Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Law Experts Karen Friedman Agnifilo & Michael Popok React to this Week’s BOMBSHELLS

Episode Date: December 15, 2022

The Midweek Edition of the top-rated news podcast, LegalAF x MeidasTouch, is back for another hard-hitting look in “real time” at this week’s most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this episode, co-anchors national trial lawyer Michael Popok and former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo analyze and discuss: the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) being granted immunity from a suit brought by US Citizen Jamal Khashoggi’s wife for his brutal murder and dismembering by Saudi security agents (joined by journalist Anthony Davis); the new revelation of a secret trial finding the Trump Organization in criminal contempt for its failure to produce records before the criminal tax fraud trial against it even began; New York Attorney General Leticia James’ motion to dismiss Trump’s Florida federal lawsuit that tries to interfere with her $250mm New York civil fraud case against Trump and his children; and the possibility that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals will find that the DOJ cannot indict Jan6 defendants for Obstruction with its 20 year sentence, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: NUTRAFOL: https://Nutrafol.com/Men — Code “LEGALAF” MIRACLE: https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF — Code “LEGALAF” HIGHLAND TITLES: https://www.highlandtitles.com/ — Code “LEGALAF” GET MEIDAS MERCH: https://store.meidastouch.com 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Midweek edition of Legal AF, the top legal podcast providing analysis of the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics with your regular team of Midweek anchors Michael Popak and Karen Friedman Agnifala. We have a special crossover edition, Karen of Legal AF, because we're joined for our first segment by Anthony Davis, journalist, podcast host and broadcaster, and he's the host of Five Minute News and the Weekend Show on the Midas Media Network. He's unvarnished, he's unbiased, and he's here with us today to talk about our first topic.

Our first topic, speaking of first topics, the Biden administration and its State Department has made a decision to seek immunity for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who's also known as MBS, in a suit brought by the widow of journalists and U.S. citizen Jamal Khashoggi of the Washington Post, who was brutally ambushed, tortured, killed, and dismembered in 2018 in Istanbul at the Saudi Councilate, according to the US intelligence community, that was done by order of MBS. So why did the Biden administration weigh in and argue for immunity? And what does it mean internationally to our global standing as a defender of human rights? Anthony Davis will join us for this discussion.

Then Karen and I will talk about the revelation just yesterday of a secret trial that was conducted last December, but didn't get disclosed until yesterday, in which a New York State Supreme Court judge, Judge Mershaw, and found the Trump organization in criminal contempt, even before the Trump organization trial and conviction on 17 felony counts, including tax evasion, even began. They were already in criminal contempt before that even began. Was it's disclosure this week a signal from the New York trial judge to chief judge barrel Howell in the district of Columbia and the Department of Justice about Trump's unclean hands when it comes to documents.

I'll give you my view and we'll hear from Karen on that. Next, we discussed the New York Attorney General, Alicia James filing her motion to dismiss Trump's and the Trump revocable trust suit in Florida. Now in a Florida federal court in front of probably the least favorite judge that Donald Trump could face, judge Middlebrook's Don Middlebrooks, in which Donald Trump is trying to get a federal court in Florida to dismiss and prevent the continued prosecution of the civil fraud case in New York by Latisha James' office. This is now in front of the same judge who just last month to smith Trump suit against Clinton,

Hillary Clinton, and a whole load of Democrats and sanctioned Donald Trump and his lawyers as well. But terrible draw for Trump will talk about what it means. It will end tonight's podcast with the possibility that the biggest hammer in the Department of Justice's arsenal against the Jan 6th defendants and future ones like Donald Trump, the obstruction of an official proceeding felony count with its 20-year sentence may be on life support based on an appeal and an oral argument that's pending before the DC court of appeals in Washington, a dozen federal prosecutors and FBI agents watch the oral argument from the gallery and want to know what the result is going to be because it changes the approach of the Department of Justice and their interactions with current

JAN-6 defendants. It changes convictions that have already happened based on obstruction counts and would change irrevocably future indictments of people using what has been the biggest hammer in the Department of Justice's bag. That's a lot to talk about at midweek, but we're going to do it as we always do Karen. How are you? It's so great to see you in what I've now discovered is a real actual library. It is. I always thought it was a backdrop that you used, and then you swiveled your camera around,

which will now do for those that watch us on YouTube, and showed me the how wrong I was. This is actually a real office behind me, but for some reason I thought the angle showed that was some sort of amazing backdrop, but no, I'm wrong. So, but I'm glad you're here. How was your week? How was your week of being a lawyer, a defense lawyer and all that great stuff? It's been good. It's been a really good week, getting ready for the holidays, trying to figure out what gifts to give and all those various things, but it's been good.

How about you? Oh, it's great. And I'm doing the same thing as you are. I'm trying to check off my shopping list with Hanuk and Christmas on top of each other this year. And maybe some people during today's show will get some inspiration by some of our sponsors. And maybe you some of our sponsors that we're going to get to later is one of the gifts that I've given and we'll be giving several people because it's a great sponsor, but we'll save that.

And I know you're going to do that. You're going to do that. And I love that new sponsor. We'll talk about them when we get to it, but let's get to something really less lighthearted and much more serious, which is the United States human rights policies and a recent decision by the Biden administration and its State Department to intervene to argue that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia is not responsible or can't be sued in a federal courthouse by the widow of Jamal Kashoggi for his dismembering death and all of that. For that, I'd like to bring in Anthony Davis, our colleague on the Midas Media Network, broadcaster extraordinaire,

host of the five minute news and the weekend show. Just brings an amazing, even though he lives in America now at an international perspective, based on his long time work with the BBC and others. So Anthony, we're pleased to have you back on the show. And I think this is a perfect segment for us to talk about. Let me frame it over two minutes, and then I want to get both Karen and yours view about it.

So here's the undisputed facts. We have a crown prince of Saudi Arabia who really runs that regime in Mohammed Insalman known as MBS. And the US intelligence community has no doubt and delivered that report to Joe Biden really upon his move into the White House that MBS had given the green light, the go water, to send an execution team of 15 people, including nine of them that were on his personal security detail, known as the rapid response team. He first devised an elaborate trick and a plot to get Jamal Kashogi, who had written unfavorable press and articles about Saudi Arabia when he was at the Washington Post. And this is, this just gets more heartbreaking, the more I tell the story. Jamal was about

to get married, eventually married, who is now the plaintiff in the case against Saudi Arabia, a woman and needed a certain paperwork from Saudi Arabia, which she had left behind living as an expatriate in the United States years ago, when MBS, according to the intelligence community, learned that he needed this paper, the decision the plan was hatched to trick him into getting back on the Saudi soil. In this case, the consulate sitting in Istanbul and when he got there, of course, ambush him, not given the paper he was looking for, instead torture, kill, and dismember him literally while he was there.

And his fiance then wife never got to see him ever again. And so that happened in 2018. And since then, there's been this litigation that was started by his fiance or now wife actually in federal court and district of Columbia. And there was a battle or has been a battle, doctrinally, from a immunity standpoint as to whether the crown prince was head of state or something akin to it, because if he wasn't head of state or something to the equivalency, then he would not have immunity. But if he was head of state, he would have immunity. And that goes back to a long line of state department policies and positions that the United States has taken, almost an unbroken chain of precedent

about no matter how heinous the crimes, if the person that did it is a head of state, he's not going to be able to be sued in the United States for that. And so for a long time, timing of this is important. For a long time, it was suspect whether the crown prince being just the crown prince, not head of state, would be able to successfully argue that he had immunity. And given the strategic geopolitical importance, apparently, of Saudi Arabia, to America through every administration, not only because of oil and its OPEC role, but also because of its geopolitical situations and its location in the military world and as a buffer against other regimes, especially as it relates, for

instance, with Israel. Let's be honest, the U government has made a devil's bargain a long time ago with Saudi Arabia and Biden appears to have been in no position to not honor that bargain. But the State Department made a decision to wait as long as they could to weigh in until the Saudi family led by MBS's father made a decision at the very last minute, literally the day before the federal judge ordered that the State Department file its position on immunity. The day before King Salman, the father of MBS, stripped off one of his own titles, that of Prime Minister, and gave it to his son, thus cloaking him in immunity because the State Department already made clear that Prime Minister is ahead of state and would enjoy immunity. It's fishy.

