Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Judge Luttig Reacts to Trump Disqualification Case And More (Interview)

Episode Date: February 12, 2024

Judge J. Michael Luttig, former federal appellate judge, one of the early proponents of the case for disqualifying Trump under the 14th Amendment, counselor to then-Vice President Mike Pence's team in the days before the 2021 U.S. Capitol attack, witness for the Jan 6 Committee, author of numerous “friend of the court” briefs to the United States Supreme Court on the Constitution and the presidency, and one for the foremost Constitutional scholars in America joins Legal AF anchor Michael Popok to share his reaction to: the oral argument at the Supreme Court on whether to apply the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3 to Trump; the DC Court of Appeals’ decision that there is no absolute presidential immunity to dismiss Trump’s DC indictment, and the Special Counsel’s report on President Biden’s handling of classified documents after he left the Vice Presidency. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

RBC Avion Visa lets you get there your way. Whether you want to... Suit up for peak ski season. Or... Spring break with a whole bam and a whole lot of sunblock. Or even... Book last minute and go on a whim. Choose from over 130 airlines on last minute or peak season travel with no points hike. Switch to RBC Avion Visa and get up to 55,000 bonus Avion points.

Limited time offer, condition supply, visit rbc.com slash avion. Fanduil Casino's exclusive Live Dealer Studio has your chance at the number one feeling, winning, which beats even the 27th best feeling, saying I do. Who wants this last parachute? I do.

Enjoy the number one feeling, winning, in an exciting Live dealer studio exclusively on Fanduil Casino, where winning is undefeated. 19-plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connexontario.ca. Please play responsibly. There is no better constitutional scholar and authority on the relationship between the U.S. Constitution, the presidency, and criminal law to join us on legal AF to speak

directly to our audience who sit with us at that intersection of law and politics. After a week like we just had, arising out of the role of our justice system, constitution, and the presidency, then my guest, former federal judge, J. Michael Ludig. I could spend an entire hot take listing his credentials and accomplishments as a scholar and a patriot, but let me list just a few. Judge Ludig is a trustee of the National Constitution Center prior to joining the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where he was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush. He was a former assistant AG with the Department of Justice, an assistant White House counsel under Ronald Reagan, clerk for associate justice Antonine

Scalia of the Supreme Court, where he also served as the special assistant to the Chief Justice. He was retained by Mike Pence at the time the Vice President at a critical moment in our nation's history, as Pence was being pressured by Trump and those around him, not to certify the election for Joe Biden and advised him and the rest of the world through social media that Pence had no authority

to do anything other than certify Joe Biden as president as part of the peaceful transfer of power. Judge Ludig, against great personal sacrifice as a federalist, as a conservative, has stepped in to help protect our constitutional republic and democracy in the most important moment in our nation's history. And I welcome him to our show to get his views on Thursday's Supreme Court oral argument and hot bench regarding whether the 14th Amendment Section 3 bans Trump from the ballot, Tuesday's unanimous decision by the DC Court of Appeals that neither Trump nor any other future occupant of the White House enjoys absolute

presidential immunity to dismiss a criminal indictment for conduct alleged to have violated Congress's federal criminal laws. And Thursday's report by special counsel Robert Herr that absolved Biden of any criminal conduct related to his and his advisors handling of classified materials after he left the vice presidency, but with damning faint praise also took shots at the president's mental faculties and memory while also going out of his way to involve himself in the Trump Mar-a-Lago case. Judge Ludig, I welcome you to Legal AF. Thank you, Michael.

