Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Jack Smith Looks READY TO INDICT Trump

Episode Date: May 28, 2023

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast Legal AF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this week’s edition, the anchors discuss: 1) E Jean Carroll’s new defamation and $10 million dollar punitive damage and defamation case against Trump for his CNN comments; 2) Jack Smith’s prosecutors new “Espionage Act” focus, using a new cooperating witness, on Trump using his personal valet to remove national security documents from Mar a Lago storage rooms before his lawyers searched and tying the documents withheld as related to Trump’s efforts to do business with foreign powers; 3) the highest prison sentences so far being handed out for Seditious Conspiracy and domestic terrorism against the leaders of the Oath Keepers and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! 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! RHONE: Head to https://rhone.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF to save 20% off your entire order! FAST GROWING TREES: Head to https://fastgrowingtrees.com/legalaf right now to get 15% off your entire order! 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

The summer of accountability has arrived. As we predicted, E. Jean Carroll is seeking to amend her other defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump based on his new defamatory statements at the so-called CNN town hall. Special counsel Jack Smith appears to be ready to indict Donald Trump in connection with Donald Trump's theft of thousands of government records, which he concealed and obstructed Donald Trump's own lawyers are telling Donald Trump to prepare for an imminent indictment. And what did we learn this week? We learned this week that two of Trump's employees were moving boxes with classified documents. Get this the day before the Department of Justice and FBI officials showed up at Mar-a-Lago in response to a May 2022 subpoena that they sent. We also learned that Donald Trump himself held dress rehearsals for hiding classified documents from the Department of Justice. We also learned

a lot of information about what was in Donald Trump's lawyer Evan Corcoran's notes, which the Department of Justice got their hands on. We learned as well that the DOJ is also focused on the Trump organizations business dealings with foreign interests, and we learned some new important details about the grand jury's meeting schedule, which also indicates that indictments are imminent. No wonder Trump's lawyer in this case resigned last week, rats fleeing the sinking ship. Oh, and while we're at it, we should talk about that letter that Donald Trump sent this past week to

Merrick Garland, which just completely wreaks of desperation. Also, some of the top leaders of the terrorist group that calls itself, the oath keepers were sentenced this week to very long prison sentences for their seditious conspiracy and other crimes related to the insurrection. Buckle up folks, this is legal AF and justice is here. I just want to before we start the show in earnest say that on this memorial day we want to give thanks to all of those who have served our nation bravely, who made

the ultimate sacrifice for our nation. And I certainly hope that everybody watching this, everybody out there is reflecting on that and is also having the opportunity to get some rest, relaxation, spending some time with friends, family, or whatever makes you happy. Michael Popok, how are you? I'm doing great. I'm glad you mentioned Memorial Day important to many, many Americans, fallen Americans who gave, as you said, the ultimate sacrifice. My dad was army by late father. It was very important to him to have served his country national guard after that.

It's not just about hot dogs and hamburgers. It's been a time with your family. It's about memorializing those that have given the ultimate sacrifice and and are the part of being the conscience of democracy, which not only are federal judges, but you know, you and I and the Midas touch network do. It's part to be the conscience of democracy and and we're going to try to do that and contribute to that on this show. You know, my grandfather was a tail gunner on the B-29. I remember growing up hearing the stories that he would share to me about World War II.

My other grandfather was a doctor on the home front during World War II. And so when I think about the sacrifices they made, when I think about the ultimate sacrifices others have made in our military. When I think about military families, when I think about our veterans who protected our democracy, you know, it is a lot of work that we do here on Legal AF, but I just view what we do here on the Midestouch network as just doing a very small part to honor their legacy and to make sure that when they fought these forces of fascism, that we here are continuing to do our part to honor their fight and to honor

their service. So in this summer of accountability, just want to throw out some names for you, Michael Popock. Are you ready? It's going to sound a little bit like we didn't start the fire. Are you ready? Jack Smith, Fony Willis, Latisha James, Alvin Bragg, E. Jean Carol, Roberta Kaplan, Arthur N. Garan, Judge Juan, Moshan, Judge Robert McBurney, Judge Lewis Kaplan, Arthur and Garan, Judge Juan Moshan, Judge Robert McBernie, Judge Lewis Kaplan, Judge Ellerstein, we didn't start the fire. All of those names are haunting Donald Trump. And we talk about the wheels of justice turning in the right direction for all the legal

aephers who have been following along, no, that all of this news doesn't just come out of nowhere. It comes from diligent investigation, diligent legal work, the contrast between what the Department of Justice is doing underable, successful, intelligent, law and order leadership. Compare that to a bill bar. Compare the utter catastrophe of that John Durham investigation where they weaponized the DOJ truly weaponized the DOJ to go after Trump's political enemies. What was the result? Zero for two in trials. This ridiculous report that just red like Russian propaganda

where basically all they said was that the FBI acted too cavalierly in investigating Donald Trump. Like, are you kidding me, Donald Trump? During the 2016 run said Russia, if you are listening, hack the emails of the DNC, during the 2016 run said, Russia, if you are listening, hack the emails of the DNC, hack the emails, I'm Hillary Clinton, I don't think they were acting too cavalierly there. I think someone was acting persistically and criminally there at the time, but compare that to the diligent work that special counsel Jack Smith has done, the undefeated record that

Merrick Garland and the DOJ has at trial with all of these insurrectionists. They've tried hundreds of cases, nearly have gotten close to a thousand convictions. That's never happened in the history of our country, Michael Popak, And that is because there is good legal work being done. I'd like it to move quicker. I know y'all would like it to move quicker. I get it, but we must reflect on the success that's taking place. And as we talk about special counsel, Jack Smith, in this episode, I was reflecting on some other shows

that I was on in the Midas Touch Network this week that, you know, special counsel, Jack Smith in this episode, I was reflecting on some other shows that I was on in the Midas Touch Network this week that, you know, special counsel, Jack Smith, Michael, he was appointed in November of 2022. We are less than a year from when the search warrant was actually executed on Mar-a-Loggo on August 8th of 2022. So there has been a lot of developments. And you and I both know in our other cases, based on our experience in other criminal related cases, this actually is moving at a pace that is faster than some other cases. Certainly not as fast as we'd like

when our democracy is on the line, but I wanna put that out at the top of the show, especially as we'd like when our democracy is on the line, but I want to put that out at the top of the show, especially as we talk at the end of the show about these oath keepers being sentenced to serious, serious prison terms. Michael Popeye. Yeah, I like the way you put that all together. I have a Popeye Porter board. I'm going to pull out this going to dovetail so perfectly with that Billy Joel.

