Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Jack Smith has Trump in a COMPLETE PANIC

Episode Date: May 25, 2023

The top-rated legal and political podcast Legal AF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this midweek’s edition, anchors national trial attorney and strategist Michael Popok and former top prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo, to discuss: 1. Jack Smith’s accelerated Mar a Lago criminal investigation including new revelations about Trump’s former attorney’s notes ending up with the prosecutors implicating Trump, and Trump’s lawyers begging for a meeting with Merrick Garland; 2. The NY State criminal court judge setting a March 2024 trial date for Trump related to his 34 count criminal indictment; and 3. E Jean Carroll firing back at Trump and moving to sue him again for new defamation and $10mm based on his CNN town hall statements, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! BETTERHELP: This is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://BetterHelp.com/LEGALAF today to get 10% off your first month and get on your way to being your best self! AG1: Head to https://athleticgreens.com/LEGALAF to get a FREE 1 year supply of Vitamin D and 5 FREE Travel Packs with your first purchase! MOINK: Keep American farming going by signing up at https://MoinkBox.com/LEGALAF RIGHT NOW and listeners of this show get FREE bacon in your first box 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 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump is like an evil LeBron James. Every time he hits the court, he's setting new records. First time a president's two times impeached. First time a president is criminally indicted. First time a president's committee is criminally convicted. And now a new one. First time an ex-president is ordered to appear in a criminal hearing. Judge Moshan has set the Trump criminal trial, related to the

Stormy Daniels hush money payments, and fraudulent business records, for March, right in the middle of primary season, and for Donald Trump to video beam in from Mar-a-Lago for the hearing, to instruct Trump on what he can and can't do with evidence in the case. What happened during the hearing? What lawyers for Trump were there and which were missing? And what did Trump do immediately after the court instructed him? All this as the Manhattan DA continues to get Alan Weiselberg, the disgraced felon, fresh out of jail, Trump Organization 50 50 year chief operating officer to flip on Trump for a fresh batch of corporate crimes.

Then if Donald Trump thought he'd be able to get away with impunity, continuing to defame E. Jean Carroll after a jury convicted him as a sex abuser and defamer, this time at the CNN town hall the next day, he's got another thing coming. And it'll be brought to him by E. Jean Carroll and her counsel, Robbie Kaplan, they've moved to amend her suit to add fresh instances of defamation and seek up to 10 million dollars over and above the five million the jury already awarded her same judge, different future jury, but one that will be ordered to assume that Miss Carol was sexually

abused by Donald Trump in 1996. And finally, we update the special prosecutor Jack Smith criminal investigations as he inches to the end of the Mar-a-Lago criminal investigation. Why did Trump have his lawyer send a one paragraph letter directly to Merrick Garland at this moment? What will it accomplish if anything? And what will the Proc- prosecutors do with it if anything? We cover all this at the intersection of U.S. politics and litigation on this week's midweek edition of Legal AF with your anchors Michael Popok and Karen

Friedman-Eck Diffalo only on the Midas Touch Network. Location location location in real estate, prosecution, prosecution, prosecution on today's show, who better to help our audience be guided through that, that our former top prosecutor, Karen Friedman, Agnipolo, the audience is here for it. And so am I. I, Karen. Hi, how are you? Well, hyped up for the Central, right? I see that. I don't like it.

It's a good one. Me too. It was sort of like, you know, NBA, I'm into the finals now, watching the finals and all that. So it's really great. And it's all true. I don't care what other people tell other people. Every time Donald Trump steps into a courtroom, he's set in a record of some sort. You know, and hopefully that will never see broken because he'll not get reelected or elected

and we won't have somebody worse than Trump in the future. But let's kick it off as we'd like to do with your old office where you'd be running things right now. God, does there ever a point, Karen, when, I mean, I know you love doing the podcast. I know you love doing your law career. And I know you like practicing with somebody with at least one partner that I know you love doing your law career. And I know you like practicing with some of you with at least one partner that I know you practice with who will remain nameless for a moment. But do you ever think right at this moment, God, I left them at Hatten D.A.'s office too early. I'd be doing all this

Trump stuff. Yeah, you know, no, I don't feel that way. I'm actually so glad that I'm not there during all of this. So it was 30 year career at the best career ever. I was very happy to be there. It was very lucky. But it's good to be here now. You're doing, you're doing what a buddy of mine calls filling your third shelf. His first shelf, he was a lawyer like me. It's a major firm in New York. His second shelf, he did something else in business and he filled that up. And then he sort of retired kind of relatively early. And he's like, I got a film, I third shelf. Karen, you're filling your third shelf with legal AF in the Midas Touch Network. And we're so happy that you're my co-anchor and friend. Let's get in there. Manhattan,

DA, I'll frame it. Turn it right back over to you. We got a hearing. We're going to show a picture, put it back up again. Um, leave that up, leave that up for a minute. Yeah, grumpy. Now for those that are from outer space that just came into our podcast, you'd think, Oh, that's the president of United States. Got a couple of flags behind them. I don't know who that guy is next to him. Presidents don't usually have their lawyers sit next to them. But no, that is the former president beaming in from some fake set at Mar-a-Lago. I envision it looks like the Oval Office, but it isn't.

And who do you as he has Todd Blanchoos, I think the lead criminal defense lawyer for him, they look equally grumpy. I don't know what happened to them. It looks like somebody beat their dog before they got on the air, but this is how they beamed in to Judge M Mershan's courtroom. Why? Because two weeks ago, Judge Mershan entered a protective order in favor of the Manhattan DA to stop Donald Trump

from talking about evidence and documents that the Manhattan DA is about to turn over to him. And the judge said, you know what? I better have the actual defendant in my courtroom, or at least I'll let him beam in on a video from Mar-a-Lago, and I'm gonna read him the protective order. I'm gonna make him acknowledge on the record what he's subjected to in terms of the use of the documents.

This is all very highly unusual, by the way. And, you know, I'll address whatever they want to address. So that's why we were there. While we were in the courtroom, however, while the judge was conducting this process, this proceeding, he set the trial date. We have a trial date. It's not the trial date that everybody wants,

but it's the trial date that we have. And it's not that bad. It's March 25th of 2024. People think, oh my God, it's almost a year from now. In a criminal world, that's not that far away. And it's smack dab in the middle of primary season. And it's actually a date that the two sides picked. Because the judge said, give me a date in February or March of 2024.

Pick one. And that's the one. And it's immovable. We're not moving that trial date. And they picked the trial date. We have another first, the evil LeBron James scores again. The first, the first criminal trial for an ex president in US history is going to be on March the 25th of 2024 in Manhattan, in front of a Manhattan jury with one caveat. Sometime next month, we're gonna hear from a federal judge,

right, Judge Hellerstein, who's gonna decide whether the case should go to federal court, leaving the judge behind, but not the prosecutor. The Manhattan DA prosecutor's office will still go with the case if it goes to federal court. We'll talk later, Karen and I have a little bit of a debate about whether that's really gonna happen or not. I think it's gonna stay with Judge Mershon.