It's a real pleasure to be with you today, and especially today after the week that we've just had in America and at the Supreme Court of the United States in particular. Yeah, I was telling my producer before we got on the air, we sort of lose a little bit of perspective on legal AF because there's so much news to cover and we try to do it in real time. But we just had a week that would normally be, you know, chapters in history books and they will be in the future. And I don't want to lose that focus. This was a tremendous week. Let's kick it off, Judge, with the Supreme Court and the 14th Amendment

in Section 3. You've got 14th Amendment Section 3, a Reconstruction Era amendment within a set of amendments by the Civil War generation to address insurrection, uprisings of rebellious states and people to ensure civil rights for newly freed slaves. You called Section 3 the constitutional safety net for American democracy. Tell our audience what you met and then we're going to go right to the oral argument what you observed. Yes, Michael. It is section three of the 14th Amendment is literally the safety net for American democracy, that is the Constitution's safety net for American

democracy. In this most fundamental of respects, Section 3 disqualifies any person who, having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States thereafter engages in an insurrection the Constitution of the United States that was contemplated and forbidden by the framers of the 14th Amendment, democracy because there is no more fundamental insurrection against the Constitution of the United States than is the insurrection that the former president engaged in on January 6, 2021, which is to say, on that day in the surrounding days, he attempted to remain in power beyond his constitutional term of four years.

He attempted to deny his successor, Joe Biden, who had been lawfully elected President of the United States of America, his powers of the presidency to which he was entitled, preventing for the first time in all of American history, the peaceful transfer of power. The framers of the, it was as if the framers of the 14th Amendment foresaw January 6th, 2021, and provided that America would never again have to witness another January 6. That is so perfect an example of what the Framers intended, and unquestionably intended that it was almost precious

of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, Michael. Yeah, so I've always, you know, I've agreed with your analysis, but you also talked before the oral argument about that there were no legitimate off ramps that this Supreme Court, as uncomfortable and unsavory as they found them, the position they found themselves in, to take, that they would have to address the issue of whether Donald Trump had engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, that it was the role of Article III judges and the

federal judges to make that decision. But we saw nothing but off-ramps, led by John Roberts, but joined by even Justices Kagan, of course, Kavanaugh. What was your takeaway? Because you anticipated that they would try to take off-ramps, but that they shouldn't. What did you see or what did you hear in the oral arguments about, and I'll frame it this way, Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, who's trying to get this coalition together, this consensus together, made it, you know, took the position that the 14th Amendment is all about restraining states. And it's about making sure that states and rebellious states, right, don't do something. So how could we find in there that states would have a role

under the 14th Amendment Section 3 to ban a person for federal office for the highest office of the land, the presidency? That seems incongruous. And then we were off and running for a two-hour oral argument. What did you find about the arguments made? I know your former law clerk, Mr. Mitchell, was representing Trump in this.

What was your takeaway from the oral arguments? I would begin, Michael, with the reminder to your audience that I have revered the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States since I was 18 years old, 16 maybe. And to this day, I revere the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States. What I saw and heard Thursday was the single most remarkable argument in the Supreme Court of the United States, certainly that I've ever heard or witnessed, and I believe must be the most remarkable argument that's ever been made in the Supreme Court of the United States for these reasons. The the presented with six to seven separate fundamental constitutional questions involving six or seven different provisions of the Constitution by this case. The argument lasted for two hours. I believe that the Supreme Court

never once engaged itself on any one of those seven fundamental constitutional questions. And by engagement, I'll explain. There were a few times, but only a few times, Michael, that the court brushed up against one or more of those fundamental issues that it had to resolve to decide this case. Even in those very few instances, the court only brushed up against them. It did not discuss those issues with counsel, okay?

Here's the proof of that. As you noted, Jonathan Mitchell was a former law clerk of mine after me. Jonathan clerked with Justice Scalia, my mentor. By my count, as many as six, seven, or eight times, Michael, a justice of the Supreme Court would, in the language, as you know, of argument and asking a leading question of Jonathan Jonathan Mitchell, intending to help him in his argument on behalf of the former president. And in some number of those instances, the justice would say something to the effect. It seems to me that this provision makes your argument for you, Mr. Mitchell, please respond.

In every one of those instances, Mr. Mitchell said to the justice, well, your honor, actually that does not support my argument. And in the remainder of those questions, Jonathan Mitchell would say to the justice, it doesn't support my argument, but if it does, it would only support it a little bit. Down to the final questions of great significance to the case, where on the question of whether the A president is an officer of the United States,

the court asked Jonathan, well, we thought You know We thought that your main argument Was that the former president was not an officer of the United States and Jonathan Mitchell in the most truthful honest forthright argument I Believe to the Supreme Court in history, said even as to that argument, well your honors, that's not really our main argument because we recognize that that's a very difficult question for us.