We didn't start the fire list of people because when you see the names and the witnesses that are involved, and we get to the Mar-a-Lago Jack Smith prosecution. But look, you are so right. I mean, about the pace at which Jack Smith, ultimately, Merrick Garland having appointed Jack Smith, where we are now and where we were at the press conference six months ago, where Merrick Garland having a point at Jack Smith where we are now and where we were at the press conference six months ago where Merrick Garland talked about obstruction more than a half a dozen times as a related to Donald Trump as he appointed Jack Smith. I mean we're only six months out from that and as you said the the the the subpoena for the Mar-a-Lago documents was May the meeting that you and I are going to talk about that's at the heart of the Mar-a-Lago documents was May, the meeting that you and I are going

to talk about that set the heart of the Mar-a-Lago prosecution now that we believe was in June of last year, and the search warrant came after that in August. And we're only in the end of May here. So things are moving rapidly ever since Alvin Bragg focused his attention on Stormy Daniels from January. He got an indictment in less than four or five months. Funny Willis wrapped up her special purpose grand jury after just seven months. And now between March and July, we think the end of July, which is a very short amount of time. She's got to get her indictment. And so things are on the criminal justice front.

Trials being set for Donald Trump in May of 2024, which in the grand scheme of things is quick in terms of how justice really moves for us as practicing lawyers. Steve Bannon's trial for Bill DeWolfrod in March in front of the same judge judge, Mershon March of 2024 summer of accountability spring of trial and convictions at the rate that this is going. You've got those back to back March May trials of Donald Trump in 2024, Bannon in spring summer of 2024, like back to back. By the way, the Manhattan District Attorney case

is a case where Donald Trump can and likely will serve prison time. If there is a conviction there, there are multiple year sentences attached to those falsification of business records that Donald Trump has been charged with. And when I think we will see as well, I'll put it out of as one of my predictions here that we can go back to and see if I'm ultimately right, I don't think the Manhattan district

attorney is done. Alvin Bragg and my views not done investigating other crimes. Alvin Bragg has taken a strategic pause regarding the charging decisions regarding Donald Trump's fraudulent financial valuations. And why did he take the strategic pause? Because in October of this year, so we're still basically a few months away from that, New York attorney, General Leticia James will have her civil fraud lawsuit against Donald Trump go to trial. Judge Arthur and Goiran has said, come hell or high water. This trial date is etched

in stone. This is a case where Donald Trump can be found liable for billions of dollars. The minimum that New York attorney general, Alicia James is seeking is a quarter of a billion dollars, but when that goes before a jury, she will likely be seeking billions of dollars and an injunction which would effectively stop Donald Trump and his adult children from conducting business in the state of New York, effectively ending the Trump organization's ability to conduct business generally. So that's a big trial.

I remember Donald Trump was deposed in that action already. The first time he was deposed in the special proceeding, he invoked his fifth amendment right against self-accrimination over 400 times. The second time he was deposed recognizing that invoking the fifth in a civil case is an adverse inference, meaning that New York attorney general, Latisha James, could tell the jury, he pled the fifth, look, it shows he's responsible and liable for the questions that he refuses to answer. That's

why he refused to answer those questions. Donald Trump did not invoke the fifth. He then went on his social media platform and essentially confessed to the crime that he's being investigated for by the Manhattan District Attorney and being sued similarly for by the New York Attorney General. He went on his social media platform and said, my financials were far stronger

than I even put on the financial statements. Yeah, that's one of the things you're being investigated for criminally. Now Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has that post. He has a full deposition. We know how horrible Donald Trump is at depositions from the E gene Carol case. And so I think we will start hearing about, yeah, probably in that fall period, other charges that will be brought in a separate case by Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg now, talking about E.

Gene. Before you move on, let me comment on that one part. I agree with you. He's not done, but I think he needs one more piece. He's been trying, Alvin Bragg for the last two years to squeeze somebody within the organization, not named Donald Trump or Trump, meaning they're not the children, to flip on Donald Trump. He tried with Matt Kalamari and Matt Kalamari, Jr., Chief Operating Officer, Head of Security. Now, Jack Smith has been able to get the Kalamari's to cooperate, and we'll talk about it as

it relates to video surveillance related to the Mar-a-Lago investigation. So I think that's a good sign for columnaries being in the crosshairs with Alvin Bragg. He's been desperately Alvin Bragg trying to get Alan Weiselberg to cooperate because no one, as much as Michael Cohen knows, no one is a stronger potential witness against Donald Trump on financial crime than the long time now disgraced felon five and a half months in jailed chief financial officer for 50 years Alan Weissselberg. He's been trying since he got into office to get Alan Weissselberg to flip even put him into Rikers Island for five and a half months and that hasn't done it. Now Weissselberg has a new lawyer. He fired his lawyer before he came out of jail, hired a new guy, McClaman Rosenberg,

a law firm in New York. And I assume that they are just in discussions over the potential other crimes that Alvin Bragg would charge Weiselberg with, including appraisal fraud, Weiselberg with including appraisal fraud, tax fraud, and other fraud that they already have him dead to rights and threaten him to go back to prison if he doesn't cooperate with them. I think that's been one of the holdups is to finally get a cooperating witness to go against Donald Trump and his name is Alan Weiselberg. So the question is, will Alan Weiselberg flip? But I have another question for you, Michael Popak.

Has Mark Meadows flip? There was a lot of rumblings this week that Mark Meadows has been awfully quiet. There was a one report which stated that those close to Trump have not been able to communicate with Mark Meadows, which they are very offended by and very nervous about and offended by because they're like Donald Trump, save America, pack, paid $900,000 to McGuire Woods, your law firm for your defense, you're supposed to give us some insight, you're supposed to give us some information

and regarding both the document investigation by Special Counsel, Jack Smith, for Trump's theft of classified records and obstruction of justice and the January 6th related investigations by Special Counsel, Jack Smith, for Donald Trump's election interference. Mark Meadows is the critical witness. Essentially, everybody else we've learned about, we know has testified. We know Mark Meadows invoked his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and connection with Fulton County District Attorney, Fawney Willis's criminal investigation before the special purpose grand jury. But with respect to special counsel Jack Smith's, we just don't know what's going on with Mark Meadows. Now, special counsel Jack Smith likely has all of Mark Meadows text messages at emails. Now,

not just the ones that Mark Meadows cherry picked, which by the way, we're very damning the ones that Meadows turned over to the January 6th committee, but remember Meadows acted like he was going to cooperate, then refused to cooperate, then filed a lawsuit against the January 6th committee, but remember Meadows acted like he was going to cooperate, then refused to cooperate, then filed a lawsuit against the January 6th committee, then ran out the time before the MAGA Republicans took over the House of Representatives. So, Jack Smith has the goods on Mark Meadows. The question is, is Mark Meadows cooperating? Are they negotiating some sort of immunity deal? Are they negotiating some sort of immunity deal? Are they negotiating some sort of cooperation deal? What do you think, Michael?

