Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Jack Smith calls out Trump’s CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR as Top Trump Attorneys PUT ON NOTICE

Episode Date: February 16, 2023

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this special LIVE  midweek edition, they discuss: Pence resisting Special Prosecutor Jack Smith’s grand jury subpoena; three more Trump lawyers getting dragged to testify before the Mar a Lago criminal grand jury; the imminent public release of major portions of the Fulton County, Georgia special purpose grand jury report against trump, Giuliani  and others; a New York appeal’s court upholding new sanctions against Trump in the NY attorney general’s civil fraud case; and the fight over Trump’s DNA in E Jean Carroll’s civil rape case going to trial in April, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: Highland Titles: You can use the discount code "LEGALAF" to get 20% off at HighlandTitles.com SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch 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 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jack Smith is breathing down Donald Trump's traitorous back seeking to compel further grand jury testimony from Trump's current lawyers who tried to object to certain questions. You see Jack Smith is seeking to defeat these claims of attorney client privilege by using the crime fraud exception, we will break it down. And Jack Smith is not afraid to take on former vice president, Mike Pence, who's trying to block the subpoena he was served with under the speech and debate clause of the United States Constitution.

What a coward, Mike Pence is. And these are not minor skirmishes, folks, in legal terms. This is like the Super Bowl and World Series combined of legal cases. Popeyes and I will break it down. On Thursday, Georgia Superior Court Judge Robert McBernie, yep, you know him as weekend at McBernie's, is set to release three portions of the special grand jury report regarding 2020 election interference. So the release of that is imminent. What will it tell us? What won't

it tell us? And what won't it tell us? May tell us more than what it will. Tell us. We'll explain what I'm even talking about there. In a unanimous decision, the New York Appellate the Pellet Division, first department, upheld trial judge Arthur and Gaurons, contempt order and $110,000 in sanctions against Donald Trump for discovery abuses in connection with New York Attorney General Letitia James' special proceeding against Trump. Remember that special proceeding led to the filing in September of the civil fraud lawsuit against Trump, which is set to be heard on October 3rd of 2023. And that case seeks at least $250 million in damages against Donald Trump, his adult children, the Trump organization, and also it would basically lead to is adult children, the Trump organization,

and also it would basically lead to the shutting down of the Trump organization from doing business in New York. I know everybody loves when I refer to them as the Trump adult children. Also, the trial that is scheduled to take place before the New York Attorney General's fraud case is the E. Jean Carroll. Federal lawsuit against Trump for defamation and civil sexual assault.

That trial is set for April and earlier in the day the federal judge in that matter, Judge Lewis Kaplan rejected as essentially outlandish. Donald Trump's attempt at the eleventh hour to propose a deal. I've got a deal I want to make, just the judges like get out of here. You're trying to delay the case. Can you stop it?

This is not a reality show, but this is you facing reality and things are going to start getting very, very real Donald Trump. This and more on today's Midweek, legal AF, I'm Ben Myselis, filling in for Karen Friedman Agnippolo. We're practicing trial lawyers. She's out there trying cases and being a real lawyer and joined by your favorite Michael

Popok, Lee Popokian. Ben, civil, criminal, state, federal appeals, grand jury reports being disclosed to the public of ice president being subpoenaed, Trump getting this, this section's upheld. All that spells justice. I got chills. They're, and I'm losing control. I'm glad I'm here with you today. You know, I do this impression of former vice president Pence because he's such a coward. He's like, he's like a robot.

He's like, oh, weirdo. Like, I don't understand people like this because in the past, you know, he was asked these questions. So you're going to support Donald Trump. Like, he tried to kill you. Like, you're going to support him so you're going to support Donald Trump. He tried to kill you. You're going to support him or you're going to support all these other people who literally put a hit on you. In pencil, it respond.

He goes, well, first and foremost, I'm a Christian. And second, I'm a conservative. And third, I'm a Republican. So you see, I'm going to support anybody who calls themselves a Republican. You could do whatever you want to me. You could try to kill me. If you say you are a Republican, Mike Pence will support you.

I got your back. I mean, if you think I'm joking about that one, just play this clip. He did this town hall on CNN a few months back when he was selling his book. And one of the reasons I want to show this video is one, show you what a coward he is and how weird he is. But two, he's out there selling books. But then when he's called for one of the most important things to protect and defend our constitution to talk to special counsel Jack Smith about Donald Trump. He backs out of that.

So first play this town hall where he's basically pitching his book, play this clip. I'm about the 2022 election. And I think that your analysis is one that is is generally accurate, that the candidates who were hung up on the election lies of 2020 did not fair as well in 2022 as the ones who stepped forward and talked about the future. I was, and I know you know better than anyone in a bad way what those election lies can mean in terms of crowds being incited. I was surprised to see you campaigning for Don Baldick in New Hampshire and Blake Masters in Arizona who were two people who lied about the election, who defeated one could say, one could argue,

better candidates in the Republican primaries, who were future leaning candidates. Why did you endorse them? Why did you support them? Why did you campaign for them? Well, you know, I'm often said. I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican in that order. But I'm a Republican. And once Republican primary voters had chosen their nominees, I went out and traveled to 35 states over the last year and a half to see if we could elect a Republican majority in the House and Senate, elect Republican governors all across the country.

It didn't mean, as it hasn't meant in the past that I agree with every statement or every position candidates that I'm supporting in the Republican Party have taken. But I was pleased to do it. They tried to kill you. What do you mean you are pleased to do it? They tried to kill you, and I know Popat, you're ready. Let me make an observation on this one. I have not seen Mike Pence since Jan 6th really. I mean, I didn't follow all these town halls. He has aged.

They say that when the, you know, the president ages, like five years for every year in office, Mike Pence looks like Mike Pence's father. He sounds old. This is what happens when, you know, your party tries to hang you on Jan 6th. It takes a lot out of a man. He's half the man he used to be, which is probably explains why he's fighting, kicking and screaming not to testify about what happened to him to the grand jury that Jack Smith

is leading. Well here's what Penn said earlier in the day today, specifically about that he's been subpoenaed by Jack Smith to testify before the grand jury. He's going to be invoking. He's what he's announcing, these speech or debate clause, essentially what he is, Poss, I have dual constitutional roles when I was the vice president. Obviously, I'm in the executive branch as the vice president, but I want to be treated the same as if I was a senator or a congress member. Treat me like that so I could get protections of the speech and debate clause. Because I'm basically the senator because I'm the president of the speech and debate clause. Because it's a set, I'm basically the senator

because I'm the president of the Senate and therefore the speech or debate clause says the senators and House of Representatives members don't have to testify anywhere else. So what's really important here, what's really is the separation of powers. I mean, these people are so pathetic. So let's play this video of pens

then I want your reaction, Pope Ack, then I want you to break down the law. Play the clip. To be clear, I'm going to fight the Biden DOJ's subpoena to appear before the grand jury, because I think it's unprecedented and it's unconstitutional. The fact that no vice president has ever been subject to a subpoena to testify about the president within the serve makes it unprecedented. But that goes to the issue of executive privilege. My understanding is that President Trump will assert that that's not my fight. My fight is on the separation of powers.