That's a long-winded way, Michael, of explaining for your viewers exactly what happened in the courtroom on Thursday. Yeah, we're here for the long-winded judge. Well, let me say, I didn't get to my main response to your question. I didn't get to my main response to your question. It was clear to me, from the first several questions by the court, that the Supreme Court of the United States

did not intend ever, in this case to decide the question whether the former president is disqualified under the 14th amendment. What's more by the time the argument was over it was crystal clear to me and to others who study the court and the 14th Amendment, that I don't believe that the Supreme Court intends ever to address the question of whether the former president is disqualified under section three of the 14th Amendment. And if you want, I can explain that,

but I'll leave that to you. Yeah, I totally agree with you. I don't know if this is going to be eight to one or nine zero, but the off ramp that you feared quickly coalesced and emerged for me in the beginning of the oral argument, they spent the other than Kataji Brown Jackson, they spent no time talking about insurrection, which was chalked off as by your former clerk as just a riot that had gotten out of control, but not an insurrection. Kavanaugh raised the issue of insurrection by asking Mitchell, well, what if your guy or anybody, this is my paraphrase, What if the person had been indicted for and convicted of insurrection? Would that have taken that person off the ballot? And Mitchell said it would, except for the immunity,

and we'll get to immunity later, that the president, we argue, continues to enjoy. Let me ask a question this way, Judge. The language chosen by the drafters of the 14th Amendment Section 3 was very specific. I mean, we all have to believe that they chose the words they chose for a very good reason, and not other words. They didn't say indicted and convicted. They didn't anticipate trials. They said that if the person engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution and then the rest of the 14th Amendment Section 3. This Supreme Court seems to believe that it's not self-affecting,

that it needs to go back to Congress of all things, of all institutions. Even though there is a role for Congress that's in the 14th Amendment, but not in this section, for them to determine whether the person engaged or not, if that's true. I think we already did that with the Jan 6th committee. But in any event, what should have been the role of Article 3 judges or judges to determine whether somebody engaged?

Because this is a court, as you just noted, that doesn't wanna touch that with a 10-foot pole. Michael, thank you for asking the question that way and gives me the opportunity to tell your viewers exactly what the court's thinking and what it most likely will do. As the former president's lawyer argued in his reply brief at the 11th hour, days before the argument, there, the president's position, literally now before the Supreme Court, is that the Supreme Court itself does not have the power to decide whether the former president is disqualified now or ever. And as you know, when I saw that very clear argument in the reply brief I wrote on Twitter just so the country would understand what the

actual argument by the former president is. Again, they argued to the Supreme Court of the United States that no court in the land, especially the Supreme Court of the United States, has the power ever to decide that the former president is disqualified. So that leads me to the off-ramps. It is not a legitimate off-ramp for this Supreme Court to say that Section 3 is not self-executing. It's not a legitimate off-ramp for this Supreme Court to say that Congress and only Congress can decide whether the president's disqualified. Both of those arguments are, it's not possible under the Constitution to hold either of those.

So, assuming for the moment that I'm right on that, What did I hear the court saying that it wants to do? Loud and clear, all nine justices were coalescing not Michael around the view that Section 3 is not self-executing, but rather around the view that the states don't have the power to disqualify a presidential candidate and a presidential candidate only from a primary ballot. So if the Supreme Court were to, let's zoom back out so folks can understand exactly what the implications of that holding would be.

First off, if they did that and nothing more, then all that would happen is that the states would not be allowed to disqualify the former president during the primaries. And it would leave for another day whether the states under acting under the electors and elections clauses, virtual plenary authority, could determine whether to disqualify the former president for purposes of the general election. That's just the Supreme Court did what I said and said nothing more.