I think you're dead right. He's been awfully silent, awfully quiet, unlike the others. And we did a hot tick on how many witnesses, Donald Trump, has attempted to witness tamper with and influence their testimony by paying their freight for their attorneys and certainly Mark Meadows is one of them. Mark Meadows, as we've the fireplace is not standard behavior for a chief of staff or a president. And we have testimony at the chance six level, at least, in which he did that. His role in South in Georgia in the election interference is a problem.

His own voter registration issues is a problem. And all the things related to the contempt of Congress, which at the time the Department of Justice declined to prosecute them for that, although they did prosecute that end. But now they've got them firmly by the lower-nether region, it would be a nice way to put it, and I'm sure that they are squeezing. If they need his testimony, the other side of the, let's just play devil's advocate for a moment,

they don't need Mark Meadows, and because they have dozens and dozens and dozens of other people who can give that testimony, and he is not a witness but a target, and that you don't normally bring your target into a grand jury to testify, because they're testifying the grand jury is evaluating whether you should be charged.

Look, the JAN-6 committee had a number of people that it recommended for indictment. Mark Meadows was mentioned time and time again by Jamie Raskin and others at the conclusion of the final presentation of Jan 6th. If Mark Meadows is going to be indicted along with Donald Trump in one or more of these grand juries, they don't need him in the grand jury. In fact, it would be highly unusual, and it's almost impossible to bring in a person that you as a prosecutor, or the DOJ manual,

to bring him in, not give that person immunity, make them testify ultimately against themselves, or to take the Fifth Amendment. So that's really the question, Ben. Is he witness Mark Meadows because they need him to go get Donald Trump or have, or do they have enough, just like they have enough in Mar-a-Lago,

we'll talk about that in the next segment. And it's target defendant Meadows, right? Or cut a deal. As we were saying, hot justice summer wanted to give everybody that roadmap of what to expect over the coming weeks, over the coming months. So you're at the cutting edge when you're having discussions with family members asking you, hey, what's going on with all of these investigations? Let's talk about E. Jean Carroll's amendment to her other defamation case right now. But before doing it, let's take a quick break. 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 monk 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, chicken breasts, pork chops, salmon fillets, and much, much more. Plus, you can cancel anytime. Shark Tank host Kevin O'Leary called Moink's bacon, the best bacon he's ever tasted, and Ring Doorbell founder Jamie Simanov jumped at the chance to invest in Moink. Plus, they guarantee you'll say, oink, oink, I'm just so happy I got minked. I know I do, and I know you will too. Keep American farming going by signing up at minkbox.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 AF. That's moucbox.com slash legal AF. No one does ad reads like you, Michael Popeye, other than my younger brother.

Jordy, my cellist, you are that you get the silver medal there, but that you know, no, it could be Jordi. All right. So you and I were talking about on the last legal AF that based on Donald Trump statements at the so called CNN town hall, also based on other developments, namely that Donald Trump lost the other defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll, that she was likely going to amend her existing defamation case. We'll break it

down. We'll explain what all of that means in a moment to add all of these new allegations. And earlier this week, her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, again, you're following the road map of the, we didn't start the fire list of people, Roberta Kaplan, E, you're following the road map of the, we didn't start the fire list of people. Roberta Kaplan, E. Jean Carroll's lawyer, sent a letter to the judge. Judge Lewis Kaplan, no relationship there, informing the judge that they intended to file an amended complaint, requested a briefing schedule. Judge Lewis Kaplan immediately ordered that this briefing schedule indeed takes place. Before getting into just the facts of what went on in popac altas, that part to you, just

to remind everybody, there's the e-jean carol 2 case. That was the case that went to trial based on the battery by Donald Trump. That's a claim under the New York Adult Survivors Act, which revived the statute of limitations for sexual assault claims where the statute of limitations expired and allowed people like E. Jean Carol, who were victims, a one-year time period to bring their sexual assault in battery claims, which she did immediately the day the New York statute went into effect. It's also based on defamatory statements. A defamation claim was asserted. And that lawsuit against Donald Trump for statements he made in October of 2022 on his social media platform. Those statements are virtually identical

to statements that he made back in the summer of 2019. That's the E. Jean Carol one case. So E. Jean Carol filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump. So there are two E. Jean Carol lawsuits, the E. Jean Carol one, Donald Trump during a press conference and other statements that he made around the time E. Jean Carol released her book and was speaking with the press. He made these defamatory statements about her calling her a liar, calling her a fraud, saying all these horrific things about her. She sued Donald Trump in state court, eventually billed bar, substituted in the department of justice and the United States government, actually, as the defendant instead of Donald Trump,

arguing under something called the West fall act that Trump should be sued in the official capacity of the United States government saying that Trump was a government employee in the course and scope of his employment. There started a whole long appeals process that E. Jean Carroll one eventually found its way back to the federal court in New York and now set for trial again. So right as E. Jean Carroll, two was going before the jury. E. Jean Carroll one was sent back to judge Lewis Kaplan and Pope octake it from there. All right.

Here we go. So since the CNN more defamation by Donald Trump, in which he called E. Jean Carroll. This is the day after the jury verdict in what we call E. Jean Carroll too, has been just outlined, as you just outlined. He called her a whack job, a wacko, trying to shake him down, didn't know the person, and then like a actor again, and said,

what kind of person would meet somebody in a department store and then end up doing and this is his words, Hanky, Panky, with them in the dressing room. This is the sexual abuse that nine peers of his jury of his peers found that he committed against E. Jean Carol, which he's now reduced to a mocking joking Hanky, Panky also said something about her naming which is wrong in the family. Ttory naming a pet after a female body part. I mean just really crazy stupid shit. Now Before I get to the procedural things, you did a good job at describing E. Jean Carol one versus E. Jean Carol two Before I get to the procedural things, you did a good job at describing E. Jean Carol one versus E. Jean Carol two. Let's get ourselves into the minds of E. Jean Carol after the jury verdict, where she was, of course, thrilled that Justice had been done, and then have to watch her hear about

the CNN further attack on her. And in the mind of Robbie Kaplan, her lawyer, her powerhouse lawyer, who is now dealt a new set of cards, new hand, by Donald Trump, which is very unusual. Usually the person that defames you doesn't defame you again the next day. I mean, in the history of jurisprudence, that's almost never done. If a person is found to have committed defamation,

they pay their fine, they pay their judgment, they don't do it again. There's no like double. Here we have because it's Donald Trump, you know, he put his hand on the stove, got burnt, didn't like that, put his face on the stove, let's try it again. And then Robbie Kaplan has a strategist for her client, has to figure, what do I do now? What do I do now against Donald Trump? Can't be ignored.