It happened apparently with the United States's, I don't know about endorsement, but at least with their sanctioning of it. And we need to talk about it because we talk about hard things on legal AF. Let's bring in first Anthony. Anthony, what did you think about all this and what's your perspective about the Biden administration and the timing of waiting for the Crown Prince to be given a better title? I think it's less about the Biden administration and it's more about the United States of America because this probably would have happened with whichever administration would be in.

And as you know, Trump did a whole bunch of arms deals with Saudi, including one for around 350 billion just halfway through his presidency. I mean, it's not just fishy this decision to kind of take the King's role because of course the King automatically becomes the Prime Minister in Saudi Arabia that's kind of how it works. So to strip the King of his own title and to give it to his son in this way and suddenly make him Prime. Of course, the only reason they did it was because of this, so that he wouldn't be accountable, even though the king had already taken responsibility for the, they said we take responsibility for this crime,

but then they don't expect for anything else to come from that. And so this is really more about the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia or Saudi Arabia and the rest of the world. I don't think it's specific to Biden. The issue with Biden is that he made a promise that he wouldn't sell any more arms to Saudi Arabia. He's called them a pariah. He had all this rhetoric leading up to the election. He did stick with it. And now, obviously, as time passes and there's deals to be done and money to be made, it's yet again, the United States putting the dollar above human rights and above a moral compass.

Yeah, I think you put it perfect there. Let's bring in the former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifalo for her for her views of you know Biden's Ultimately making that hard decision but making a decision To allow this to happen. I don't think anybody should think this was like sleepy Joe asleep at the wheel and he got outfoss Outfox by Saudi Arabia. I don't know how involved we were the decision making, but the State Department was waiting an awful long time until the very last moment to give the Saudis time to give the title that was necessary to MBS.

What do you think, Karen, from a prosecutor's standpoint as well? Yes, so there's all kinds of immunities, right, that we afford people in the United States and elsewhere. One of them from the criminal side is, for example, diplomatic community, and that has to do with diplomats, foreign diplomats who come to this country and sometimes commit crimes. They cannot be prosecuted here without the consent of their government. And most of the time, they just whisk them away and take them back and say, we'll deal with it in our country.

And the reason we engage in these types of agreements with countries is because when we have our diplomats that go on foreign soil, we want them to be afforded the same courtesy, frankly, because as we all know, there are strange, you know, there are laws all over the world that are very different than ours. And if you find yourself, you know, like, like Brittany Griner, who was in Russia, who was arrested for being gay and having residue in her vape of marijuana, you know, that those things aren't illegal here, and that is apparently illegal there, and so she was arrested,

protectually, obviously, but she was arrested. If she had been a diplomat, for example, she would not have, she would have had immunity and would not have been prosecuted, and what happens is she gets arrested, and then we have to do things like do that deal with the real devil with Victor Boot to get her out. And it's very difficult.

And so that's one of the reasons we do this with, this is now, this is sovereign immunity. One of the reasons we recognize this, this applies in the civil context here. This was a civil suit. This was not criminal, but it's the same kind of thing. It's, you know, how you will have jurisdiction over a governmental entity, whether it's your own or whether it's, whether it's another country, but it's very much because we also want that same, another country, but it's very much because we also want that same recognition in the rest of the world. So that's why we do things like this and we engage in these types of very difficult decision making so that our people can be protected as well in places that might not have the kind of due process or court systems or laws that we have. And so, it was a very difficult decision

that I think had to be made, but had to be made. There's absolutely no other way around it. Sovereign immunity comes actually stems from our days when we were affiliated with England and the King of England. And you know, you just under the, it comes from a tradition of the government, you know, doesn't do any wrong. And so therefore cannot be sued without its consent.

And so that is the rule, that is the law. But the, but you know, there is, because obviously in our country, we recognized that government's can do wrong. So we passed the Federal Tort Claims Act that spells out when you can sue the government. So, you know, it's very, the law is very clear and I think Biden didn't have a choice and I think he had to do it this way. But frankly, everyone knows it was a farce that MBS was made Prime Minister just to avoid this.

But I think more than anything, they wanted to avoid a diplomatic disaster. If he was allowed to be sued in this country, and frankly, the just disaster that would come with discovery and all you know those are just a heinous crime and you know the more you look at it the less it's palatable to have this diplomatic relationship with Saudi Arabia so I think for everyone's sake they just want this to not be front and center so that we can go on with with life. Yeah, I thought that that's a good overview.

Look, the politics aligns people and administrations in strange ways. When the Saudi government was the subject of new legislation after 9-11 in the form of the, the form of Jasta, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. Hillary Clinton at the time was a big proponent of it while she was still in the Senate. But when it reached Obama's desk, and this would have allowed people like the 9-11 families at that moment to sue directly the Saudi government for their involvement

in 9-11, Obama vetoed it and it took a full Congress to override the veto. And so, you know, people, if you just take one thing out of contact, you could say, oh, Obama was against the 9-11 families, but there are these more complicated geopolitical issues, especially around Saudi Arabia, more complicated geopolitical issues, especially around Saudi Arabia, that come into play. Unfortunately, I think what's left for people like Kishoggi's wife is going to have to be an act of Congress that somehow overrides and allows for this particular immunity to be removed and to allow her to have a continued suit. Anthony, what do you think about cases like the 9-11 families and their ability to go against the Saudi family and whether there would be a political will to have some Congress

allow such a case to go forward as an exception to the general immunity standards. I think the US would just love all of this to go away, wouldn't it? Because ultimately, this is not something that prosecutors want to deal with. It's not something that politicians want to deal with. It's the kind of unfortunate nature of geopolitics where you need to do business with countries that are murderers. I mean, the detail of this particular murder with Jamal Khashoggi, if you read into it, the way his body was dissolved in acid and all this stuff, it's horrific. I can't help but think just in back to your question. I can't help but think that if he was like a white American

citizen, then the reaction might have been slightly different. And then obviously with 9-11, part of the problem there was that, initially, there was this huge political diversion as to who was the perpetrator of this crime. And it was pointed to Saddam who's saying it was pointed to Afghanistan, eventually, and then of course they find the perpetrator in Pakistan. But it had 17 of the 19 bombers were Saudi nationals. And so again it's

another situation for America to have to deal with. It's like well, I guess just business, you know, it's just business all the time. It just comes down to business. And this is what drives me mad. There is nothing to stop Biden from saying, okay, no more arms deals. So you have to ask the question, who is putting pressure on Biden to continue selling arms to Saudi Arabia and supporting the war in Yemen? Who is putting pressure on the US attorneys to not to give the 9-11 victims the justice that they deserve. I mean, there is clearly, you know, in England,

we refer to it as the establishment, you know, if you've seen the Netflix documentary with Harry and Meghan, you'll learn about the forces, the dark forces that are behind a lot of these decisions. As an outsider, I'm kind of asking you guys as American citizens, who are those unspoken dark forces, not the deep state, I'm not going into conspiracy territory, but clearly there are decisions made at a very high level that are recommended to the President United States and to the, you know, to federal prosecutors. Who's making these decisions? Who's advising these decisions to kind of just skirt Saudi Arabia every opportunity?

