Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Jack Smith LOCKS DOWN key testimony amid STUNNING update from Manhattan DA

Episode Date: March 30, 2023

The midweek edition of 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 special midweek’s edition, anchors national trial attorney Michael Popok and former top Manhattan DA prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo discuss: What the delays in the Manhattan DA Grand Jury investigating Donald Trump for the Stormy Daniels coverup may mean, as well as the impact of the last minute second day of testimony of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker on the possible indictment; the trial court’s recent rulings in the E. Jean Carroll civil rape and defamation case against Donald Trump on DNA evidence and whether Trump has immunity from defamation claims; and Trump taking an appeal of then Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the DC Circuit Court’s ruling stripping many of his top aides of any “executive privilege” and compelling them to testify, including Mark Meadow, and whether Mike Pence will appeal the ruling forcing him to testify to Jack Smith’s grand jury too, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! Better Help: Get convenient and affordable therapy with BetterHelp anytime, anywhere. Get started today and enjoy 10% off your first month at https://betterhelp.com/LegalAF 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 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 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You've joined the midweek edition of Legal AF where we have cultivated the most consequential stories at the intersection of law and politics. You may know what happened, but we explain what happens next. On today's show we address what is going on with the Manhattan D.A.'s office grand jury criminal investigation of Donald Trump and the Stormy Daniels hush money cover up. And we'll talk about a number of things. Why is the grand jury taking a month-long break? Is it cold feet by the prosecutor or something else? What can we make of the last witness before the break

being the former publisher of the National Acquire, David Pecker? And what could the second crime that they need be? And is it possible that the grand jury is looking at more than stormy Daniels? And does it matter that Donald Trump seems to be ordering the grand jury around into social media posts? Then we're going to turn to Jack Smith. And now that he successfully stripped the executive privilege

away from Trump's national security advisor, intelligence director, homeland security advisor, Mark Meadows, the vice president, when is his charging decision going to be made? And what is it going to be focused on? Is it going to be some sort of conspiracy around national security violations and Donald Trump? Is it Mar-a-Lago or Janssix?

We'll get to the bottom of it. And then finally, we have developments in the E. Jean Carroll defamation and civil rape case that starts in just less than a month, the judge having just ruled that Donald Trump is not going to be able to get out on summary judgment and have dismissed the last defamation claim that happened after he was president. We'll talk about what that means for the trial on moving forward. This is the midweek edition of legal AF. I am Michael Popak. I'm joined every Wednesday by my co-anchor, former top prosecutor, current amazing lawyer, Karen

Friedman, Ignifalo. You've seen her everywhere, but she's exclusive today to legal AF. And our episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Karen, how are you? Great to see you. Good to see you. So much going on. So it's great to see you. It's not the law and order set today for you. It doesn't seem to be some sort of green room. Where are you? Home. Your home. Is it home nice? Is it home a nice place to be sometimes? The one good thing that came out of the pandemic is the work from home, the ability to work from anywhere. I love it. I would never go back to being forced to only be in an office. I love that I can work in different places wherever I am. So a lot more flexible. That's true. However, I will tell you

that I was in 60th Center Street, the main courthouse that we'll we talk a lot about, at least on civil side, and I had been back in court, I was at second circuit arguing at appeal about eight months ago, but I was the first time in that courthouse before, since before pandemic. And I loved as a trial lawyer being backed in that courtroom in that courthouse. I just love to smell of it, I love being around it.

There was like one person on every floor, but it was fun to be back, as a practicing lawyer in floor, but it was fun to be, as a practicing lawyer and trial lawyer, it was fun to be back inside of a courtroom and not inside of a Zoom box. But this is what we do, and podcasting has made so much easier by our ability to do everything remotely. Let's talk about your office and the Manhattan DA's office, because we get some understandable criticism for trying to

predict when things are going to happen in cases. And when we're wrong or we're off or the timeline is a little bit skewed, people get upset and I understand that. We'd like to be right every time. If you look back at our, I don't know, 250 episodes of legal AFs stretching back two and a half years. You know, we're more right than wrong. I mean, we're probably batten 9.50 if you look at old episodes.

Now, sometimes the timing gets a little bit screwed up. Like, we think this is the week for the indictment. No, this is the week for the indictment. And now we've got what we've now learned is that there is going to be a scheduled break in the action because of the holidays in New York, which as a New Yorker and Karen will weigh in on this as well, is very important to New Yorkers, more so than probably any major city in America. New Yorkers take their holidays really seriously, regardless of your religious beliefs. We were joking before the podcast today about if you own a

car in New York, and you have to, you have to alternate side of the street park moving your car from one side of the street to the other to allow for street cleaning. You will learn very quickly, regardless of your background, all of the major Jewish holidays and even some of the minor ones because those are the days that you have to move your car. So again, holidays really, really important. And they were important to Alvin Bragg and the prosecutor's office. I mean, one of the things that prosecutors or lawyers like to do is keep the grand jury and the jury happy and content. It's the care and feeding of the of the jury because you want them to be in the right frame of mind

and make decisions that are important. So you make sure they get their lunch on time, you make sure you're ordering from the right restaurants, you give them breaks, you let if those are smokers or or fumers, they can go out and do that for a bit. You know, you they take a coffee break because you know, it's a hard job and it's very emotionally training to be on any type of jury. So what we've learned this week is that in January, they promised, the prosecutors promised that there would be a gap for Passover in Easter and spring break so that all the people's vacations and family obligations wouldn't be negatively

impacted. And so we are apparently now on that break. they got one more witness in and we'll talk about it on the show today, David Pecker, the former publisher, really disgraced publisher of the national inquirer and what his link through Michael Cohen, through Kelly and Conway is back to Donald Trump and that Stormy Daniels hushed money cover up. And then the grand jury's got other stuff to do. And apparently they're going to be doing other stuff this week, having nothing to do with Donald Trump on other crimes and other matters, not not involving him. And then they're going to take their break, which they're allowed to do, they're working kind of hard. Then they're going to come back at the end of April. And then we're

going to be back with the indictment watch as our co-acre Ben Mysalis likes to call it at the end of April in the beginning of May. Now with that timeline, we're pushing up against Fony Willis because Fony Willis in Fulton County looks like she's going to be presenting to her regular grand jury in May. So this looks like May is going to be super active. But let's start by unpacking it all with my co-worker, Karen Friedman, McNifalo, formerly number two in the very office that's prosecuting and investigating Donald Trump for stormy Daniels. And let me go through a couple of questions to frame one is the break unusual and should we read anything into it?

Let's start there. No. Okay. Like everybody should just climb off the ledge. It's not it's not a sign in your your mind then Karen that they're they're getting cold feet about the indictment, that the case is cratering, buying into any of the attempts by Donald Trump to draw Alvin Bragg into a foot fault of any type, right?