And now, let's take it from Karen's perspective, bit of a debate about whether that's really going to happen or not. I think it's going to stay with Judge Mershon. And now let's take it from Karen's perspective, being in the courtroom like with Judge Mershon, knowing the judge, participating in hearings, just like this one. What were your observations about Todd Blanche up on the screen sitting next to Donald Trump? Susan Neckless is other lawyer in the courtroom, but no Joe Takapina. What did you observe in terms of Mershans demeanor, how he presented, and what you saw back from the defense? Yeah, so if you remember, when Trump was arraigned,

we read the minutes, and if you recall, we said, the case was adjourned to November, and the prosecutor had described with, had said on the record that they were working on an agreement with the defense to be able to have some guardrails in place regarding the discovery and they thought they were going to be able to make it consensual. And so we'll see you in November. And then I said, I liked it that I said,

no way, is this gonna be agreed upon? There's no way this group of people are ever going to agree on absolutely anything. And Trump's lawyers are not reasonable. And so we had commented and we said, like stay tuned, I think there's going to be an interim appearance where Trump is going to have to show his face in court and sure enough. Here we were just a short while later. We were in court for hearing before

the same judge to talk about discovery because they couldn't necessarily agree, but in addition to not necessarily agreeing, Judge Mershan wasn't going to leave anything to chance and just allow the lawyers, his lawyers to inform him what the requirements are for the discovery in the case and this protective order. And so he wanted to tell himself. And he wanted to make sure that the judge wanted to make sure that Trump knew exactly what the parameters would be in this particular situation when they had, before they handed over,

troves and troves of discovery material. And so he wanted to explain it to him directly, not filter it through his lawyers, to make sure that there was no misunderstanding that it was on the record, and that Trump would understand that he's prevented from posting any materials on social media.

He even called out truth, social, Trump's social media platform, in particular among others, but he called that out. He said he can't disclose it to any third parties that you could only view some of the materials in the presence of his lawyers or with the explicit permission of the court. And Todd Blanche, the lawyer who was sitting next to him, he pointed out to the court during this hearing that he's concerned about Trump's first amendment rights, given the fact that this is going to be

in the middle of primary season and in the election, the presidential election. But Judge Marseon was explicit that this is not a gag order, and is not his intention to impede the campaign in any way. He's free to deny the charges. He's free to do anything that's not covered in the protective order.

And so he wanted to make sure that Trump understood this in person. And it was very interesting, because there are a few times when the court wants to make sure that the defendant hears it from straight from the court. And in a criminal setting, and the court will address the defendant directly and say, do you understand and make sure that he puts it on the record

that he does understand. What comes to mind, another example that comes to mind that I see very often is when a judge issues an order of protection or what some people call it restraining order, where a particular defendant has to stay away from or not being the presence of a particular individual, the judges will want to address them directly

and tell them directly and tell them directly what the requirements are. Same thing with bail conditions, things that you can be in trouble for, held in contempt for, or put in jail for, if you violate. Those are the types of things that a judge will inform a defendant in a criminal case. And so that just goes to show you how serious this protective order is because the judge needed to tell Trump directly what he was required to do. And what will happen, by the way,

if he does not abide by these orders, he specifically said that anything is on the table, including contempt of court, including a finding of contempt. He said there's a wide range of possible sanctions if Trump doesn't abide by them. And don't forget, he's been held in contempt before, right? In 2022, he was held in contempt and fined $110,000 failing to turn over discovery to Tish James. So you just don't know what this judge would do. Tish James is the attorney general in New York in her civil case, if you remember.

But you just don't know exactly what Trump's gonna do, but of course, you know, what does he do right afterwards? What does he do? He truths, or whatever you call it. He faked truths. He faked tweets. And he says, I love how he says, the trial was forced upon us kind of thing.

He says that I just had a hearing where I believe my first amendment rights have been violated. And they forced upon us a trial date us because he likes to make it. This isn't about him. He tries to make this about his followers, but it's about him. This is exactly what the radical left Democrats wanted, election interference, nothing like this has ever happened in the country before, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Anyway, so he just goes on and complains and talks about it.

As soon as he walks out of court, it's just unbelievable. It's so predictable at this point what he's going to do. Yeah, so that's all good. It is unusual for this kind of thing. I mean, people might say, why didn't they bring him into court? It's such a hassle, frankly, to bring them in and out of court for these 50, you know, these, these hearings because of the failings of secret service and black cars that have to go along with them. Well, you know what, the pre-COVID. Yeah. They would never have

done this, but post since COVID, they're letting certain dependence, you know, more and more appear of via video occasionally. So here's my problem with multiple problems, first with the Todd Blanche comments, and then I'll get to the truth social part next. First of all, Todd Blanche, obviously with, I haven't seen of Intriloquism act in a long time. But Donald Trump had his hand firmly up Todd Blanche's backside and

was manipulating his mouth. I think that's why Todd Blanche looks so unhappy in that photo because I can't otherwise explain Todd Blanche saying to the world that his client was the leading candidate for president. Okay, first of all, that's not true. At best, he's the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for the general election against the Democrat, which will be Joe Biden. So that, but you know, he's scared, he looked scared next to his client, right?

This is very good. I bet you have Donald Trump drinks water then Todd Blanche wouldn't be able to say a word because this is their ventriloquism act that they got going on there. That's one. Second, where is Joe Takapina? I mean, I'm not surprised. I call him coloring Joe book, coloring book joke because every time he's at council table, it looks like he's doing something other than being a lawyer, he's nowhere to be found, especially in light. Here's a great picture showing him nowhere to

be found. We've got Susan Neckless sitting there. I think that's her far left on the photo. And he's gone, which is not that big of a surprise because we learned from, if we learned anything from Tim Parlatorre, suddenly everybody's in touch with their ethnic roots. I don't know why it's not Parlatorre, but Tim Tim Parlatory, who not only departed representing Donald Trump and everything Mar-a-Lago, which we're going to talk about after break, but he also firebombed Donald Trump on CNN, how ironic, in his own interview where he noisily departure and then blue kisses to Jack Smith telling him that Boris Epstein,

one of the other lawyers for Donald Trump, obstructed Tim Parlatore's ability to search for documents at Mar-a-Lago and probably lied to Donald Trump and and vice versa. Why you would say that on the way out given his ethical obligations? I have no idea. But he did. Tim Parlatorio also said that Joe Takapina was terrible and shouldn't be part of the trial team. And there we see maybe Tom Trump took that to heart and it doesn't have him in the courtroom during a key moment. The other thing that was an interesting contrast is that Juan Mershon is known for being not bombastic, not, he doesn't throw fireballs in his courtroom. He's sober, he's salamonic, he's judicious.

That's the temperament you want in a judge. You don't, as I said on a hot take about this matter, you don't want like two trumps, like the Trump equivalent of a judge against Donald Trump, because that's not going to go well. I mean, you want like, you know, Lex Luthor and Superman, and you know, which one Donald Trump is in that comparison. And he was, he was, he was very sober and quiet about the presentation, because, you know,

when you're in charge and you're wearing the black robe up on the bench, you don't have to flout your, you know, flot your power, you know, he's're in charge and you're wearing the black robe up on the bench, you don't have to flout your, you know, flot your power. You know, he's got the power to jail Donald Trump at this moment, not the other way around. So, you know, so, you know, he made that clear that he's, he's in charge and he doesn't have to, he doesn't have to, um, he doesn't have to do anything towards Donald Trump other than that. Donald Trump just sat there with a face on, you know, a push on, which is funny because we're going to talk a little bit later about Evan Corcoran, the now departed, one of the many now departed lawyers for Donald Trump and Mar-a-Lago, who would actually, in his notes,

his attorney notes, write comments about Donald Trump's facial expression. Which is, this is a funny pic, this is a funny article though that's all he put up because the headline is talking about Evan Corcoran, but the photo is Tim Parlittore and we're going to tie all that together in the next segment. So that's the hearing. What's the takeaway? If you're making a conversation, small talk in an elevator, we got a trial in March. Donald Trump is going to be at that trial even if he is the Republican nominee. And even while he's in the primaries for the Republican party, and he's been there are limits to what he can do with documents and evidence and commentary. But there is no technical gag order on him. The judge being very careful about recognizing Donald Trump's continued first

amendment rights and that in political speech and running for office, but also gave him those parameters like watch what you say about witnesses. I got a thick skin as a judge. You want to go after my family and me and the prosecutors, but I'm going to watch you. If you cross a line, we'll be back here and I've got some powers up my sleeve that I can use in that regard. We're just going to have to watch it.