You and I and Karen predicted rightly so two weeks ago during our midweek legal AF that Robbie Kaplan was going to sue again for Eugene Carroll on defamation and that he shouldn't test her on that if he does it again and and they're going to now I just read in the New Yorker magazine and we'll have a quote from it Robbie Kaplan was interviewed a day or so ago and she said, look, we've got two choices. One is we seek some sort of gag order against Donald Trump. Some sort of restraining order against his speaking out against in a defamatory way against my client. She said she consulted with Floyd Abrams, a very famous First Amendment lawyer in New

York, also the father of Dan Abrams, the legal commentator, and Ronnie Abrams, a federal judge in New York. And Floyd said, try it. But she said, it will get tied up in a pellet courts about First Amendment rights and gag orders about defamation. So Robbie said, I think our stronger way is to bring the new case and seek punitive damages against him to try to shut him down. So that, with that in mind, I want to do put up one quote, the reporter asked Robbie Kaplan, do you think this will stop him having lost the case in New York?

And her quote, which we have up on the screen says, I don't think he can help himself. Honestly, I don't think he has enough development of the frontal lobe of his brain to do that referring to Donald Trump. I agree with that. Well said, Robbie Kaplan. Procedurally, they had a choice. I there will talk about inside baseball lawyer stuff now. Do they file a brand new case, maybe check the box on the civil cover sheet to have it

relate back to the first two cases and have a brand new fresh out of the box, new evidence case of EG Carole versus Donald Trump for the new defamation. Or do they use the existing case? There's one case left. EG Carole one, as you described it, an add a new count, revise the complaint. And what would be the advantage of that?

Well, that case is all done. And in the can about the what happened in the dressing room. Jerry has already spoken sexual abuse happened in that dressing room. And so they take that as a as a judgment of law. And then they just tell the judge, we just need a little bit of discovery judgment. What happened on CNN and social media? So maybe open discovery for about a month, but let's keep this case on track. Now that the appellate courts have ruled

about the other issues related to him being president when he defamed, we'll try a case of presidential defamation when he was president and CNN defamation when he wasn't. In one case, with just a little bit of discovery, but everything else is done. Of course, Donald Trump doesn't like that. So Ben, talk about that list. You left off somebody. Ben, where's Ben?

Alina Habba. Alina Habba, who was a stuffed animal in the trial of E. Jean Carol. I mean, literally she did not say a word. She sat at council table. She didn't take a witness. She didn't make an argument. She didn't file. She didn't argue emotion.

Nothing. People in the jury box were probably wondering, who is that woman sitting at that table? Because she had no role. Except she's the one that wrote the letter to Judge Kaplan Telling him he should not allow the amendment of the lawsuit the Carol one lawsuit to add the CNN allegations Because judge you see what they're doing. They just went through the complaint and everywhere where they used to say rape now They say sexual abuse Right Alina because there was a judgment by a jury that declared that your client sexually abused

and that is now done. That is a matter of law forever. He can't say it didn't happen. And if he does, he's defaming her. That's where we're going with this. With the, I'm not even sure we need a jury. This is summary judgment stuff now. Is him calling her O'Aco with already a finding by a jury,

just like a judge finding. It is law of the case, it is collateral of stop-aul. He can no longer argue that he did not sexually abuse her in that dressing room. Period. And if he does, is it defamation? I see, I think that's for Judge Lewis Kaplan to decide not even for a future jury.

And that's why they're fighting so hard now. And then that last piece that we need to just wrap in to be complete, because you and I like to be complete, is about the Department of Justice and whether the US, United States of America is going to come in to, as the defendant and take out Donald Trump, and get the case dismissed as it relates to the presidential comments that Donald Trump made in defamatory way to E. Jean Carroll. Because another chapter in the West

Fall Immunity Act that you and I are doing this tutorial on legal AF. If the employee, this case, badge number one for the US government, the president of the United States at the time, Donald Trump. If he was within the course and scope of his duties when he defamed her, which is sounds ridiculous even as I'm saying it out loud, then he has immunity, as all federal employees do, and you can't sue. And so that part of the case would be dismissed while the rest of the case moved forward on his CNN post presidential defamation. We never have a situation where somebody defames somebody, one person so many times and so many different contexts and time periods, but we do.

And that's what the judge and the lawyers are sorting through now. The Department of Justice filed a letter that said, judge, we need to see more discovery, more of the exchange of information in the case to see what our position is ultimately going to be about immunity or not. So why don't you make a decision about whether you're going to grant the motion for leave to amend to allow these new claims, and then we'll get back to you in 30 days after that or so to tell you what the US headed by Joe Biden, of course, and in this case, Merrick Arlan, what their position is going to be about whether they're going to come in or come out.

And some people might be thinking, why would they help Donald Trump? They're not. But they have bigger precedent setting policy making in their minds about future presidents, democratic, democratic presidents included. And that sometimes puts them in a weird place where they look like they're supporting Donald Trump when they're really just supporting the rule of law and future precedent. That's what you and I need to follow. My prediction, Judge Kaplan allows the motion for leave to amend the new complaint stays

locked in with the original Carol one case. It moves forward. And ultimately, I'm hoping, I wanna hear your point on this Ben, I think the Department of Justice stays on the sidelines, but even if they do and step in and take out the claim for immunity purposes related to the presidential defamation, the case about CNN, go straight down the path

direct to Lewis Kaplan, the judge. Exactly. The CNN case for sure, the DOJ, they're basically saying in the letter that they sent to Judge Kaplan, the new conduct after Donald Trump was in office, we need to evaluate that. They don't say this specifically in the letter, but obviously just like the conduct by Donald Trump from October of 2022 in the trial that he just lost, the DOJ has nothing to do with. Clearly, the CNN defamation, the DOJ would have nothing to do this. And to your point, Popak, the DOJ's job, like they're clienting away is the executive branch,

right? They're an executive branch agency and they're supposed to support the defense of the presidency, current and past. Donald Trump places the DOJ in these conflicted situations because he's such a criminal. Now overwhelmingly, Merrick Garland and the DOJ has made the decision, basically not to back any of Donald Trump's immunity claims. And we see that over and over again with the special counsel, Jack Smith investigation. Donald Trump continues to assert executive privilege, if the executive branch acknowledged that privilege, we would not be anywhere where we are right now with respect to special counsel, jacks, mints, ongoing criminal

investigation. But the DOJ says absolutely not. And, you know, the statements that we've heard from Biden's own lawyers and counsel has said, look, Donald Trump doesn't get constitutional protections when he tried to overthrow and destroy our Constitution period. Full stop. The issue with E. Jean Carroll one is Donald Trump made those statements during a press conference like at the White House acting as a president, acting frankly as a traitor, but he was in the role of a United States president, which is horrifying to even remember that time period and to say it like that. So he was answering an array of questions. That question came up. So the precedent that the DOJ is concerned about is

what happens if a future president is asked a question, they answer that question in a way that somebody views as defamatory and they've now set precedent saying anybody can sue a president, right? That's the concern there. Ben, Ben, I got a softball for you. I think people will like it. Remember, when that great presidential executive branch scholar, Joe Takapina was asked in an interview before he became the lawyer for Donald Trump to comment about E. Jean Carol being to famed by the president of the United States at the time. What did he say?