Now, I mean, look, there's a couple of things. First of all, everything is happening in secret, right? So this is, a grand jury by its very nature is secret. The only reason we know about this is because of witnesses who have gone in and either have been spotted by reporters who then report on it or who have talked about it publicly. So the only reason we know anything about the grand jury has nothing to do with the DA's office telling us anything or the courts telling us anything. It's really just things that you can glean. So if a witness goes in in the afternoon You know it's an afternoon grand jury because grand jury's sitting the afternoon or if a witness goes in on Monday and Wednesday

They usually these special grand jury's usually sit for two or three mornings or afternoons per week So we know for example based on when witnesses have gone in, it's a Monday, Wednesday, Thursday afternoon grand jury, things like that, that again nobody's announced anything like that, but we know it because we can surmise it based on facts that we see. And so it's, and so the same thing with a long-term grand jury, when, so, so grand jury is just to back up a minute, the way to charge someone, the only way to charge someone with a felony in New York, I shouldn't say the only way. The main way to, to go forward with a felony in New York is with a grand jury indictment. A defendant can also waive indictment by the grand jury and then be prosecuted.

But, but it's, it's, you have a right to have a grand jury in date you if prosecutor wants to prosecute you for a felony. And so you go into a grand jury. Now there's always about between four and six grand juries happening in Manhattan at all times. And some of them are two week grand juries where they sit all day for two weeks. Some are four week grandjuries where they sit all day for two weeks. Some are four week grandjuries where they sit half days,

like there's a morning grandjury and afternoon grandjury. And there's different grandjuries that sit, that here just the routine cases that come in and out of the office. However, some cases can't be presented in either that two week or four week timeframe. And there are some cases that you know are going to be long-term investigations. You don't know if they're going to go anywhere. And so what you do is you call for a special grand jury.

And special grand juries sometimes can sit for 18 months or for six months or depending on how long you want them for you make an application to the court and you apply for a grand jury for a certain amount of time for a certain number of cases or investigations and then the grand jury sits and so what and they come up with a schedule and one of the things they look at are holiday schedules. Now the reason they're taking two weeks off has more to do with childcare than it does anything else because the public schools are off and the private schools are off during

the two weeks that they have chosen. And Karen, is it two weeks or a month? Are I reading it closer to a month? So the reason they're saying that, so people have decided that the grand jury, so there's Thursday tomorrow, and there's Monday next week. And people have decided for whatever reason, and I'm not sure why,

that there will not be a vote on either of those days. I still think there's a chance that there could be a vote tomorrow or Monday. I haven't seen any indication that that couldn't still happen. So I'm a lone voice out there, I think, saying this, but I still think there's a chance. So if you were, in other words, if you were the prosecutor, just because there is a scheduled vacation coming up, doesn't mean that in the remaining days from then until now,

Alvin Brad couldn't call the graduate back to vote. Well, they are coming in tomorrow and Monday. The reporting is that they're coming in to hear a different case and they might be coming in to hear a different case, but that doesn't mean they're also not going to be charged and vote on this case. It doesn't take that long to charge and vote. It could take, I'd say in this case, I would probably leave an hour, maybe hour and a half

at most. So there could still be an indictment tomorrow or Monday in this case. But the reason I don't think it will go past Monday is because next Wednesday and Thursday are Passover. So you will lose certain grand jures at that point. and then you might not have a quorum which would be, you need 16 for a quorum and you need at least 12 to vote in favor of an indictment and that cuts it a little close. And so I don't see it happening next Wednesday or Thursday. And then there's two weeks after that. And so that's why people are saying a month because they're saying we lost this week, we lose next week, and then two weeks after that. That's why people are saying it's close to a month. But they've missed your point. They've missed

the KFA point, which is, don't be, don't run after that shiny object. They could vote when they're back for the other work before they go on their vacation. Yeah. So, so I would, I would, I would just, again, I don't want, I don't want people to say that I'm in any way saying, oh, they're going to indict or they're not going to indict. I just remember when I was in the office and there, and we would, we had a few, or I should say few, we had many super high profile matters like this that we kept on super lockdown. There was only maybe three or four people in the world that would know information.

And you know, it's a deliberate effort to keep it on super lockdown. And I just remember the reporting from excellent news reporting, you know, like newspapers and outlets. And they just got it wrong, 100% wrong. And you just sit there and scratch your head and think, where are they getting this from? You know, because I know what's happening. And it's not that.

So, you know, I really just think that there's still a possibility. And I don't want to get like the Twitter comments, oh, you know, they keep saying it's happening. And, and, you know, I addressed that in the beginning. I just, but you know, and I just, I'm not saying it is, I just, I just don't want anyone to, I don't put too much stock in what people are saying. Yes, there's a vacation. Yes, they're not gonna sit past over,

but there's still two days they could sit or it's gonna happen after that. We, you know, it's funny. I think people like to hear about this, how we prepare for a show. Yes, we bring to the show our experience and knowledge, our body of work, our judgment from the years that we've been in practice.

But we prepare. And before a show like this, I think people would find it interesting. We're Karen and me and Ben, the three lawyers on the team, go back and forth with, what do you think about this? And what do you think about this analysis? And one of our other legal analysts out there is making this comment, and we'll say,

no, that person doesn't know what they're talking about. That can't be it, it's gotta be this. So we do sit around and to prepare and to push each other as lawyers to figure out and who's got intel and what are you hearing? And what's the puzzle pieces that we're putting together that's unique to legal AF? And that's what we do.

And the product of all of that is when it's go time, it's air time, you're seeing us talk about it. And sometimes we're making the sausage together out loud in front of everybody. And we're mainly on point because of the judgment that we bring to bear here. Let me continue with the checklist of things I wanted to cover with you while we're doing the podcast today. The third one is, and you and I did a really great. It was fun to do it with you.

Many legal AF hot take of about 12 or 15 minutes that if people are interested, it's still running. A lot of people have seen it on the day of David Pecker being recalled by the grand jury to testify. Let me frame it and turn it back to you to give a version of what we've talked about. So I love it about it. I'm talking about it. I'm not.

Yeah, because I started. People gave me criticisms. Like is it a car or is it Pecker? I don't care. I'm going to call him pecker. Let me see if I can do it consistently. If you're going to carry that name around, and I've got a name that gets butchered,

you think popo is easy. It's only because we've had a million episodes and Ben frequently calls me popo 30, 40 times an episode. You know what? I beat you in terms of, I beat you in terms of a last name that gets butchered. I've missed loads. We saw Chris Hayes, poor Chris Hayes. I beat you in terms of I beat you in terms of a last name that gets butchered We saw Chris Hayes poor Chris Hayes. He just won. He had a cold that day So he was having trouble like you know talking and then he totally butchered butchered your name

But I don't it's not the reporter the other day and I and they put out a thing in the daily beast this morning And I read it and they wrote Karen Agrifalo And I was that what it says in the daily salty No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,rifolo. And I was like, Oh, is that what it says in the daily? Well, no, they cracked it. No, no, they cracked it. No, it's salty. I thought it was called. But up the daily V-star article,

I wanna talk about that. They corrected it online. I said, come on. All right. All right. There was a, You can't pronounce it, you can't pronounce it, but you can sell it.