They're just giving Donald Trump a prosecution and the judge just giving him rope to see if he'll hang himself. Now let's turn though to the thing that got Karen really excited while she was traveling recently, which is the attempt. This is a difficulty level of nine. They're going to try to do the Weiselberg flip. They're going to try to get Alan Weiselberg, whose fresh out of his five and a half months on Rikers Island,

for being convicted for tax fraud. They're going to try to get him to flip for the bigger case, the not-stormy Daniels case, the bigger case against Donald Trump, that it looks like Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA, is itching to bring against Donald Trump and others for fraud related to his business dealings. Loan fraud, insurance fraud, asset fraud, tax fraud, the key to that. I can see it now for Alvin Bragg runs through getting somebody to flip. Look, I've known this from being outside the office

that Alvin Bragg, it's been chappin' his backside since he's been in office that he hasn't been able to get not one person inside that office to flip inside the family office. Now he's not gonna get the kids to flip. That's out. But Matt Kalamari, the COO chief operating officer, Matt Colomari, Jr., the head of security who are not cooperating with Jack Smith, the controller of the company,

the CFO, their fair game. And now, and now, Weiselberg, who looked ashen, embarrassed, and not well when he was sentenced to five and a half months, changed his lawyers while he was in prison, fired the one that Trump didn't like, a Nick Ravante, and hired a new one. So there's a new lawyer, it's claiming Rosenberg, a law firm we know in town, yeah, Karen and I know in town, They once represented Matt Gates and got him out of the sex trafficking problem, they now represent Alan Weisselberg. So that's who they're going to pressure. Talk about the pressure campaign that you believe Alvin Bragg's prosecutors are bringing

to bear on Alan Weisselberg and do you think it's going to be effective? So just a backup for a second, there's two separate cases going at the Manhattan DA's office at two separate stages right. There's the case involving that we just talked about the falsifying business records involving stormy Daniels that is set to go to trial that we just learned is set to go to trial that we just learned, just set to go to trial in March. And I actually think that there's a chance it still gets removed to federal court and not goes to, it doesn't go to trial

as state court before Judge Mershaw, but we'll find out on June 27th when that case will be heard. If you wanted to discuss my reasons why at some point we can, but I think probably more than you, that there's a chance this could go federal. Anyway, but there's a second case, an investigation that's still pending,

and that's the case that I think they're looking to get Weiselberg to flip on. And that's the case that has been pending for a long time, before the Manhattan D.A.'s office. It's the one that is the sister case to the New York Attorney General's civil case that the Trump organization and Trump and his children are being charged with civilly that is going to trial this fall, the one that says that he inflated his assets or devalued his assets depending on if it suited him for loan purposes or tax purposes, whatever. There's a sister companion criminal case that has been pending and it was a joint case with that civil case for a very long time.

If you recall, that was a case that started under SIEVANCE and then the two senior prosecutors, one that they noisily resigned, Mark Pomerance and Carrie Dunn, because they didn't like that Alvin Bragg wasn't ready to indict it in his first few months in office. He wanted to continue to investigate and try to develop more evidence. Well, a couple of things has happened since Alvin Bragg has continued to investigate that case. Number one, they already have a 17-count conviction against the Trump organization, and that was the one involving his tax returns. And so that happened where Susan Neckless was the lawyer and that was a 17-count conviction where Alan Weiselberg testified, but he didn't flip against Trump himself.

He testified and helped get the Trump organization convicted. And Trump wasn't charged there just the corporation. So that happened. So they developed evidence during that trial and during the investigation for that happened. So, they developed evidence and during that trial and during the investigation for that case, the other thing that happened since Alvin Bragg has been continuing to investigate the case is that Trump sat for a deposition into James the New York Attorney General's civil case where he actually didn't take the fifth and he testified for seven hours and And talked and talked and talked and talked and a lot of evidence was developed during that

that now Alvin Bragg has access to in his criminal case and He and we also just don't know what else he's developed by the way because so much of this is done in secret These are just the things that that we know of publicly And I think one of the things that Alvin Bragg is hoping to do is to also get Weiselberg to cooperate. The way to do that is to squeeze him, to use a term that prosecutors and law enforcement use. And look, he's facing perjury charges according to reporting on this that apparently

in that same Attorney General civil case and that investigation that I just talked about, that he did an interview under oath in 2020, and there are apparently statements there that Alvin Bragg's office believes that Weiselberg could face perjury charges in pertaining to that. So I don't know what those statements were. And I don't know, I assume the perjury statements would be the ones that he made a trial under oath because don't forget when he testified at trial

in the Trump Organization case, the 17-count conviction case. He had to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God, which officially makes that under oath. And so he could face perjury charges. That's an under oath statement, compared to another under oath statement made to the attorney general in a civil case.

And if they're conflicted in its material, he could face perjury there. It's low level, but now he's already convicted, right? So he's a convicted felon, which enhances the sentencing. They're also apparently considering unrelated to Trump's insurance fraud charges against him. And another thing they're considering is whether he inflated numbers

on the Trump financial statements So you know, they're looking at lots of different charges the more there are the more he's facing if he is convicted And I think they wanted to see he got a taste of jail He was at Rikers Island not not a fun place for fire for you know, I think it was a hundred days and You know, that's that's not a pleasant experience. He recently resigned from the Trump organization. He apparently got a pretty hefty payout. So the question is, will the threat of prosecution

and the threat of going back to jail this time, it could be prison potentially, if it's more than a year that he gets? Is that enough to encourage him to want to finally cooperate and testify against Trump himself? And we'll see. Some people say, well, he got a taste of Rikers Island. He's not going to want to go back.

So now is the time. He's 70, something years old and spending your last years in prison is not a fun thing. But others could, there are other people, I'm one of them who feel maybe he will say, you know what, I don't care. I don't want my legacy to be that I flipped against Donald Trump. He's been good to my family, he's been good to me.

I'm holding ground, I've lived my life, it's a great life, and if I have to live out my last years in a camp, because that's probably where you go, one of those camps. So be it. So you just never know how these things go. I don't know anything about him and what would persuade him. But this is prosecution 101, where you identify someone high up in an organization that has information. The organization is a criminal organization the way we know the Trump organization was, mostly from Michael Cohen, who has done the reveal codes on how they did things.

The organization has been convicted. So, you know, what they do is they, whether you're a drug organization, a mafia organization, or a white collar organization like this one, what you do is you investigate and prosecute and try to convict the lower-level soldiers hoping they'll flip against the bosses. And so, this is, you know, this is what prosecutors do every single day, and they're doing it here. And we'll see if it's persuasive to Alan Weiselberg, you know, your guess is as good as mine though. Yeah.

So that's where we are with the Manhattan DAsoffs. We've got a lot more to cover on the midweek edition of legal A- You don't want to compete with me, Popokok about whether or not it's going to go. The other case is going to go because we because we did it. Because we did it two weeks ago, and I don't want to bore the audience with another come on. I'll frame it. I don't think it's going to happen.