I thought he took the position, basically, that Trump acted one with, I mean, he took the position of E. Jean Carroll and supported her against Donald Trump. I didn't want to stump you. He said, you're right. You remembered right. But his quote was, and I'm going to paraphrase his quote was, the occupant of the Oval Office doesn't get to be that the famer in chief. That was Joe Takapina before he got on the payroll of Donald Trump when he became the

lead lawyer for Donald Trump against E. Jean Carroll and Joe's lucky that Robbie Kaplan and her team in court did not bring that up to undermine his credibility during the trial. No doubt about that. So we'll see what happens with the DOJ's position here. But by the way, even if the DOJ did what Bill Bar did, remember, Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled, I know you're saying that, but it's not within the course of scope. Like, there's a presumption if the DOJ makes the assertion, but it's not a presumption that has to necessarily be followed here.

Anyway, let's get into special counsel, Jack Smith, and his ongoing investigation. You know, there's this article that's been circulating as well, and I want to put this out the top because I find it very interesting, and I'll put it out there for all of our legal AF slutes out there. And it's that photograph from the search warrant. We're gonna talk about all of the information that we learn now from this blockbuster report from the Washington Post and other reports

about what took place leading up to the execution of the search warrant. Donald Trump had people moving boxes around and was had dress rehearsals. But I wanna pull up this picture. It's a famous picture now. It's of the documents at Mar-a-Lago placed in this way. And we all remember Donald Trump and Alina Habahu, you mentioned before and all

of Trump's lawyers all saying, that's not how we kept him. We kept it in a neater way than that. And you know, you notice there that there is a ruler on that bottom document right there. You see that? The Secret SCI document sensitive compartment and information. We're talking about our nation's most highly classified, most highly secret information. Stuff like this can only be viewed in what's called skipsensitive compartment and information facilities. But an internet sleuth, and I've seen this article over and over again, and I want to hear what our legal a furs have to say have

noticed. You know, if you look at the border of the secret SCI document right there, and you look at the borders of some of the other documents. You look at the top left, you look at the top right with all these documents. It looks like the border is different sizes. And so what the internet salutes are musing right now, and I actually think it is a great theory right here, that's how it's supposed to look right there with a full red border around it. So the question is, is the reason the ruler was placed there, you ever wonder why they put a ruler there, because that's actually a photocopy. And one of the things they're trying to show on this famous photograph of all of the SCI documents, the

sensitive, compartmental information, is that some of those documents were actually photocopied. And then you think about the charge of espionage act. The espionage charge is involves the copying of of these records. And then you've got the concealment and mutilation charge, and you've got the obstruction of justice charge. And so I actually think there's a good theory there. And so I want to just throw that out to legal affers and those in the intelligence community who watch this show. I'd love to hear your guidance.

But Popoq, there's been a lot of developments going on in Special Counsel, Jack Smith's investigation. Blockbuster stuff. Popox taking out his board so you know that things are about to heat up here on legal AF. But before I toss it into you, Popox, let's take our final break of this episode. This is Michael Popox from Legal AF. If you like me, you understand the pains of choosing what to wear. Let's face it, most clothes are uncomfortable.

We're too tight, or are never actually the size you really are. Not to mention the annoyance of trying to put a good outfit together. And when you do have a good fit, you can only wear it for a few hours before you have an important meeting or dinner. And then you got to change all over again. Everyone wants to dress the best and look good at all times because, frankly, it's a confidence booster. So here's the deal. Men's closets were due for a radical reinvention and Ron stepped up to the challenge.

Ron's commuter collection is the most comfortable, breathable, and flexible set of products known to man. And here's why. Ron helps you get ready for any occasion with the commuter collection, which offers the world's most comfortable pants, dress shirts, one-quarter zips, and polos. You never have to worry about what to wear when you have the Rone commuter collection. Rone's comfortable for-a-way stretch fabric provides breathability and flexibility that leaves you free to enjoy whatever life throws your way, from your commute to work to your 18 holes of golf. It's time to feel confident without the hassle. With Rones Rakell release technology, Rakell's disappear as you stretch and wear the products,

it's that easy. And with its gold fusion anti-odor technology, you'll be smelling fresh and clean all day long, and on top of that, Rones 100% machine washable so you can ditch the dry cleaner altogether. I absolutely love Ron. As you can see, this has truly become my go-to commuter fit and on the legal AF podcast recordings. We're on the move a lot, whether it's jumping for a meeting to meeting or catch in a flight or an important dinner, the Ron commuter collection has never let me down. The versatility and comfort of the collection is undefeated. Even after I wear it all day, I still feel super fresh

because of that gold fusion anti-order technology. The commuter collection you can get you through any workday and straight into whatever comes next. Head to rohn.com slash legal AF and use promo code legal AF to save 20% on your entire order. That's 20% on your entire order when you head to R-H-O-N-E slash legal a f, promo code legal a f, find your corner office. Breathe some life into your own backyard with fast-growing trees.com this spring. From

shade to fresh fruit to privacy and natural beauty, let fast-growing trees.com help you plant your dream garden with your expert advice and fast-reliable shipping. Fast-growing to growing trees.com, you get customized recommendations based on your specific needs. Plus, their plant experts are always available to help keep your plants growing healthy through the season and beyond. No more waiting in long lines and hauling heavy plants around with fast growing trees.com, you order online and your plants arrive at your door in just a few days. I love fast growing trees because I have found the Honeycrisp apple tree I was looking for at a great price, and you will too. And with fast going trees, 30-day, alive, and thrive guarantee, you will know everything will look great fresh right out of the box. Join over 1.5 million happy fast growing tree customers. Go to fastgrowingtrees.com slash legal

AF. Now to get 15% off your entire order, get 15% off at fastgrowingtrees.com slash legal AF. Welcome back. We are live here on legal AF. I don't know, Popeye, you or Karen, who's, I give you both the silver medal. Jordy still gets the gold medal. But look, I do want to say this about our sponsors. I appreciate our sponsors. You can check them out in the description below.