Yeah, I think, I think you put, you hit the nail on the head earlier when you said that this is not just Biden. This is just a long, unbroken chain of state department diplomacy decisions and military decisions where we're going to just bet on Saudi Arabia. I mean, there's a reason why it's not just those photos of George W. Bush, literally holding hands with King Solomon. Biden does it to Trump did it. I mean, they all do it because. Well, they fist up.

It seems to remember. Well, yeah, they were right, because COVID was happening, but they, if you were able to lift Saudi Arabia out of its geopolitical location and put it somewhere else that was less vital to America's interest interest or you sucked all the oil out from under Saudi Arabia or you didn't have it as part of the Middle East.

I assure you that the decision making would be different. If this was a sandy patch in Africa that had no role whatsoever and no spillover effect on policy making, they would not be cow-towing to and looking the other way on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is so worried about its reputation that it literally formed a multi-billion dollar sport leak to compete with the PGA in live golf. And it's overpaying American, primarily American golfers, hundreds of millions of dollars to whitewash their bloody hands. And the American golfers... But Saudi Arabia has got so much money.

I mean, this is part of the problem, isn't it? They have an unlimited supply of funds. And the US does not in the same way. Certainly where I'm from in the UK, you know, arms is the second biggest export from the UK, and Saudi is one of the biggest customers to the UK BAE systems is one of the biggest arms companies there and so we have the same conversation in England all the time about this and it just boils down to the fact Certainly in England we don't have much GDP. I mean, we don't really make anything anymore You know, we just have financial services and on-

Procasters and actors. Procasters and actors. Exactly. So, I can see why the UK is a small country with very few assets relies on Saudi Arabia in terms of sales. But I don't understand it with the United States, where it has massive GDP. It has a huge opportunity to kind of build in America, hire in America, make in America. And yet it's still relying on these deals to sell tanks and missile systems. I just don't care.

I don't think it's that, but I don't think it's necessarily GDP driven. If they were sitting on top of oil wells and in control in part of OPEC and OPEC Plus, and they weren't so important to our democratic ideals in the Middle East and our strategic relationship with Israel, which is important for anybody that doesn't think it's important. Just go to Israel and you'll understand almost instantly the importance of Israel to our American foreign policy and democracy having any role at all in the fabric of the Middle East. I think it's that. The extra, the extra, I must say, checkle, the extra dollar that the America makes from selling arms to, they could do without that. They can make it up somewhere else. But I

don't think you can turn your back. If that is your foreign policy, which it has been for 60 or 70 years, then you have to hold your nose, which is what appears every administration does. And World War III might have something to do with it as well. Yeah, and the burning world war III. Right. Iran, who is right there, and Iran is, of course, the enemy of Saudi and Iran, as we know, we're kind of always on the brink of war with Iran, or some people are kind of goading

it to happen. I know Trump is probably looking to start a war in Iran. But that is the other problem, isn't it? It's the geography of that area. Right. Who's on the side of the Sunnis and who's on the side of the Shiites. And so you end up in a situation. And America has to pick a side. Yeah. As unsavory as picking that side is Anthony, every time I have you on the show with Karen, I'm always, I'm always saying to myself, we got to bring it back like once

a month, at least. We made that promise last time. And then we, then we didn't do it. And we would talk to you at length on every segment today if we could. But I think I think I would like to come on your show. I'll come back on your show. Five minute news. The weekend show with Anthony Davis always a pleasure to have you on with us Anthony and happy holidays to you and your family. Same to you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And this is, we can't segue out of that segment, but I'm going to try, Karen. Did you know that your temperature at night can have one of the greatest impacts on your sleep quality? Did you know that, Karen?

If you wake up too hot, or I didn't either, although I get hotter called during the night and I always wonder why and what I can do about it I highly recommend that you check out miracle brand's bed sheets It's inspired by silver infused fabrics made by NASA Miracle brand makes temperature regulating bedding so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long boy This would solve a lot of problems for me I've always got that one leg sneaking out because I get too hot during the night. Do you know that that traditional

bed sheets can also harbor more bacteria than a toilet seat. Yuck. It can lead to, I know that let's let's read that again. Traditional bed sheets can harbor more bacteria than a toilet seat. It can lead to acne and allergies and stuffy noses. It's just, there's no other word for it Karen, it's just gross. Miracle brand however offers a whole line of self cleaning, eco-friendly bedding such as sheets, pillowcases and cup holders that prevent 99% of bacteria and require three times less laundry. It uses that silver infused fabric that I mentioned

that was developed for NASA. They are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night, whatever that perfect temperature is for you. So you can get a better sleep every night. And they're self-cleaning. These sheets are infused with natural silver that prevent 99.9% of bacterial growth,

leaving them to stay cleaner and fresh three times longer than other sheets. No more gross, or gross odors couldn't get that out. Gross odors, there we go. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable, not the high price tag of other luxury brands. They are, here we go, the perfect gift for your spouse, friends, or family. We're right at the holiday time when you're trying to make a list of what you can buy people. Who doesn't want to sleep and who doesn't want better sleep and luxurious feeling bedsheets?

And since these come with three free towels, you get two gifts in one just in time for the holidays. It's better for your skin. Stop sleeping in bacteria, Karen. Let me tell you something. I have to tell you that. Clean sheets mean less bacteria to clog your pores and fewer breakouts and other skin problems. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF. That's TRY, m-i-r-a-c-l-e dot com slash what else legal a F to try it today or gifted to someone special.

This holiday season. We got a special deal for our listeners and followers and watchers save over 40% and be sure to use our promo code legal AF LA L F at checkout to save even more and get those three free towels and miracle is so confident in their product. It's back to the 30 day money back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you will get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle brand. Go to try try miracle.com slash legal AF f and use the code legal a f to claim your three

Peace towel set for free and save over 40% off. Again, that's try miracle.com slash legal a f to treat yourself a Friend or a loved one this holiday. See even thank you miracle brand for sponsoring this episode We're glad to have you on board as one of our many sponsors. Karen, it's a miracle that we're even getting through these segments as rapidly as we are. And here's my favorite one, one of my favorite ones for tonight. And this has to do with your old office, the Manhattan DA. And we just learned yesterday that the Trump organization was the subject

of a mini trial in December of last year's secret. No one knew about it until it was revealed by the court yesterday. We'll talk about why that happened in which the judge and in a 28 page order found the Trump organization in criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, further willful flouting of orders and subpoenas that have been issued to the Trump organization, the judge had had enough after reciting all of the facts of all of the shenanigans there with the Trump organization, the Trump through the judge through the book at them, and found them in criminal contempt.

The only reason we didn't find out about it in advance is because the judge didn't want a future jury and the jury to learn that the Trump organization had already been found in criminal contempt to be convicted of something before the start of their tax fraud case because, and I think rightly so, they didn't want the jury to be biased against the Trump organization. The timing of it is interesting, but first I want to get Karen, your view, you got Solomon Shinerock, a former colleague of yours who apparently handled the trial successfully. Let's talk about when a judge,

when a prosecutor asks for criminal contempt and when a judge issues it, what is it and why does a court use it? What does it mean that the Trump organization got found in criminal contempt before their main trial even started? Yeah, so it's not widely used criminal contempt, frankly. I only remember it being done one or two other times recently.

