the glass ceiling and is the first one to do that. That's one. Secondly, you're so right about obstruction, because if you'll remember, if not, I'll remind everybody else that watches the show, that when the press conference to announce the appointment of the special counsel, Jack Smith, who unfortunately was not there at the time because he broke his leg. It was still

mending in the Netherlands. But when Merrick Garland, at Lisa Monaco and the other senior leaders of the Department of Justice took the podium, Merrick Garland, I lost count, but he mentioned obstruction and obstruction of justice at least half a dozen times. I think it actually got up to about 10 or 11 in a 12 or 13 minute press conference. He never said the words, espionage act. He never said all the other ones that we've talked about for the things that Donald Trump said that we think Donald Trump did were laws that he violated. Even though we know from the unsealed parts of the application for the search warrant and

affidavits in support, that there were multiple at least three laws that were alleged to have been violated in front of the magistrate judge, the only thing that Merrick Garland said consistently was obstruction, obstruction obstruction obstruction. Now he could not have known at the time. Well, no, let me, I have to correct myself. We now know from reporting. This is interesting. I want to get your view on this one. We now know from reporting that even though the world did not know about Joe Biden's classified document problem, that just before the press conference to announce Jack Smith, there is one person who didn't know about it, at least as it existed at that time, which was about 10 pages

of documents. And that was Merrick Garland, because we know the timeline now, the Biden folks informed Merrick Garland just before the press conference, or day or two before the press conference, about the existence of the classified documents. So he knew it, taking the podium. He didn't know he was going to appoint his special counsel. He didn't know how big the problem was, but he knew it taking the taking the podium. He didn't know he was going to appoint his special counsel. He didn't know how big the problem was, but he knew it. And maybe one of the reasons he talked about obstruction so much is that if he ever had us had had to stand before a podium again, or in this case, Jack Smith stand before a podium again and

talk about differences in factual differences between one president and another, he had a little bit of a cover. What do you think about that? 100%. I mean, he's a really smart, deliberative person. And his words are carefully chosen. He's not a Lucy Goosey kind of person. And I think you're 100% right. I mean, he used that word obstruction, which is in the title of the statute that he'd be violating. It's 18 United States code, section 1503. It's obstruction of justice. And the definition is an act that corruptly or by threats or force or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs or impede or endeavors to influence obstruct or impede the due administration of justice. And I think that

he that is the charge that the only charge that they can look at at this point legally and politically. That's my opinion. Yeah, I think that now that we put all the pieces of the puzzle together, knowing that there was a Biden problem, at the time he announces Jack Smith, he focuses Merrick Garland solely on obstruction obstruction, because I can envision, I'm sure you can too, in a little bit of astral projection, as to what that press conference will look like if they decide to indict on Mar-a-Lago They spend five minutes saying let's explain why the Biden situation the Pence situation and everybody else is not the same thing and Why we're moving to indict Donald Trump?

Or or you know the grand jury has indicted Donald Trump because there is a sitting grand jury in NDC that's looking at Mar-a-Laga. Why we why we are and why we're unsealing this or why we're inditing. So I think, but I agree with you, the political headwinds here are now strong and against the indictment, but there is a way to thread this needle. And maybe Barrett Garland, who is the master chess player, has figured it out by focusing on obstruction as you did in your analysis. So anything else on that one? Because then I have one last question.

I don't want to get to. So I think that Fanny Willis is going to go first. I think she's going to be the one who died some first. I think Alvin Brad goes second because the statute of limitations is going to run in May on the Stormy Daniels case. And so I think he goes second and I think he'll be emboldened by her going first so that he's not the only one. And then I think fairly quickly after that, Jack Smith comes.

And I think the substruction charge is either done last or it's tacked on to another, you know, even in the same press conference if it's a separate indictment. But I don't think that that's going to happen quickly. I think we're going to see the other charges first, but I do think indictments are coming and I think they're imminent. Okay, the chat is overwhelmingly in favor of me asking you about Alec Baldwin and the decision by the Santa Fe prosecutor to indict Alec Baldwin because he didn't personally checked the firearm, the prop. Having been told it was a cold weapon, it was not live with no live ammo having pulled the trigger as directed by his by his film

director and having inadvertently and accidentally shot and killed the cinematographer and hit the film director as a as a result Santa Fe prosecutor made a decision to prosecute. Should she have what did you say on CNN or what can you tell us now? On front now Karen Agnafilo, a former prosecutor for the Manhattan DA's office. She's now a criminal defense attorney. So, Karen, some people may look at this. We'll say look an actor as handed a gun. You know, this is no one would expect it to be filled, have real bullets in it, right?

That wouldn't be a reasonable thing to think. So they shouldn't be blamed when it turns out that there were real bullets. So was it negligent for Baldwin to assume he was handed an unloaded gun, or does the context of people resigning from the set the day before because of safety concerns way in here? Yeah, I think this is a really tough case for the prosecution. They have several different theories here with respect to Alec Baldwin. There's two different charges of an involuntary manslaughter,

one because he's an actor and he should have checked the gun himself and the other because he's a producer and has some sort of role on the set. I think charging him as an actor because he pulled the trigger, I think, is a much harder charge because, as you said, of course, he's going to rely on people who are handing him the gun, just like he relies on the person operating the crane on set somewhere, or the caterer, or that the food isn't going to be... There is a normal, isn't there, for example. There is a normal, isn't there, for example.

