Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Lawyers Prosecuted, Foreign Presidents Assassinated, & Insurrectionists go to Trial

Episode Date: May 12, 2022

The midweek edition of LegalAF x MeidasTouch, the top-rated podcast covering law and politics, is anchored by national trial attorney and strategist, Michael Popok and former prosecutor and leading criminal defense attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo. On this week’s episode, Popok and KFA analyze: 1. The upcoming criminal trial this month of lobbyist and lawyer Michael Sussman prosecuted by Trump’s Special Prosecutor for allegedly lying to the FBI about whether he was working for the Clinton Campaign when he presented evidence to the FBI about a link between Trump and the Russians. 2. A Federal judge’s decision to move the main Oath Keeper/Stuart Rhodes trial to September in light of the Jan6 Committee’s gavel to gavel hearings in June. 3. The Department of Justice’s indictment and prosecution of more than 40 people who conspired to kidnap and assassinate the President of Haiti last July. Join the Legal AF Twitter Community: https://twitter.com/i/communities/1518253662920974338 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 Zoomed In: https://pod.link/1580828633 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Legal AF podcast with your midweek anchors, Michael Popock and Karen Friedman Agnifalo covering the intersection of law and politics and our nation's court houses and hearing rooms. On today's pod we discuss and analyze the plot to assassinate the president of Haiti and the indictment of at least 40 co-conspirators both inside the US and outside and developments in that case in the Southern District US and outside in developments in that case in the Southern District of Florida. New developments in the prosecution and trial later this month of former powerhouse political lobbyist and attorney Michael Sussman brought by the former Trump

special prosecutor and what it means for the Clinton campaign. And lastly we'll discuss the decision by the judge overseeing the heart of the Oathkeeper Seditious Conspiracy Trial against nine Oathkeepers to delay that trial in light of the Jansic Special Committee hearings in June. That's a lot to talk about. Speaking of the Jansic Special Committee hearings in June, Karen, you had a great idea about something that you, me, Ben, and others could do during a live feed of that. What was your idea?

Yeah, we should sit there, watch it with everybody and do commentary. Obviously, we won't interrupt, but there's a lot of downtime. You know, one thing that always strikes me when you watch a hearing or you watch a trial, it's not like on law and order where things, you, you, you have an entire trial in the span of 30 minutes and everything goes quickly. This is much more, there's a lot of downtime. There's a lot of slow downtime where people are just talking or talking amongst themselves,

et cetera. That's an opportunity for us to watch it with people and explain what's happening and explain sort of what everything means and put it into context. I think that's a great idea. You and I have both recently been on Tony Michael's show, the Tony FM podcast now on Might As Touch. And I think the brothers are talking about having him produce it.

And then which I think is a great idea. So constant real time feed of the special committee, but rather than just watching it on MSNBC or one of these mainstream media, it would be, you know, the legal AF team contributing with Tony. Yeah, I did it with Tony for the monetary tailor green screen. Yeah, and only 500,000 of your closest friends join you. That's all. No, but it's interesting. It's very interesting. And in the life, people ask questions.

There's an art to doing it. And I think you're starting to master it and I'll pick it up, which is, you know, we want to be interactive. We want to we want to have it be an extension of what we do on legal IF every week that brand the people have come to expect. And then imprint that onto the special committee hearing. So stay tuned, the audience should stay tuned and we'll have more details for that. Once the Gen 6 committee hearings are announced for later in June, it has an impact

on a story that we're going to cover later, which is the seditious conspiracy trial of the oath keepers and emotion that they made related to their trial. Well, let's kick it off with, it's a very interesting case that's gotten very little press mainstream. I'm kind of plugged into the Miami media for my career there, and in fact, I have an office in Miami, and I have friends that are in the Haitian American community. And so, as some people may know, but it's sort of fallen off the transom or fallen off the continual news.

Last July 7, 2021, the president of Haiti, President Jovenel Moise was assassinated. It was a terrible yet another terrible tragedy for the country of Haiti. They've suffered so much, both just natural disasters start starting with earthquakes to political disasters and corruption, which unfortunately has been a part of their history for a hundred years, leading to the assassination of their president. And the question was, who did it? It was a who'd done it at the highest order,

and where any Americans involved. And so now we're starting to see from the Department of Justice, their National Security Office and Division and prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida, who's involved and how big of a conspiracy this was. We have an indictment of John Joel Joseph, JJ Joseph, a Haitian American business person, who they captured in Jamaica and had him extradited through a request back to the United States, who made it of his first appearance in before a magistrate in the Southern District of Florida. But he didn't do this on his own. He, Karen, you want to describe how many people were involved, and then we can talk about

sort of extra, you know, this extradition and how we got from Jamaica to the United States and what are the next steps the Department of Justice has announced. Yeah, so this is a sweeping indictment of, I think, 40 people, 20 Colombians and a bunch of other people who were involved in this plot to kill, they're charged with conspiracy to commit murder, not necessarily the actual murder of the president. But the first thing I asked myself when I saw this is, how do we have, how does United States have both jurisdiction and venue over this matter? And what's the difference between those two things? So the way I always, I always, it's one of those things that you sort of have to ask yourself