Now, as to doing what it wants to do or seemed to want to do, disqualify, remove from the states their almost plenary power to disqualify the president from the primary ballot, that's what for the life of me I don't understand that they could ever do, because there is absolutely not a basis in the Constitution constitution or laws of the United States for the court to hold that the states have the power to disqualify don't know, Michael, but I do know that what I'm saying under the Constitution is correct. Now, maybe this is the point where we remind your viewers that it is the Supreme Court itself through Justice Robert Jackson, I think, who once famously said that this court's not final

because we're infallible. We are infallible because we're final. And which is just another way of saying the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution. And whatever the Supreme Court chooses to do here is the law of the land. It doesn't mean that it has to, it doesn't necessarily mean that what they do is even consistent with the Constitution.

But in this particular case, I just for one person believe that the court had a high duty and responsibility to the nation, at least to decide the questions presented. But it from the argument, and we can never know just from the argument, but from the argument, it was clear at argument that they do not intend to decide any one of the fundamental questions presented. Suddenly the originalists and the textualists couldn't figure out what text means and if it means what it says because they don't want to involve themselves in that decision and they found that off-ramp that you feared. I'd love to have you on one day and talk about what you think

the Roberts Court looks like versus the Rehnquist Court or the Burger or Warren courts, but we'll leave that for another time. Here's a segue that came right out of a Kavanaugh question into our next topic which was again, I think of misreading of The 14th Amendment section three, doesn't say trial, indictment and conviction, it says, engaged. And he said, well, what if your guy was indicted

and convicted of insurrection? And we all know, just for our audience's sakes, that that's not part of any of the 91 felony counts against Donald Trump. There are many counts against him for obstruction of justice and conspiracies around that, espionage act and that type of thing, but not for the crime of insurrection. There's things that are analogous to it, but not exactly. And so, Mitchell, I mean, had a concede, which he did a lot of conceding, as you noted, when he was thrown life preservers,

life rafts, he sort of dodged them and said, oh, that doesn't, like you said, that doesn't really help our argument. But he did take the moment to be at least partially consistent on the Trump side by saying, well, yes, then I think we would be banned, which I don't think is consistent with the argument. But we have immunity. That takes us to Tuesday, which in any given week would have been the most momentous decision or issue event of the week in this area that we've been talking about with the three judge

panel, Pan Childs and Henderson of the DC Court of Appeals, ruling 3-0 and really, from my perspective, magnificently written, dismantling limb by limb of every one of Donald Trump's major arguments. You listed seven or so that were in play in the Supreme Court for the last segment. There was at least seven or eight major arguments that they took on one by one in their decision making, starting with jurisdiction and a lockatory jurisdiction,

whether the court had jurisdiction at all. It spent a fair amount of time on that. I think that was the judge child's position. And then got into the heart of the matter on impeachment, whether there's an impeachment prerequisite to criminal indictment for a president or not, structural separation of powers, type immunity, and the rest. So my question for you, Judge, is having now gone through it and read it and understanding the timetable that's now been set up by the DC Court of Appeals with Donald Trump having to give a notice of an appeal or try to take an emergency interlocutory appeal up

rid of cert up to the Supreme Court by the 13th, which is coming up. What was your takeaway from the decision? And what do you think John Roberts and the rest of the Supreme Court do next with this appeal? Do they leave it and say, we're not taking this appeal? Everything looks fine here. We'll see at the end of the case,

or do they insert themselves in there again? And is there a grand bargain? If they're going to give him the ballot, are they going to find that not just for Donald Trump, but for our constitutional republic, that there is no immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct as indicted when you're a president? Michael, let me begin by just addressing one last thing that you said before you asked that question

about the 14th Amendment argument. Jonathan Mitchell, on behalf of the former president, Jonathan Mitchell, on behalf of the former president, did not concede anything. This is a technical point, but it's of great significance for the Constitution and for the Supreme Court. As I had said at the beginning, he was the most honest advocate ever to appear before the Supreme Court. But the listeners need to understand the Supreme Court believed that they were helping Mr. Mitchell. And Mr. Mitchell refused to be on record as gratuitously or accepting those gratuitous offers of help

and explained repeatedly to the court directly that, no, your honors, that does not help us. Now to the immunity case, at the same time a block or two away from each other that the Supreme Court was engaging in the argument that we just discussed, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decided not as important, but almost as important, a fundamental constitutional issue related to the presidency, as it did. It did not flinch. There was never an argument, there has never been an argument that a former president is immune from prosecution for criminal offenses against the United States of America after he or she leaves office. Literally, there is no argument that could have been made under the Constitution of the United States for that proposition. That's not to take credit away from the D.C. Circuit.