And it's something that is done when somebody willfully disregard court orders. And so what was happening at the time is Solomon Shainrock, who was an assistant district attorney in Manhattan investigating the Trump organization. He was what they were doing during this during the investigation is issuing multiple grand jury subpoenas. And if everybody recalls, the grand jury is a secret proceeding. And so grand jury subpoenas are also secret and anything that comes is secret.

And so what was happening was the paperwork, they were subpoena deuces tecum, which is a Latin phrase for documents, subpoenas for documents. And so as opposed to a subpoena for a person to show up. So they were producing these documents and they were producing frankly thousands of documents that were going, that the that were going through. And however, they could tell that there were certain documents that were not being provided. And what ADA Shionrock would do is would ask again and give them more time and ask them again and give them more time.

And then after a while when he wasn't getting a response, he brings them to court. And he went in front of Judge Morshan, who then ordered the Trump organization to turn to produce those missing documents. And once again, they didn't produce them. So he ordered them again, and he ordered them again. I mean, there were so many opportunities they were given, the Trump organization to produce these documents.

I believe there was four grand jury subpoenas and three court orders, and they specified what the documents were that they wanted. And the Trump Organization just once again, you know, they squirrel away documents, they don't give them over, they don't comply with subpoenas. And so you have nothing else to do, but charge them with contempt.

And it's a crime, a criminal contempt, and you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to show that what you did was willful and knowing. It was, you know, you willfully disobey the grand jury's subpoenas. Not that it was an accident, you know. So that's what you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And because the grand jury was secret at the time of this trial, and the investigation continued, and they didn't want the investigation to be spoiled,

the trial happened, and it was sealed, which is very rare for a criminal case. Criminal cases are, and criminal trials are, um, our public by virtue of the constitute, the United States Constitution. And so, you know, the fact that there was a trial going on here, it's, and nobody knew about it, and it wasn't secret, it was shut, it was because of the grand jury secrecy laws. And, but what happened was, uh, the grand jury eventually, um, was disbanded, or, you know, did,, you know, it was no longer there. And at that point, they could have unsealed the finding of this trial.

But as you pointed out, Judge Mershahn, because of the publicity in the surrounding this case, there's no way that prospective jurors wouldn't have heard about that and that could taint them and be considered overly prejudicial because they would see how they are such obstructionists and basically have a criminal conviction, if you will. So that's what it means. And now that the trial is over and before sentencing, Judge Mershawn, I think that was the reason he did it now, because I could bet you anything. He's going to take this into consideration

when he sentences them and use this as a reason to sentence him to the max, which is not very much, but at least he can do that now. I think the only fine for this particular criminal contempt is $4,000. So, it's not like, you know, there's no teeth to any of these laws. So, why wouldn't Trump continue and the Trump organization and the Trump family? Why wouldn't they continue doing what they do? Which is, they have complete contempt for any law, for any order, for any judge. They do what they want and then they fight it. They bring these frivolous suits, they make frivolous arguments and they just don't do

any, for them it's like, so who cares that I'm held in criminal contempt? All I have to do is pay $4,000. You know, what they end up doing is they end up delaying things and they end up just using the court system for their own benefit And I just think at a certain point it's outrageous to see how they Just do not follow the law and the fact that we have somebody who's running for president and who was president Who just flagrantly does not follow the law is just I can't wrap my head around it. I don't understand. There's just no there's no, there's just no respect for the rule of law. But then this is just yet another example to just the willful disobeying of court orders to turn over documents

in a criminal investigation. And that's what they did. Yeah. Yeah. Here's my view. The fine is ridiculously low. I don't even know why Mershon only issued $1,000 for each violation. The your old office asked for $60,000 a day. And he certainly was empowered to do more. But you know, just a couple of points of clarification, not to your analysis, but just for our listeners and followers. The reason the Trump organization was being subpoenaed and not it wasn't being done some other way is because technically the entity that was convicted, the two entities that were convicted, of the 17 counts of tax fraud and business record fraud was not the Trump organization, it was the Trump corporation and the Trump payroll ink.

And so the Trump organization, which was their parent company but they but through which these two companies they did all their business that's why they were being subpoenaed as opposed to having documents produce some other some other way in the process. I think this was a yes it was important to get this out in the public record as Judge Mershant said when he finally after a year unsealed a partially redacted version of the 28 page order. But I think this is also, as you said, this is Trump just thumbing his nose time and time again. But if Mershant hadn't released it now, the Department of Justice would have been in the dark

just as much as the public was. It's not like the Department of Justice has a secret, you know, line into all court systems and all seal documents and knows everything that's going on in an omnipotent fashion, an omniscient fashion all over the country. It was news to the Department of Justice that the Trump organization actually got to the level of so pissing off and flouting the orders of a sitting judge that criminal contempt trial was held. This will help and conviction was obtained. This will help the Department of Justice and ultimately Chief Judge Barrel Howell, who just last week took a lot of flak for denying the federal Department of Justice's motion for contempt

on very similar, eerily similar issues. This is the pattern that we see with Donald Trump. It's he doesn't appoint, on purpose, a records custodian who becomes responsible under oath for certifying the search for documents that was done that it is complete under penalty of perjury. None of the lawyers want to now step into that and vouch for their client because they know their clients not trustworthy and their own law license can be jeopardized. You know, see four other lawyers who have or about to lose their law license, including Rudy Giuliani, just up the street in Washington, D.C.

So the lawyers don't want to do it. Nobody wants the volunteer to be a records custodian for Donald Trump. There's no more dangerous spot to be in than to be his records custodian. Donald Trump doesn't want to do it because of all the criminal implications of signing something. So he doesn't. So he didn't do it in New York. The records custodian that he did a point was basically useless and and had misled the court, a fraud on the court in his own testimony. In that court, he, you know, the, the, uh, your old office Solomon Shinerock asked him, have you been a records custodian before? Oh, yes, I've responded to dozens or hundreds of subpoenas that have come into the Trump organization over the years. You know, we have it down to a science.

We have a way to do this. Have you ever been found, sir? Has it ever been found that you're a conduct in being a records custodian fell short of the requirements and you were punished to penalize? No, never. My reality is he had been at the Trump organization had also been in trouble before in responding to other subpoenas and other cases. So you have the same thing going on in judge, barrel house courtroom on the grand jury subpoenas. Nobody wants to be a records

custodian. Nobody wants to vouch for Donald Trump and an adequate search having been done of all of the places under his dominion and control looking for documents. And so now the Department of Justice can wave around judge Mershans ruling and say, judge how you should know, if you haven't seen it already, that the Trump organization led by Donald Trump was convicted of contempt. This is now on the books for every work. Criminal contempt related to their document production conduct is not the same thing that's going here. And that'll ring a bell for this judge and future judges,

whether it's the Georgia judges related to Fony Willis's prosecution or anybody else. It is now stamped indelibly, indelibly, like a scarlet letter on the Trump Organization that they have been found in criminal contempt related to documents in a very important case that led to which led to two major subsidiaries being convicted of 17 counts of fraud. So it sounds like you were as surprised as everybody else was that this got released a year after it happened, right? Yeah, I had no idea. I mean, I was completely surprised by it, but I agree with you

that this is very much to other judges who are also being the referee over whether or not documents have been produced and to show the willfulness of the fact that they just thumb their nose in the face of the rule of law. So I agree with you. I think this is as much for other judges. Look, frankly, it's I think is relevant for the Mar-a-Lago document case as well. It's very much his MO and his people's MO, of what they do. And that's Barrel Howell's barrel howl. Yeah, listen, judges don't sleep in hyperbaric chambers or under a rock. They read the papers. They see the media. I know Mershan knew that barrel howl just denied emotion for contempt. And he probably rang a bell

in his head and said, hmm, I'm sitting on a criminally convicted Trump organization on some of these very, very issues. Trial is over. Maybe it's time for the public, the public's knowledge and justice, which is what the judge said in, as is rationale for releasing it now. And I agree with you, it's both sentencing and a clary in call to other judges. And now an indelible stamp on the Trump organization that can't be trusted. And it's now been so proven in a court of law on document issues. It comes, there comes a time in the show when sometimes Karen, I am just inclined

to treat you like royalty. I mean, I try to treat you like royalty as a coworker anyway, like Lady Karen, something like that. Wouldn't that be great if you could be Lady Karen? You know, that would be absolutely amazing. I would love, it's my dream actually. I'd have that title, right?