and have a little kind of reminder in your mind is what's, what is the difference? And jurisdiction is, does what court has jurisdiction over the matter? And venue is what location, what what place you know what what city state So the first one is which court has the power to render decisions correct about a matter a person a Case that that we call jurisdiction venue is Location it's basically where where where does it happen? And so this was a, so the jurisdiction here would be federal court and the venue is Florida. And my question to myself when I was reading this is how the hell does the United States of America have jurisdiction

over the assassination of a Haitian president by Haitians and Colombians. I mean, because that's essentially what this is. And you would say to yourself, well, isn't this something that should be prosecuted by Haiti? That makes the most sense. That's the most logical sense. And so I went and I sort of did a little digging.

And in the press release announcing this these charges, the Department of Justice dropped a line in there that said they flew to Florida and flew back to Haiti at one point in the course of their conspiracy because they had to establish their jurisdiction. Let's go over that one. Let's go over that one. So for our listeners and followers who don't know, there is a very vibrant and proud Haitian community that has been in Miami for 75 plus years, if not more. They are very involved with the politics of South Florida in a positive way.

They could tribute as good citizens to the business community, to the political community, some of them are judges. You know, the first federal judge Haitian came out of Miami. So there's a long and proud history of Haitians in South Florida. There's also tension between the Haitian American community and the US government over immigration policy because the Haitian community is not generally granted the same types of rights and privileges and benefits that for instance the Cuban community is granted which is a much more powerful and stronger political powerhouse in Florida.

So, but that's that. So, this, these flights back and forth between, you know, Haiti, Port of Prance, you know, their main capital, their airport, and Miami, this goes on every day. So, business people will have a foot in both places. And the thing that you're talking about that I think is what's in the indictment is that they act speaking of corrupt court systems. Everybody's complaining about our court system. What do you hear what happened in Haiti? These co-conspirators went to Haiti,

convinced the judge to give them an arrest warrant for the president of Haiti because it started as a kidnapping plot and it turned into an assassination when they killed them. So they get this judge who's corrupt, apparently, to give them an arrest warrant. This guy, JJ Joseph, takes the arrest warrant, flies to Miami to meet with other co-conspirators and other people, shows them the arrest warrant. And that is the jurisdiction of hope that you're talking about, right Karen?

Exactly, exactly. And maybe we're doing it because it's such a corrupt judicial system that's involved in this particular case and maybe that's why it's appropriate. And he's facing life, you know, if he gets convicted here. But it was interesting. I was kind of again doing some digging and I saw some Jamaican press.

Hopefully, I don't know how accurate this is, but what they said was that he ended up bribing people to get to Jamaica. And then he tried to bribe people with millions of dollars in Jamaica, the police, to try to keep him hidden. And he ultimately was arrested along with his wife and children, and I think one of which is an adult was extra-diadied to the United States to face charges here.

But he was hoping to just fade off into the, you know, the beautiful beaches of Jamaica. Who doesn't like those? But the, I think I also read that the wife and the kids are trying to get asylum in Jamaica and it hasn't yet been connected. In your career as a prosecutor at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, were you involved with any extradition type matters where you're making a request to a foreign country for which, yeah. So talk a little bit about that with the process of that, the,

you know, are there treaties or are there intergovernmental agreements? What is the foundation for the US to send a letter request to another country, hopefully a friendly country or a treaty, a treaty participant country, and say, hey, you got a bad guy, a bad guy defendant on your soil or person, you know, please send them to us for prosecution. So it's complicated. So not all countries are the same and every country is different. And some countries, for example, will not ever extradite. And extradite means send you to face charges to another jurisdiction. Some countries won't extradite for their own nationals.

So if you're a citizen of that country and you're accused of a crime, you get safe haven and in your country. So an example of a famous example of that is Rowan Polanski was indicted and charged with sexual assault in the United States. And he fled to France where he is a French citizen and he's never faced charges because he,

they won't extradite him. He's also now landlocked in France and can't leave because the minute he steps out, he could be arrested on what's called a red notice and brought to face charges in this country. And that happens to a lot of people who are charged and who are citizens in their country. But that's not all countries.

Some countries will say certain charges will extradite in certain charges we won't. Certainly the more serious charges typically bail extradite their citizens, but misdemeanors and things like that they won. Or if their country doesn't recognize that crime or the punishment that we're about to, you know, if we're like, okay, that particular crime, that's life in prison or that's death penalty. And the country doesn't recognize a death penalty or doesn't find that crime to be as serious. Isn't it at the case sometimes they won't extradite on that basis.