And that's going to go towards his defense, that he did care about safety because he did have an armorer, and that person's sole job is to check the guns, check the bullets, et cetera. So, I think it's going gonna be tough for the prosecutor, but these things are very fact specific. And so the law here requires criminal negligence, which means it's an accident, but it's an accident with more. With more, and in New Mexico,

it's they didn't exercise due caution or circumspection. That's the language. And there's facts that will go into that, like what you just said, that if it turns out that the reporting is accurate, if this happens, it's, they said that almost the entire camera crew resigned due to conditions on the set, including safety reasons.

And there was an email from the head of the camera crew, again, according to the reporting, saying that there was accidental discharge, two accidental discharges on set. I mean, and that they were playing fast and loose with safety, and that's why they were resigning. And they also found, I think, four or five other live bullets on set. I think that there are some facts here that are going to be problematic for him as the producer and as someone who was responsible for conditions on the set.

And the prosecutor said that as a producer, he had a duty. I don't think the, as an actor, you should check a gun, you know, he was more than an actor. He was a producer. Yeah, he was a producer because if, I mean, would he even know what a fake or dummy bullet looks like versus a real bullet? I mean, this, you know, but he didn't, but as you said, there was an armor or not just a props person. So he will say he was trying to do things the right way. And but I think the prosecutor has an uphill, uphill battle here.

All right. Well, Karen, thank you very much. Obviously, a significant development, and it's one we've reported he was, he was was shocked by but this is the charge. So you know I had a lot more to say but it was a very short clip so I think that it's very tough case for the prosecution. I don't think she gets a conviction for here for Alec Baldwin based on the facts that are publicly known. Obviously other facts could come out and we don't think she gets a conviction for here for Alec Baldwin based on the facts that are publicly known. Obviously other facts could come out and we don't have them all. But what she talked about is, first of all, I've never heard of someone saying he's going to be charged. Do you talk about the fact that he has been charged or he is charged?

So it's very strange of her to do that in the first place. And her whole press conference was, nobody's above the law. She clearly was trying to make a statement. And anytime you're trying to make a statement through a prosecution, I worry about that, because you really have to be dispassionate about a case. That being, you know, she keeps saying, people have to know that you can't do this on movie sets, et cetera. And we have to know that you can't do this on movie sets, et cetera.

We have to send a message. And you, prosecution really can't be about sending a message. It's about a person and what did they or did they not do. So I worry about it from that perspective as well. But what I can glean, and I did a little legal research into what the charges could be, but because he's not been charged, and she didn't say what he's been charged with, I don't know exactly what the charges are, but it looks like it's the misdemeanor involuntary manslaughter, which is very different than intentional murder, right? Intentional murder is

requires the strongest men's rea, if you will, or mental state, you know, and the way I sometimes could describe it would be, you know, if you had a gut, like in a gun case, if you took a gun and you deliberately pointed at someone and shot them intentionally, that's murder. Whereas if you pick up, if you step out a gun and didn't even know there was a gun there and it accidentally goes off and you shoot somebody and they die. It's the same gun. It's the same person. But since you didn't even know it was a gun and you didn't know it was there, that's called an accident. So it's about what was going on in your mind. That is

the difference. And then there's the in between, right? Were you reckless? Were you negligent? But were you criminally negligent? So, you know, that's different than ordinary negligence. And it looks like that's going to be the question here. Was he criminally negligent? And they're looking at it from two different legal theories, one that because he's an actor, and he's the one who actually pointed the gun, shot the gun, killed the woman, right?

So if he did it on purpose, he'd be prosecuted for murder. But the question is, as an actor who shot Helena, her last name is escaping me right at this moment, but she was the woman who died. And she was, so they obviously have decided he didn't do it on purpose. And the question was, was he negligent? And what prosecutor says was he should have checked the gun himself. Well, I find that to be the weakest charge because who, the W bullets and the regular bullets, they look very similar. And so I'm not sure as a layperson, he would have any idea if he did check it. I was part of it. I was the pro, I was the pro, the pro, the pro, the pro master and the armor are on the

set, right? Right. Right. So, right. They're ultimately responding. They hand him the gun. They say cold gun. He's supposed to that as a, as, as an actor, look at the ammunition and determine whether that

is right. I mean, I, I mean, if someone, if she running for office is Santa Fe prospecting for office, I mean, why is she bringing this case? So, so, you know, as I, I think he bring up a really good point, is he relied on the person who already has pled guilty, the guy who said cold gun. And he also relied relied on an armorer. He, it would be the same as if someone said,

can you get me a cup of coffee from the coffee cart? And he goes and gets that cup of coffee and hands it to someone who then dies of food poisoning. They say, well, you should have checked it to make sure there wasn't poison. I mean, I think that's kind of a ridiculous argument. But then they get to, there's another theory that they have, which is that he was the producer. And as the producer, he was cutting costs and cutting corners and playing fast and loose with safety. And I'm not sure yet because I haven't seen the evidence. I don't know, but I've read in certain reports, I don't know if this is true,