To have, you know, to be royalty. So, you know, we have a really interesting product from one of our sponsors. It's called Highland Titles. Scotland is unusual in that it has legally defined in the Land Registration Act of 1979, a souvenir plot of land. These plots of land are so small that their value is solely commemorative or sentimental. They're a novelty and you can buy

them as a gift because these plots cannot be registered with Scottish land registry. There's no conveying of the land. There's no solicitors or land taxes involved. And even though these plots cannot be registered in a conventional way customers can obtain a personal right of ownership and it's a valid form of ownership which can be passed on to future generations So what can you do with your one square foot of Scottish land? How can you do with your what I was just asking myself Karen? What can I do with it? It allows you it allows you to style yourself as a Lord or Lady or Laird of your state.

And each luxury gift pack comes with a personalized certificate which displays your new style and identifies your unique plot number. You can also look on Google Maps and see your plot of land. So it's not too late for Christmas because you can actually download your personalized certificate after checking out and use the discount code legal AF to receive 25% off at www.highlandtitles.com. I actually, after seeing this, so I've seen this before and I've thought it was really interesting. And so I actually, one of my very close friends, today is his 11th birthday. And I, right before we started taping, I went on there, and I did this for him, and I'm gonna present him.

He's layered Alexander, and I'm going to present this to him. And he's going to have that. I think this is a fantastic idea. I absolutely love it. I, with Megan and Harry so quickly giving up their titles, I think it's great that you can through this, this Highland Titles company sponsor, you can get a title, you can, you can buy a title and get a 3.3 times three size plot of land. Great for the holidays, all the holidays,

Hanukkah Christmas or whatever you celebrate or just to give a fun novelty gift to a friend. We're gonna have to start calling you Lord Popo. You mean again? No. No, although I do like Lord Popo, I do like the sound of it and I do like, I think this is a very fun sponsor for us to have and really welcome them to the show.

Let's turn to the other reason that people love our show is our analysis of legal and political issues. Let's talk about the New York Attorney General, Latisha James, in doing battle, not in New York, not where she should be doing battle, where that has jurisdiction over her and her case against Donald Trump and all of the little Trumpets, all the little children of Donald Trump, and the civil fraud case brought under her very broad powers, unique powers as the Attorney General of New York to go after people and individuals who are continuing to commit fraud in the state. And our statutes here, specifically 63-12, give her extraordinarily broad and muscular powers against a company that's been accused of fraud, even in the civil context. Well, Donald Trump doesn't like the way

that case is going and having already lost in a New York state jury trial criminal with a much higher burden of proof on what and his on his main company, his only company on 17 counts of tax fraud. He's now staring down the barrel of a civil fraud case that actually probably has more of a civil fraud case that actually probably has more ability to disrupt his finances and his life and the operation of his business in New York than even the criminal trial does because the criminal trial with a jury, yes, he's convicted and that will now stay on the Trump organization's record and will make it difficult for them to get conventional lending, to get insurance, to get licenses, but over on the civil side, this might sound counterintuitive, but we've talked about it in the past podcast on the civil side, they judge and the New York Attorney General have tremendous power if if a jury finds that they have committed civil fraud, Trump and his children to take away their company to give it to death penalty, make sure it doesn't do business in New York any longer.

And the teacher's seeking, the teacher James is seeking at least a $250 million worth of discouragement back to the state of New York for what she believes is ill-gotten gains or profits. Well Trump doesn't like all of that. And where is his favorite jurisdiction? His backyard in Florida. And he files cases all over the state. He tries to do it in in the northern part of the state, hoping to get a great judge for him like Eileen Cannon. And he was successful. He he just filed a

case against the Nobel Peace Prize committee because they gave out a peace prize based in his view on the Russia interference reporting. So he sued them in them from a county nobody's ever heard of in the middle of the state called Oko-Cobie County probably because he's got another buddy there or a trumper is sitting on the bench there and then he ran down to his his other favorite place the courthouse in West Palm Beach, first in the state court, because he's already scared of Judge Donald Middlebrooks. Judge Donald Middlebrooks, which is the senior judge in the West Palm Beach division of the Southern District of Florida. As people know, I've been in front of him over the years in various cases and trials.

He's a no nonsense judge. He's apolitical, but you better come prepared in his courtroom with a law on the fax on your side. You're going to be tossed out. The case that he originally filed against Hillary Clinton and all the Democrats, and Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and all these other people, a Democratic National Committee and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and all these other people, with just a vendetta lawsuit, a performative lawsuit as Judge Middlebrook's called it, just political in nature having nothing to do with the law of other facts. That was tossed a month and a half ago by Don Middlebrook's dismissed with prejudice and a finding of sanctionable conduct by Donald Trump and his lawyers. And he's in the process

of awarding up to a million dollars in fees to the other side who had a defend this BS case. That's the Don Middlebrook's judge. Middlebrook's we're talking about. Donald Trump decided that he was going to try to drag Latisha James and New York attorney general's office all the way down to Florida and a Florida court house to try to argue there that she doesn't have jurisdiction over his major asset, which is his trust, which he formed where apparently all of his financial assets are sitting and trying to get a Florida judge to interfere with the New York judge and the New York powers and put a stop to the civil fraud case in a New York courthouse. Even the first listener, the person who's only listened to the show for the

first time today, is probably saying, how does a Florida court have jurisdiction over a New York court's proceedings? The answer to that is it doesn't. But Donald Trump trying to avoid Don Middlebrooks for the second time, file did in state court at the courthouse cross street from the federal court, hoping to God that he would get a more favorable audience. But I guess what he did in bank on was that Latisha James would immediately based on the filing of a one page document, which gets the case removed and brought from the state system over to the federal system, and then randomly assigned to Don Middlebrooks. Karen, you got Don Middlebrooks sitting over there. You got

the Tisha James having filed a recent paper. What do you make of all this? What do you think what do you think Don Middlebrooks is going to do with a second bite at the apple of Donald Trump and his attempts to involve Florida courts in New York civil fraud cases. Because that count as a related case because it's Trump. I don't think so. I don't think it's the party that makes it related. It would be if it relates, I think the way their related party part goes on the civil cover sheet in this matter would be, you'd have to reveal the existence. It's not of a prior case involving Donald Trump, but in it, it have to be involved in some way overlapping with the prior case, which this one does not.

Yeah. So interesting. So the, I think he's, it's clear he's going to throw this out and say, you know, he, you know, we don't have jurisdiction over this. Go, go to your own federal court in New York or go deal with the judge that you have in New York. I mean, this is so clear that he's just trying to use what he views as more favorable judges in Florida to evade New York law and get better rulings because he doesn't like the ones

that he's gotten in New York so far. And you know, he, the bottom line is, you know, she, she called him, uh, Tish James, the attorney general in her filing, asked the judge to reject, um, this lawsuit that he's filing, you know, calling him disgruntled and, you know, he's, he's seeking emergency protection for his trust, but, and he, because he accuses her of, of invading his privacy. His whole theme is that if she gets the things that she wants, she'll immediately widely distribute it, and that's an invasion of my privacy.