It's to give the D.C. Circuit the credit that it's due. It professionally, as anyone could ever do from the federal bench destroyed the arguments that were made by the former president down to this point so I was asked at the last minute to please come on one of the television networks and talk about the immunity decision. But I was asked to come talk about the 14th Amendment case that was to be heard a day later. seen that the DC Circuit had rejected that the President had immunity for precisely the criminal offense that gives rise to his disqualification

under the 14th Amendment. That is that the DC Circuit by terms said the president would not be immune from criminal prosecution for having attempted to remain in power in violation of the executive vesting clause of the Constitution and preventing the peaceful transfer of power. So I'll pause briefly just to let all of us think about that. So the DC circuit, essentially one day before argument in the Supreme Court, before argument in the Supreme Court held that the former president, of course, would never be immune from prosecution for the act of trying to remain in power beyond his four year term when the American people had voted for his successor, Joe Biden. Of course, the DC circuit was not addressing the totally separate question

of whether the president engaged in insurrection against the Constitution by doing that act or those acts, but it was not lost on anyone, first by the DC Circuit, but second by the Supreme Court of the United States, that the DC Circuit had just held what it did as to the 14th Amendment disqualification question. Now, you ask, where does the immunity case go from now? Well, by Monday, we'll know because technical jargon, the DC circuit state is mandate only until Monday and and and only until or unless the Supreme Court itself issued a its own state which means we'll know Monday or Tuesday at the latest, what the Supreme Court's going to do

or might do. I don't, of course, have any more insight than anyone else does. But I believe that the court might well decline review of that immunity case, because the Supreme Court knows that it it would never in a million years reverse that that decision. I don't believe that there is a single justice on the Supreme Court that disagrees with the DC Circuit immunity decision. At the same time, the DC circuit understood, as does the Supreme Court of the United States,

that if the Supreme Court takes the immunity case, it increases exponentially the likelihood that the former president will not be tried before the 2024 presidential election. Now, courts are appropriately to be unconcerned with that kind of political consideration, but not in this one instance of all, where a president of the United States, for the first time in American history is to go on trial for crimes against the United States of America. In that one instance, the Supreme Court hasn't a responsibility to the nation not to unnecessarily delay that trial until after the election.

Yeah, that's what I wanted to ask you. I mean, given the timing, I mean, so it sounds like to me, you think there's a good chance that there's not four votes to take it up through John Roberts as that that's kind of circuit judge administrative role that he would serve here and to take it up because Because of the analysis The airtighten waterproof analysis. I think led by Judge panel that was percurium in the decision. And then if they did take it up though, your fear is that they set their own timetable. And whereas the lower courts, the DC Court of Appeals in another case recently involving the gag order,

said it was important to the American electorate to understand whether they were voting for a convicted criminal or not, my paraphrase, before November 5th. But you don't think, you know, we know the Supreme Court's view on political questions and interfering or getting involved with that. Although by taking it up,

if they really aren't going to reverse it, then we then lose that period that's necessary to try the case with Judge Chutkin. She's ready in May, June, July, whatever it is to get that federal case up and running. So do you think there's, there's, there's, you said I don't think there's a single justice, I think, to take what you just said that would overturn this. So do you think they're going to, well, know better next week, but do you think they're going to, well, no better next week, but do you think they're gonna do that?

Or they're gonna leave this in place and move on as part of some sort of grand bargain about letting him be on the ballot, but you're not getting, our constitutional republic is not going to give a free pass to the future occupant of the Oval Office for potential criminal conduct while he's in office, just because he happened to be the president.