My fight against the DOJ subpoena very simply is on the separation of powers. My fight against the DOJ's subpoena very simply is on defending the prerogatives that I had as president of the Senate to preside over the joint session of Congress on January 6th. Now let me be clear about this though. I'm proud of what we did on January 6th, as difficult as it was. Thanks to the courage of law enforcement, the riot was quelled. We reconvene in the very same day, and we completed our duty under the Constitution of the United States. In the last two years, I have spoken and written extensively about what happened. I have nothing to hide. I'm proud of what we accomplished. But for me, this is a moment where you have to decide

where you stand. And I stand on the Constitution of the United States. And in a very real sense, I look, back on January 6th, President Trump was wrong. As I've said before, his words were reckless, and they endangered my family and everyone at the capital. I had no right to overturn the election. But I would say in this very moment, it's also wrong to establish a precedent where a legislative

official could be called into a court by an executive branch. That runs against literally hundreds of years of not only American law, but common law. We've got to stand for that principle because it's the separation of powers. And that's why we're prepared to take this fight into the court. And if needs be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. And to Popeye and lose. And let's start with this. The thing that he just said at that microphone, which is the only truth thing he said at the microphone, which was Donald Trump was reckless.

Donald Trump was wrong. He endangered my family in the country and the rest. He needs to say that under oath to a grand jury, along with everything else in the way in the ways that he was pressured by John Eastman, by other people around him, by Navarro, by Donald Trump himself in order to overturn the will of the people. This whole analysis, he thinks he doesn't understand the constitution and separation of powers much. The separation of powers doesn't apply that analysis when you're talking about a criminal

prosecution in this case of a president. Yes, the DOJ is part of the executive branch, but it doesn't implicate separation of powers the way Trump is using that to try to defeat the subpoena. He will lose this fight, I believe. But first, let's talk about separation of powers and what he's even trying to argue. Yes, one of the roles that he has is a ceremonial role as president of the Senate,

presiding over the joint house Congress and Senate at that time. But under the statue, under the Electoral College Act, or the Electoral Count Act, which is three USC, section 15, he is the president of the Senate. But all he does is preside over the opening of envelopes. He's not a legislator. He's not making law. The reason the speech and debate clause is there and is sort of robust to protect legislator's is because they make law. It's because they work on gathering facts and information and doing reports and

and the founding fathers wanted to cloak them with some protection. So things that they did and they said that was related to their legislative, that is making law or investigations or oversight in committees. All of that is protected from some sort of lawsuit or from prying eyes. He is not a legislator when he's sitting there in a ceremonial role as the president, opening envelopes and having the count reported to him. So the whole speech and debate thing is a big ruse.

And even if it were true, we already went through this exercise with Lindsey Graham. We have a precedent on the books that the, I'm sure the DC courts will apply, which is from the Northern District of Georgia in Fulton County, in which Graham made the very same argument. When I made the phone call to interfere with the Georgia election and asked if they could throw out mail-in ballots, I was being a legislator. See, that's my impression, Ben. I was just being a legislator.

And the judge said, now, you know what, there's lots of things that you did. Some of which was legislative in nature, most of which was not like making phone calls, calling up, interfering with the election process, the conspiracy that's been alleged against you. And you're not gonna be able to assert the privilege then, go in, testify which he did in front of the Fulton County Grand jury.

Same thing here with Pence. How does legislative privilege cover him for all of the conversations he would have had with Donald Trump with his general counsel, with outside counsel, with everybody else advising him to yes overthrow the government? No, don't overthrow the government. And all of the things related to Secret Service telling him to get in the car and whisk him away from his his his constitutional duty to get in the car and whisk him away from his constitutional duty to certify the election and him refusing to do that.

How is that covered by, how is that legislative in nature to be covered by speech and debate? So if that's what he's hanging his hat on, it's going to be, he's going to be in for a rude awakening, both at the DC Circuit Court, the DC Court of Appeals. And ultimately, I even believe at the, at the US Supreme Court, I DC Court of Appeals, and ultimately I even believe at the US Supreme Court. I mean, look, all of this stuff that he's talking about, none of it is a separation of powers issue. None of it is a legislative speech and debate function. And as you've started the whole segment with,

he has been very public, except where he has to put his hand on a Bible, Mr. Christian politician on the Christian first, except when he has to put his hand on a Bible and swear in a court of law to a grand jury about what happened. It's not good enough to write a memoir. It's not good enough to stand at a podium and act and blow V8 about how, you know, everything, I'm well known, I'm on the record for having been, I'm mixing up my known. I'm on the record for having been I'm mixing up my accents I'm on the I'm on the record for

How I feel about Donald Trump and everybody knows that that's not good enough We're talking about the prosecution of a president and when he says it's unprecedented for a vice president to be asked to Testify against the president. It's unprecedented for a president to have to cling to power, to orchestrate a coup, and to try to have his vice president hanged. That's all unprecedented. Everybody likes to blame the process. Why are they going after me? Why are they dragging me and I'm the vice president? Because your critical witness to the whole scheme that was laid out by the Jan 6th Committee and the Department of Justice

to overthrow the will of the people and to orchestrate a coup. I'm sorry we have to talk about it, Mike, and I'm sorry you got to do it under oath and I'm sorry your president led you to this, but that's all unprecedented. So this whole clutching of the pearls, I can't believe vice president,

I'm sorry that your president tried to orchestrate a coup and burn down the Capitol. Now you're going to have to stand in a or sit in a chair in the grand jury with Jack Smith's people and testify about it. Such a good point. Like do not gaslight me that January 6th was just a day, right? Don't act well, it's so unprecedented. Lot, the separation of powers would be invoked here and I need to stand up for the separation of powers. Dude, shut the F up, okay? There was a coup against our democracy. You were one of the targets to be killed