Karen does will know at the end of June. Yeah. Fun today. No, no, I am very fun today. I just, you know, all right. Anyway, that ahead. No, no, I am very fun today. I just, you know, all right. Anyway, that's, we'll debate other things before this show is over. And coming up next, we'll talk about Jack Smith and the Mar-a-Lago prosecution and why I

think both of us believe he's at the very, very end of it with new disclosures about Evan Corpore and's notes. We talked a lot about Evan. It was really weird when Judge Barrel Howell, who was then the chief judge, not only ordered him to testify over the attorney client privilege against Donald Trump, but also turn over his attorney notes. Now we know what was in those attorney notes as relates to Mar-a-Lago, why that's a big, big problem for Donald Trump. We'll talk about that. And we'll talk about finally, about E. Jane Carroll and what she's doing about being defamed once

again at the CNN town hall a day after a nine-person jury in New York federal court found in her favor and found that Donald Trump was a sex abuser and a defamber. But that's all coming up after a word from our sponsor. Today's legal AF is sponsored by BetterHelp. It's so easy to get caught up in what everyone else needs from you and never take a moment to think about what you need from yourself. I know in my own life, I'm dealing with a lot

of different pressures, family, friends, my podcast colleagues and work. I mean, I am a practicing attorney when I'm not podcasting and just generally taking care of business Because we spend all of our time giving it can leave us feeling stretched thin and burned out Therapy can give you the tools to find more balance in your life So you can keep supporting others without leaving yourself behind Therapy it's helpful for learning positive coping skills and how to set boundaries, and generally

speaking how to become the best version of yourself. And by the way, therapy isn't just for those who've experienced a major trauma, it's for everyone because what you're going through matters. If you're thinking of starting therapy, give better help but try. It's entirely online and designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and switch therapist any time for no additional charge. Find more balance with BetterHelp.

Visit betterhelp.com slash legalaftoday to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelphelp.com slash legal a f. And we're back. After watching and listening to that, Adam, I'll fire it up for Jack Smith, Mara Lago, Evan Corcoran, and a weird letter, obviously written and dictated by Donald Trump sent on his lawyer's letterhead last minute, just yesterday asking Merrick Garland, well, not really asking Merrick Garland, it was the equivalent of like a boyfriend writing a letter that says, I hate you and will you take me back?

Because first they attack Merrick Garland and say, this is Jim trusty and John Roland, the lawyers for Donald Trump, they attack Merrick Garland, dear Merrick Garland. When you would get it, why don't you get around to investigating President Biden and Hunter Biden? I'm not making this up. We'll put the letter up on the screen. Instead of doing this ridiculous investigation, outrageous investigation of our former president, current 45 president, Donald Trump, please, please, and will you meet with us?

It's so effing weird. I've, this must have taken Donald Trump a minute to dictate, a minute to put on letter ed, and they sent it off. But the timing of it is interesting because in the same week that it was sent, almost the same hour that it was sent, almost the same hour that it was sent, we have two revelations, two data points that we can connect together here on legal AF. First one is the notes that Evan Quarkrin was forced to turn over through a ruling by

the chief judge supervising all things grand jury because she found that there was a likely crime or fraud perpetrated by Donald Trump stripping Evan Corcoran of his attorney client privilege as what was then the lead lawyer in the Mar-a-Lago matter. He was the lawyer from the very beginning that negotiated with the National Archive. He was the lawyer that negotiated from the very beginning. Evan Corcoran, who negotiated with the Department of Justice, prior when the Serpina was first issued and then after the Serpina was executed.

That Evan Corcoran, he had to just strip himself bare and tell them everything. In the notes, apparently, they were provided to Jack Smith. He says that he gave specific instruction to Donald Trump that he had a turn over all of that evidence, all of those documents, all of those classified documents without further delay, and also talked to him about how the process of declassification works. He can't do it by mental telepathy, and that the National Archive gave Donald Trump at least 16 memos and 16 communications telling him the process for declassification, none of which did he follow. All of that goes to criminal intent and knowledge of Trump. And we find out the Trump was more involved with Mar-a-Lago and the hiding of documents through his personal

valet Walt Nauta than we ever suspected because Evan Corcoran says that he, Walt Nauta, unlocked the door for him for certain rooms, limited through Donald Trump the rooms that he was allowed to go into. Evan Corcoran in order to do his search, they left the doors open and not locked after his search. That Walt Nauta on behalf of Donald Trump wanted to sit in with Evan Corcoran while they did their search. In other words, they were shaping a result.

And Evan Corcoran expressed that he was not happy that, and either with the government, that Walt Nauta was going in and out of a room after Evan Corcoran told the government that everything was secured in there while they were continuing to discuss the return of top secret documents. That's the new information that all came out this week and then suddenly boom, we got a one paragraph letter, pretty please can we meet because you got to be fair to my former current president, Donald Trump. All right, Karen, that's where we're at. Why did they send this letter?

What do you think Merrick Garland does with it? And or Jack Smith, who's really in charge of the investigations. And what do you think about the revelations that we've gotten about? Walt Nada, Evan Corcoran's notes and the guidance from the National Archive directly to Donald Trump, when it comes to criminal intent and criminal mind of Donald Trump? Donald Trump when it comes to criminal intent and criminal mind of Donald Trump. Yeah, so look, this seems like a desperate last ditch attempt to not get indicted right before an indictment. And, you know, when things like this happen, when you see a letter from a lawyer going to someone like, you know, the boss, you, A, you're at the end of an investigation and be,

it's not a coincidence, right? He knows something we don't know. Someone has told his lawyers something that is cause them to say, I need to get to Merrick Garland and stop this and stop this because it's happening. So when you see things like that in the prosecution setting, it's never a coincidence. So I want to know what has started to happen already.

Have they said, let's talk about a surrender date or let's talk about whatever it is? I don't know what possibly it could be that they have already been told, but something triggered that letter. And it's very common at the tail end of an investigation right before charges are about to be brought or when something's about to be done. And you know that a decision is about to be made. Lawyers always would come to the prosecutor and say, can I talk to convince you not to indict my client. And what they would typically do is, you know, you go to, you first you make a plea to the, you know, line assistant,

or, and then you, and then you go to their supervisor. And if their supervisor, you know, doesn't give you what you want, you go to their supervisor, you usually go up the ladder. Typically, you know, in the Manhattan DA's office, for example, not too many people would get to sci-vance. I would meet with a lot of these lawyers who would get to, who didn't like what they were, the answer they were getting from the people below. And in the US Attorney's Office, which is very, very similar,

you don't go to the attorney general, him or herself. You typically go to the regional person who's supervising the local assistant United States attorney, and eventually you might even get up to the deputy attorney general, him or herself. and eventually you might even get up to the deputy attorney general, him or herself, but you really don't get to the attorney general. That's for a lot of reasons. It's because you really don't want it to look political or be politically.

You really want it to be a decision made by the people who are doing it. Sometimes, the people internally will go to their boss to the attorney general and make sure that they have the support of or the agreement of the attorney general. But I don't know of too many people who have ever gotten to the actual attorney general himself. And what's really even more unusual about this case is the attorney general himself. And what's really even more unusual about this case is the attorney general isn't making the decision here. The Jack Smith, the special counsel, don't forget, who was appointed to be special counsel, they do it to make this, to take the any appearance of politics out, to take any bias issue that could be in some kind of an investigation.

The special counsel is really supposed to be this apolitical entity that is not appointed by the president, that is not partisan, that is really a totally separate thing. And the special counsel has greater autonomy. There are regulations in the Department of Justice that say that the Attorney General may overrule a special counsel, but only if the special counsel has failed to follow Justice Department policies and practices. So if Jack Smith follows all the DOJ policies and practices and decides to indict Donald Trump

Merrick Garland is is really not there to and won't overrule him Also, Jack Smith is not subject to the day-to-day oversight of any person at the Department of Justice So I'm not really sure why Meeting with the DOJ is something that they're trying to do other than maybe they've already tried to convince Jack Smith and got nowhere. And so that's why they're now going publicly.