Absolutely. But, you know, we're the same, by the way. So, so for example, let's say it's a crime in China to talk badly about your government and or North Korea or somewhere, you know, and let's say a United States citizen travels to one of those places and says something bad about, or they don't even travel. They just say something bad about those governments and they get an arrest warrant for them and they try to extradite them.

Well, the United States is not going to send one of our, you know, someone who's here to face charges like that and somewhere like North Korea. I mean, you know, so there are lots of, it sort of goes both ways, you know, where we want to protect our people from bad laws or laws that we don't recognize and vice versa. And so what happens is you enter into these treaties, you know,

and there's the hate convention and, you know, some countries will sign on to that and some don't. And if you do sign on to it, you agree to certain rules and procedures when it comes to whether it's prosecution or service of process in a civil matter. I mean, there's sort of different treaties that govern different countries. And like I said, some have signed on and some have not. different treaties that govern different countries. And like I said, some have signed on and some have not. And when you want to extradite someone from another country,

you have to familiarize yourself with whatever document and whatever agreement exists. And then you make a request through the United States government. Local prosecutor would make a request through the Department States government. Local prosecutor would make a request through the Department of Justice. And then you prepare the documents necessary to request extra edition. And then the Department of Justice,

what may or may not, depending on all sorts of considerations, including diplomatic relations, right? There might be a diplomatic reason, not to seek extra tradition of a particular type of prime or a particular person, but so I'll tell you a case in the Manhattan DA's office and I've sort of lost track of whether this individual was extradited or not ultimately as I left, but there was a Jamaican, someone in Jamaica, a Jamaican national, who was indicted for terrorism-related charges.

And there was an extradition request. It was granted. And so then we went into an extradition proceeding in Jamaica. And the individual can either agree to extradition or not. So if they agree to extradition, then they come quickly to the United States. If they don't, then there's a whole legal procedure that goes on in that country and you have to prove, you have to show certain types of proof and there's discovery

and a judge will ultimately rule on whether the person can go face charges in that jurisdiction. And when they come to the country, let's say you extradite someone on five charges. You know, let's say you murder and conspiracy and something else. Let's say once you investigate the case, you discover new charges. You can't add new charges without permission. In other words, that person was extra guided on those particular charges and on this particular indictment. And that's what you are able to hold them on and prosecute them with. So there's a whole kind of that's very interesting.

I didn't realize you'd almost have to get the cooperation of the host country if you're going to supersede your indictment with new charges. That's interesting. And that's something that never gets covered. Well, this was a great kind of entry way into extradition and your background and experience. Plus, frankly, I think it's a case that

is on so many levels, including all the ones that you outlined, about US involvement in international plots, an international intrigue, and why. And this is another good reason we live in this country, because we are willing, our Justice Department is willing to track down bad people that even have, who even put a little toe in the sand of the United States to give them, to give us territorial jurisdiction and to prosecute them, because others won't.

Haiti would probably love to, but a lot of its justice system is corrupt and compromised. And who else is gonna do it if we don't? So once again, it's the United States being the policeman under a, let's do a plug for the politics under a democratic regime. I'm not sure this gets done if the Republicans control, you know, the executive branch, for instance, because many of these things didn't happen because that was not the focus of that particular president whose name I will not speak. So, all right. So that's

the law of extradition. That's what's going on with JJ Joseph and the plot to assassinate and ultimately killed the president of Haiti. Let's move on to something closer to home, really close to home and politics, which is the prosecution of Michael Susman, a I keep saying former, you know, a former political powerhouse lobbyist and lawyer with one of the leading lobby-connected law firms in the United States, sitting in Washington, Perkins, Koi. It's also where Mark Elias is very popular on the internet and on his Twitter feed practices. He was a partner of Michael Susman's. To bring everybody up to speed, there is a special prosecutor who was appointed by Bill Barr and Donald Trump and our president, the president of the United States and his

wisdom, his judgment, decided to keep the special prosecutor in place who was investigating the Russian collusion factors from 2016, whether the Clinton campaign was involved or not involved. And they've indicted, you know, after six years of investigation, they've indicted a total of three people. One person for lying and conjuring up some emails that got a search warrant against an aid of Donald Trump Carter page, another person who does something else. And then, you know, this is their big fish, I guess, after six years of an investigation, Michael Susman.

And what is he, what has he been indicted for? One thing that he went to the FBI, and he goes to the FBI like all the time for other, other matters and other clients. But this one, he said he was just being a good citizen that they had some national security information and intel that he wanted to share with them, demonstrating a link between at least Trump Tower, which is the building that Donald Trump resides in on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan and a Russian bank, okay?