We had someone who wanted to destroy our Constitution and cut the bullshit about I'm a Christian and I'm a Republican And then I'm a constant. I just you know, he didn't say I'm an American. You know, he didn't say I'm an American It's Jackson it's fault. It's Jackson, it's fault. It's Jackson, it's fault. If he wasn't prosecuting this case, I wouldn't have to testify. No shit. If the president, if your president didn't try to have you hanged

and didn't call you a P word and didn't say you didn't have the balls to do the right thing and not certify the election, we wouldn't be here. That's all true. And if my grandmother had you know what, she'd be my grandfather. I don't understand this reasoning. I do understand it. It's delayed, delayed, delayed to give them something to talk about an apodium that makes absolutely no sense to

people like you and me and our audience because they understand it. We've given them the Dakota ring to understand all this. But to the red meat of his party, he's like, blood mix a lot of sense, separation of power, speech and debate, right? He was in the Senate that day. I remember. So bullshit. What do we really need to preserve here? As we think through January 6th, the most important of all provisions, the speech and debate clause. Like, what are you talking about? You moron? You know, but that's why large media networks are just big freaking fails because just call these clowns out the way we're

calling them out now. And just like, what the hell are you talking about? You saw somebody asked him the question and, you know, it was a reporter and she was like, so do not think that January 6 was a big day. But like, just someone just slam him there and just was like, so do not think that January 6th was a big day. But like just someone just slam him there and just be like, are you out of your freaking mind? Or let's, let's, let's move on for a second. Relatedly, we talked about on the weekend edition that Jack Smith had subpoenaed at Donald Trump's lawyers who spoke before the grand jury.

We now know Evan Corcoran, Christina Bob and Alina Abba all spoke before the criminal grand jury, at least the criminal grand jury that is investigating Donald Trump's theft of thousands of government records. That case they appeared before the grand jury. But we also have now learned in their testimony, at least as it relates to Evan Corcoran, that he asserted the attorney client privilege saying, look, I can't testify about confidential communications that I had directly with Donald Trump. Now, generally, the attorney client privilege protects confidential communications. Now, generally, the attorney client privilege protects confidential communications. Now, there are exceptions to the attorney client privilege. You know,

one thing that we need to know is that the holder of the attorney client privilege is the client, not the lawyer. So the lawyer can't just go around and wave it unless they want to lose their legal license But if the holder of the privilege starts talking about the confidential communications publicly That's one way to wave it in terms of the communications that Trump's lawyers had with the FBI and DOJ Where for over 18 months they lied to the DOJ and FBI that all of the documents were returned and even were signing declarations and attestations recently as June of 2022, stating that after a

diligent search, Bob signed this, but Corcoran had Bob signed this after a diligent search, based on the information told to me, all of the records have now been turned over to the Department of Justice, which is a complete lie. So those communications with the DOJ and FBI are not subject to attorney client privilege because that's not the client, you know, in the room. But then there are exceptions to the attorney client privilege also. And one of them is the crime fraud exception. If the lawyer's services are being used to commit a crime, even if the crime is not actually committed, if there's a conspiracy, even if the lawyer's not in on it, but the lawyer's being used to shield ongoing criminal conduct, what the law generally says is, we're not

going to protect those communications as confidential. And so for example, you may remember we talked about this on legal AF with John Eastman, Trump's lawyer, when he was subpoenaed by the January 6th committee, John Eastman, who was a law professor at Chapman University filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District of California before Judge David Carter saying judge attorney client privilege. I represent Donald Trump. These emails, these text messages, the January 6th committee wants. I'm not turning them over. Attorney client privilege judge, issue an injunction stopping the January 6th committee from getting these records.

And Judge David Carter said, you know what, Johnny Smith? There was an attorney-client relationship, but you both engaged in criminal conduct, conspiracy and obstruction to overthrow our democracy. Step one of the crime fraud exception. Check. Now, let me look at these documents. Let me look at these communications where these communications text message emails in furtherance of the crime that you both committed. The coup in search of illegal theories, what

federal judge David Carter called it and Judge David Carter said, check, yes, they were, some of the documents, I'm making these documents public, there is no attorney client privilege. Oh, that, Jack Smith is having. Popok, talk about it in the context of this situation with these lawyers. All right, here we go. We got another round of lawyers

that are being dragged kicking and screaming into the grand jury, some of which who have already spoken to the to the department of justice at length. Let's start with Evan Corcoran. We're all wondering where Evan Corcoran went. Evan Corcoran's been a lead criminal defense lawyer for Donald Trump for a long, long time, so long that he has his hands and fingerprints on almost every aspect of the moral logo scandal, starting with the negotiations with the National Archive, the lies that were told to the Department of Justice through him and Christina Bob, him throwing Christina Bob to the wolves and writing a statement that she signed in June before the execution

of the search warrant and where she said, Hey, this pack of 30 pages of documents after my due diligence or what I'm being told to say, this is all the documents that exist that are still at Mar-a-Lago, a lie, a big fat lie. One, the Department of Justice, that was the trap that was set for them, for Corcoran and for Bob, and they stepped right into it because the Department of Justice already had video evidence from the outside of the rooms at Mar-a-Lago that documents were moving back and forth,

and they had witness testimony. They had cooperating witnesses telling them that that was a lie, and so that was the trap that was laid. Corcoran not only involved with trying to negotiate, if you will, with the Department of Justice, it rose to the level as far as the Department of Justice is concerned, of obstructing, obstructing the actual production of documents, return of top secret documents, even to the point where people forget this, Evan Corcoran and Bob or whoever were apparently watching the execution of the search warrant on video.

And at one point, even earlier than that, the Department of Justice didn't believe Christina Bob's attestation, her sworn testimony, that this was all of the documents. And they said, hmm, we'd like to look around the room that you say you looked at to see if there are any more. And Quarkman said, no, absolutely not. That's a badge of obstruction. When you're not, you're actually have now jump the rails and you're not just providing advice to your lawyer,

to your client, you're actively participating, in this case, in a crime or fraud, you don't get to assert the attorney client privilege or the client does it and not and put up a stone wall and not say what those conversations with the client were about. Now, you don't, as you said, Ben, it's not often that the lawyer actually jumps the rails and becomes the criminal target or fraud. He doesn't have to participate or she doesn't have to participate in the fraud or crime. But in some cases, they did.

Eastman did as you outlined. Corcoran looks like he did, even though that's not a technical element to apply the crime fraud exception to rip down the attorney client privilege. So Corcoran went in, we reported on it the last time in legal AF, but he put up the attorney client privilege. So, Corkerin went in, we reported on it the last time in legal AF, but he put up the attorney client privilege and you and I said, I wonder what happened in there because we haven't heard about a motion being filed with the chief judge at the DC Circuit

about the issue of whether he has served at privilege and low emboldened a couple of days later the Department of Justice under seal filed with the presiding judge in the chief judge, Barrel Howell, the current chief judge, and we'll talk about that in a minute. And they are arguing in a court of law that he doesn't get to assert the privilege.