So don't forget there was a letter, a very long letter. I think it was 10 or so pages that was sent to various members of Congress asking that the Department of Justice be ordered to stand down on this probe and that the asking them to just looks turn this over, have it be more civil? How does the Intel community, the intelligence community conduct an investigation about whether this was

any harm done with these classified documents and they can provide a report, but tell the DOJ to stand down. So they're kind of desperately trying to get the DOJ to stop doing this, but I wonder whether they already tried with Jack Smith, got nowhere and is now trying to appeal to Merrick Garland. And I think, look, they wrote this

so that they could make it public, right? They love, though, what about Hunter Biden narrative? I think you're right that this was dictated by Donald Trump. It was probably cut and paced. The only thing they probably did in addition to putting it on their letterhead is change it from all caps, you know? But I think it's fairly clear that that's what this is. And they're trying to desperately get Jack

to not bring this case, but I think what it says is that they're bringing it and they're bringing it quickly. And what you said too, just about the Evan Corcoran stuff, you make the exact right connection, but the fact that this is all coming out now is again, not quince. These aren't quincidental. These things are happening, which because, because this is heating up, right? And because I think we're going to see, I think we're going to see something, you know, soon. I don't want to say imminent, because you know, the bad word imminent,

you know, but I think we're nearing the end and I think we're going to see something, you know, I don't know what's going to come first whether Johnny Willis in August or this, but I think they're both imminent. Well, you're right because first of all, somebody's leaking. Jack Smith was the bastion of no leaks. But recently in the last week, and an obvious pressure campaign by the prosecutor's office, they've let two things out of the bag, two cats out of the bag. One is there are 16 documents from the National Archive, which put Donald Trump on notice about how he can or can't classify that came out of the Department of Justice side of things, not just from good investigative investigative reporting and the second is what we knew that Evan

Quark cork cork and turned over his attorney client notes because we reported it on legal a F and on hot takes like four months ago, but we didn't know this until this week in the leak what was in those notes including Evan Quark ring commenting on the facial expression of Donald Trump detailed notes notes in a way that I mean, I take good notes. You can't tell from these, but when I'm with clients, but you know, everything like Walt Nauta wanted to be in the room with me while I looked at documents and I did not want that the door was left open while I was not in the room and you know, who knows what happens those, I mean mean really detailed almost like a diary by Evan Corcoran. We now know why Evan Corcoran quit the case and it's no

longer the lawyer in the Mar-a-Lago matter. The letter you talked about about them trying an angle to go to the House subcommittee on Intelligence, that was written by Tim Barletore who's no longer also has just a noisily quit the case related to Mar-a-Lago. So you've got Evan Corcoran, Quits Mar-a-Lago. You've got Tim Parlatory, Quits Mar-a-Lago, after the CNN down all, in which Donald Trump takes a complete opposite approach and lack of defense for having stolen the documents and kept the documents on the CNN down all.

So you've got the letter from Parliamentary goes to the Senate committee asking them to take jurisdiction and kick out the department of justice saying it was all a big mistake. They were just over packing boxes. You know what it is when you move out of a big house here, throw a lot of stuff into a box and they just accidentally took stuff.

That's all it is. And then Donald Trump says, no, I didn't accidentally take anything. I took it on purpose. And I can show it to whoever I want because I magically declassified it. We later Tim Parletori says, I'm out of here and and crap son Donald Trump and Boris Epstein related to documents and says they interfered with his ability Tim Parletori's ability to go look for documents in other places including bed

minster where the golf courses and in the storage unit in West Palm Beach blowing kisses to Jack Smith at the same time Jack Smith is leaking. And then you get this one page. Let's put that letter back up. It's a couple of things I do want to comment on. Nobody can see this. But when Donald Trump, this is the version that Donald Trump put out on a social truth. He left, he left Rally's cell phone number. I'm not going to dox him here, but you can

go on truth social or find it online. His mobile number is on there and his email. Lord knows what people did with that. They didn't even think to redact that or black that out. And then when you read it, for those that didn't see Ben's really good hot take on this, and I think maybe the brother's covered it. And it's not going to take me long. So let me read it. So it's to Merrick Garland and the rail line, the regarding line says, President Donald Trump. Okay. So they're already smoking dope because he's not the president in the United States. We only have one president at a time. And that's Joe Biden. We represent Donald Trump, the 45th president. So we're back to calling him the 45th president as a as as a, as a new title that he's made up for himself in the investigation currently

be conducted by the special counsel's office. Now here's the sentence obviously dictated by Joe Biden, but Karen's right, not in all caps. I mean, it dictated by Donald Trump, but not in all caps. Unlike president Biden, his son Hunter and the Biden family, President Trump is being treated unfairly. So everything is always the Hunter Biden laptop. No president of the United States has ever in the history of our country been baselessly investigated in such an outrageous and unlawful fashion.

That's just that's Trumpian vocabulary right there. By the way, no president of the United States or ex-president tried to cling to power, overthrow the government and not interfere with the peaceful transfer of power and and fomented insurrection and do all the other crimes he did before he was president. So I don't really understand that sentence. But he, but that after the end, if they're done attacking Merrick Garland, which I agree with you, they're barking up the wrong tree because the special counsel has jurisdiction over this. We request a meeting at your earliest convenes to discuss the ongoing injustice that's being perpetrated by your special counsel and is prosecuted as loving kisses, John Raleigh and Jim

Trusty. That's for public consumption. Now, DOJ Manual says that special counsel has jurisdiction over this. He will make a recommendation of indictment or not to indict to Merrick Garland. If Merrick Garland agrees with it, it stands. If Merrick Garland doesn't agree with it, he has to state and writing and present his reasons to the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee at that time. So we're not there yet.

So you're right. The letters addressed to the wrong person, but this is Donald Trump in his fantasy world where he's still president. The only person he answers to on the other side is the attorney general of the United States and he won't lower himself to talk to anybody else, except who's the right person, which is Jack Smith.

So I, listen, I agree with you. There's a reason they wrote it, whether it's this leak and this constant drum beat now that he's getting close to an indictment, and they're asking for a meeting. That's what they're doing publicly, but this is something you generally, we practice this for a living.

You generally do in private, right? You don't take out a billboard asking for a meeting with Merrick Garland. You do it through back channels. You get a meeting with his like Karen said is deputy or somebody else if you really want it. You try to do it because nothing good comes out of this public shaming or attempt to confront the attorney general. You're not going to get what you want. So if they want a meeting, there are ways to get it.

I'm sure Jackson Smith would give it to them to let them make a final presentation before the decision to indict. And that could be what Karen's talking about. There's already been phone calls. Yeah, because I think I think really what's going, what he wants, there's a couple of things that Yeah, because I think, look, I think really what's going, what he wants, there's a couple of things that this letter says to me, right? It's partly that they want a meeting, but partly they want to be able to say, we asked for a meeting and we didn't get it or we asked for a meeting and we got it and they were unfair.

They didn't listen, that you know, they, they wanted, it's a setup, right? This is all a setup. So that's partly why I think they asked for this and why they did this. You know, the other thing they did, they are doing by writing this letter and putting it out publicly, is they're getting their defense out again, right? They want to say, which hunt, which hunt, which hunt, political, political, political, right? You know, so like, they want to just get that, that's like a constant drumbeat. And the third thing that they're doing is, is the writing this letter, hoping that others will pressure.