But I don't know where he even gets that from. The various people who are investigating him and who have all his information and documents have not leaked anything actually So I really don't understand where where he gets that from but I think the judge is gonna throw it out I mean it just makes no sense and it's so obvious what he's doing however My what I'm hoping is that the judge Sanctions him not just throws this out because He at a certain point you have to say enough

enough. You can't use the justice system the way he is using it through his fake lawyers who have no ethics whatsoever to just manipulate people and manipulate, to try to manipulate the system. At a certain point, I think judges are gonna have to really start sanctioning him. What do you think? Yeah, I think Dom Metalbrook's is going to be hard pressed to find that there was any merit to the filing of this case. This is a whole nother crop of lawyers we haven't heard about before that are sitting in Tampa,

but that's not the brains of the operation. There's been a lot of reporting that Boris Epstein, a lawyer who's on the radar for the Department of Justice and a target of, I think, a target of their investigations. He's been, he's like the new council, Yeri, for Donald Trump, and makes him, he kind of practices all the dark arts related to him and he caters to Trump's darkest instincts. And he's the one against apparently the recommendation strongly helped believe by other lawyers like Eric Corcorid and Jim Trusty

and the other ones that are handling matters in New York, not named Alina Habba, that this was a terrible strategy to try to file a case down in Florida, which they did the night before the major hearing in front of the judge Engoron in the civil fraud case. It was terrible. It looked bad. It allowed Latisha James to point fingers at it and talk about, of course, we needed an injunction to, and a financial

monitor in place, your honor. Look what they just did. They just, they're trying to use their trust in Florida to, to deny this court somehow to have jurisdiction over all of his assets. I think it only reinforced and strengthened Latisha James's hand in that hearing. It was a stupid timed filing. If Boreshepstine is responsible, it was a terrible strategy. And it was also a terrible strategy to think they were going to avoid federal court by just filing in and state court. Who among practicing lawyers that know anything about procedure wouldn't think that Latisha James would immediately, immediately file a notice of removal to take the case out of the state court system and into the federal court system because

there is jurisdiction by the federal court because Latisha James is a resident and a citizen of New York and Donald Trump is whatever, something of Florida, and you've got to dispute at hand and therefore diversity jurisdiction of the federal court obtains. And the little, so they got great press the first day because I got filed in state court. It immediately got sucked over. And then as fate would have it, he gets Trump gets the worst pick possible in Dom Middlebrook.

So to answer your question, I totally agree with you. I think Judge Middlebrook's not only dismisses the case, he ultimately sanctions the lawyers again and Donald Trump with here you go again, citing back to his own opinion and ruling in the prior case, that's where the related part comes in. Don Middlebrook's doesn't have to forget or have amnesia about what happened in his courtroom in a in another in another case involving Donald Trump. And and this can start everyone's like, why isn't he found to be a vexatious litigant? Well, you're starting to build a record of being a vexatious litigant who filed maritalist cases, especially when it's in front of the same judge.

Now it's going to be over two. So I think we're going to see a very strongly word in ultimate ruling. He, middle Brooks to sum it up, is not going to exercise jurisdiction over the civil fraud case in New York. He is not because he can't issue any orders in any way, impairing the ability of the New York judge, his colleague in New York, to not hear the case, the jury not to hear the case, or Latisha James, New York attorney general's office from trying the case or prosecuting the civil fraud case, nothing.

There's no power over whatsoever. And this made up thing that you talked about, Karen, that to give some sort of good faith, although I don't think it's good faith argument, that Florida has some sort of jurisdiction over the case because of the existence of the trust in Florida, because you know, they'll reveal things in the public and embarrass me. That's not good enough. As you said, it's never happened. That office doesn't leak at all. And B, it's not proper grounds for jurisdiction.

So we will follow that case closely. Working part. Can I ask? Lady Karen, yes. jurisdiction. So we will follow that case closely. Lady Karen, yes. Can I ask you two questions? Yes, sure. Number one, can you define for everybody what a vexatious litigant is? And number two, going back to the Kishoggi thing that we were discussing, how, let's say sovereign immunity

wasn't a thing. How would the plaintiffs there have jurisdiction since the event happened? Because I know some of the defendants were dismissed for who weren't sovereigns for lack of jurisdiction. How did they have jurisdiction over MBS if there was not a sovereign immunity

question. If you know. Yeah, I think yeah, I think it has to do with the definition. I think I think if you look at the the foreign immunity act, which defines all jur even though it's it leads in the title with immunity, it defines jurisdiction. And there are exceptions to it that were made after Jasta, after the 9-11 families move for an exception for them, in which in certain circumstances, even if the act, the murderous act happened on foreign soil, that's okay if it was targeting an American citizen. So the hook is that Kashoggi was an American citizen who had been tortured and killed on foreign soil. So it doesn't have to happen in America the way the expansive immunity statute works as

long as. Now, if it wasn't a US citizen, I think, you know, if let's say a Canadian living in America had this happen to them, I'm not sure they'd be able to use US law to find that jurisdictional hook. On the vexatious litigant thing, that's just the doctrine and a set of statutes and most states in the federal court as well that says that if a party, a plaintiff, continues to file, and there's really, it's no, there's no like numeric definition, like you get the first five filings are fine, but the sixth one is found to be vexatious. If each of your filings up to, up to an amount that the, that the trial court listening to the issue thinks is too many

after warning, and they've already been, the Trump organization, or Trump's already been warned by Middle Brooks once, continues to file meritless cases. Now, usually it's on a same or similar set of facts, or same or similar claims. It's just like the pro say jailhouse lawyer who keeps filing over and over again things. It's usually people that aren't represented by council who just continue to file at the clerk's office, petitions and motions and all of that. This is a way for the court using its inherent authority to say, what? Generally, the courthouse door or the clerk's office is open to everyone

in our justice system, but you've so abused, you're right to do that, that we're gonna shut the clerk's window to your future filings. But you gotta really get to the level of lawsuits. And the reason why I don't think Faksaceous Litigin has been happened or the doctrine's been applied yet by Trump, even though he had, you know, 70 cases here.

And so it has to be generally in the same courthouse on a similar issue time and time again. You might be able to expand it to be the same litigant in the same courthouse on different issues where each of them have been found to be meritless subject to rule 11 sections under federal under the federal rules for meritless filings. But I think that's where that's going to play out. I don't think we're yet at facetious litigant doctrine application against Trump. But we're getting close and I'm sure middle Brooks is getting pretty hot under the collar under his black robe about Donald Trump as plaintiff. the collar under his black robe about Donald Trump as plaintiff. Thank you.

Thank you. It's all I know is Donald Trump and all of his false filings and misleading filings and all of that over the last two years has not only turned my hair gray, but I'm sure I'm losing a strand or two, losing sleep at night. And that's why I'm glad we have one of our newest sponsors, NutriFull on board to help. You don't have to choose between better hair growth and your health anymore, because there's a holistic solution for men that promotes both healthier hair and whole body wellness. And you can get ahead of thinning hair with neutral,

neutral falls whole body approach to hair growth. No drugs, no compromises. I know, I know friends that use this particular product over others because of this holistic approach to hair growth and not just sort of a topical thing, but a holistic whole body approach. NutriFull is the number one dermatologist recommended hair growth supplement. Let's repeat that. Number one by dermatologists for hair growth supplements, and it's clinically shown to improve

your hair growth thickness and visible scalp cover. Nutrophils hair growth, neutrosuticles go beyond genetics to multi-target the root causes of thinning, including stress, as we talked about. Hormones, nutrition, metabolism, aging, and lifestyle through whole body health. Physician formulated using natural medical grade ingredients, neutrophils drug-free patent technology provides consistent, reliable results without compromising your sexual health. In a clinical study, men showed progressive improvement in hair growth and thickness after three and six months. Neutrophils also trusted and recommended by more than 3,000 top doctors.