And that they had some data, he didn't say from where, but he had sort of a white paper, a dossier, that he wanted to give to the FBI. And he actually met with the General Counsel, the head lawyer for the FBI, and he presented this information. And either that the topic of who Michael was representing as a lawyer, because usually you have a client, if you as a lawyer, because you know, usually you have a client

if you're a lawyer, or not, either wasn't really discussed, or it was just implied that Michael was there to provide this information to the FBI and they can take it wherever they want to take it. The the purgeery or lying under oath or lying to an official charge, that's been charged, a false statement charge, is that he did not reveal that he was really working for a client and the client was the Clinton campaign. Which by the way, if you go on, if you went on the website at the time, they weren't hiding the fact that they represented

the Clinton campaign. So how the FBI General counsel could be mistaken. And this feels like an acquittal to me. This is so not going to be a conviction. Do you see him getting convicted for that? I mean, well, let's, okay. I think it depends on what evidence is allowed to be presented, which brings us to the recent development from two days ago.

Judge Chris Cooper, an Obama appointee, very, very good judge in the DC circuit, who's been supervising this prosecution. And we've talked about him on the pod, on the weekend pod with Ben Mysalis before, and developments there, had a motion in Limit A, a motion to limit evidence presented by the defense.

It was actually both. There was a, yeah, there were both. There was a joint sort of, everyone put all their motions and lemonade together and he ruled the decision was on both of theirs. And the prosecutors want to put on a big show to show that Michael Susman, the lawyer, was in a conspiracy with the Clinton campaign, operatives of the Clinton campaign, and a data collection company to try to tie Trump to Russia and do a Russian

collusion. And they want to put on that case. And the defense doesn't want that case put on. The defense is like, you've got me on one charge of lying under oath or lying to the FBI. What does that have to do with the conspiracy? I haven't been charged with conspiracy. So why are you putting on a conspiracy case? But the judge did a very interesting thing. So tell, I know everybody's on the edge of their seat, Karen, based on the judge's ruling, are the FBI going to be able to put on at least

some sort of case about the involvement of the Clinton campaign in this, uh, uh, trying to collect evidence against Trump related to Russia? Yes or no? Mostly no. So the judge was a little, you know, I will allow a little bit of this. I'll allow a little bit of that. But basically no, he said he's not going to allow this to turn into a mini trial, a trial within a trial to see whether or not the there was this conspiracy and this sort of, you know, it's conspiracy between Hillary Clinton and the DNC and assessment and all of these other individuals to, you know, to create this connection with Russia and the Russian collusion. Interestingly, I had to remind myself, I had to go back. That lawsuit that Donald Trump dropped last month where he basically sued everyone under the sun for every grievance he's ever had.

Who's in there? Perkins, Koi, the law firm, Michael Sussman. It's all about this. So really, the judge here had to limit this. If for no other reason, then if the special prosecutor, John, John Durham is allowed to have this trial within a trial and create this evidence of conspiracy, he's almost proving the civil case for Donald Trump. I mean, you, mean, he couldn't allow that to happen here, and it's also a distraction. He's not, what's the point?

It's either he lied or he didn't lie. And if you want to charge him with conspiracy, then charge him with conspiracy, if that's what he did, but clearly that didn't happen. So the decision kind of went into that whole kind of why he's allowing it, why he's not allowing it. And there's a lot of discussions about joint, whether there was a joint venture. It's interesting because they go back and forth between the word conspiracy and the word joint

venture. And, and you know, it's, it's, it's kind of, I don't know why he goes back and forth. I know the, I know the federal rule that controls conspiracy uses that terminology, and maybe that's why that it talks about that. But it was interesting that I guess conspiracy to me has more of a nefarious sound to it and joint venture could be a business deal. But joint venture sounds like you and I are gonna open

an actual parlor. Exactly, exactly. So I guess in that way, it sort of made me feel that this was like a joint enterprise, that that's kind of irrelevant, because it wasn't really like this conspiracy. Yeah, except in one way, if you hear me saying this, you know, it's complicated. It was a very interesting but complicated decision. And it didn't always go exact. It started to take turns at places where I thought, okay, he's making that decision. Yes. That they're not allowed to put on that evidence. But he did say in

the middle of the, it will post it on the, here's a little plug for the Twitter community, legal AF Twitter community, which is now almost a thousand strong after two weeks. We're doing great. And we're posting you, me, Ben. We're posting information about the cases that we're talking about. Some things that don't make the cut for the podcast, but are still interesting. We put them there. If we talk about a case, we try to put a link to the case or to the order. And I'll post this particular decision there. But he said at one, the

judge Cooper said at one point, there are competing narratives that each side want to put on at the trial about the evidence. The prosecution wants to say that the alpha, which is the name of the bank in Russia, alpha bank data that is presented by Susman to the FBI, which is the heart of the false statement in prosecution. Came from opposition research that was ordered and coordinated by the Clinton campaign and and Susman knew that when he and knew about the campaign, knew about the collection of the data and how it was collected and then knowing all of that, took it to the FBI and lied

when he didn't tell the FBI the source of the information that it really came back to Clinton campaign. That's what the prosecution wants to say. And the defense, the defensive view is completely different, as most trials are, especially criminal ones. The defense said, no, the data collection company and this guy, Rodney Jaffy, who is a key to the case, apparently.