But let's stay on that. We'll all wrap it into Pecker. That sounds terrible. Because Pecker is connected to Cohen, is connected to Kellyanne Conway. It's a lot of hard case and see consonants here. Kellyanne, Pecker, Cohen, and all of that. And they're all together and it seems to be the focus. Or one of the main thrusts of the investigation related to Stormy Daniels is because it is,

and when this is not surmiser suspicion or we're predicting this comes straight out of admissions by the publisher of the national inquire or the media company that published them, which was owned at the time by David Pecker, American media group, American media international. And they entered into because of their campaign violations related to Donald Trump, they entered into a non-prossecution agreement with the Department of Justice, with the Southern District of New York, who was investigating in return for them cooperating and testifying ultimately against, it was against Michael Cohen at the time,

but by extension by Donald Trump. And what they under oath told the Department of Justice is that David Pecker created the catch and kill program, offered it up to Kellyanne Conway and Michael Cohen in a meeting down in Florida, because he's a buddy of BFF of Donald Trump going back to when they were both playboy, you know, you know, bachelor's down there. And so and the plan was you find the people that said that they slept with Donald Trump and I'll go pay them off, enter into confidential non disclosure agreements and bury the story and never it'll never see the light of day, the catch and the kill.

And they, and he offered it to Cohen and McDougall and the Cohen and Kelly and Conway. And the first test case was Karen McDougall, who was a playmate, a playboy playmate, who like Stormy Daniels claim that she had had sex with Donald Trump, you know, when he was married and was gonna go public with it And they paid her it was close You can see the going rate the market rate that Donald Trump was paying for these types of stories 150,000 dollars That one got paid directly apparently and pecker admitted to it as did his company paid directly to Karen McDougall this one took a little bit of a circuitous route where the pecker connected Cohen to Stormy Daniels attorney and the payment got

made. Kellyanne Conway was in the room for the description of the plan of the program, the scheme. And that seems to be the focus. So let's talk about it. He already testified in January, Pecker, to the grand jury. He was one of the first, there's nine people that went into the grand jury. He was one of the first of the nine people

focusing on guests on corroborating and bolstering Michael Cohen's testimony as a witness that has a little bit of baggage. And the first one that comes back in, because the grand jury asks for it or otherwise, after Robert Castello, former, I don't know what he was, I don't know if he was the lawyer for Michael Cohen, but he was something that Michael Cohen had come in

and crapped all over Michael Cohen because Castello took to a podium in front of the press and said he did. And then they bring back Pekker. So prosecutor had Karen Friedman, a Knifalo, why, why after January is Pecker back? What does it mean for Donald Trump? What does it mean for the case and how close they are to indictment?

So Pecker testified three months ago or more. And that's a long time in the world of a trial or a grand jury. And if this was a normal trial where someone testified three months ago, you can, you can, in your summation, you can remind people of what the person said. But in this particular situation in a grand jury, there are no summations or closing arguments. And there's no opening statements either, and there's no cross-examination of witnesses.

It's really just a, you're supposed to just put in bare bones evidence. But this has, this whole grand jury presentation, which happens sometimes, by the way, this is not unusual. This happens sometimes where a defendant might testify or a defendant might ask for witnesses to come in. It sort of turns into a mini trial, and that's what this has turned into. And so Bob Costello presented information to the grand jury that was contrary to the people's theory, the government's, the prosecutor's theory of the case and contradicts some of

their evidence. And so what Alvin Bragg is doing now with his team is they're rebutting the evidence. And that's why they put David Pecker into the grand jury to rebut the evidence of what Costello said. One other question I had was, are they waiting on records or documents? Is that why they haven't asked them to vote? Because perhaps to rebut some of what Costello said,

perhaps there's some other not witnesses that they're waiting to call, but perhaps records. And you need a subpoena to get certain things and you need an open grand jury so they can't have voted yet in order to get to issue a grand jury subpoena. So there could be lots of reasons why things are happening, but all anyone is doing is giving it their best guess. And all I'm trying to do is give options.

That it could be this, it could be that, but don't read certain things into it. What it doesn't mean is that there's some problem or that this is unusual. And Donald Trump in his truth social posted, I think it was today, this whole thing about I've gained such respect for this grand jury, you know, perhaps even the whole grand jury system, the evidence is so overwhelming in my favor. And so ridiculously bad for the highly partisan and hateful DA that the grand jury saying, hold on, we're not a rubber stamp,

which most grandiers are branded as being, we're not going to vote against a preponderance of the evidence or against a large number of legal scholars all saying there's no case here. You know, this message is so, is so chock full of information. Number one, the I have gained such respect for this grand jury and the grand jury system. He's trying to butter them up. He's hoping they'll see this and that somehow, because he knows that a week ago, he threatened them, right, or threatened the prosecutor and threatened death and destruction, you know, for, and that scared them, you know, they're humans, right?

So they see someone with a baseball bat to someone else's head and threatening death and destruction. Now that of course he walks that back on Hannity and claims that he didn't do that, but that's of course preposterous. But look at that, but don't call that on Karen. Don't drop the last line. You left out the last line. Let's put it back up. Drop this sick winch hut now. That's like a command to the grand jury. Well, yeah, he's devil. So this to me was absolutely to the grand jury. This is absolutely him talking to the grand jury. Like you just said, drop the sick witch hunt now.

And again, he's buttering them up because he threatened them already. So now he's like, I'm not a bad guy. I think you're great. I have respect for you, right? So that's sort of his statement to the grand jury and trying to get them to do that. But what he's trying to do is mislead people into thinking that the fact that there is this

gap in time, if there is one, has anything to do with the fact that it's someone's having cold feet or that the case is not overwhelming in his favor. You know, all the things he's saying in there, he's just, again, he's making it up, but this is very much him trying to influence the grand jury, because he thinks that that's what this, this, what people are calling a delay. What I'm calling is just the normal fits and starts of a grand jury. I mean, there are times in a long-term grand jury where you have witnesses back to back to back to back to back,

and there are other times where you'll have, you know, a month where you won't even hear about that case because they might be hearing another case, and B, you might be waiting for other witnesses or other records or other things that you're trying to do in that grand jury. So a grand jury is not like a trial where it's

every day and and you know you can predict it. A long-term grand jury really sits and fits and starts. So this isn't a pause, it's not a delay, it's just a matter of logistics timing. And again, I still think security is a huge issue for law enforcement and is one of the factors in determining when they're going to ask the grand jury to vote. So yeah, I agree with it. For me, Pecker is a bad sign for Donald Trump, because I think he's not a, he's the most unfavorable witness to Donald Trump. He had immunity at the federal level, as you've pointed out in prior podcast, he automatically gets transactional immunity. So he can testify at free will, freely without worrying about being prosecuted for what he says. And we know from the non-prosecution agreement and the factual statements there, what his testimony is, which is all about, I devised