Well, Michael, I'll answer that question within the exquisite context, if you will, of your suggestion of a grand compromise or bargain, the courts of the United States and especially the Supreme Court of the United States is obligated by oath never to strike a compromise on any case, let alone between two pending cases involving the President of the United States of America, that would be insidious for any court even to think about that. That's really in some and substance why I've said that in my view the Supreme Court had an obligation to decide the question that was presented to it. And that's not, of course, it's not to say how the court should decide it.

I'm indifferent as to that question as all of us should be. Our view should always be the Supreme Court is the guardian of our Constitution and they protect the Constitution and thereby us. But in every instance where they're required in their protection of us and in their service to the Constitution that they are called upon to decide a great question of the moment that is relevant in the moment, it's timely and it is presented, that they have a responsibility to decide that question. And I don't myself entertain any of the political arguments for the court refusing to decide the question. And I will not acknowledge that that in any way whatsoever,

that if that's what they do, that that is a legitimate off-ramp to decision. So, as I said, I believe the Supreme Court aware, appropriately aware and sensitive to the timing of the president's trial will deny review of the DC Circuit opinion. And all I'll say is if they don't and they take up the case, that will be telling of something, okay? Yeah, yeah, that's great, Judge.

That's the kind of information at least that we can use, our audience can use to evaluate what they see next, and we'll see it as early as next week. It looks like, and this is my view, it looks like Robert Hehr, the special counsel, may have been waiting to see what the DC Court of Appeals was gonna do on the issue of presidential immunity because he touched on it on his own report.

We were wondering, because the reporting out there was that he finished the substantive work of the investigation, including an interview with the president four months ago. I mean, yes, it's a 300 plus page report. Takes some time to put together and work through a process. Merrick Garland had to ultimately have seen the report before it was issued. And so now we have that report. I just wanted to touch on it with you here. It's not, of course, the focus of our interview with you, but, you know,

I'd be remiss if we didn't touch on it. We've got a prosecutor. This is going to sound awfully familiar, Deja Vu all over again, a prosecutor in the middle of a campaign who has issued a report that says that a candidate for the highest office of the land did not commit any crimes and it would be abuse of prosecutorial discretion to bring that kind of case against Joe Biden for criminal conduct related to the handling or mishandling of classified documents by himself or his aides. They're both after he left the vice presidency, but in the same breath in a couple of sections also commented on Joe Biden as a witness and as a defendant, a potential future defendant. And in this, that damning faint praise section started to talk about the mental faculties of Joe Biden, his memory

issues that were noted in recordings that were done by a ghostwriter working with Joe, on a, the President Biden, on a couple of memoirs or potential memoirs and in his interaction, apparently in the middle of the Israeli conflict with Hamas about the handling of documents four, five, 10, and 15 years ago and some gratuitous comments related to that. Well, in your role wearing the hat of a former federal judge, an appellate judge that handled a lot of criminal issues, maybe not right here. What was your takeaway from Robert Hear sort of

going out there and inserting himself, not just into the commentary about Joe Biden, but also walking and wading into the Jack Smith, Mar-a-Lago ongoing prosecution related to classified documents and taking time and ink out of his report to do so. Was that appropriate? Michael, I happened to be appearing on one of the television networks for an interview

related to the 14th Amendment argument. appearing on one of the television networks for an interview related to the 14th Amendment argument. And I was supposed to be in whatever they call it, the television truck at, I think, 8 o'clock. And I arrived in the truck at 745 and was seated. And I looked up and they were live streaming the President of the United States at his press conference or whatever. And so I watched that for almost an hour before the network was ready for me.

And I say that as background, just to say that I literally had no idea what the president was even talking about. I don't apologize for the fact that I didn't even know that a special counsel had been appointed. I knew nothing at all, okay? Here's my reaction, because as you know, this has happened equivalently in at least two or two other if not three other instances of

special counsels four other instances which again proves the point that's been made so well by others that you know there is no need for a special counsel or anything like it and we shouldn't have special counsels All we need is for the people at the Department of Justice And in particular the Attorney General of the United States To do his or her job in such a credible way That no one can fairly criticize he or she for being partisan. Okay, but it's apparently never going to happen.