And whether he testifies or not, we'll talk about next. Rodney Jaffee did it on his own. He's a Democrat and he went and did the data collection of what they call this DNS data showing communication traffic, not the actual substance of the communication, but like pings and points between the alpha bank and something or something. Yeah, the guy he, like IP address from Trump to our to alpha bank and Russia.

So they see traffic, they see traffic, they see cars, they just don't know what's in the cars. And that was the evidence that was presented. So the defense says, no, Jaffee did it on his own. He happened to be a client of Perkins' Koi anyway. He went there to get his own advice about what to do it. Susman met with him along with Mark Elias, and hearing the information, Susman, as a citizen, Patriot citizen, took the information to the FBI. So there wasn't the contact

that between the Clinton campaign and Susman. That's the judge said is the competing world views. He also said, however, Karen, I think the jury should be able to hear both of those views. I'm just going to limit the amount of evidence and witnesses that either side. So it sounds to me evidence and witnesses that either side. So it sounds to me like the prosecution in opening is gonna be able to talk about the Clinton campaign, the data company, Susman Elias, and how this got to the FBI and how the FBI was misled. So we're gonna hear a lot,

and of course in the Twitter verse and social media, it's gonna be, oh, Hillary Clinton, she's involved. And she helped steal information from the president of the United States. So I was hoping the judge Cooper would like shut the door to that because that really, unless he's charged with conspiracy, what are we doing? But he's going to allow these competing narratives to be presented. What do you think about that? I look, I think that basically the reason I think this is going to be an acquittal is because I think both things are true. I think he both was widely known as representing Hillary Clinton and it's the only thing he was hiding that, right? Right. So why would he have to disclose that, right? It would be, you know, it would be like,

I can't even think of a good example, but, you know, there's no reason to say it because it was widely known and he's dealt with him many, many, many, many times. So I think he probably both worked for them, but also felt like, oh no, I have this information and I wanna be a good Samaritan and provide it. Like you can have both motivations at the same time.

It would be to your point, it would be like if Rudy Giuliani, when he was bar, he had his bar license during the heyday, went in to make a pitch about Donald Trump or his opponent, who would not know that Giuliani was there doing the, as a henchman for Donald Trump. Right. But he also could be reporting what he thinks genuinely is, you know, some a matter of important national security. Like in other words, you can have two motivations. It doesn't necessarily, I just don't see how that makes you lying to the FBI. And by not saying it, unless he was asked outright, do you represent them?

And is that why you're here? And if, you know, is anyone paying you to be here? And if he said, absolutely not, I'm here because, you know, being a good Samaritan is a good term. Which also could be true. But it, I was gonna say, and it turns out though, that there's like check that in the,

in the memo section says, to go talk to the FBI about the data, you know what I mean? So his bill, his billing records, it says. Yeah, billing records the data. You know, he has billing records. It says, yeah, billing records, right? Met with FBI general counsel for Clinton campaigns today. Exactly. So if that, if they have evidence like that, that's one thing. But if not, if what, if it's the way I'm sort of seeing it,

they must not have that evidence. They must not have that evidence because they're doing the whole, you know, we need the email. Yeah, we need the email. We need the Clinton campaign to be on. And the other last interesting thing in the decision is this whole fight of interesting fight. I want to get your take as an exprasecutor between the prosecution and the defense over Rodney Jaffee. So Jaffee, it looks like the prosecution, I can't tell if they want them to testify, but if they want them to testify.

No, I think the defense wants them to testify. Right, but they want, yeah, the defense wants them to testify, but it's weird because the prosecution could use him to establish the link with Susman. Susman wants to use Jaffee to establish that there isn't a link between Jaffee and the Clinton campaign that Susman would have known about at the time. And that's not how he got the data presented to him. But the defense is complaining to the judge, the prosecution won't give Jaffee immunity. So he's taking the Fifth Amendment. So they're gagging one of our key witnesses. So they asked the judge for the extraordinary remedy of having, and I never really thought about this, the judge could do this,

the judge granting him immunity, even the prosecution won't, in order to allow him to testify. I thought that was, I don't know if you've ever been involved with a case where the judge has... I've never seen it. Right. And the judge said, no, it's an extraordinary thing for me, rather than the prosecutor to grant immunity. And even though I get why you walked this witness to testify, I'm not doing that. I don't think in my career, I've ever been involved with a matter or heard about a matter where, and I guess they have that power where the judge in the black robe makes a decision on immunity or not. I guess it makes sense.

But usually the process. I never knew. I never knew they had that authority. Yeah, very interesting. So we'll keep an eye on what's going to go on with Michael Susman. That trial is going to be later this month. And you can expect the other side of the aisle to make a lot of hay out of it because of the involvement of the Clinton campaign, at least in some of the evidence that's going to be presented. Well, speaking of trials of the century, let's go to the oath keeper, seditious conspiracy trial with Elmer Stewart Rhodes. I had forgotten his name was Elmer, the one-eyed leader of the oath keepers. The Yale Law grad. That's why I can't get over.