the catch and kill program to help Donald Trump, Donald Trump knew all about it. Donald Trump funded it and ultimately paid it, whether he paid it directly or he did it through Michael Cohen reimbursement. That is the nub of of Peckers testimony. And the jury wants to hear it again. And we already know that the the killee's heel for the case, if you will. And there's been reporting that recently, the like Alvin Bragg made a comment. I don't know if it's true or not. You don't have to comment on it, Karen, if you know anything, that's insider. But that you originally had said about Michael Cohen, I am never gonna prosecute a case

where Michael Cohen is the lead witness. Now that, apparently if that's true and that's been reported, he's come around Alvin Bragg after meeting with Michael Cohen a number of times and feeling better about him as a witness. But we know that Michael Cohen's credibility is at issue and bringing in witnesses that

can bolster aspects of his narrative of his story is a very good thing for the prosecution and a bad thing for Donald Trump because everybody who isn't Michael Cohen that says the same thing and sings from the same page of the hymnol as Michael Cohen about a certain meeting, about a certain event like Kellyanne Conway and David Pecker. That's a bad day for Donald Trump. So it's not like it's a witness that is exculpatory, you know, leading to the innocence of Donald Trump at all. It's a bad witness for Donald Trump. And he can be whistling in the graveyard. We know why he tweets in social media these things. He wants to control the narrative for political purposes and for fundraising because he keeps, he needs to keep those spickets

on. And every time he's, he's persecuted in, you know, it's persecuted Donald Trump, he gets a million dollars a day in fundraising. That's why he does it. Of course, it backfires when judges, and we're going to talk about one a little bit later, when judges latch on to his social media posts to nail him from a legal perspective, because what works in the court of public opinion in social media does not usually work in a court room, whether a person in a black robe who controls your fate either financially in a civil case or your liberty in a criminal case. And so those worlds are all colliding and collapsing on Donald Trump because every button he pushes that would usually work if he were not in the crosshairs of multiple indictments isn't

working here because these are just exhibits that prosecutors are using and will continue to use against him. Just as we at the Midas Touch Network are watching his social media to report on it and then try to integrate it into the legal cases, the prosecutors and the investigators are doing the same darn thing. And they're saying, how does this piece of new evidence today, like the social media truth thing that you read today, Karen, how does that fit into our case? Either goes to mens rea criminal intent or undermine a defense or is it inconsistent with something else that he has said, you know, and so people are

scrambling, but they're doing it for a purpose. It's not a game. It's for, it's for these prosecutions. The last thing I want to cover before we move on to the other two segments tonight is this whole debate that's still raging about what could the second crime be? You need two crimes here in order for it to be a felony. Everybody agrees to that. The one crime of, we already have one crime we know is going to be charged. If there's a, if there's a charging decision and indictment, it is going to be false books and records entry because of the cover up around the hundred and thirty thousand dollar payment, the structured nature of the payment, it was multiple payments back to Michael Cohen. They grossed it up so that he wouldn't suffer any tax consequences. So they gave them like the 30 or 40% more.

So if it wouldn't be seen as he wouldn't get hit on his income tax and have to pay more taxes, also a sign of of of criminal intent because you want to hide it and hide the nature of the transaction. So you got all that going on. They over they gave him a bonus and a kicker for having pulled it off. I mean, these are all things that are really, really important, but they're also crimes in the state of New York. They are, they're misdemeanors, unless they're in furtherance of another crime.

And that second crime, because Karen and I talked about this before we got on, doesn't have to be a felony. It could be two misdemeanors, like two wrongs don't make a right. Two misdemeanors can make a felony because if you're the misdemeanor of books in entry is covering up another crime as long as it's a crime, misdemeanor or not are felony, it creates a felony. And so the misdemeanor, and let me throw this one out at you, Karen, because we've talked about a lot of different ones. Is it money laundering? Is it, is it, is a tax evasion? Because he got a tax deduction on the Trump organization side for listing it as a legal expense back to Michael Cohen

when it was really a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, which is not deductible by the internal revenue code. Is it that? And then the latest one I want to throw at you, and maybe we can have our producer put it up on the screen, is New York election lost 17-152. I looked at 17-152 and I looked at the definition of election. Does everybody focus on this as a state crime, but this was a federal election.

But if you look at the election law in the state of New York, it doesn't matter. Election is not defined as state or federal. It's just an election. And 17152 is a conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties shall be guilty of a Mr. Meater.

So if you're making any illegal campaign contribution, which in effect this is because you're trying to gag stormy Daniels from going public during a campaign, which would wreck his chances. That's sort of a lawful means. So, and just one thing to put this in historical perspective. To compare Democrats and Republicans, Bill Clinton had this problem on the campaign trail too. He had a lot of women that came out in that era in 92 and 91 and said, me too. I also had an affair with the governor. He made an inappropriate pass at me.

He touched me. We had sex. In fact, it was colloquially referred to at the time in a totally politically incorrect way as among his campaign staffers as the Bimbo eruptions that these women who were being misogynistic, Ali called Bimbo's were coming out of nowhere and they were having to deal with them. The difference is that at least for that one putting aside Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton didn't try to pay them off or have other people pay them off to get rid of him.

He just dealt with them at press conferences. Donald Trump went this next step further on lawful means and a crime. So let me turn it to you. Do you think 17152 could be the crime or do you think there's some hole in my theory? No, no, look, the only hole in your theory about that is that, and the name of the case escapes here right now,

but there's a case that holds that in a federal, a presidential election or federal election, federal election crimes preempt the state election crime. And so it's, they're saying because of that, because it would preempt it and the feds already passed on it that that therefore it wouldn't apply it. But you know I am not as caught up in this as so many other people that this you that you do need to prove a second crime. Really because if you read the statute falsifying a business record in the first degree what it's about is you know you falsify the business record, you intentionally deceit with the intended deceive, you fraudulently enter a false business record. But the problem

is, you know, what makes it a felony is then in the language is you intend to cover up or conceal a crime. Not that you committed another crime or you're concealing a crime. So it's so right. It's the intent to commit a crime or the intent to conceal a crime. And so, I would argue, as the prosecutor, I'd say, I would say the reason we know he intended to cover up or conceal a crime is because he was, he was, why else did he structure the payments over 11 times and why did else did he lie about it and why else did he, you know, what I would say, we don't know if

his intent was to cover up or conceal Michael Cohen's crime of tax fraud. That would account because it doesn't say who had to commit the crime. We don't know if he intended to conceal, if he's truly the victim of extortion, then he's doing it to cover up that crime, right? Right. In some ways, you know, because it doesn't say who, and it doesn't say what. So it's just, it has to be a crime. And it could be one of the three that you mentioned, or it could be these other people or these other other people. So here's the question.

Here's the question. And I think I know the answer, but I'm going to nerd out with you in a minute. And I think we've talked about this before. It is not necessary. Is it former Madam Prosecutor that they charge a second crime? It's just that it's right. So they're not going to put on, that's where everybody makes the mistake in mainstream media. They're like, what could the second crime that they would charge be? They don't have to charge.