Look, we got to put on a show. We got to have editors, we got to have talent, we got to have things that happen when you have productions. And it's great to have pro-democracy sponsors and people who support the work that we do here. But Popok, we've got a lot to discuss now in Special Counsel, Jack Smith. It was like one thing after the other this week. And so no one's better at breaking it all down than you. So I'll just toss it. Yeah, you're, you get the silver medal for that. Come on, then.

So let's, oh, look, the time is up the silver medal for that. Come on, then. So let's oh, look, the time is up. I have to go. I'm sorry. Occasionally, we're interrupted by our own technology, my some reason, some alarm just went off that I just handled. Okay, let's let's do the popok border board. Talk about new information. First of all, for those that were wondering for months, where is Jack Smith? Who is Jack Smith? We never see Jack Smith. What's he really doing? Is he prosecuting anybody?

All those things are answered. And what we now have is a series of, this is my words, strategic leaks, by the prosecutors to put pressure on Donald Trump about, particularly about Mar-a-Lago, all in the month of May. And we'll tell you what all of that is. And so we've learned the following.

Let me just put up a board above some of our graphics. Walt Nauta, well, Nauta, remember that name in history. He is the personal valet for Donald Trump. He was caught on video, moving boxes before the June 2nd meeting with the FBI and the head, Jay Bratton, Jay Bratt of the counterintelligence unit with Evan Corcoran, also on the list, the lawyer at the time for Mar-a-Lago, who turned over to Jay Bratt, where he said was 34 documents, and that's all there was of top secret or national security material, which was

a lie. He also had Evan Corcoran, also had Christina Bob sign a sworn statement that that was the case when it wasn't. Why is Walt Now to matter? Because there is a maintenance worker, see my button number two there. There is a maintenance worker who now has a criminal defense lawyer who has testified or is cooperating with the Department of Justice who says he has a photo of the room and that before the meeting with the FBI before even Evan Corcoran was given access by Donald Trump himself to go review the documents in order to return them

Donald Trump at Walt now to go into the storage room and move boxes meaning he was trying to deceive not only the FBI and the And the federal government about what he had taken but his own lawyer So if let's do it this way Evan Corcoran is told go look in the storage unit the storage room Don't look in daddy's desk Don't look into don't look anywhere else Don't look in Daddy's desk. Don't look into don't look anywhere else. That's not for you. You go look in storage room, except Donald Trump had Walt now to go into the storage room and move boxes boxes out of the storage room before his even his lawyer even got there. How do we know all that? Because Evan Corcoran turned over 50 pages of attorney client notes, not willingly,

to the special counsel because he was ordered to buy federal judge. He also said, Corcoran in his testimony to the grand jury, as it's been reported, that Walt Nata, Nauta, tried to interfere with his, his searching, uh, Corcoran searching through those boxes because he wanted to sit with him and sit on Evan Corcoran while he was doing, doing the review. And Corcoran said, no, I'm the lawyer, I got it. Thank you very much.

Why is Walton out of important? Because he's currently not cooperating with the Department of Justice, despite the fact that the Department of Justice has tried to squeeze him to do that, because his lawyer has said, not unless you give my client immunity. So up for grabs still, is if Jack Smith's team believes

they need Walt Nowda, the personal valet who shuffled the boxes, not only moving them from storage unit and other rooms, but also loaded up an SUV to Bedminster, the golf course, which has not been searched, not by search warrant by the Department of Justice, only by voluntary production through Tim Parlatorre, who's no longer the lawyer, but was the lawyer responsible for searching Betminster. That's again, all roads leading back to Walt Nauta. If they, if they wouldn't think they need him, they're going to have to give him immunity. The lawyer for Walt Nauta has already told them that. Look at all the people that need lawyers, maintenance workers,

personal valets, former lawyers, current lawyers, they only criminal lawyers of themselves. Back to the board, you've got the video evidence of Walt Nowda moving the documents, but the Department of Justice has a working theory that the videos were tampered with by the Trump organization in their surveillance and in the video they turned over to the government.

So the Kalamari's, both of them, Matt Jr. and Matt Sr. are also cooperating with Jack Smith about the security operation and the videotapes that were supplied to the Department of Justice, showing Walt now to moving in and out of that room. Then you've got a housekeeper. This is the silent workers at a resort, housekeepers, kitchen staff, maintenance workers, who see it all, some of which take photographs and turn it over to the Department of Justice.

One housekeeper in particular has been interviewed twice by the Department of Justice for everything that he or she has seen. Kitchen staff has already cooperated and been subpoenaed. Evan Corcoran has testified to the grand jury after being stripped of his attorney client, privilege, and he's provided all of his notes. Very copious notes. Look, I keep pretty good notes with my clients, but his notes are really copious. Facial expressions for Donald Trump, you know, conversations he had with Walt Nauta, they're all there. And Jack Smith has them. Tim Parlator, let's, let's stop on him and Boris Epstein. Why are, why are they important right now to Mar-a-Lago? Because when Tim Parlator, a quit a 10 days ago from being the replacement for Evan

Corcoran as the lead lawyer of Mar-a-Lago, he didn't just quit quietly, like we haven't heard from Tim Paralletore, Torley recently. He went on CNN and he gave an interview. And when he went on the interview, he said, I was the records custodian for searching Mar-a-Lago after Evan Corcoran left and Bedminster and a storage unit in West Palm Beach. But my work as a lawyer and searching in a records custodian was interfered with by another lawyer at in-house counsel for Donald Trump Boris Epstein.

And we have the clip. We're going to play it again here and we'll tie it all together on the Mar-a-Lago investigation. You said that Boris tried to prevent you from conducting searches with searches or those? This is the searches at Bedminster initially. There was a lot of push back from him where he didn't want us

doing the search and we had to eventually overcome him. Why didn't you want you doing the search? I don't know. You know, Boris is, you know, he is a lawyer. He spent about 18 months at a big firm doing transactional work. And I think he just thinks based on the experience he knows better than all of us.

So we have an admission by the lawyer that Boris Epstein wanted to interfere with the search at Betminster. And that's one of the reasons that the lawyer left his job. Jack Smith already knows this. Jack Smith already knows Boris Epstein has had a major role in obstruction and interference related to Mar-a-Lago. They picked up his cell phone.

We reported it six or eight months ago in an FBI search as well. And the focus now, Ben, of all of these moving pieces and all of this testimony pieces and all this testimony is on the June 2nd meeting of last year between Evan Corcoran, who didn't know he was being misled by his own client apparently about the universe of documents in the storage room having been moved. And meeting with Jay Brad, the counterintelligence head for the FBI and Trump setting them up. Now that's the focus, right? What did Evan Quarker know?