You love that one. He's because I just because I can't believe it. Just to me. Do you know people that went to yell law? I do. I do. And they don't and he's also an army. I guess that's the thing. He's a former yell law graduate. He was an army paratrooper. I mean, these are people I respect in the world, right? I respect ex-military people that and I respect people who go to Ivy League institutions typically. And so to me, to to read about this and what he's done and what he believes in is just such a fall from not just fall from grace, but just a fall from like logic. And I just

it blows it actually blows my mind. I don't understand it. So we've talked about in prior podcast, both here and on the weekend edition, that there's now been three leading members of the oath keepers, not little periphery people, key people in the oath keepers who have pled guilty, cut a deal with the government to seditious conspiracy and are cooperating with the government, including the one that Ben and I talked about last week, William Wilson, who was literally the tip of the tip of the spear. He was the first Oathkeeper who stormed the Capitol. And we find out, interestingly, the day he was indicted, it was the day that he played a guilty, meaning he's been cooperating with the government for quite some time.

He's going to testify that he was in the room when Stuart Rhodes made a phone call to an unknown source who seemed to be connected to the Trump campaign and asked to speak and with Stuart Rhodes asked to speak the Trump directly to get him to order Stuart Rhodes to execute the plan to use the Oathkeepers to violently and with arms because they all had a weapons cash at a hotel in the Phoenix Hotel in Washington to have Trump order them to stop the peaceful transfer of power. And Wilson's going to testify that when this person, the shadowy deep throat character that hasn't yet been named, said that we're not going to put you on the phone store with Donald Trump, that Rhodes was like pissed off, annoyed, that he didn't get the order from the commander in chief to insurrect it over through the country, key witness. So now we got the trial. These are all the cooperating witnesses.

Now we got the trial. And basically, there's nine oath keepers who have been charged with the highest charge in this conspiracy. This is funny. They don't have a courthouse big enough to try all nine at the same time. They have a courthouse big enough, they have a courtroom big enough for six.

Six. So they're gonna split the group in half and they were gonna have the first trial be in, I think July. And the defense brought a motion before Judge Amit Mehta and Obama appointee, who's been supervising this and many other Gen 6 cases. And they said, look, we think that our clients will be, you know, and the jury will be severely negatively impacted against our client and prejudice against our client. If the trial is on

the heels of the Jan 6th special committee, you know, must watch TV in June. It's too close. The judge listened to that. Yeah, yeah, I want to hear your view of that. The judge listened to them and said, all right, I already split off the other group, the other four. I think they split into five and four. The other four, I'm already doing in November. I'll move you guys to September. September. Right.

Which will get you over. And then the other, the defense jumped up because they wanted more. He also said, I'll do it if all of the defense gives me a commitment that except for an extraordinary circumstance that we don't know about right now. Don't come back in here and ask me for any more time to move this case. I'm not going to do it. He even is a great quote. Even if 435 members of Congress are reading the January 6th committee report on the courthouse steps. You're not going to get a continuance beyond September. If that is not clear, I love judge made it because what and just as take a half a step backwards, the defense was saying, great, thanks, Judge.

Thanks for recognizing the hearing, but there's going to be the report, the published report, you know, it's going to be, you can imagine, I remember the one from whitewater, and I remember the one from the Trump, I'm gonna say treason, the Trump impeachment hearings, and you know, it's like, you know, for those that are not watching, it's like five phone books thick. That's going to be published. We're going to be able to all get a copy of it. And they're saying, well, Judge, it's going to be a published report to which the judge says, I don't care if they read that report on the court has steps. I'm not giving you any more time. So it looks like that group, including Stewart Rhodes, is going to go in September. The second group is going to go in November. The judge says, I get

you all want to be tried together, but I can't do it physically. So I'm not going to be able to do it. So we're going to split case in half and that's not any kind of due process problem. I love, the government could decide to try nine separate cases if they wanted to. The Sixth Amendment doesn't say you get to all be tried together. So I don't see there's any problem with that. What did you think about the decision?

Do you think it's the right thing to do or should we just get this trial over with in September, in June as planned or July as planned? I mean, so the thing you have to worry about in high profile cases is the jury pool and whether the defendant's gonna get a fair trial because if the defendant's don't get a fair trial, then all you're doing is buying yourself a reversible error

and then you have to try it again. So you have to make sure that you can in a high profile case, you can have a little bit of a circus going on with media attention and etc. And so I do think it was smart of the judge to move it and put a little daylight and a little distance between the hearings because they're're gonna be widely covered. Everyone's gonna know about it, especially in DC. And I just think the jury pool, they're gonna have to be bordered on this question. So they're gonna have to be asked about

how much of this did you watch any of the hearings? Did you follow it closely? Did you read the reports? And that won't automatically be grounds to be, to, I'm losing some reason I can't think of the word, challenged, it won't be a forecaused challenge to be of the judge. Of the judge.