They just have to say it was in furtherance of another crime. It could be a stale dead crime and already happened. And somebody else's crime, as you've just outlined, it's just that that is the object of the furtherance of the conspiracy. By the way, you could have also, because it's just that that is the object of the furtherance of the conspiracy. By the way, he could have also, because it's the intent to commit or conceal a crime. He could have also said to David Pecker, you know why I'm doing it this way, you know, or to Cohen or somebody else, or Kelly and Conway or Hope Hicks or whoever, you know, he could have said to someone, you know, the reason I'm doing it this way is so that way I don't have to, I can deduct this on

my taxes. But then at the time, he chooses not to deduct it on his taxes, that still would count because the intent to commit a crime was there, even if he didn't do it. He still did enough to be guilty. This is why I loved it with the show with you. I know. And then I also hope that people like watching us do the show together, but that's that's those kind of observations. Yeah. But look, we're we're going to continue to follow

this. I can't think of a better person for our audience to listen to and hear the analysis of the Karen Friedman Nifalo. I'm just going along for the ride, try to hold it up my end, my end of the bargain. Go ahead. They might charge a second crime. You said you should do the half to. But they'll have to. Yeah, but they might. So, you need to see. I think that's the blind spot in a lot of analysis that people are thinking they have to

and what could that be. But we're gonna talk about that. We're gonna continue to follow this both here on the podcast, on the weekend edition as well. And then in the hot takes, the Karen, that and me have been doing caught almost on an hourly basis and during this indictment watch period, indictment watch season. And we're going to talk about two really amazing other segments as we move forward. We're going to talk about what

is going on in the E. Jean Carroll case. The clock is ticking there. We're three weeks away from picking a jury in the civil fraud case for E. Jean Carol in her claims against Donald Trump in civil rape and for the second defamation that Donald Trump did after he was president. And then we're also going to talk about Jack Smith. He's had a big week in front of two, not one, but two chief judges of the DC circuit court because he had barrel howl and then he picked up Jeb Bosberg who took over for a new seven year term and they're like 10 and 0 in stripping away the executive privilege from like every important person in Trump's inner sanctum is now naked in front of the grand jury without an attorney client privilege without an executive privilege.

One thing we got left is fifth amendment privilege if they think they've committed a crime, but we're going to talk about what that probably means for where Jack Smith is in his charging decisions and it's to which grand jury. But we're going to talk about that next Karen and I are professionals, but we're not that type of professional. And while we hopefully make people feel better about law and politics, we have a great sponsor that we're going to have come up next. They've been on a show before and that's BetterHelp. This episode is brought to you by our sponsor, BetterHelp. Getting to know yourself can be a lifelong process, especially because we're always growing and changing. The last few years, especially, a bit of wild ride, filled with my own personal self-realizations and growth.

Therapy is all about deepening yourself awareness and understanding. Because sometimes we don't know what we want or why we react the way we do until we talk through things. Better help connects you with a licensed therapist who can take you on that journey of self-discovery from wherever you are. I personally have benefited directly from therapy, allowing me to talk through and work through experiences in my past that were unknowingly having a major impact on the way I go about my day to day. Therapy is an incredibly helpful tool for learning positive coping skills and how to set boundaries. Over time, I've truly learned to become the best version of me, and look, therapy is for everyone, not just people who have experienced major trauma, because what you're working

through matters, never discount that. If you're thinking of starting therapy, give better help a try. It's entirely online, 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 therapists any time for no additional charge. Discover your potential with better help. Visit betterhelp.com slash legal AF today to get 10% off your first month. That's betterhelp.htlp.com slash legal AF. You know, we record some of these ads at different times.

I never know where they're gonna come up. So I'm always, I'm as surprised as anybody when I see myself come up in some of these ads at different times. I never know where they're going to come up. So I'm always, I'm as surprised as anybody when I see myself come up in one of these ads. And I was like, oh, there, there I am. All right, but we're back. And let's get down to it. Let's talk first about Eugene Carroll. I mean, there's one major development.

We'll spend a little time on it. Case is going to trial, civil rape. The case that is going to trial, we call Carol too, because Carol one was her original filing for the defamation that she claims happened when Donald Trump, while president denied that he had ever known, E. Jean Carol, knew who she was, um, raped her, met her in burgged off Goodman department store, um, or any of it called her a liar, a hoax, a cheat and everything else. That was defamation. If it's not true, an attack to her personally, but then that's Carol one. Carol, too, really

is taken on a life of its own and it's sort of gone, gone past Carol one. And that is the civil rape claim that was brought as the judge said today or this week in an opinion within 10 minutes of the new statute, allowing adult survivors of sexual battery to file their cases. And as I've said, Eugen Carles was the first case to be filed. So that's now along with a new 2022 definition that Donald Trump digs, he did the exact same thing all over again, but now he doesn't have the protection of presidential immunity. When he said it's a home, she's not my type. I never met her.

She's a liar. She's changes her story in the tractor. That's Carol to Carol to is going to trial on the 25th of April in a federal courthouse in New York. Come hell or high water as one of the judges likes to say it's happening. Judges already made rulings. Judge Kaplan has already made rulings. He's already said that the national and that the the testimony of two other women who say

that they were also me too, also attacked by Donald Trump sexually are going to be in front of the jury. And that infamous access Hollywood hot mic moment when Donald Trump didn't know he's being recorded, what he talked about, pushing himself onto women, taking advantage of them, sexually assaulting them and grabbing their genitalia. That's coming in in front of the jury as well. And now the judge is making other rulings getting ready for this trial. So just this past week, the defense filed a motion for what we call motion for partial summary judgment, which is a way for the for the defense or the plaintiff to say that certain issues on an undisputed

factual record can be concluded or decided by the judge as a matter of law. You don't need a jury. Let's just make the decisions. And here is the facts. And here is the law. And judge, you apply the undisputed facts to the law. And if the judge finds that there are undisputed facts and the laws on your side, you may get a judgment before trial.

And that's called summary judgment. Okay. They brought one saying that even if he said and did all of these things on social media on October 12 of 2022 in his truth social where he again attacked in a long string many screen social media post Carol that that was covered by what New York recognizes as does every other state some version of it. The absolute litigation privilege, which means in the state of New York, under section 74th, the New York Civil Rights Law, if you are just fairly and accurately reporting a judicial proceeding, then by doing so, you can't be sued for defamation, because you're just

fairly and accurately reporting a judicial proceeding. So the whole case turns on, the whole issue turns on whether, I mean, this is it, whether there has been a accurate report of the judicial proceeding by Donald Trump, what he made the comments. Now, the way Donald Trump tried to weasel around this is that he said, well, I was just commenting about what the Carol one case was all about. And yeah, I took a pot shot at you, Judge Kaplan, which he did and the judge noted, um, and all these other, but, but it's completely within, I mentioned the case. So if I mentioned the case, even though I then go on to attack, um, mercilessly, E. Jean Carroll again, that's covered by the privilege, right? And the judge said, not so fast.