And Barrel Howell is gonna make this decision. Now, she has ruled consistently for the Department of Justice in all ways, in all ways. And they love her because they're getting every attorney client privilege yanked away. They're getting every executive privilege yanked away. They're getting every assertion of any privilege yanked away in all these lawyers. And now it's not just Corcoran. Christina Bob has had it has to go in and testify about why did she sign an affidavit that basically said

that she swears under oath that this was all of the documents that existed when she knew or should have known there was another 150 documents sitting in boxes that she didn't turn over. How did that happen? And how did you get to that point? What did Corcoran tell you? And what did Trump tell you?

And why? And of course, our favorite lawyer to talk about is Alina Habba, although she has receded into the wallpaper and we'll probably never see her again in a court of law because she's just violated Cardinal Rule number one of being a lawyer. Never, never become the criminal client in representing your own criminal client.

And she's done that. She's jumped the rail. We're gonna talk about it when we get to the fine issue, the sanctions issue, in the other case that she was the lead lawyer for, the New York Civil Fraud Case by the Attorney General. Let's just say she's got a lot of explaining to do how before the execution of the search warrant,

she was rummaging around the desk drawers of Donald Trump because she had a file in affidavit with the judge in New York. And she said, Judge, I looked at every drawer, I looked at every cabinet, I looked at every desk, I looked at every, everything. And she put it even, et cetera, which, you know, no careful or whatever, right? ETC, everything judge, and I can't find any documents responsive in the case in New York that belonged to Donald Trump.

But did you see the top secret folders crammed into the desk drawers that the FBI found? What about those? You don't have a classified rating to be able to review those things. So Alina Habba, come on down. Why don't you testify before the grand jury. And if she tries to put up attorney client privilege

because, you know, any she will, you're going to barrel howl. Go see the principal because you're going to have to get your attorney client privilege ripped away from you. And Donald Trump enters these hearings by way of his lawyers to argue for the assertion of the privilege because as you said, Ben, the privilege is held by the client.

So the client asserts it, Judge, you can't do this. Absolutely not. Judge sits there, you know, very salamonically, very judiciously. Okay, great. Crime fraud exception applies. You're testifying, get back into that chair tomorrow

with the grand jury. And that's what's gonna happen here. And the only other thing besides corcoran, which is tremendous, it took him completely out of the running of continuing to represent Donald Trump at this rate. He looks like he could be the target, end up being the target of a criminal investigation as well. Finally, the last thing I want to leave you with then is that there is going to be a changing of the guard at the chief judge spot. The chief judge spot isn't for life. It rotates

and it goes to the most senior, the next most senior member of the DC circuit court. And so barrel house coming off. I don't think she's coming off the bench. She's coming off the chief judge. And so Jack Smith, who knows, oh crap, we're like 40 and oh in front of her. Now, the new judge coming in is an Obama appointee. He was an in assistant US attorney in DC. He's got kind of a liberal background from California, your home state. He practiced in California.

He was a clerk in California. So I don't from his rulings, which is hard to get a handle on it. I don't think he's got a buck, the precedent, the long line of precedent, the barrel howl was already set about how to handle these cases, but this could be one of the reasons

we're seeing so much pedal to the metal, so much accelerant being placed in these last couple of weeks with Jack Smith, the grand jury, and barrel howl. It might be because Jack Smith's like, we got Home Court advantage right now. We don't know about the next referee. Let's get in there.

What do you think, Ben? So I always said, I agree with that number one. So I agree with you. Number two, I've always said Alina Habba is the worst lawyer in the United States of America. And she's by far the worst of the worst of Donald Trump's lawyers. Because in many respects, she's the most dangerous, right? I mean, you have some clownish figures who are

somehow got law degrees in Trump's world, right? Like, take Jen Ellis, a horrible lawyer, right? She got farted on by Rudy Giuliani in a fake hearing that was held like in the lobby of a Marriott, right? Pretty, pretty bad. But you ultimately look at Gen Allis and you're almost like, she got farted on, like, come on. Now, Alina Habas dangerous because she would go right into the courts. And this is kind of good for justice, but she would walk Donald Trump into his worst vices, which are already the worst vices

and instincts. And she would take it and just even like add jet turbo fuel to it even more. So that's why she was the subject of the million dollar sanctions in the Southern District of Florida. That's why she's being subpoenaed before the grand jury. That's why she's the lawyer when we talk about the contempt sanctions against Donald Trump that she's the lawyer and commonality there.

She's representing or was representing Trump before she was sidelined on the E. Jean Carol case. So just put this little asterisk right here as we talk about the E. Jean Carol case a little later. One of the things that Trump's new lawyer, Joe Tacapea, is like, look, we need to reopen discovery because, oh crap, we're like missing some major stuff here. Like the appendix and all of the findings like from these reports that were given three years ago. And so that's why when we talk about it later, Trump's

new lawyer through Trump like proposed the deal like, okay, we'll give you the DNA, but we need these documents, the appendix that we never got before. And the federal judge, if you're not really in the weeds like we are at legal AF, you wouldn't know the judge is taking a jab here at Alina Haba, but the judge goes another possible explanation for this, is a negligent failure to actually read the report with any care over the entire three year period. And that's the failure to notice the lack of independence.

But whatever the explanation, the effort comes too late. That's telling Donald Trump and Alina Haba that you were both idiot. So Alina Habba's one of the commonalities here. So I wanted to make that point as well and we will see her name appear throughout the trip. Before you move on, go ahead. You make your point. I want to mention one thing about this whole stuff. Go for it. All right. Two things. I want to ask you a question that I got a point. Did you see that one of the defenses that Chris, I think you might have actually mentioned this

in one of your own hot takes? Did you see the thing where Christina Bob said, I was not acting as an attorney when I signed the affidavit that said everything in this one little envelope represents the total universe of top secret documents. Then, air go, if you weren't the attorney, how do you possibly have attorney client privilege? Did you mention that one of your hot tics?

I did mention that that's good. I actually did it. How she's gonna wave attorney client privilege by new head. She never had. Right, but here's the other point. And I wanna bring a point on. Maybe that would take by the way, five months ago,

just for the record. I watch your hot tics. I don't know if you months ago, just for the record. I watch your hot tanks. I don't know if you watch mine, but I watch yours. I don't know. So, let me just put a new character, right? This is like, you know, Star Wars or, you know, the Mandalorian. We're introducing a new character, but we're going to be talking a lot about him because the Department of Justice is supremely interested in what has effectively been called the replacement

from Michael Cohen as the Consul Yeri for Donald Trump. And that is Boris Epstein, write that name down at home. Boris Epstein, because that is what the Department of Justice is focused on, because he sits at the intersection of two scandals. He sits at the, he's the guy that, that Department of Justice believes directed Evan Corcoran and Bob to obstruct justice related to Mar-a-Lago. And he's the idiot lawyer that guided Trump into the Jan 6th pressuring pens in insurrection issues.