You can grow thicker, healthier hair and support our show, Legal AF by going to NutriFull.com slash men and entering the promo code legal AF to say $15 off your first month subscription. This is the best offer anywhere, and it's only available to U.S. customers for a limited time. for a limited time plus free shipping on every order get $15 off at neutrafol.com Slashmen and you T. R. A. F. O. L. dot com slash men promo code legal a F I need like that Karen

You know, I think it's great. I Only for men, but we're gonna look for a women's product as well. No, you know, they have a women's product. I think, I looked on there because I actually am somebody who has to deal with thinning hair as I'm aging. And so I'm always looking for ways to, to improve that. So I went online and they actually have women's products as well. So I'm very interested

and very curious. By the way, this might be the first time we've had three sponsors. Maybe, maybe, maybe, much to the delight of all of our listeners and followers. Let's turn to, let's turn to our last segment, which is a interesting issue, but one that could have devastating impact on the Department of Justice and its continued prosecution of all those responsible for chance six at the lowest and highest level. It's been no secret that the secret weapon in the arsenal of the Department of Justice has been the threat of and the actual indictment and conviction related to obstruction of an official proceeding

as a criminal count. It's been on the books as a crime since 2002. It was passed in the aftermath, that law in the aftermath of the N-RON scandal. We have so many scandals today, including FTX and all of that and Bernie made off and the collapse of all these companies. But back in the day in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Enron went down and that resulted in a whole bunch of legislation being passed by Congress.

One of them being obstruction of official proceeding. It was passed because of a Supreme Court case at the time that found that a then existing obstruction count did not cover the actions of the of NRAW not properly cooperating with its regulators and other investigators in turning over documents. But that's not what the actual statute says. All it says is that someone or something that corruptly, corruptly interferes with an official proceeding is guilty of a crime punishable up to 20 years. Now the Department of Justice has added that, where appropriate, to 300 of the 900 or so

people that have been indicted and are being prosecuted, 300 of them have in their indictment a count of obstruction. They've used it in the negotiation process to try to get plea deals. I'm sure been very successful with that. They've even put it on a trial successfully in the last four or five trials, including just two weeks ago when Kelly Megs and Stewart Rhodes of the Oathkeepers were convicted of what else obstruction of an official proceeding by the jury. So it's important to the Department of Justice. Why is it on potential life support? Because of a case coming up from Judge Nichols,

Carl Nichols, who we talked about in the past day, Trump appointee who was the presiding judge in the Steve Bannon contempt case in sentencing, Judge Nichols stepped kind of off sides. It was the only federal judge so far to have ruled in the District of Columbia that the obstruction charge was improper because by its terms, it doesn't apply to the facts of January 6. Specifically, Judge Nichols back in March ruled in a case involving Grant Miller, so US versus Miller, that the government would have to dismiss that portion of the indictment on obstruction of an official proceeding, because unless there

was evidence, and this is a nickel's view, that Miller interfered with the actual documents of the ballots of the electoral counting, that he wasn't interfering with an official proceeding by just attacking the Capitol to try to stop the count. Seems very esoteric and very wrong in the analysis. And frankly, no other judge in the federal courthouse in the District of Columbia where all these cases are being prosecuted believes that. And all of them have allowed that count to stand, except for judge Nichols. So it went up to the court of appeals that sits over the court houses, the federal

court houses in DC, the DC circuit court of appeals with a three judge panel. And based on that three judge panel and the results of a oral argument this week, I think it's on life support. Let's first talk about the three judge panel and I'll turn it over to Karen. The three judges are Judge Florence Pan, who is a Biden appointee. You can put her already on the side of finding that Nichols made a mistake and made reversible error,

and she's in favor based on her questioning of having the obstruction count stand and not be removed from all these indictments. On the other extreme, you have a Trump appointee who used to serve in the Trump White House as a deputy general counsel, general deputy White House counsel Greg Katzis, and we've talked about him before in recent cases, He's on the other extreme. He thinks that obstruction count only applies in in an event of criminal corporate fraud. Has to be corporate fraud for Greg Katzis to apply that count. And then right in the middle, you've got the youngest judge on the panel, 39-year-old Justin

Walker, who not only was a Kavanaugh law clerk, but a Kavanaugh apologist, having given 119 interviews, literally 119 interviews, when the nomination of Kavanaugh hung in the balance over sexual assault and abuse charges against him before he was confirmed. Just this just judge Walker never tried a case. He's only been a clerk, a lock, a Supreme court clerk twice worked in the Department of Justice. I was never a judge before he became an appellate judge and never tried a case. But this hangs in the balance with him being the swing vote about whether the Department of Justice is going to be able

to have this and their arsenal or not and all the prosecutors are very concerned. They were there was reporting that they were sitting in the gallery watching the oral argument along with FBI agents just to see how this was going to shake out. Talk about what do you think is going to happen and what does it mean from a prosecutor's standpoint for current cases and cases that have already led to conviction on those counts Karen. Yeah, so I'm going to put this in perspective. Um, obstruction on the state level of, uh, when, when you have protest cases, which in Manhattan, we had all the time, we would have these, um, gigantic

protests for whatever issue. And you have a constitutional right to protest peacefully. and you have a constitutional right to protest peacefully. And even if you are blocking the Brooklyn Bridge or walking in the street without a permit, nobody would arrest people because they were executing their constitutional right peacefully. So even though they're technically breaking the law.

And so the only time people would get arrested for doing it is when they take it a step further. So when, for example, there was a whole Occupy Wall Street thing going on here where they were, where lots of people were basically living in a park and in one of our parks and they were, they refused to leave. And so for a long time time the police left them there and allowed them to be there because you can exercise your constitutional rights. But at a certain point they can order you to leave. And what some protesters will do is they'll do things like chain themselves to a tree or to a fence or together and refuse to move. And at that point is when they can get arrested

and charged with a crime because at that point they're obstructing something and it's in New York they call it obstruction of governmental administration. That's an aimist demeanor. So it's a very low level crime. What was happening when there was Black Lives Matter protests in New York, there were thousands of people who were getting arrested because they were doing things like looting.

They were breaking into stores and stealing things. And a lot of people got arrested for that. And the prosecutors, you have to make a decision of what is it that you're prosecuting them for, because there's sort of gradations. You're the person who went inside, is that a burglary or is that a trespass? Is it a felony or is a misdemeanor? If you stole something, if you mastermind it's something.

I think the problem here is this obstruction case in the federal system, they don't have gradations. They don't have, okay, you protested and went inside. You protested went inside and engaged in violence. You protested went inside, but you were one of the masterminds. There isn't a lot of gradation. They really just have this charge that carries up to 20 years.

And that's a pretty significant hefty crime. And the Department of Justice used this for over 300 people. And I think that's what is going to get them potentially in trouble, because I think the judges are going to say, these Trump appointee judges in particular are going to say, you know what, you went a little abridged too far. If you'd saved it for the people who were like the masterminds, like the Stuart Rhodes, who, you know, orchestrated this, or Donald Trump, frankly, who is the person who planned it and executed it and cited people and did it,

that's clearly, in my opinion, obstructing an official proceeding. But doing it for these other people who may not have had the intent necessarily to stop the electoral vote, but just wanted to go in and wreak havoc or to be violent or to do all the things that we're doing. It's not, it's a little tricky, I think, to apply

this particular statute to so many people. And I think as a result, they stretch the law. And I have a feeling the court is going to say, you know what, I don't think it applies here. Now, the one thing, the one saving grace, I think, is the statute requires not enough to just obstruct an official proceeding. you have to corrupt Lee, obstruct an official proceeding. And the corrupt Lee means you have to have a criminal state of mind. So I think that is the only lifeline about this, but the legal language of 18 United States code 1512 sub C sub 2 is whoever corrupt, corrupt Lee or otherwise obstructs influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so.