They know that nothing they say is going to move the needle one way or another. This is all going to be based on the evidence that has been developed or not. This is a pressure campaign. This is a pressure campaign. He's hoping that his supporters, his allies, that everybody will continue to put political pressure on the powers that be and that they will intimidate, really, intimidate people from making this decision. So that to me is what that letter was about

as much as it was trying to actually get a meeting. Agreed. And we're going to talk about, in our next, in our last segment, we're going to talk about E. Jean Carroll, who at that same CNN town, all the day after a nine person jury in New York convicted Donald Trump, sorry, one day I'm going to say convicted Donald Trump. Found against Donald Trump in a jury verdicts, finding that he committed sexual abuse, the sexual abuser, and at the famer of of E. Jean Carroll, we'll talk about what that jury finding and that jury verdict means for future cases

involving the exact same thing, but new fresh defamation because she has moved to a men's or case in federal court in front of the same judge to bring new defamation cases because he defamed her and mercilessly attacked her at the New Hampshire town hall. We're going to talk about all of that, but first, a word from our sponsors. Our next partner is Athletic Greens. My family and I take AG1 by Athletic Greens literally every day. I gave AG1 a try because I wanted better gut health,

boosted energy, immune system support, and wanted a supplement that actually tastes great. I take AG1 in the morning before starting my day and it makes me feel unstoppable and ready to take on anything. I'm doing something good for my body, giving my body the nutrition it craves and covering my nutritional basis. I've tried a ton of different supplements out there, but this is different. And the ingredients are super high quality. Very quickly after using AG1 I noticed that it improved my energy and made me feel great. AG1 makes it easier for you to take the highest quality supplements, period.

Just one daily serving covers my day's nutritional basis and supports my long term gut health with 75 high quality vitamins, minerals, and whole food source ingredients. It's one scoop of powder mixed with water, once a day. A.G.1 is a really seamless and easy daily habit to maintain. I'm asked all the time about the one thing I do to take care of my health if I could only pick one. And this is it. A.G.1 by Athletic Reigns.

I can't think of another daily routine that pays off as well as A.G.1, which is why I trust the product so much. If you're looking for a simpler cost-effective supplement routine, Athletic Greens is giving you a free one-year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. Go to AthleticGreens.com slash Legal AF. That's AthleticGreens.com slash Legal AF. Check it out. 60% of US pork production comes from one company

owned by China. There's a better way. I'd like to tell you about Moink. That's Moo plus Oink. Moink delivers grass fed and grass finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and sustainable wild caught Alaskan salmon, straight to your door. Moink farmers farm like our great-grandparents did,

and as a result, Moink meat tastes like it should, because the family farm does it better. The Moink difference is a difference you could taste, and you can feel good knowing you're helping family farms stay financially independent, too. You choose the meat delivered in every box, like rib eyes, to chicken breasts, to pork chops, independent too. You choose the meat delivered in every box, like rib eyes, chicken breast, pork chops, salmon fillets, and much, much more. Plus you can cancel

any time. Shark Tank host Kevin O'Leary called Moink's Bacon, the best bacon he's ever tasted, and Ring Doorbell founder Jamie Siminoff jumped at the chance to invest in Moink. Plus, they guarantee you'll say, oink, oink, I'm just so happy I got Moinked. I know I do, and I know you will too. Keep American farming going by signing up at moinkbox.com slash legal AF right now. And listeners and viewers of this show get free bacon in your first box. It's the best bacon you'll ever taste, but it's available only for a limited time. Spelled M-O-I-N-K-Box.com slash legal-a-f. That's mouicbox.com slash legal-a-f. And we're back. So Karen, let's jump right into it. Last segment, I'm gonna turn it over to you quick. EGEN CAROL, you and me and Ben did a special midweek edition

of legal AF just two weeks ago during vacation. We couldn't take vacations because we got all sorts of things like jury verdict returns in the EGEN CAROL case and town halls by Donald Trump implicating himself in lots of things. So, he jumped on and during it, I'm not going to show it. Sometimes Ben likes to show, let me go show the clip where I predict this is going to happen. We're not going to do that.

But the three of us did say, particularly, don't trough trifle with Robbie Kaplan, E. Jean Carroll's lawyer in E. Jean Carroll. Don't piss them off, don't poke that bear. And he's gonna to favor again, they're gonna sue him again. And that's coming up. And here we are, just this week, they filed a motion with the judge to, and I just wanna get the procedure right, and then I'm gonna stop talking I'm going to stop talking.

So there were two cases. One, the original case we call E. Jean Carroll, one or Carol one, pardon me, and Carol one, she sued for being sexually assaulted in the dressing room in Bergedauff Goodman, a department store in New York in 1996, and she sued for defamation based on comments Donald Trump made while he was president. And then a whole fight broke out at the appellate level, the appeals courts in two different places,

in DC Territory Appeal Court, Federal Court in New York, about whether Donald Trump as an employee of the federal government, you know, badge number one, whether he had immunity from being sued because he said these statements under the color of law is official capacity as employee badge number one. Yes or no? I don't want to bore everybody with it, but there's something called the West Fall immunity, which is a body of law that allows anybody that it's an employee that did something bad

like a tort, which is an injury to somebody, a civil injury to somebody in some way to be immune. And the way that happens technically is the US government steps into the case, and you can't sue the US government for the things that that E. Jean Carroll has claimed. So if the now Biden led Justice Department takes the position that they should intervene and take out Donald Trump so that it's E. Jean Carroll versus the United States of America, in the case cases over because there's immunity. Fortunately, the the appellate court that matters has decided

to send it back to the trial judge and let the jury decide whether Donald Trump, when he was president, was acting within the course and scope of his duties and whether he can be sued for defamation or not. That's where it was left before they started the trial. What was the trial about? Same bad acts, same sexual misconduct by Donald Trump in the department store, but then idiot Trump decided to defame her after he was president when he was just citizen Trump on social media, giving rise to a new defamation case we call, E. Jean Carroll Romanumeral 2. It's like the Super Bowl. Roman numeral two. That's the case that went to trial while the first case,

the judge put a pin in it and said, you know what? Let's see what happens with this case, see what the jury does. We'll come back and see what happens with the first case. Juries returned their verdict, finding that Donald Trump forever, forevermore is now branded with a scarlet finding that he's a sex abuser and that he, and what all the bad things that she said happened to her in that department store dressing room happened. That first case is still there. So because he defamed her again on CNN saying she was a whack job.

He didn't know her. She's a fraud. Same things he said in the social media post when he got sued the first time. And the jury awarded $5 million to her. Now they're suing for $10 million, saying that the jury verdict didn't teach him a lesson and he's gotten worse.

So pick it up from there and we'll talk a little bit about what the new jury in the case, what they would decide and what they don't have to decide because of the first jury having already ruled. Yeah, I was gonna actually ask you a lot of questions about exactly what you're teasing. I'm here for it. I am here for the question. I actually have more questions

than I do have answers when it comes to this particular what's happening here. So as you said, that after the CNN town hall, Robbie Kaplan and E. Jean Carroll are adding, are moving to amend the initial complaint to basically add those comments on that Carol one complaint. And they wrote in their filings, mere minutes after the verdict became public,

Trump repeated the defamatory lie that he had no idea who Carol was, and again, claimed her accusation of sexual assault was politically motivated. You know, by saying, quote, I have absolutely no idea who this woman is. This verdict is disgrace, a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time. And, you know, so they're asking basically for punitive damages because they really,

she got, she got the $5 million in damages and this happened right after the verdict. So what damages could they prove she incurred actual damages between the minutes, you know, where the 5 million was determined in this, you know, that's going to be a difficult, it's probably zero. So really what they're asking for is punitive damages. And you know, punitive means punishment, right? So you're doing it. You're asking for them in order to try and deter this future, this future conduct, because, you know, it's, it's, he doesn't stop right he keeps going he keeps going he keeps going but I have so many questions about this so number one question for you Popok is why amend Carol one why not bring a whole new suit because could you have a repugment jury verdict here if

they decide in on the one hand in Carol one the original claim if they decide on the one hand in carol one, the original claim, if they decide, you know what, he really was asked by the reporters, he wasn't going out to defame, you know, like is that going to be a problem? Does this turn the whole thing back into procedurally the same, do they have to now go for a motion to dismiss, you know, again, and does this, you know is slow down, Carol, one, instead of that was pending, that had matured much quicker. Now, by amending new charges, does that do you now have to go back into motion practice, and does that slow that down?