So this guy, or as one of our media outlets reported, I had to read it twice and laugh. They called him the fifth season Michael Cohen. He's like in the fifth season of a show. He was replaced and they brought out a new guy, Boris Epstein. Boris Epstein is the puppet master according, according to what I can see from the Department of Justice. And all these questions that are being asked of Bob, I can see from the Department of Justice. And all these questions that are being asked of Bob Haba, Corcoran in the grand jury. One aspect is, tell us about Oris Epstein. Tell us about what he told you.

Tell us about his role in your decision, Mickey, once the attorney client privilege is ripped away. They also are not happy. And they think it's tampering and or obstruction that Boris Epstein apparently tried to get all of these lawyers and all of these defendants into what's called a joint defense agreement where they would try to cover by privilege all of their discussions. They saw that. They see that as complete obstruction.

Boris Epstein, who I mentioned and you mentioned months ago as being, you know, a character we need to keep an eye on, he's now front and center with this new grand jury and all these lawyers haven't a testify. Boris went to Georgetown law and my law school that makes me upset. Do not do not do not mix and went to mine. Do not like that one bit and I want everybody after we're done with we still got a lot more show. But after we we finished, we're actually going to go right into our new show that is on the Midas Touch Network. Majority 54 with Jason, Candor, and Ravi Gupta. It's a great show. You will automatically be directed there after Legal AF. It's one of the new shows on the Midas Touch Network. And by the way, make sure you subscribe to Legal F on audio as well wherever you get your audio

Subscribe to legal a F and make sure you are type to the YouTube channel right now But subscribe to legal a F on audio as well So we're less than 24 hours as of the time of this live recording of the Georgia Superior Court judge Robert McBurney Has ordered the release of some portions of the Special Grand jury report regarding 2020 election interference. The Fulton County District Attorney Fawni Willis has presented a lot of evidence to the Special Grand jury. They prepared a report.

They want their report released and the statute in Georgia says shall Shall release the report, but there are some counterbalancing factors like the due process rights of Individuals who the special grand jury recommends be Indicted and specifically what's mentioned in Judge Bik Bernie's report are people who didn't appear necessarily before the special grand jury. So look at this section.

It's buried in Judge Bik Bernie's order. But this is why you come to legal AF. I've seen our analysis talked about elsewhere, but if you look at this section of what McBernie's saying, why only three portions are going to be released. The intro, the conclusion, and then section eight, which just deals with perjuris potential testimony of witnesses, but doesn't mention the actual witnesses by name. So those do process considerations aren't there. But this is what it says. We can't release the full report yet because the special grand jury recommends certain people be indicted. And we have to make

sure to protect their due process rights. Don't worry folks, those names are going to come out at a later time just after the indictment after criminal discovery. So put this up one more time. This is particularly true if the grand jury's final report includes recommendations involving individuals who never appeared before the grand jury. And so had no opportunity limited or not to be heard. So who could that possibly be who didn't go before the special grand jury? Who there may be a recommendation to be indicted? Well, it's a very short list folks. A very short list folks. I think that's referring to Donald Trump. What do you make of this pop-ok, the release of this special grant, the portions of this special, the portions of the special manager. Here's what I took from it. I liked, I geeked out on another portion of his order. He talked about what he's going to, the three sections he's going to produce,

or have produced the public tomorrow, which by the way, for people that are worried, Fannie Willis is fine with the court's ruling. She had a one line, I love her, she's so judicious and everything she does. She had a one line press release that said, we thank Judge McBerney, it's consistent with our position, we will not be appealing, done. Whether the media companies appeal, I don't know, although I think they have a losing argument there.

But what I liked about his order is he said that one of the sections he's releasing is a roster of who should or shouldn't be indicted. I want to see a roster of who should or shouldn't be indicted. So we get to see that. And what crimes they should be, they should be charged with. And she's fine with that being released and revealed. So he went through a whole analysis. I'm not going to bore everybody with because it was a little bit boring about why this isn't a public record and why he's got to worry about the due process rights of people that are not before him because it was a grand jury scenario where there wasn't an adversarial process with lawyers on both sides asking questions. It's really one side it. Yeah, it's the prosecutor getting an indictment but but everything else he stripped away. He gave the media a little bit of a bone, gave him a little bit of a public disclosure.

You and I are going to see it tomorrow. We're going to open it quickly and we're going to talk about it in some version of legal aether optics. But you know, again, a very judicious sober analysis by Mick Bernie. He's been great overseeing this. And now the question is, the last question for you, Ben, is when does the timer go off on Fawty Willis' alarm clock, she said three weeks ago that indictments were imminent of multiple defendants.

She knows the roster is coming out and she's fine with the order. When are the indictments coming? When is she going to the grand jury, the regular grand jury with this report to get her indictments? I have to believe even though it hasn't been reported that that's going on now, right? They could use hearsay. I'd be surprised if she hasn't taken this report and is going in front of the grand jury that actually does the indictment. Remember, you think it's now you think you you don't like the Atlanta, the Atlanta press is sitting on her and would know if that's happening. And she's actually been, when she wants things in public, she's put it in public.

When she's one things private, she's kept things private. She did use the term imminent, imminent means imminent. And she's been fairly, you know, a fairly honest broker to that extent. But Judge McBernie clearly wants to know because he's saying in that final, and she's been fairly, you know, a fairly honest broker to that extent. But Judge McBernie clearly wants to know because he's saying in that final concluding paragraph that you read, please report back to me frequently about the updates because basically, I did you a solid here. I wanted to release the full thing, but I'm going on what you're telling me.

So he's going to release more as she reports. More is going into the public as she tells him what's happening with the indictment process, right? And the final thing I want to say for people who are like, I want to see it public. I want to see it, everything public too. But what you don't want is someone like a Trump or someone in his inner circle saying,

oh, my due process rights were violated. I didn't get a fair trial and then reversing a conviction. So you really want to do this by the book, dot your eyes, cross your teeth. It will all be made public soon enough. I know that's not soon enough for a lot of you. But let's go through that process. And I look forward to reporting some more breaking news on that. As soon as Pope, and I hear we still got a lot to discuss on legal a F. We got to talk about the New York Appellate Division,

which affirmed justice, Arthur and Gorons contempt order against Donald Trump. Let's talk about the trial, the E. Jean Carroll trial that's set for April and Donald Trump trying to like make a deal and the federal judge being like, what are you doing? But first, let's hear this message from our sponsor. Our next sponsor this week is Highland Titles.