So that's the particular legal language, but I think it's a little thin to apply that to all 300 people. And as a result, I think that the it's going to be interesting what happens if they decide if the three judge panel decides that it does not apply. Now, how can they get a full panel of of the DC circuit, Popeye? How does that work where you go from three to the full panel and will it be appeal to the Supreme Court? I mean, I think we do have a few more stages to go before we can say, what's gonna happen to all the people who've been convicted?

But I do think- I think it's gonna be two, one, in favor of Nichols interpretation and stripping the Department of Justice from their ability to use this count. Before I answer how it gets from three to full on bond, let me ask you a quick prosecutor question. People have been convicted of this count already, like Stuart Rhodes and others. before I answer how it gets from three to full on bond. Let me ask you a quick prosecutor question. People have been convicted of this count already, like Stuart Rhodes and others.

What happens to them? Do they get a whole new trial? Or does that conviction just get vacated for that particular count? No, it gets vacated. You know, it just, it becomes in a legal, I mean, they'll have to move to have these vacated or dismissed or whatever the procedure is going to be depending on what stage the case is in. It could go normally what would happen if something like this happens is the defense attorney would make a motion and would say my client was unlawfully convicted of something that the courts have said don't apply to this particular person. The prosecution can either agree or disagree and the prosecution could potentially say, okay, I agree and we'll join in this or they could say, you know what, his conduct actually

does, you know, this person did alter a document. So it still stands. And then you'd have to have some kind of a hearing, some kind of a hearing to determine that. Now, I think it's going to also depend on if someone pled guilty versus if they had a trial. If someone pled guilty, they'll probably be able to get their plea back. Or if there's another charge, they'll let them plead to the other charge. I mean, it really procedurally will just depend

on what state people are in given their stage of their case. I think that the Department of Justice will have no choice but to ask for on-bomb consideration, because the numbers are in their favor. There's more appointees by Democratic presidents to the DC circuit than there are Republican. That's the one area that Trump wasn't able to overly impact, even though he got the Supreme Court a lot of other appellate places.

The DC circuit was not one of them. And I think they'd have a better shot at it. They make a request and there's a vote. And there's a vote before the vote to decide whether there's going to be on-bunk. And if there's going to be on-bunk, which is the full, all of the judges of the DC Circuit hear it again, including the ones that just heard it. And then if there's a majority decision from it,

it doesn't have to be unanimous. If there's a majority decision from it, they can overturn the three-judge panel. And then, of course, you're off to the US Supreme Court and Lord knows what they're gonna do. Swing vote is really Wilson, a walker, I'm sorry, who was a Kavanaugh guy, a Kavanaugh clerk. And that's why I think, you know, Walker took such offense during the oral argument at Nick Smith, the

advocate for the Jan 6th defendants, because Nick Smith said, well, where are you going to draw the line? What about all the people that went down to Florida in 2000 and all the lawyers that descended on Florida during Bush versus Gore to try to find votes and protest the vote counting, and why wouldn't they be obstructionists under the under the statute? And and that was even too far for for Walker and Walker knew that Kavanaugh had been one of the lawyers that had descended on Florida in 2000 on behalf of the Republican Party. By the way, I was down there for that at that very moment. And I had a role in on the on the course side in making sure that vote counting was done

properly in all of those places. That was the moment of the hanging Chad and the butterfly ballot and you pap you can and getting who was a virulent anti-Semite getting lots of votes in the Jewish communities of Boka, which made absolutely no sense and ultimately led to a five to four decision that elected George Bush president by the US Supreme Court. But even, even Walker was like, don't, don't use that as your comparison. You know, what happened on, on Jan 6th, even in the view of a Trump appointed a pellet judge was heinous, unprecedented, violent, and, um, and, and, and all of that and shouldn't be compared to lawful protests, first amendment expression about, you know, my guy won over your guy and let's make sure the vote counting is done properly. So that, that, that's called not reading the room right as an advocate

by leading off with that and not knowing that the person in the black robe, his, his mentor, Kavanaugh was one of the lawyers that descended, quote unquote, in, down in Florida, what was then called the Brooks brother riot, all these Republicans running around in khakis and light blue button down shirts, like they just walked out of Brooks brothers, you know, protesting in the streets for the first time in their lives about the vote counting. So we have that. We're going to have to watch it closely.

It has tremendous ramifications and impact on the prosecutors in this case. Of course, the defense attorneys, future prosecutions as Karen laid out past prosecutions and convictions. It'll really, it's a Pandora's box. We're hoping that the appellate court doesn't open, but if they do, as Karen outlined, full panel, the 11th circle would probably

hear it, whatever happens there, US Supreme Court. And now the Department of Justice has to, you know, continue to assess whether they want to have that as a charge in their indictment and double down on it, or they want to, like you said, remove it and only use it in certain circumstances. But I don't think the certain circumstances are, whether somebody touched a ballot or not. First of all, there's no evidence that anybody got into the chambers to actually touch a electoral ballot that was being counted, the time was being counted. The session, the session of Congress was halted.

That's part of the obstruction. And the goal of the object of the obstruction was to stop the counting as they got all of the lawmakers to safety. So if that's your standard for the application of that, you have to touch the piece of paper or the document or interfere in some way. Then I think that's a very narrow, I'm not saying

that is your interpretation, but that would be a very narrow reading of that particular obstruction statute. And you know, I know that that judges like Katzis on the bench said, well, if you look at the legislative history, it's really only for corporate fraud and it talks about corporate fraud. And he even said half jokingly, Jen sexes a lot of things, but it's not corporate fraud. And so he's out that that's going to be a no vote to reverse judge Nichols. I think judge Pan, as I said, Florida's pan, the first Asian American to ever be on the DC circuit court of appeals, who took Katanji Brown Jackson seat, she's going to be a vote for reversing judge Nichols and keeping obstruction on the books for the use in the circumstance. And it's going to come down unbelievably so to

judge Walker. So and that really is going to come down unbelievably so to judge Walker. And that really is going to come out soon. I don't think they're going to sit on that a long time given that there are trials that are going, that are still going to trial in the next few months that have this count embedded within them and all the other people that are waiting around to see in the prosecutors. You know, did it surprise you that the reporting is that there were line prosecutors sitting in the room watching the Soral argument? No, no, not at all.

Of course they were. And this is going to be very significant for them. I mean, this is one of the tools they've been using in their toolbox on how to deal with this. So they're very interested in what happens here. Agreed. Well, unfortunately, we've reached the end of another midweek edition of Legal AF with my illustrious royalty co-anchor, Karen Friedman-Eck Nifalo.

We're bringing you, especially cultivated show of those most important consequences at the midweek at the intersection of law and politics today. Special shout out to a guest of ours, Anthony Davis, fellow podcaster and broadcaster and journalist, and host of the five minute news and the weekend show also on the Midas Media Network, shout out to all of our sponsors, Miracle Brand, NutraFull, and Highlands titles. And having them on the show was great fun for you

and I to do those ad reads. And Karen, I got a weekend show with Ben, Ben Myceles on Saturday, but then right back at it with you during the week leading into the holidays. Next week. Can't wait. Can't wait. See you next week. We'll see everybody next Wednesday.

Thanks.