But he methodically in a 20-page decision went through it. And I'm going to hear Karen's opinion, and then I'll give you a couple of highlights, which don't help Donald Trump on the way into his jury trial. Now, one last thing before Karen speaks, all of this briefing and motion practice by the lawyers on issues like legal issues, like does this immunity privilege apply and the statute of limited, jury doesn't really know usually about any of this. By the time they get there, the case is sort of settled. The judge along with the parties have settled on the law

that's going to be ultimately charged to the jury. What are the elements of this claim? What are the elements of this defense? What are the elements of damage? What's the jury-verk form going to look like? That's all sort of, by the time the jury gets the case into liberations at the end, that's all settled. Many of this is settled before so that the lawyers can talk about it in opening and say,

this is the law you're going to see. This is what civil rate means. This is the elements of defamation. We're going to ask you at the close of the evidence to return a verdict in our favor, in our judgment, in our favor and all that. But this stuff right now, yes, the jury's sitting at home that doesn't know they're the jury yet because they haven't been selected. They learn about it, but the jury, as jury, doesn't learn about these types of developments,

unless it addresses evidentiary issues that they have to be instructed on in that type of thing. Okay. So you've heard about it, Karen. What did you make of this decision and Trump's attempt to get rid of this defamation claim. You know, it's interesting because I look at this, yes, this is a defamation case, but it's also a rape case.

Like to me, at its core, this is a rape case. In yes, it's civil and yes, it is also a defamation in it. To me, it all comes down to the rape. Because if you raped her, then it all rises and falls on whether or not it actually happened. Because truth is the defense, right? To whatever. To defamation. And so I looked at this, what I found most interesting about the motion practice in this case was that the judge banned the lawyers

from mentioning DNA evidence. Now, I know you asked me a different question and you asked me about the defamation. But I, you. But I'm not an expert on that privilege that you talked about. Or he definitely talked more than just about the litigation. He also talked about, again, repeating his attacks on her. And I'm certainly not an expert on whether that counts or not. I mean, and I don't have an opinion here or there about what the judge did there. I take that at face value

that he was accurate. But like I said, I was much more interested in what he said about the DNA evidence. And the thing about the DNA evidence, so, you know, the posture of it is that the, is E.G. Carroll came out and, you know, she saved the dress she was wearing that day, and she claimed that there was DNA on it, and that she, that that would prove her case, and she was very public about that, right? Kind of like the, the Monica Lewinsky blue dress that we all remember, you know, the one, when Bill Clinton said, you know, I never had sexual relations with that woman.

And then as soon as she had her blue dress and he had his DNA on there, he started getting scorally and saying, you know, well, it just depends on the definition of sexual content, you know, whatever it was. And, you know, I just, I think that, I think this is very powerful that she has that dress. The other thing is, when they tested the dress, there was male skin cell fragments on there,

which again is pretty powerful. And for a long time, during the pendency of this case, they, Roberta Kaplan, who's the lawyer in this case, not to be mistaken by Judge Lewis Kaplan, who's presiding over the case, asked for Trump's DNA sample, and he refused. He wouldn't give it. That was very public. Then Takapina, whose most recent attorney, comes forward after discovery has long been passed and closed. Takapina says, okay, now we'll do it. And the judge says, you know what? I'm not doing it now because discovery is closed. And so nice try. You're just trying to delay. And this is going forward April 25th. And you can't play that game. that game. When discovery is closed, it's closed. I also think Roberta Kaplan is not pushing for it

because it might not be conclusive one way or another, given the fact that there might be a mixture. It probably is a mixture, which means it can be very difficult to determine if Donald Trump's DNA is in there if it is a mixture. But I personally think it's a huge mistake. And I really hate saying that, because I think Roberta Kaplan is one of the most brilliant lawyers I know.

I think strategically it's a huge mistake to not want DNA in there. And I'll tell you why. Number one, jurors watch TV and whether you watch lawn order or CSI or any other television show, you know that DNA is it, right? It's either there or it's not. And it's very dispositive and jurors expect to hear about it. Number one, number two, jurors will have read about the publicity in this case, where she has talked about the fact that she saved the dress. And so they're going to wonder, where is it? And, you know, in criminal cases, when we had situations like this, where there was

no, well, we said, we tested something and there was no DNA or there was insufficient DNA or there was a mixture. We 100% put on an expert to explain why you would not find, expect to find DNA or why it's a mixture or why you can't, why it's inconclusive. You have to put an expert on to explain the absence of DNA in a case or why, if there is DNA, why it's inconclusive. And I think the jury is going to want that. They're going to expect it and without it, it's a he said she said. And frankly, they are going to know, like I said, they will have read the paper and, or it gets people to read papers anymore, They will have read the stories online or watch the news and they will know about this dress and by not explaining it I think is a huge strategic mistake and it worries me in this case

Yeah, I think we're gonna have to see I mean I know that I want I'm not surprised by it and eat I mean robby cappelin the lawyer of freezing carol said two months ago that she did not see this as a DNA case. Obviously, because there's a problem with DNA on the blue dress. Now, I believe, I believe the witness when she says that she was so traumatized, but what happened to her and the Berkdorf Goodman department store, not

bathroom for those that have gotten that wrong dressing room, which is a more private area and a larger area. That she was so traumatized by it that she took that dress, she was wearing it that time, she stuck it in the back of coats in her closet, and never really remembered it again until she decided to sue. But I know Robbie Kaplan, I'm sure she tested the dress in there. It's inconclusive as the DNA because she did. And it is that there's been testimony. But they still have to explain it. You have to explain. Well, well,

the judge board any mention of DNA. And I think that's a mistake. Yeah, I have to get my hands on the ruling on that. But I about exactly what he ruled. But Yeah, I have to get my hands on the ruling on that, but I about exactly what he ruled, but They're gonna have to do something about the blue dress because it's out there No, whether they can mention it without the DNA. What were you wearing that day? That's that we're not at DNA yet. I was wearing a blue dress that you keep the blue dress. I did The quote is the quote is your precluded from any testimony argument, commentary or reference concerning DNA evidence. But that's not the blue dress. So if I'm the lawyer, if I'm Robbie, because you have to address your issue, I say, explain to the jury. Let's go slow. Explain to the jury, did you know Donald Trump before I did

casually in town? How? I was a gossip calmness for for L magazine and other places. I was also married at the time to a very well known local news reporter, which she was. I bumped into him socially. Okay. On this particular day, did you, you know, or did you bump into him at Bergdorf Goodman? I did. How did that happen? I met him at the revolving doors.

He knew me. I knew him. There was some banter. He asked to shop with me during the day. I thought that was weird, but I liked, you know, I knew him as a bachelor around town, and I was single too. And so I walked around with him in the department store. What happened next? I got pushed into the dressing room, and he then proceeded to sexually assault and rape me. What were you wearing that day? Do you recall? I do. How did you recall that?