We're going to have special councils, I guess, for the rest of history, inadvisably, and they're going to do exactly the kind of thing that this special counsel, whose name I don't even know, did. Okay, so under the long-established rules of the Department of Justice, as to prosecutorial decisions. The prosecutor only and literally only is to do either of two things. Either indict the person that's been investigated or not indict the person. investigated or not indict the person in the event in in both events in both events Michael

The prosecutor is to say nothing else for obvious reasons of critical importance to the to the United States of America and to the Department of Justice. It is especially an abuse of the prosecutorial power. The sacred prosecutorial power in the case of a special counsel to say one single word if he or she concludes that the subject of the investigation will not be prosecuted. So it's against that backdrop that your viewers

should understand the statements by this special counsel. In particular, and again, all I know is when I watched that 45 minutes, but I heard the most salient things. And in particular, there's, I guess, considerable discussion in this 315 page report, which again, in my view, is an abuse of power, pure and simple. And, but he goes on at length about the incumbent president's mental capacity in whatever contexts, all toward the end of concluding that Joe That's about as unseemly and an abuse, abuse of power as I can imagine. Now your viewers should also know that I felt exactly the same way about the former FBI director James Comey when at the

end of his investigation of Secretary Clinton, he did and said what he did Yeah, I was gonna say judge it was a just a long format version of the Comey Press conference the good news for Joe Biden if there's any takeaway besides there's many takeaways if you really get into the 315 pages That are positive for Joe Biden But the one that's gonna live on in infamy now is the unseemly part that you just commented on that never should have been there. This should have been like a five page report that said we're not indicting as opposed to well, even if we did indict the jury would find him to be an affable, but absent minded,

mentally impaired, faculty impaired person. I mean, just, just, just ridiculous. And he had to have known her as not an idiot. He's a pretty smart guy, given his resume of what happened to Comey. And fortunately for Biden, it didn't happen. It's not an October surprise. It didn't happen like right before the moment when people were deciding whom to vote for between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. It's a February surprise. So there is time to kind of come back from it. But yeah, I found it shocking. I'm surprised I don't really understand exactly Merrick Garland's role in line reading the

report. I know if he rejects the recommendation, then he's got to make a report to Congress. But if he accepts it, I don't know if that means every line of the report. It sounds like Merrick was hands off, I imagine, because, you know, I can't think that if he really thought, well, let me redline this. Why is that in there? Yeah, let me, you know, it's, this special counsel, again, I don't, I didn't even know that there was a special counsel, let, I didn't even know that there was a special counsel, and let alone who it is. But I'm still comfortable saying today that this is a person who had

no earthly idea what his obligations were to the United States of America. And that's why we love Ta have you on the show, Judge. It's your singular and unique voice as a patriot who's agnostic about the role of the Constitution. You're not taking sides because of a political view. You're taking sides and making the right call because of your view and the love for the Constitution and its role in our constitutional Republic and the role of the various

branches of our government. And you'll call it when you see it when one of the branches is not living up to its obligations, such as the Supreme Court as you noted here. It's been it's been an honor. I can't tell you how much but honor and a pleasure it's been to have you on here speaking directly to our audience in a completely unfiltered way on the three major topics of the day that all happened last week. I'd love to have you back on the show at another time when we see what happens with the Supreme Court with the immunity decision and whether we have enough time to have the trial that I think the I'll speak for the politic now that the electorate wants to know whether Donald Trump

is a convicted felon or not, or whether he's been exonerated and absolved by a jury of his peers in the DC court. And I think that's important to America to understand that before they go into the voting booth. But we look forward to all your appearances on every network, including here on the Midas Touch Network. Thank you, Judge. Michael, thank you.

It's really my honor to be on with you and with you in particular today. It's been a real pleasure. Thank you, Judge. You stay up to date on the latest breaking news and all things Midas by signing up to the Midas Touch newsletter at MidasTouch.com slash newsletter.