At HighlandTitles.com, you can become a Lord or Lady of Glenko for less than $50. Now thanks to a quark in Scottish law, you can buy one square foot of land in Scotland as a gift. Highland Titles has been selling these plots of land for 16 years and have more than over 300,000 happy customers. They use their profits to manage the land as a nature reserve, and the Highland titles

Nature Reserve near Glenco is one of the most popular nature reserves in Scotland. People travel from all over the world to find their very own plot of land. You get a personalized luxury gift pack and help conserve the beautiful Scottish Highlands at the same time. Now Highland titles literally spread ownership of the land amongst thousands of people. It makes it impossible for developers like Donald Trump to turn the landscape into a golf course. It's a really cool gift that makes land ownership a possibility for everyone.

You can use the discount code legalaf to get 20% off at HighlandTitles.com. With your purchase, you get a fully personalized, instantly available digital download with access to a dashboard where you can check out the webcams and the exact distance you are from your plot at any time. Just head to HighlandTitles.com and use code legal AF to get 20% off at checkout. And now back to the video. Welcome back to Legal AF and of course remember that after we finish up our new show majority 54 with Jason Kander former presidential nominee

former secretary of state of Missouri. I mean, you know, some real people got Ravi Gupta as the co-host as well former Obama administration Ravi Gupta, their show is crushing it. So as soon as we're done here, you will be redirected to majority 54, give it a try folks. I know you will love it. I'm proud to bring that show here to the Midas Nudge Midas Touch Network. And I think one of the things that you'll start seeing with the Midas Touch Network as we start bringing on more and more shows is you'll start seeing it resembling more and more like a network, but we're building it brick by brick.

I think the right way we're bringing on some incredible people who can analyze things from different perspectives, but right now I'm proud to share this moment with you and my co-host Michael Popak. So Popak, let's get into the next story, which is the unanimous decision from the New York appellate division first department. You love that department. That's right. Remember, that's how I got admitted to New York bar,

first department. And they upheld, they affirmed, in other words, judge Arthur and Goran's contempt order that was issued back over the summer $110,000 in sanctions in addition to the contempt order. Alina Haba was representing Donald Trump. This was in the special proceeding. The special proceedings like the investigation, it's under a special attorney general statute

in New York, that led to the filing of the civil lawsuit that the New York Attorney General's office eventually filed in September seeking at least $250 million in damages against Donald Trump, his adult children, the Trump Organization for their phony and fraudulent valuations. Judge Arthur and Gauron has also already ordered a preliminary in junction there appointing a financial monitor who's overseeing the Trump organization as we speak and judge and go on in that preliminary injunction order. Not only did Donald Trump plead the Fifth Amendment like 400 times in the special proceeding but has not presented a centilla of evidence here.

But let's go back though and talk about what this contempt order was and why today's unanimous decision by the Appellate Division was important. Michael Popak. Popak, your microphone, Popak. Sorry, people, sorry, this is the network. I got network issues.

You got excited about that. I got excited. I do a whole show sometimes, just muted. Highest rate of show ever. So people forget a year ago, it's been so long, Donald Trump dragged his feet in producing documents that were subpoenaed different entities of the Trump world, that were subpoenaed

by the New York Attorney General as part of her civil fraud case, which is now going to trial very, very soon. October 2nd, Heller Highwater, Judge Engoron says. And the New York Attorney General didn't like the foot dragging, didn't like not getting documents, didn't like Alina Habba. Here we go. Alina Habba, you know, Thumbnair knows subpoenas and saying, uh, there's no documents. The Trump organization, which just recently she said didn't exist.

It wasn't an entity, but back then a year ago, she said, Trump organization doesn't have these documents. I'll go look for them myself at Mar-a-Lago. And the judge said, well, I'm going to find you in contempt. You got a job to do. I got a job to do too. And one of the things I got to do, I'm paraphrasing, is I got a sanctioned you, I got a sanctioned your client $10,000 a day until you get those documents delivered and you're in contempt. Now you want to get out of contempt because the find eventually

built to $110,000. You can do the math for all the days that he delayed. And it wasn't just pay the $110,000 to get out of the contempt which Trump paid. It was, and I want an affidavit. Here we go from the lawyers attesting to a search was done, how it was done, where it was done, and you now have to put that into the record. So cut to Alina Habba flying down, this is me having her fly down in a car to Miami, to actually to Palm Beach where Mar-a-Lago is. And she, rather than hire somebody like any normal lawyer, hire a consultant, a vendor to go searching through and issue a report, she goes and does

it herself. Everything's on the cheap. I'll do it. Okay, great. You go do it. And she submits to in that case, an affidavit that says, just got back from our logo, your honor. Went through it. I'm not making this up. Every drawer, every cabinet, every desk, everything, et cetera, I can't find any documents. They're not there.

And the judge accepted that. Okay, great. You're an officer of the court, we're all officers of the court. Might take you at your word, you put it under oath, okay, and pay the $110,000, see the man in the back, you're out of contempt. They didn't like the $110,000, so they filed an appeal.

And a year later, this intermediary court of appeal, this intermediary appellate court in New York, one down from the top court, because in New York, the top top court is not the Supreme Court. The top top court is the court of appeals. The one right below it is what we call a pellet divisions, and then they're divided by department, the one from Manhattan, the first department. So the first department, five judges and a five o vote said everything that Engoran did

was completely reasonable and was completely within his discretion. Because under the standard that these courts use, for things decisions like this, whether to sanction, how much to sanction, whether someone's in contempt, it's all looked at on appeal on what we call an abuse of discretion standard, which is a very low bar. In other words, the judge could really do anything. Very rarely are things found to be an abuse of his discretion because the discretion is the power that he has to use his or her discretion. And the court said, the appellate court said,

it was fine, it was appropriate, it was symmetrical, it was commensurate with exactly the thing that went wrong in your courtroom, which was a recalcitrant, contemptuous, contumacious party who didn't produce documents. And that's fine. Those words, Popeye, those words. Those words were a great, peri-ge Popeye. I don't even know. All right, that's where they are. So what is Trump going to do? And I'm going to, I'm going to short circuit this this. He's gonna, he'll try another court of appeals appeal. He's gonna lose and he already paid the money. So this is just like getting the money back.