How was he misled by his own client? The dress rehearsal comment I want to clarify, and then I want to talk about SP, not checked. The dress rehearsal comment really honestly comes from Barrel Howell, the judge who in her opinion several months ago said that she saw Donald Trump's actions in spoon feeding the national archive back the documents as a dress rehearsal to see what he could get away with when the search when the subpoena was issued and then the search warrant. That's really the dress rehearsal. New reporting is revealed that they were referring to not technically that they

were practicing for the arrival of the FBI, but that they were using the opportunity to see what he could get away with. The issue left. You know, it's a little bit, it's a little semantic though. I mean, well, I would suggest that that. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying the original reporting was he did a real dress rehearsal, as opposed to a dress rehearsing his response in how he handled it with a national archive.

But look, one last thing and then turn it right back to you. The intent of why of why he is a Donald Trump refused to turn back these documents, then ties to the new reporting that they are looking at foreign ties and foreign connections to Donald Trump with a long list of countries, China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Kuwait, Oman, and France. Why? Because they found matching documents from those countries in the hundred or so documents that Donald Trump retained and they're trying to do a match. Well, one of the reasons is that he's so transactional, or as you like to say, he's always trying to monetize everything that because he was doing

business with these people, he liked having to lord over them documents about them that he could then use for his own benefit. And this all matters. And sometimes you and I do the same thing. We slip and call it the classified document case. It's not. It's the national security materials case because the Espionage Act does not require that the documents be classified or top secret just that they relate

to the national security matters. That term is used three times in the statute. Top secret classified is not used at all. He can be convicted, even if he magically through mental telepathy, declassified everything, what he can't do through a fit of alchemy is convert documents that relate to the national security into documents that don't and so that's why the espionage act combined with the obstruction of justice or obstruction act are the two things that The that Jack Smith is looking at and the last witness that went in to that grand jury related to Mar-a-Lago witness that went in to that grand jury related to Mar-a-Lago was almost a month ago. It was May 5th with the Kalamari's going in. That was the last time. He hasn't needed a new witness. Boris Epstein

hasn't gone in. He hasn't tried to bring Walt now to in. And if they're that close, and we know from your reporting, Ben, that they're that they're nervous on the Trump world that there is a Mara Lago indictment coming So they sent that ridiculous. I would have been embarrassed to send that letter in to Merrick, Arland Really was it was written by Donald Trump and Hunter Biden Hunter Biden Heiner Biden K Can we have a meeting it's ridiculous that it was silly and it looked it made them look terrible But they're trying everything they can't throw a monkey wrench because they know that Jackson it's been quiet for the last month on Mar-a-Lago No more witnesses have gone in which means he's getting ready to make his recommendation of Merrick, Carlin I believe I think you do too on Mar-a-Lago

Yeah, so what happened between May 5th and Right now most observers would tell you that that gap now most observers would tell you that that gap perhaps means that the recommendation memo that special counsel Jack Smith has to submit to Merrick Garland to ultimately approve the charges being brought that that is being prepared that special counsel Jack Smith saying that he is going to be seeking the indictments. And that's the gap. Pull up that letter one more time. That Donald Trump's lawyers sent just so we can show you how like utterly ridiculous this is. This is a letter from Trump's lawyer, John Rowley and Jim trusty. How happy is Tim Parletori that he is not a part of this team, by the way.

You gotta give Parletori at least the little credit for getting out when he did, although you can't give him too much credit for getting into the situation in the first place. This letter on from May 23rd, 2023 states, we represent Donald J. Trump, the 45th president of the United States in the investigation

currently being conducted by the Special Counsel's Office, unlike President Biden, his son, Hunter, and the Biden family. President Trump is being treated unfairly. No president of the United States has ever in the history of our country been baselessly investigated in such an outrageous and unlawful fashion. We request a meeting at your earliest convenience to discuss the ongoing injustice that is being perpetrated by your special counsel and his prosecutors. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I mean, it's like a humiliating letter.

Like obviously Donald Trump dictated. Obviously, he's the one who dictated that letter to them. But it's like, what in the world are you even talking about? I mean, that's the best. By the way, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, that is the best they can come up with an even Alina Habba wrote a four page letter to oppose the motion for leave to amend incited some case law. What did they cite?

Where is the brief? Where's the white paper presentation? Hey, Marik Garland, here's, by the way, writing to the wrong party, it's Jack Smith, it's doing the prosecution. But here's all the reasons that you shouldn't go after our client on Mar-a-Lago. This is like your last chance.

This also indicates to me that they are either unable because of their client, or they just don't have any credibility to behind the scenes, get a meeting, which is what you and I would do with a criminal client, not in the public. If the fact that they're begging him in public in their own way means that they don't have another avenue for Jim trustee to pick up the phone and call Jack Smith and have a meeting because they don't have a client that's willing to cut a deal.

Yeah, they have a client who is a massive fraud criminal and a trader to our country, but speaking of criminal fraud traders, let's talk about Donald Trump's Koch and Spiritors, the Oathkeeper leadership. There were some critical sentencing hearings that took place this past week. And we should always reflect upon the fact that the effort by the Department of Justice, and we've been covering it very detailed here, a very detailed fashion here on the Midas Touch Network on a legal AF, in the history of the United States, we've never seen anything of this scale and scope. And Bill Barr did Merrick Arland no favors, doing

no investigatory work really before Merrick Arland took office. Then obviously Donald Trump and the transition did everything they could to torpedo all aspects of a functioning government. I mean, that's just what took place. Now Mer Mary Garland has charged over 1,000 people. He is going to be charging probably 1,000 more. They're still in the process of identifying people. They do what you do in kind of RICO racketeering, mafia style, organized crime prosecutions. You start at the lowest level. You go up to the next tier

You go up to the tier above that and you work your way up to the top and So the tier kind of right below the Donald Trump and Trump's closest allies tier are these terrorists groups And that's what they are we should call them that The oath keepers and the proud boys. And we forget or we don't reflect enough on the fact that a seditious conspiracy charge historically has rarely been brought and rarely been successful. Okay, the Department of Justice has prevailed over and over again on its seditious conspiracy charge. And the one or two instances where they didn't prevail on this seditious conspiracy, they've

succeeded in other massive felony charges against an individual, for example, for obstruction of justice, which is the same type of prison sentence. And not only has the Department of Justice been successful in these seditious conspiracy prosecutions, they've been successful in these seditious conspiracy prosecutions, they've been successful at all levels, also at the court of appeals level, and also in situations where they've faced a bench that was ideologically a difficult panel

in the court of appeals, right? I mean, the challenge, there's been multiple challenges now to the ability of the Department of Justice to bring obstruction of official proceeding charges against insurrectionists. And in the first panel that the appeals panel that the DOJ had to argue their case in front of, after a Trump federal judge had this tortured reading of the obstruction

of official proceeding statute and held that in order for it to be obstruction of official proceeding, you have to like physically destroy documents. And he brought in this legislative history, how the because the law was passed in response to Enron. Therefore, it is clearly only about obstruction relating to documents, even though the statute specifically says broader language than that about or anything else regarding an official proceeding that someone's engaged in obstructing. But there was two Trump judges, and then one, I think Obama pointy, and there the DOJ prevailed over and over again, they prevailed over and over again.