And really, I guess my final question I have for you is where there's a fine line here between the first amendment and defamation, right? I mean, he, you know, can he say, I didn't do this, I'm innocent, you know, he claims he is, he claims, you know, he wants to deny this, but is him just denying it? Does that cross over the line of defamation? Or does he have to actually, and then when he says, I don't know her, I don't know who she is.

Does that cross the line over to defamation? And saying things like, she's a whack job and this is political, I think that does cross over the line. But I have so many questions about it because it seems just very interesting to me that he wants to defend himself, right, and say I didn't do it. But how do you defend yourself without defaming her?

You know what I mean? Like how does he defend himself in Carol one now that, you know what I mean? Now that there's been that finding, and then I want you to also describe what I think you were teasing, which is the thing that about, you know, because there was already a finding, you know, that these statements are defamatory, you know, that what does that mean for for the trial. So I'll do it, at least if I can to it backwards. I think that there are, he cannot operate. And his first amendment rights are now limited by a jury set of findings. He can no longer operate in a world where there wasn't already discovery and exchange

of information, pictures of him with E. Jean Carol, depositions that were taken of him, the weight of the evidence against him, and continue to say that notwithstanding that, I just retry the case as if it hadn't happened. I think he has, that is limited, that then crosses over into being defamatory because it is false and he knows that it's false because the jury has said, so the jury makes findings and the jury makes a verdict, right, ultimately, that's one. Secondly, he went beyond just saying,

I didn't do it. He says, he's a whack job and a con job. Well, the jury has already ruled after a three-week trial, after listening to 11 witnesses, mainly for the plaintiff, because he never took the stand, which was his right, but he decided not to do it. They've already decided so the issue of what happened in Bergdorf-Goodman's department store, ladies lingerie dressing room,

is now fully and finally inconclusively decided against Donald Trump. As a matter of law, it happened. He didn't go, he didn't testify, doesn't matter. He got his due process, he got his day, or days in court, He elected not to testify. He waved that right, despite the judge giving him a second opportunity, second fight at the apple, to come back in and testify. It's your last chance, Mr. Takapita, to get your client here,

and they said, Judge, we waved. And he said, Fine, you've waved. He for now, for the future, under the doctrine of collateral, a stop-al, the issue of what happened in that room. All those bad things are now law, law of the case, if you will, law that carries on into the next case. The next jury that is seated will be told that there's already been a finding by a prior jury that what happened in that room in the spring of 1996 happened you are to assume for the purposes of your Deliberation that everything that E. Jean Carroll says happened or at least the right a fact section or a law section that That will track exactly the special jury verdict form in the civil case, and that's going to be given to the new jury. You're only decision for this trial, ladies and

gentlemen, of the jury is whether these statements made at the CNN town hall in another place as are defamatory. We know you are being instructed that what happened, the sexual abuse happened, he can't deny that. So all of these statements have to be judged against that. I mean, that's almost like summary judgment. I mean, I'm not even sure it gets to a jury. I think it gets to summary judgment in front of the same judge, Lewis Kaplan, who is presiding over the same thing.

And the reason I think that they had a choice. They had a strategic choice as lawyers and as the client. They could either have filed a brand new suit with a 2023 case number and throw it into the hopper and have to go down all of those federal rules and timelines and 180 days and maybe we get a or they could say, hey, we got a live case already in the hopper. Discovery is already complete in that case on all of those issues. And we already have a jury verdict that we can cross over

because those cases were consolidated that we can use in that case. So why start from scratch? Let's just move it forward. If the judge wants to give some limited new discovery, exchange of information and depositions between the parties about the new defamation. Let's do it. But then let's go to summary judgment, meaning you're telling the court that there are no disputed facts. There are no disputed facts for a jury to decide.

These are the undisputed facts. First case, it was proven that he was a sex abuser in, not the defamation part, but the sex abuser part in the department store dressing room. That's decided already. Undisputed set of facts. What else is undisputed? The videotape.

Seeing an end town hall. These are the statements that were made. He doesn't deny them. He continues to tweet them and social truth them and whatever he does. Those are undisputed. Judge, take a look at it. You have, you have to assume judge that everything that happened in 96 happened. You were there. You were the presiding judge. Secondly, all of these things are undisputed. This, as a matter of law, we're entitled to a judgment and a judgment finding new defamation. Now let's go to punitive damages. That's why they want to do it there.

What happens with the actual underlying original case, which we call Carol one, about whether the government comes in and says, we hate to do this, that we're setting precedent for the future and future presidents. We're going to step into the case and we're going to kill the aspect of the case that goes towards defamation while he was president. This case keeps it all alive because now, if the judge grants the motion for leave to

amend the pleading, which is the complaint, and allows this new claim to be crafted onto the old claim, and so they've already filed the motion and the proposed amended pleading, the case can just proceed on a much faster track with the same judge in federal court that if they filed all in other case and spun the wheel. Did I answer any of the questions? You did, but I have one more question. What I really don't understand though is, okay, there's no question of fact in the sense that you are correct.

Everybody agrees, there's no question of fact about the fact that he made these statements. But what there is a question about is whether they're defamatory, right? There's disagreement on that. Why is that not for a jury to decide? I assume she's a limited purpose public figure. And so therefore, this is an actual malice standard. I could be wrong. I just don't know. Well, let's talk about that. That's very interesting. You and I talked about that once offline. So there is a concept in defamation law that if you're just the run of a male citizen, which

she was during all of this until recently, people, I mean, yes, Eging. Well, Eging Carol probably was a little bit of a public figure because she was a calmness for Elle magazine and a writer and an author and all of that. And she wrote a book about Donald Trump, you know. Right. So actual malice needed to be established because, you know, she's at a higher level than just an average, you know, your average neighbor that you yell nasty things at because you didn't like what they did with the recycling cans.

That's a whole different thing. But there's a higher standard. But I think that on the facts provided and the case law that's out there about actual malice and the rest, there's an argument that the judge doesn't have to let it go to the jury that as a matter of law, these things are defamatory based on the undisputed factual record applying the law of defamation to the undisputed body of facts that the judge will have in front of them. I don't think you let that go to the jury.

I think that each in Carroll would argue and I hopefully would successful, that she doesn't need a day in court. She doesn't need a jury. The judge, as a matter of law, can issue her a judgment in her favor. But is the, if the judge, it is an actual malice of like a mens rea. Isn't it like a mental state of Donald Trump? And how can a judge decide that?

That to me is a jury question. Again, I'm only, depends on the facts, depends on the facts that are undisputed in front of him. Yeah. I just know to your point, to your point, though, in Delaware, when we were talking about Fox News and the the Murdoch family and and smart matter and dominion, the judge said on summary judgment, I'm going to find certain things. I'm gonna find, remember this, he found defamation. He said, these are false statements. These are the inflammatory statements.

And you have damage. And it's a close call. He almost did it on actual malice, based on the weight of the evidence that was presented in front of him. I mean mean here it's even easier, I think, because actual malice means you know what you're saying is not true, or you willfully disregard whether it is true or false and you say it anyway. Whether he went or not, we know he didn't go. It, a jury of his peers has determined that that's what happened. He can keep saying the light, the traffic light was red, but the jury has spoken. And there's

a reason we do this. And the jury has spoken and said the light was green. And he can't keep saying the light is red because he's got a first amendment, right? Because a jury, the, what do we have a jury process for? Why do we have a, why are we going through a jury if they're not the finders of fact, the judge, the giver of law, in rendering the decision in a civil case, then, then nothing, it's not an advisory opinion, it is a jury finding and a jury verdict. Yeah, I know. It's just so interesting because if he said, if he were to say, in my opinion, she's a whack job. You know, it's his opinion. That's not fact.