He is not going to defeat Judge Angoran. I know that Lena Habba love going on when she was his lawyer and not a criminal defendant herself. I love, she'd love going on newsmax and Fox and saying, oh, corrupt judges like the judge and the civil front. It's easy to say when you're not in front of that judge. But the reality is that every one of his decisions

so far have been upheld by every appellate court in New York because he's doing the right thing. That's the problem. He's not corrupt. He's just making right decisions based on the law and the facts. Don't you know, Popock, everybody's corrupt and everyone's corrupt and deep state. The only person who has all of the answers is the person who's failed that everything he's done is entirely. The only person who actually knows the secrets,

Popok, the person who knows the truth is the person who lies about every single thing his entire life. Popok, do you see the people who really cares about the people is the person who grew for workers and screwed over Americans, his entire life. You see, Popok, the person who cares about America

is the person who pays more money to the Chinese government in taxes, the person who praises Putin, the person who calls for the termination of the United States Constitution. You see how, you see how it works, Polpok. You see, only the Maga Republicans and the QAnons, only there the ones who can solve this riddle for us because we can't think for ourselves

That's what these idiots think but enough is enough. That's why you got the Midest touch network That's why you got legal AF and we're putting it in terms that are unapologetic Sorry, not the large media networks that are gonna both sides the issue will go well on the one hand We got fascists in the other hands. We got pro democracy. No, we're going to call fascist fascists. We're going to call traders traders. We're going to call idiots idiots. We're going to call them out in terms that are simple and obvious because their fascism is simple and obvious.

I digress. I got to make sure you subscribe by the way to this YouTube channel and subscribe to Legal AF Podcast. There's a lot of people in this chat right now, Pope, I don't know if you know this. I gotta make sure you subscribe by the way to this YouTube channel and subscribe to legal AF podcast There's a lot of people in this chat right now Pope I don't know if you know this. This is the most watched News podcast right now in the world. Did you know that? Did you know that? Do you know Micah? You showing me I see myself and you're on mute. I know I'm aware that Saturday last Saturday you're on mute. I know I'm aware that Saturday, last Saturday, yeah, right? Last Saturday in all of YouTube world on Saturday night. What was the number one network through legal AF might as touch and I'm gonna say that and right now

tonight it's saying Popeye I want to go on to the next topic but I'm getting there's a lot of comments in the chat. I'm actually getting a lot of comments from friends as well. Just address the glasses. Are you doing multiple glasses? Are you switching up every other? Just to make it an announcement. Let me make it an announcement. And I got great news for those that love the fact

that I change glasses almost every show. I got a new pair. I got a new pair picking up tomorrow. No, this is like, listen, I don't know. People think I'm putting this up for a vote. Like the green, like the green, put on the gray, the black or terrible. I mean, I do read them and I do think they're funny.

Focus on the law,mingly the green glasses. This is like green M&M's. The green glasses are winning in the horse race of which glasses pop up should wear. But I just like the I like the variation. I like you know, I don't know what to get. I like that that's your stick now. I'm into it.

That's what I'm trying to tell you. Right. Let's get let's get right into the this federal trial, right? It's happening in April, E. Jean Carroll, um, first, she filed her first defamation case in 2019. And then it was removed to federal court because Trump and Bill Barr tried to substitute the United States government and then the judge ruled against that. Then they appealed it, Trump partially won on the appeal, but not on the second factor of the test. That got sent to the district of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is like the equivalent of the district's top court.

It's not actually a federal court about the course and scope issue, whether when Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll was in the course and scope of employment. That has not been ruled on yet, but then Donald Trump in typical Trumpian fashion, then defamed E. Jean Carroll yet again, this time when he was not in office. So there could not be any claim for immunity at all. He's no longer living in New York. So you have diversity jurisdiction claim over $75,000. That goes right back in front of Judge Lewis Kaplan.

Thank you, Donald Trump, for busting your own immunity potential claim. So that new defamation claim, which basically repeats the old defamation claim allegations where Donald Trump basically said, I would never rape her because she's not my type and that she's a liar and all these just disgusting and despicable things. Well, that defamation case is there. Also, New York passed the law, the New York Adult Survivors Act, which has a one year look back period for survivors of sexual assault to bring civil lawsuits starting back in November. They have a one year period from survivors of sexual assault to bring civil lawsuits starting back in November. They have a one year period from November of 2022. So as soon as that statute took effect signed by governor, Hocal and E. Jean Carroll filed the claim for actually the civil rape as well

for the sexual assault she alleges takes place in the mid 1990s. So some variation of these claims, they're all intermingled, that's going to trial no matter what in April. And so Trump has all these gambits, right? So Trump on February 10th through his new lawyer, Joe Taca Pino, there again, as you mentioned, Alina Habbeside line, Trump's refused to provide his DNA the entire time. But to be fair and

talk about really what's going on here though, E. Jean Carroll's lawyers could have compelled him to produce it. Trump's objected to it, but strategically E. Jean Carroll's lawyers never compelled it because I think the medical literature on the issue is that it would likely be indecisive regardless, which would favor Donald Trump. Because the DNA, even though we all watch CSI and all of that, there's actually a footnote in the judge's order that cites the medical literature about whether male DNA from the mid-1990s, that would be a factor in the analysis, biophorensic analysis, would actually show. And the judge said it's probably not going to show.

Anyway, so the judge says, I understand why E. Jean Carroll's lawyers didn't really file the motion to, I would have granted it. But on the other hand, Donald Trump could have provided it for the reasons that E. Jean Carroll's lawyers probably didn't want it. Trump resisted that and now Trump wanted to make a trade. He wanted to make a deal. I'll give you my DNA, but I need the appendix to a report that you have sent me,

that you turned over in discovery many, many, many years ago, which evidently Alina Haba didn't read because that appendix may reference the male DNA that was found on the dress and what's the situation with the male DNA. To be clear though, the indicia of sperm is not on the dress Which would you know but the male DNA is but as the judge says that's not Probative either way of whether a rape occurred or didn't and likely wouldn't be a missable Anyway, but really what Trump wants is these documents that Alina Haba never got and why is Trump asking for it now? Because he hired Joe Takapina, a new lawyer.

And you know the new lawyer was like, Donald, we're screwed. He's like, what do you mean? Haba didn't ask for the documents that we need. That could have actually been used in the defense. And then, like, well, those make a deal. Let's make a deal. And the judge was like, all right, what are you doing?

You had three years to do this. Sorry, discovery's done. This is going to trial. Both sides, if they wanted to, could have made the DNA a point of their case. Both sides decided not to. This seems like a delay tactic. Sorry, sorry, Charlie, it's going to trial. There's no deal. This isn't a reality show. Sorry, we're going to trial. Discovery done. Popa. All right, let me, let me burst a few myths here.