It's so long ago. I was wearing a blue dress. Well, how do you know that's sitting here now? Because I kept the dress. Why did you keep the dress? Because I was so traumatized because it I just could never wear it again, but yet I couldn't throw it out. So it stood in the back of my closet behind coats.

Do you have it today? I do. Move on. Next line of questions. Blue dress is in. DNA is not mentioned. That's the way you have to solve this problem. No, it doesn't solve it though, because the defense used some up and you say, you say,

this is he said, she said, ladies and gentlemen, there's no proof. There's no anything. He denies, he didn't solve the problem of the DNA, but you have to bring the dress in as a player. Oh, yes. No, of course you have to bring the dress in, but I agree with that. And you're going to put the dress into evidence. But every juror is going to say, okay, was there DNA or was there not?

I don't understand. It's like, I think what she had to do, yes, it's a mixture, it's wouldn't be dispositive. If I were her, I'd put on an expert to explain that because I think they're going to wonder. And look, maybe because it's not beyond a reason, if this was a beyond a reasonable doubt, standard, this was criminal, this is 100% in a quiddle.

Yeah. Maybe because it's only a preponderance of the effort, you know. Well, this is where you and I have different perspectives because you spent 30 years as a prosecutor and I spent 30 years as a defensive plaintiff's lawyer. So, yes, I'd love to, if we had DNA in a civil case, I feel like, oh my God, we're, by the way, we had DNA in a civil case and it was proven,

it was Donald Trump on this, we wouldn't even be talking about a trial. Exactly. A trial would be over, settlement would be had, and we're done, right? It's good, but that's not, so we're gonna have to leave it to a jury of not this year. I think you're forgetting this lower standard,

51% you know, it's a feather on this, it's a feather on the scales of justice. That's all I can't get used to it. I just can't get used to it. I'm so like, you know, yeah. So we could spend all day talking about Eugene Caron. Sorry, sorry, our, A.R. producers will kill us and the audience will be like, what's going on with Jack Smith? There's develop. Yeah, salty. Salty's our, but I, but I'm getting little comments from him. So Jack Smith, Jack Smith, at the top of the podcast, let's show you how up to the moment we are. The top of the podcast I said, there was a series of rulings both by

barrel howl, who was then the chief judge to 10 days ago, and Jeb Bozburg, who's now the chief judge now, the circuit court about all things grand jury in which a whole line of executive branch people had their executive privilege stripped away from them and compelled to testify before the grand jury. National Security visor John Ratlett, Iraq liftcliffe, national intelligence director, Robert O'Brien, deputy attorney, um, deputy assistant homeland security acting, because he never really got the job. Ken Kuchinelli, Mark Meadows, and then separately, um, Mike Pence, then the vice president under a separate set of rulings and, and separate privileges. Now, and that's all true. And they were all compelled to testify. Interestingly,

enough, two weeks ago, when Evan Corcoran, M Evan Corcoran, the lawyer for Donald Trump for all things Mar-a-Lago and the documents issue was also stripped of his attorney client privilege and compelled to testify. And there was a appeal by Corcoran and Trump to the DC Circuit Court, a court of appeals. And they lost 3.0. They did not take an appeal to the Supreme Court and every Corcoran went in the next day and testified. It all happened within like 72 hours, briefing a pellet decision testimony, no appeal to the Supreme Court.

So that seemed to be his MO and Evan Corcoran testified, but now that all this inner circle, including White House AIDS, Dan Scavino, and Stephen Miller, Trump's up in arms, and now it's been reported as recently as like an hour ago that is going to appeal. And here we have it here is appealing. Barrel Howell. So it's not the one about Mike Pence, because barrel howl didn't do Mike Pence. It's barrel howls decision about that list of people that I just read out, raccliffe, O'Brien, Kuchinelli, Scavino, Miller, Meadows are all appealing back to the DC circuit court of appeals. Meaning we

got to wait for the wheel to spin and the random assignment of three new judges. Last time with E, with M Evan Corcoran, the three judges happen to be two Biden and one Obama appointee. So that was like cherry, cherry, cherry, jackpot. Now we're going to have to see what three get pulled up. Now is it going to be a couple of trumpers? Is it going to be, and once we see the panel, then Karen, me and Pan can more accurately, accurately report what's going to happen next, but we got to wait. They're going to take the appeal. This could go fast. It went really, really fast with Evan Corcoran. I'm not kidding. 72 hours panel at the court of appeals was appointed panel order to briefing schedule that was hours

long, not weeks or months long. They compressed into like six months, four months into 72 hours and and enter the ruling. That's going to happen here. Now based on that, we'll have to see what he does next. Last time I predicted that when Nevin Corcoran's appellate ruling came out against Trump, he was going to appeal to Supreme Court and take his chances with the right weighing magna that he had appointed. But he didn't.

So first steps first, let's see what the DC court, if let's see what the panel is, let's see what the DC court of appeals does. And then let's see what he does. In the meantime, those people are, are they run in place, they're not going to testify until there's an ultimate ruling. Now in addition to that, separately, and it hasn't yet been appealed, that's a Mike Pence issue, maybe with Donald Trump, is Mike Pence's assertion of speech and debate immunity, along with executive privilege to avoid testifying it all to the grand jury, just as he did to the Jan 6th committee as he did to the JAN-6 committee. That ruling

just came out. That was issued by the replacement for barrel howl, Jeb Bozberg, the new chief judge of the circuit. And Pence has said, oh, we're making our way through it. I see there's certain aspects of it where you agreed with me on speech and debate. And he says, I don't have to testify about what I did personally on JAN-6, but I do have to testify about any crimes that Donald Trump committed. We'll get back to you about our decision on appeal. So that hasn't happened yet. So that all the appeal and the thing we just put up, it's on everybody, but, uh, uh, including Mark Meadows, but Mike Pence, what do you think it means, uh, from a prosecutor standpoint, Karen, about these particular people, uh, and what Jack Smith is now focused on and

how close he is. Are we on the one yard line, the five yard line, are we at the end? Where are we with his prosecution and which prosecution are we talking about? So I think it's pretty clear we're talking about January 6th when it comes to Pence. And I think that the, you know, whereas Evan Corcoran, I think, is more clearly Mar-a-Lago. But I think, I think most of these that you were talking about the Mark Meadows, John Ratcliffe, O'Brien, Kuchinell, all the ones that are losing their bids to invoke these privileges, I think we're talking about January 6th and the insurrection. Just backing up a minute, what are these privilages, these executive privilege or speech and debate clause privilege

that people are trying to assert? You know, when you think about it, legally, anyone can be compelled to testify unless you assert certain privileges. So there's the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. There's an attorney-client privilege where it is designed to encourage people to speak openly to your attorney. And therefore, there's that privilege. You don't have to talk about what someone told you. There's a marital privilege designed to encourage husbands and, or should say spouses, to speak to one another openly and be able to have a relationship where you don't have to worry that anything you say in the

context of that relationship is going to be called into court. And there's the priest's priest penitent, you know, privilege. And, you know, there's different privileges all, again, to encourage people to be able to speak openly and not worry about being prosecuted for doing that. But in addition to that, are these other privileges, the executive privilege, which is in the executive branch, so that the people in the executive branch, and Kaisal has definitely has made this, has broadened it to include staff, you know, in the executive branch, you know, that it's so that, again, so that you can talk about important policy issues and be able to talk about the pros and cons of something and I

not have that come into court. And then the final one is this speech and debate clause privilege that for the first time has now being applied to Pence, the vice president, normally because he was the vice president. The executive privilege would be the one that he would try to assert. And he did try to assert that with respect to certain statements. But on January 6th, the one in particular that he was focusing on was the speech and debate clause privilege because of his role in certifying the election. he as the president of the Senate has that ministerial role. And the judge here ruled that Pence does have to testify in the grand jury, and the speech and debate class does apply to him.