They prevailed in their appeals. And so this has been a massive effort, but the kind of key moments have been these prosecution so far of these oath keepers, the proud boys. Their defense has been, we were doing this for Trump. Trump told us to do it. You got the wrong people. The insurrection would have happened without us. We were just responding this for Trump. Trump told us to do it. You got the wrong people. The insurrection would have happened without us We were just responding to Donald Trump

So in terms of building this case too now the DOJ has those statements from the insurrectionists from the From these terrorists saying Trump told us to do it. That's why we did it Which is going to be monumentally important in prosecuting Donald Trump as well. But now we have the sentencing of the oath keeper leadership and the court didn't hold back. I mean, I think these are significant sentences and popok, if you can break down how significant they were for the legal efforts. Yeah, let's start with Judge Mehta. We talked a lot about meat made up in the DC circuit

court. He's got a number of these cases in front of him. He's now responsible for the four highest sentences being given to any one related to Jan 6th at all. We started the top. He gave 18 years to Stuart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers who prior to being sentenced decided that he would go on a rant for 20 minutes in front of the judge, showed no remorse, no contrition, not apologize to the American people, to the people that he attacked on Jan 6, including Capitol Police and Metro Police and other people, nor to the court system. Instead, he said he's an oath keeper. Through and through, he supports the constitution.

He's being persecuted for political reasons and he sat down after that 20 minute rant. The judge responded that you were a threat to democracy. You are a threat to this nation. You are not a political prisoner. And you're allowed to disagree when there is an election. This is Judge Mehta. You're allowed to back the other guy, but you're now allowed to pick up arms and pitch forks

and attack the Capitol because you don't like the results of an election. That you're not allowed to do. And he made the finding that he's because of lack of contrition, because the statements that were made Stuart Rhodes having testified on his own behalf unsuccessfully in front of the jury, that he remains a threat to democracy. And he gave him the highest number.

The second highest sentence went to a non-Authkeeper who had attacked multiple law enforcement, multiple police officers and got 14 years by Judge Mata. If you're doing the scale at home, a former New York City police officer who lied on the stand for his involvement. Jan 6 got 10 years. So you're looking at the outer boundaries of 18 years, 14 years and 10 years. And then Judge Mata also sentenced Kelly Meigs, Mr. Kelly Meigs and Ken Harrelson for their role.

And this is the leadership tier of the Oathkeepers. Recall that Judge Maita split the case in half. He put the leaders in their case on first, those five people, including the three that got convicted of seditious conspiracy. And then he got the others that were part of the Oathkeepers, but not at the very, very apex of the Oathkeepers and tried them separately.

They're still, they got convicted. Also, they're gonna be sentenced as well at a later time. This is also the first time that one of the federal judges enhanced, meaning raised the amount of months that would be that the sentence would entail because of domestic terrorism enhancement. Other judges have sort of like, even though they don't like what's happened and they think these people are insurrectionists and others and usually they're Republican judges, they

have not applied the domestic terrorism button to push up the amount of the sentence judge Mata did, as it relates to these people, and that got them that enhancement in the sentencing guidelines, you know, shoots and ladder analysis, amp them up to 18 years. But the before the sentencing bend of all these people, as is a part of our justice system for those that watch from around the world. We allow victims to talk about the impact of the crimes on their lives. And so they not only file statements that get compiled by the U.S. probation department in a report that goes to the judge. People often ask, why is there such a gap between in federal court, between conviction and

sentencing? That four or five month gap is to allow both parties, the Department of Justice, the probation department and the defendants, people, to put together a package, to send into the court to try to, you know, one side, try to go for the lowest possible sentence or no sentence, and the other side going for the highest level that they think is appropriate. So, but victims and their families get to go to court and look these criminal, convicted criminals in the eye and the judge and plead their case. And there was a lot of compelling testimony by Capitol police officers, Metro police officers,

chiefs of staff of Nancy Pelosi, for instance, young staffers who ran for their lives, feared for their lives. And that also appropriately weighs on the sentencing decision by Judge Mehta. And then lastly, yesterday, Judge Mehta sent in, Megs and Harrelson. Harrelson got, I'm sorry, I got, Harrelson got four years. And then Jessica Watkins, I got, Harold's I got four years and then Jessica Watkins, I said, Meg's, Jessica Watkins got eight and a half, Kelly Meg's had already been sentenced along with Stuart Rhodes and it got over 10 years.

So we've got, you know, at the low end, four years on the high end, 18 years for the Oathkeeper leadership, all beat it out by Judge Mehta. Justice, summer, be there, be square, whether you want to be there or not, it's here. I think we all want to be there. This is what we've been talking about.

This is what we've been waiting for. Again, on this Memorial Day, I do want to make sure we all pay all respects, our respects that are due to those brave heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our great nation. It is so vital that we all continue to spread this truth, continue to promote our democracy. It is the least that we can do here. We are so grateful for all the legal a-fers out there for the mightest mighty for the brigators for the luminaries. We appreciate all of you

across all of our shows here at the mightest touch network and have a great rest of your weekend. We will have a great summer together. I can assure you of that. And again, just thank you from the bottom of my heart, Michael Pope, no one I'd rather spend my Saturday with than you. Maybe a few other people, but I really enjoy it. But you definitely, you definitely tie three. You definitely. I'll take the tie. I'll take the tie. I'll give you the gold medal too. There is literally nobody that I want to defend, defend democracy with you on a Saturday. Everybody check out store.mightestouch.com for the best pro democracy gear and legal

AF gear. Also, at the bottom of this YouTube YouTube for those who watch on YouTube. You'll see that dollar sign. I noticed a lot of people with the badges, one of the things that you can do to become a member of the Midas Touch YouTube. So you click that dollar sign, you become a member. It's different than our Patreon becomes a member of our YouTube. But if you're already a member, you can buy memberships for other people

as well. So, consider doing that with the dollar sign at the bottom right of the YouTube. If you just watch on YouTube, check us out wherever you get audio podcasts. It's a great listen on audio as well. You know, sometimes there's a lot to unpack here. So, you got to listen to it at least a few times for those who just listen on audio, make sure you subscribe to the MidasTouch YouTube channel as well. And just again from the bottom of our hearts, thank you so much. We will see you next time here on Legal AF. Shout out to the Midas Mighty.

you