People always thought this is going to be a DNA case. This is not going to be a DNA case. Robbie Kaplan, the lawyer extraordinaire for EGIN Carrell has said long ago that she was not going to use the black coat dress that EGIN Carrell talked about on MSNBC in 2020 and tweeted about that she kept ever since that terrible day when she was in her in her allegations raped in a dressing room in a department store in Manhattan and And Robbie Kaplan because she's a consummate professional. I'm guessing here sent that code out for some forensic testing and Apparently it came back. I think the reporting is it came back with at least 10 different people's DNA on it Not we're not talking about sperm. We're talking about DNA. And if you live in New York and you're

sitting on subways and on buses and restaurants and you're moving around the city, I am sure your coat has 10 plus or dress has 10 plus people's DNA on it as well. And so it was so inconclusive. And as you said, Ben, the science is so rocky, especially in the area of civil, which is what we're talking about. I mean, look, we'd all like to have to force Donald Trump to you know what into a cup, but that really wasn't happening. And frankly, if Robbie Kaplan believed

that she had a DNA case, all she would have done is hire a private investigator to go follow Trump around at Mar-a-Lago, go into the garbage and find a cup he used. That's how the cups usually do it. They go to Starbucks, they wait for the guy to throw away the cup, and they pick it up, and they test it. But she made a tactical decision probably

because it was not in her benefit. Now, I'm gonna throw something out there. This is not the last we've heard of the DNA in the dress, because, and I believe this cuts both ways. I believe that E. Jean Carroll really believes that that dress is the dress that she wore when she was raped. I believe that. Now she's going to get cross examined by Joe Takapina about you said there was a dress, you said there was DNA on it, but you didn't get any DNA off my client.

You don't know if it's my, you know, she's going to do a whole big thing about you didn't ask for DNA, you didn't get the DNA, you didn't use the DNA. It's going to be a whole smokescreen, a half, half of an afternoon by Joe Takapina trying to tear her down on what happened to the dress. I thought there was a dress, whereas the DNA and all of that. Now Robbie Kaplan may file a motion to limit that, but I think it comes in as cross examination on credibility. But then, of course, she can push back.

Well, it's very simple if you prepare properly, which Robbie will. You push back and you say, yeah, do you have a 35-year-old piece of clothing hanging in your closet that you never sent to the cleaner? Why do you think I did it? The fact that we can't get anything off of it, that's a forensic issue. But there's a reason I saved that dresser and it's because I was raped at it by your client. So Joe's got to be careful because that can, she can counter punch him with the truth

really easily at a court of law. But you see where he's going with this issue. Yeah. Absolutely, Popeye. And I want to, before we go, a breaking news. This is an exclusive being reported on CNN, which is Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has been subpoenaed by special counsel Jack Smith in connection with the January 6th investigation. A lot of people, including us here, have been wondering, Has Mark Meadows been cooperating with Jack Smith? The answer appears to be no if he was Zapina.

As Glenn Kirschner says, unless this Zapina is being used as cover, which it could be, and Popoq, we have a new show coming in shortly, but I wanna get your quick reaction before we turn it over to the next show. I think it's exactly what Kirschner said. I'm not sure it indicates that he hasn't been cooperating.

He's been out of the public eye for a long, long time and they've got him dead to rights on the burning of the documents in the White House, him being in the room for all of the phone calls related to the criminal mind of Donald Trump, the phone call about the fraud in the elections, not being a fraud in the elections by Donald Trump's own person, everything in Jan 6th. I mean, he's got his own election fraud problem. Mark Meadows is compromised from, and I mean, that a good way.

They have leverage over Mark Meadows. This subpoena may be cover. We'll have to follow the proceedings. If they bounce out and go back to Barrel Howell to get a ruling from her on executive privilege application, he's not a lawyer, then we'll know he's kicking and screaming. But if we don't see that bounce out to barrel howl, the chief judge, he's cooperating. So, you know, anticipating what Mark Meadows would do. One, if he's not cooperating, we would

expect him to make an executive privilege objection, which we don't... we know here after watching legal AF that that is not going to succeed. How do we know that? Because when Donald Trump has asserted executive privilege before, over people like Pat Sepolone and Patrick Filman, the former top White House lawyers in the Trump administration and when Trump asserted it over, Mark Short and Greg Jacobs, the former top deputies, to Pence, Judge Barrel Howell, who you just mentioned, rejected the executive privilege claim and forced them to testify a second time. So there is precedent here why executive privilege

does not apply the Department of Justice as far as we know is 4, 4, 4 right now in defeating Donald Trump's executive privilege. And also, Steven Miller, we know testified before the criminal grand jury, one of Donald Trump's top shades who wrote the speech for Donald Trump at the ellipse, the Donald Trump change the speech and Stephen Miller's basically been involved

in all things, Donald Trump corruption. And as far as we know, there was no successful assertion of executive privilege there. So I don't expect meadows claim of executive privilege to be effective there at all to go to the next week. I'm going to go to the next week. I'm going to go to the

next week. I'm going to go to the next week. I'm going to go to the next week. I'm going to go to the next week. I'm going to go to the next week. peanut by special counsel Jack Smith in connection with the January 6th investigation. And you just heard popok in my hot take the issues of executive privilege that are likely

going to be raised. But the stakes continue to rise folks. And the news as we've talked about before here on legal AF, There will continue to be day after day big news drops like that. And that was foreseeable. I've always thought we're looking at a May or June indictment. It's always been my prediction January and February based on the process that's been going on seemed too early. But this is where I see it going now with these kind of key Apex level people. Everybody, make sure you are subscribed right now to our YouTube channel. Hit subscribe. Go make subscribe to AF on audio. So search wherever you get your audio podcast. That's

doing us a big solid right there. It helps the algorithm. Check out Legal AF. You could re-listen to this on audio when you're going for a walk or you're in your car or wherever. So subscribe and leave a five star review there. Also check us out at patreon.com slash might as touch. One of the ways we can bring you all these new great shows that we're bringing you is because we are 100% independent, 100% accountable to you. We do not take outside investor money at all and the way we build this network is through our Patreon community. It's a membership there that has exclusive content. So become a member

at patreon.com slash mightestuch. p-a-t-r-e-o-n.com slash mightestuch. Become a member there today and check out store.mightestuch.com for the best pro-democracy gear. The best legal AF gear. Get your convict or convict 45 shirts. Those are going to be very timely and folks. Do we have an incredible treat for you? As the Midas Touch Network starts looking more and more like the median networks you're used to in terms of its scheduling, not in terms of its content, because we are not both sides and issues. We are calling fascist fascist, but we've got some great

programming for you. So right now, you will be automatically directed to our next live show. It will start at 615 Pacific 915 Eastern. The show is called Majority 54 with Jason Kander and Ravi Gupta. You are going to love it. I'm Ben Myceles with Michael Popock, signing off for now. Big, big news. Shout out to the Midas Mighty and enjoy Majority 54. 4054.