And so there's certain questions he doesn't have to answer, but it doesn't cover everything. And so I just wanted to remind everybody about what these privileges are and what they're for, because we talk about them so openly, and sometimes we forget what they are. What that says to me though, and the way prosecutors work, just to answer your question,

is that Jack Smith is very far along in his investigation. Normally, the way prosecutors work that Jack Smith is very far along in his investigation. Normally, the way prosecutors work is, they work their way up to the big fish. And I don't think it gets any bigger than Mike Pence. He was the target and the victim of the violence on January 6th. He's also somebody who is going to be able to put in context what what Donald Trump was saying to him before January 6th and the pressure that he was putting on, you

know, on Pence to to participate in this illegal scheme to overturn the election results. You know, Pence was hunted down by these followers during the insurrectionist attacks. And most of that is on video because most of that was captured on video. So I don't know that the day of the stuff that they're saying that the judge said is covered by the speech and debate clause privilege that he doesn't have to answer. I don't know if that's as important as the conversations leading up to it where Trump was pressuring, pressuring, pressuring, to do this, and to literally throw the election. And so I think it really shows that they're throw the election. And so I think it really shows that they're this close to Trump. I mean, that's what they're trying to do. Because where else is there to go after Pence, right?

There's the prosecution is if they can get that testimony and the rest of these, this testimony, I think Jack Smith is ready to make a recommendation to Merrick Garland and which I think will include seeking an indictment. Yeah, so we're going to have to follow that really closely. Well, I think everything will happen after the appeal. The appeal will probably be a rocket, a rocket-docket appeal like we saw with Evan Corcoran. What do you make of that, by the way? The speed. I think the Department of Justice told them that they're very close to making a charging decision and asking the grand jury to return an indictment and they needed one last witness in Mar-a-Lago. That was Evan Corcoran and they were like, okay, we're here. Yeah, we're not going to make this a four-month thing.

We're going to mount times on, you know, we're on the clock. And I think they're going to try to make the similar argument. It's probably already been made in the secret court. So the records are already clear with the with the department of justice. And so I think they'll be an accelerant on this appeal as well. So I have a slightly, I have one addition to what you're gonna say. So I agree with you that that's what that's what Jack Smith is probably telling the judge. But lots of prosecutors will tell a judge, this is all we need. One last one.

And there's still put give you a four month briefing schedule. So I think it's also the judges are fed up with delay, delay, delay. I think the judges have realized with all the legal proceedings around the country that Donald Trump is somebody who uses the justice and legal system and uses it as a tool for his, you know, it's not supposed to be used to disrupt and delay and slow down. It's supposed to be used to make legitimate legal arguments. And when people have legitimate legal arguments to make. It sometimes takes time to consider them and to decide them. But somebody like Donald Trump, I think, has worn out his welcome in the courts. I think they realize that he just, again, makes claims and legal arguments that are illegitimate

and frivolous. He's been sanctioned for them and sometimes it's just ridiculous because he uses it as a tool to delay it. I think the judges are fed up and have had enough. And that's why I think they didn't do it here. I think you're right about that. Donald Trump is OED90 in courtrooms. He's been sanctioned and penalized by federal courts for frivolous filings.

He's frequently moved between the federal courts and the state courts, trying to put them at odds with each other and failed every time, including at the appellate level, including the US Supreme Court, when it comes to documents in his handling of certain presidential issues, have ruled almost invariably against Donald Trump. And there's a concept in that judges often refer to when they can't, when they can't find a rule or a statute, they refer to two things. One, they're inherent authority to do something

as judges and two, the fair administration of justice. And when they don't think that when they think administration of justice is being interfered with, as you've just, you know, so eloquently put about Donald Trump, they're like, sure, we'll give you an appeal, but we'll give it to you in 72 hours. And then let's move this along because you're going to, they've already made their, you know, they were just going to made their decisions. I think it also depends on which of the three panelists get picked. It happened to be Biden, Biden, Obama, and they were like, move it along. If it turns out to be two Trumpers, maybe they give them the benefit of the doubt and stretch this thing out because, you know, when things are going badly for you, you want to make them move, you know, slower. And so we'll see. I think

when we see the panel, we're going to know, but listen, this has always been, I love Wednesdays. I can't wait to get to the end of the, you know, end of the day to do the podcast with you. I'm like a little kid in a candy shop. And hopefully that enthusiasm that you and I bring to every episode is infectious with our listeners and viewers, but we've reached the end of another midweek edition of legal AF with with Michael pop up and Karen Friedman Ignifalo shout out to the legal a F's and to the Midas mighty and ultimately if you want to help the show which most people that are on here do the way to do it is easy and it's really free. If you watch us on YouTube and we welcome you to do that it's fun for us to see the live chat and be involved like this. Go on the audio that drops the next morning, or 10 or 12 hours later, and subscribe to the audio

and listen to the audio. That's free. Subscribe to the Midas Touch Network on YouTube. They just passed one million subscribers, and it was right after our Saturday show, I'm very proud about that, put them over the top. So do that. So if you watch, if you watch us, listen to us. If you listen to us only, and you're listening only to us now, go and watch us on YouTube. And that's also free and free subscribe there. And then you can rate and review us

and give us five stars that helps with the algorithm. And all that put together and that giant stew that I just described what happens. What happens is we've increased our audience by 10 times over the last year. And we went from sort of scraping along the bottom of the podcast rankings to now consistently hitting the top 50 news globally for top 50 ranking for news globally on ApplePod. Who would have thought, that's because of you, not because of us. We're doing the programming, we're doing the content, but you're doing the support and the listening

and the loyal following. And for that, we are very appreciative and we thank you. So until next week, Karen Friedman, I give it a blow, I always love giving you the last word, what you the last word. What's the last word? We got to go because salty needs to. So that's the last word. He's yelling at us to finish.

All right, we got to go. I'm double parked. I got to pull it out and do alternate side of the street parking. We'll see. We'll see everybody next Wednesday. you