You know, like, how is that? I just, you know, it's the family. But it's the family. Yeah, but it's the family. Every, every defamatory statement, somebody's opinion, you know, you are a communist, you are a socialist, you are, you have a loathsome disease or you're a terrible doctor. That's an opinion, but that's also defamatory.

Yeah, I understand. I don't know. All right. I don't know people like when you and I do these tutorials to each other, but I do. I do. I learn a lot from you. I really do. I learn a lot.

I never prosecuted. I only defended. So to hear you, let's just take a moment to pat each other on the back. To have you on the show has been so invaluable. When you and I decided to do this together, and I remember that moment out in front of your office, well, we were listening to a jackhammer that we were trying to desperately stop from operating while you were trying to use to your law firm. And we made that decision.

I mean, we knew a lot of stuff was going on in the world related to the intersection of law and politics, but we never could envision that the men had all these zombie cases that were lurking around the men at DA's office would come back And that you, I mean, you never did this before. I mean, now you're a nationally acclaimed, you know, political commentator, legal commentator on mainstream media and here, but you started with us here. So it's such a special thrill for me to be able to do this every week with you.

And if people don't figure that out, but that's why I think the show does well, this Wednesday show does well, that's the reason it does well. I have tremendous amount of respect and admiration for you. And you give an angle that I might be great on the civil stuff, but you're great on everything criminal and prosecutorial. And together, we make a show. I want you to tell the story of how you and Ben came up with the idea in the first place. Oh, that one. Yeah.

And then how we named it. Yeah. So all right, I'll tell it in one minute. As salty as probably like tap in his foot here, but I people like our show. So I'm going to tell the story. So Ben and his brothers founded might as touch. They had like a hundred followers. And I had done a case against Ben,

but we stayed collegial and then friendly after I went back to private practice and we decided to work together in some cases. In fact, when I went back to private practice, the first case I did was with Ben and Ben's firm, your firm, when you were at the firm at the time. And we tried cases. And then COVID hit.

And I just opened a new office and he was doing his thing. And I was clicking around on something on LinkedIn or somewhere. And I saw a might as touch. At the time, it was literally a website, sort of like not TMZ, but it was a website and it needed content. And so, and I was bored because, you know, I had cases, but COVID killed a lot of it needed content. And so and I was bored because you know I had cases but COVID killed a lot of the court stuff. So I started writing for Midas Touch and they started posting it. And I started sending videos like they were so desperate at one point for

content when they had like 200 people, not 2 million people that I would take a video from Central Park or from Washington Square Park in New York or something, and they would post it like immediately. Then they did the podcast. And then I was interesting. And then Ben said to me, hey, we need like video content. Do you want to do like a legal roundup and do some legal clips for me and us? And I said, okay.

And so we started it too. And people can go find it. We'd get like 50 viewers, 50. We're supposed to win. You have to post the link to one other. I mean, now if you, me and Ben, don't do, I mean, not to brag, but if we don't do like half a million or more a week, we get upset.

We're like, oh my God, we're losing our touch. We got like 48 people to watch the first few of these. I'm not making the number up. They were terrible. We got mics now, we got things to help us look good. At the time, like pandemic hair, I was doing my own hair cut in the bathroom, and Ben was Ben, and we were doing everything.

We didn't even know what lane we were in. It wasn't even law and politics. It was like, hey, world wrestling federation has a new lawsuit today in Connecticut, and we were like, talk about it. And then we finally figured out that we stopped. We did like six of those and Brett, my cellist did all the graphics. We didn't have salty yet. The graphics were better than the show. That was a compliment to Brett. We have these amazing swishes. And all these like graphics. We're like, the show's not even this good. And the graphics were great.

Then we stopped. And then two years ago then we then we stopped and then two years ago To more two and a half years ago Ben said I want to relaunch what you and I did But I want to do it at the intersection of law and politics I said I'm in time was between those two things about four or five months And then I said all right, what do you think like the might as I mean now? I'd heard that the brothers podcast. I said like that he goes yeah, we're probably less less the brother's podcast. I said like that. He goes, yeah, we're probably less, less humorists like go, all right. So we started and then when we started it, we did not have our own podcast. We were the special edition on Wednesdays on the Midas Touch podcast, special edition.

We didn't have a name, legal, legal, whatever. And then we called it one day. We decided, all right, you know, it's like a spin-off show You know like when Morgan Mindy spun off from happy days. I love dating myself and Laverted Shirley we did we got to get out of here. We got to get out We got to leave the nest and we needed a name and So Ben and I laid it and I was late at night for me. He and I start texting. I won't tell you what Ben's final Thing was I said no and I said what about this and he said yes And that was it and then the game decided I'm gonna tell you that it tells

What Ben's was yeah, raw law Brought to you by Moink So I didn't like that he loved mine. I liked mine and so and it, man. And then we decided it's a little cheeky. The name. I won't go into the details. And we said, well, maybe we should call it legal analysis friends. I think that was Ben's idea or analytic framework. I was like, well, that's one way to put it. And then we needed an album cover because that's what they call the art that goes on podcast and then the guys designed it. And that was it. And then you about, I don't know, five or six months later, we were like, let's do a spin off show on a Wednesday, but we need, it just can't be like Ben and me doing another show. Like we need it. We need a new vibrant voice. We need somebody. And then it was like, boom, Karen, Freeman, Agnifalo. And the rest is like, but I love the legal AF origin story. Come on, it's amazing.

I don't think people know the whole story, but I know the whole story. I like to be a historian of all things. So I like, and I know, and I do, I do remember the, you always remember your, your, your first second podcast, Coincur, and I remember the moment that you said, what about me?

Like, I can't I do it. I go, why can't you do it? I think you can. Let's do it. And here, why can't you do it? I think you can. Let's do it. And here we are. The rest is history. And we've reached the end of another edition of the midweek legal AF with Karen Friedman Nick Nifalo and Michael Popak only on the Midas Touch Network. For those that care, which I think you do, our audience does anyway, they're here for it.

Here's how you can support what we're doing. It's all free. Watch us on YouTube. You're already watching us on YouTube tonight. Listen to us on the audio versions, on all platforms, and now I've heard there's all these other platforms I didn't even know about that we're on I Heart Radio and all, but you know, all the places you go get your podcasts. Go listen to it. Hit follow, hit subscribe.

It's all free. It helps us and helps the algorithms and makes us a top 50 new show in the world on podcasts. Then after audio and video, you can go to the Midas Touch store and you can pick up, here we go, t-shirts and shirts and mugs with legal aaf on it. Karen is in the kitchen, cooking up some new designs along with the Midas brothers that were they're going to bring to you, especially for our female audience. I think you're going to love over the summer, they're almost done, it's going to come soon, we'll make a big announcement related to that. And then you can just follow us on social media, you can subscribe to all things

might as touch on YouTube. You know, it was just like two months ago, we were like, right, one million, we're over a million, we're heading to two million subscribers. So go on there and hit that, that's free. All this stuff I'm talking about is free. But you know it's not free your time. And we appreciate the legal a-furs and the mightest mighty being here with us. We're going to do it again on Saturday with Ben Micellas. And we're going to do it right back here midweek on Wednesdays, Karen Friedman, and Knifelo Karen. Last word. So good to be back home. I've been traveling so much for the last couple of three weeks. I got off another plane today. So I'm a little jet lagged but it's

good. I want to stay home for a while. It's the beginning of summer, you know, Memorial Day weekend and here we go. And I'm so glad that you're here. We'll see everybody next week. Shout out to the Midas Mighty. you