that there were other accidental discharges on set, at least two, and that the entire camera crew was quitting the day before because they said that, they didn't like the hotel they were staying in, but also be that there was safety issues. And in fact, there's one email from the head camera person allegedly, again, if you believe the reporting, and again, I don't know, but this is what I read that said that he was quitting because of gun safety issues and that there were

these other accidental discharges. So I do think that he has a great argument that I am the producer and guess what? I hired an armorer. I didn't just have a props person. If I only had a props person, maybe you could make that argument, but I also hired an armorer. I didn't just have a props person. If I only had a props person, maybe you could make that argument. But I also hired an armorer whose job it was to make sure that there were dummy bullets, that the guns were using real guns, because they looked a certain way. And that was that person's job to make sure that everything was safe,

everything was well done. And I relied on that person. You know, I didn't have anything to do, you know, that's her fault. Like, I think she has culpability, and I think she's potentially in trouble. But there was also reports that there was five other live rounds that were recovered on set, and nobody knows how any of them got there. And I think the prosecutor,

because the prosecutor can't say how they got there, somebody's negligent. Somebody's probably criminally negligent, somebody's... For bringing the ammunition all to the set. Correct, and not checking, et cetera. Somebody's responsible here, but I think it's a bridge too far to say

that it's Alec Baldwin. I think it's an acquittal. I don't think it's a very, very tough case for the prosecution. And I don't know why she brought the case, why she's talking about the case publicly, before she's even bringing the case. And I think she's, her motive is a little suspicious here. I think she's trying to make a name for herself.

Maybe you're right, maybe she's trying to run for office. Who knows? I don't have any idea. I just think this is a really, really tough case. I don't see any idea. I just think this is a really, really tough case. I don't see it at all. Caron freebidic nifolo. Miss carriage of justice against Alec Baldwin in Santa Fe. I'm glad we added it. It's a mischief look. It's not quite in our lane. I just don't see the case. I mean, you can

care that to the case against Donald Trump. I mean, the case against Donald Trump. I mean, the case against Donald Trump has 100 times more evidence, you know, than this. And I mean, I thought it was fun to add this on as a special Easter egg, not because it's at the intersection of law and politics. Although, you know, let's be frank, Alec Baldwin is a very outspoken, democratic, progressive voice always has been, is that his own podcast? But I think it's important for people to know

that as working lawyers who, yes, our primary focus when we're not doing our day job is legal AF, we do other commentary and other things. I think it's fantastic that Karen's being recognized for that kind of stuff is legal AF. We do other commentary and other things. I think it's fantastic that Karen's being recognized for that kind of stuff. Can I say what I like? Can I say one other thing? Can I tell you fun stuff? So what was really fun was they did my hair and makeup, which, you know, although they make you look a little clownish, but I

thought that was super fun. And I was sitting right across from Anderson Cooper, who was also getting his hair and makeup done. Is this why you were in Cali that day when I said you look at your son in New York? No, this was in New York. That's so crazy. Yeah, this is CNN in New York. No, I was in California on business on a regular case. But anyway, for someone for a regular person like me

who's a lifetime public servant and a volunteer podcaster, I have to say it was kind of a special fun little little thing to get to do. Good. And I'm glad you shared it with me and you shared it with our friends and our followers, our viewers, our listeners. We've reached the end of a midweek edition, a special midweek edition of legal AF with your hosts, Michael Popak and Karen Friedman, Agnifalo, and to end it, shout out to the Midas Mighty and there's ways to support us. People are like, how do we support you guys? Watch, help, listen on all podcast platforms that you pull your podcasts from, which will

be in the morning. Leave comments and reviews. Those really help us to stay on the air. Support our sponsors when we have them. And you go to the Midas Touch merchandise store. There's all sorts of fun things there that are emblazoned with legal AF and legal AF logos and wheels of justice.

And you know, that's the way that you can help us. We love seeing here, we love seeing you in the chat. We'll get up to 10,000 people tonight in a chat or on Facebook as well, but usually Karen and I and Ben are chatting away in the chat room for YouTube. And we'll see you next week, same time. We'll see you on the weekend with the weekend edition of Legal AF with my co-anchor Ben Mysalis.

Last word, Karen Freeman, Agnipolo, superstar, prosecutor, commentator, CNN, what you got? Good to see you, Popo. Always good to see you. And for the record, I love your glasses, so the same. This is another pair. This is the third. Yeah, I have to say, I was gonna ask you that

because I actually like her better. They're all in play. It's not one or the other. No, Popo, I was gonna ask you that because I actually like better. They're all in play. It's not one or the Pop-op you like these better. I do like these better than the other ones the other ones I like this better for you. I'm just telling being Appreciate all of you say Right tonight. I'm sure I will get an opinion in the consensus Michael Popeye Karen Frieddeck Nifalo sign an awful legal Michael Pope, our character, Frick Bidak, Diffalo, sign it off a legal A.