Of the judge, yes. Right. And during jury selection, you have challenges. And that's not gonna be forecaused challenges, because you know about it, but the last can you be fair. But there's also what's known as preemptory challenges. And those are the challenges that the lawyers get to make that are discretionary.

And they're just going to want to know. And I would imagine that one side or the other is going to make a calculation. If you're somebody who followed the January 6th Committee very closely, you might be someone that you'd want as a juror or you don't want as a juror. And you'll have various opinions about that one way or another. But either way, you're going to have to get people who can be fair and impartial despite the media attention.

And during the trial, you can't look at media reports and you can't watch the news and you can't read anything or do your own research about the particular, you know, matter, the subject matter that's going on. And that'll be hard to do if the hearings are going on in the moment and the report comes out right away because all the news will be about that. And so if you want to have a little distance so that the jury won't inadvertently see things about the trial that aren't sort of in the news or won't be influenced by it. Yeah, you know, it's interesting. They don't they don't really do this as much anymore. But the old days of sequestering the jury where you put them in a hotel, put blinders on them, take away all their devices. I mean, that's really reserved for the most rarest of circumstances. And as a defense lawyer, we generally don't want sequestering because that usually pisses the jury off and they

want to render a decision quickly. Sometimes they punish the prosecution, but a lot of times they punish the defense. And that's a wild card that a lot of defense lawyers, because that's a solution. Well, if you're worried about the report, and I could always put the jury up in a hotel, a flea bag hotel up the street from the courthouse, you know, the judge could threaten that, and then make his decision, but you rarely see that.

I don't know if you've ever been in a case where you've actually had a sequester jury. I have, but years, that was many years ago, back in the old days, and it was, you know, only for a homicide, that was many years ago back in the old days and it was only for a homicide. It was reserved for very, very rare and the most serious cases, but they don't really do that anymore. Right. Like 12 angry men, I wish they'd put them all, make them sit there for the whole time.

But I don't have a question. But they do admonish. The judge will say, there's a whole jury charge around don't, don't talk to anyone about the case. Don't do any research about the case. Don't read any articles about it. If they get caught, they get caught, it's a crime. And they'll be brought before the judge,

the side bit evolved with that, where the jury has done something they weren't supposed to do. And then they get brought up in front of the judge and possibly investigated. And there's another crime within a crime going on there. But if fascinating, fascinating story, Stewart Rhodes, listen, from what, from the three and no records so far of the Department of Justice against Gen 6 and Syraconists and the just sheer volume. I mean, it's just a target rich environment, no pun intended of evidence, recorded video,

social media, photos, family members, all testifying in one way or the other against the nine co-conspirators. If anybody's guilty, I'm sorry to, you know, we live in a country where everybody's presumed innocent. But if anybody is guilty of this crime, it's the oath keepers. I know. We got that at the Michigan Wolverines too, by the way.

So and roads is going to testify. He said, if, if, if the Department of Justice loses any aspect of the Stewart road's prosecution, I will eat, I'm pointing to it. I will eat the map painting behind me. It, I mean, there's no F and W. Stewart Rhodes goes out of free man. And the interesting thing, we'll end it on this, Karen. The interesting thing from all of the chatter from the defense lawyers in and around the hearing before Judge Mehta is that, you know,

I guess in a very cocky way, the defense lawyer for Stewart Rhodes says, and he's definitely taking a stand. Yeah. I mean, Stewart, well, which is what I said with Ben on the weekend edition, I said, this is just a show trial, not for the government, but for Stewart Road. He knows he's going down. He knows he's going to prison for up to 20 years. He wants to go in as a martyr and his rep, whatever you think his reputation is, we think

it's delusional, but in his mind, he's a patriot. And he wants his rep in his whatever you think is reputation is we think it's delusional, but in his mind, he's a patriot and he wants his day in court. He well, he's going to get it and he's going to end up with an orange jumpsuit with a chain around his waist. Yeah. And that's going to be the end of the point. The oath keepers really feel like they are doing a patriotic duty by maintaining the oath that they took when they were, they're all former law enforcement or military and they took an oath to protect and serve and they feel like they're continuing that and they're basically these armed vigilantes who you know go out and protect the you know during the their anti-black lives matter their anti

you know, during the their anti black lives matter, their anti Islamic terror, you know, Islamic people and open borders. I mean, you know, all the all the kind of dog we've always had. We've always this is the exact same DNA. We've always had in this country, starting with the Ku Klux Klan. This is basically just the Ku Kl Clux clan white supremacist movement dressed up with the American flag to protect our country. They share identical values. They're on the, they're on the same websites. They're on the same dark web. They believe the same bullshit. If you ask to it roads, do you think Jews, flu planes or missiles into into the Twin Towers on 9-11. He'll say yes. I mean, this is the the darkest darkest disgusting underbelly of America. That unfortunately, whether you call it nativism back in the 18th and 19th century, all the way through the rise of the Ku Klux Klan

after the Civil War to the the T P I was called called the T. Pop movement, the T party movement. It's all the, the, the, they're all branches of the same racist misogynist tree. And, and they just dressed themselves up with different uniforms and, and sheets and hats and, and all the rest of it. But they're the same as the Charlottesville neo-Nazis. It's the same F and group. It's just they just wear a different hello. My name is Tag on the day that they go to some event. That's it. The meetings are the same. They're always in the woods. I'm sure there's a cross-burning nearby. Let's rip off. That's one of the reasons these these prosecutions are so important to the integrity and to the continuity of our republic because it rips

the mask off of these people as they try to inch their way into mainstream using social media as the conduit for that. They the KKK wants to be mainstream. The neo-nazis want to be mainstream. They change their names. They change their titles. They, the KKK wants to be mainstream. The neo-nazis want to be mainstream. They change their names, they change their titles, they, they, they have these fancy social media platforms to suck unsuspecting people down that, down that rabbit hole, but they are what they are. They are vile, racist neo-nazis conspiracy theory people. And they're just today, we, today they're the oath keepers today we today they're the Oathkeepers tomorrow They're the first amendment Praetorians. They're the KKK. They're the John Birch Society

You name it. That's the group and so you me Ben and others that helped produce the legal AF podcast have made it our now life mission To talk about these cases in a factual way without blowing smoke or sunshine to bring it to the attention of the American people. So that our audience can take those facts and can go to bait them in the streets and with their family and on the internet and on social media armed, not with weapons,

the weapons of the mind, with facts and analysis that you and I provide and with Ben as well. So that's where we are. What do you think about that? I think it's great. No, but look, I agree with you. These guys are really the more I sort of dug into it, the scarier they are. This is, these are the Timothy McVase, you know, these are homegrown people who we really have to worry about.

And really they're not just sort of blowing off steam and you know, whatever they like to say. I mean, these are people who truly believe in what they say. They think they're doing some kind of, it's their mission, it's their duty, but they anti-everybody. I mean, even Republicans, they don't even like, they call them rhinos, Republicans in name only, and John McCain, even they're not far right enough to them. And there's orders that they won't obey. And they just, basically, they believe in their guns is very important to them.

And they believe there's this conspiracy for a new world order that everyone's conspiring with the Chinese and the Mexicans and the Islamic terrors and the Jews. It's always the Jews, the Rothschilds. And so there's this giant sort of new world order conspiracy that are, they're being forced into and we're opening the borders and Mexican drug cartels are coming in and you know that and this is just the narrative that they that they have and they are with scary and so they view themselves though as it's but it's more than just words they view

themselves as these protectors and so they go and they and they kind of go and protect groups that they think need protecting. And one of them was on January 6th, you know, they thought they were, and you saw what happened there, you know, they tried to, they were part of this group that tried to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power and the, you know, the whole Jan 6th riot, basically, and insurrection. So they're scary people who are capable of very, very dangerous things. And I think we can't ever become numb to it.

We can't ever become sort of like whitewash this to use it because they are white. But this is a very dangerous group and they're as dangerous if not more dangerous than any other group out there. And we need to keep an eye on it. And I'll tell people, I'll tell people what place to go. And I'll post it in the legal IF Twitter community. The Southern Poverty Law Center has been following extremist organizations

since I was a child. And they have a very good website, which is, you see, which one they're using these days. I'll post it. I want to make sure I have the actual website that they use, but the Southern property law here it is. It's www.splcenter.org, Southern property law Center, so S-P-L Center.org. And if you want to go on there right now, they'll show you all the hate groups that they're monitoring, all the extremists that they're monitoring, where they reside, how many there are, what their names are. And that's been going on since Julian Bond and others founded the Southern Property Law

Center in 1971. And they don't get as much press as they used to. They used to be, they'd always be on social media, and they'd be on network television, and be interviewed about it. And they're not getting as much as they used to. I don't know what's going on there with their funding, but they are a 501 C4 organization, I think.

They take donations. It's somebody that we support. I'm going to post them Southern Poverty Law Center for all the monitoring they do of the extremist groups. This show always takes, we know we're going to talk about in terms of topics, but I talked about it as a river, a conversation river, and it takes twists and turns in meanders in good ways,

in some ways that are unexpected, and I think our audience appreciates it. So Karen, thank you for doing this again as my illustrious co-anchor on the Midweek edition. We then did it. We're going to be on YouTube and Facebook for the video version. We tweet the live podcast that we have tonight on our Legal AF Mightest Touch Twitter feed. and then of course you pull the audio

podcast which is really important to keep this movement going to subscribe it's free to follow and listen and download on all the places you get your podcasts including Apple Spotify Google and the rest and so Karen any concluding words. Great to see you. Always great to see you and shout out to the MidasBite.