Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF - 2/21/2026

Episode Date: February 22, 2026

Ben Meiselas goes solo and leads this episode of Legal AF as Michael Popok heads home from leading a major Attorney General Conference in California and Meiselas tackles some of the biggest legal issues of the week like the Supreme Court striking down Trump’s unlawful tariffs against the world, the Epstein cover up and deposition of Les Wexner, and some major federal court rulings across the country calling out the Trump DOJ. Support our Sponsors: Factor: Head to https://FACTORMEALS.com/legalaf50off and use code legalaf50off to get 50% off Qualia: Go to https://qualialife.com/LEGALAF to get 50% off and save an extra 15% with the code LEGALAF Cheers: Same night out — way better morning with Cheers. For a limited time our listeners are getting 20% off their entire order by using code LEGALAF at https://CheersHealth.com. #Cheers #ad Book By Anyone: Order your book today and enjoy free shipping at https://BookByAnyone.com. Become a member of Legal AF YouTube community: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgZJZZbnLFPr5GJdCuIwpA/join Learn more about the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe to Legal AF Substack: https://michaelpopok.substack.com/subscribe?coupon=c0fc8f5c Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This podcast is sponsored by IQ Bar. I've got good news and bad news. Here's the bad news. Most protein bars are packed with sugar and unpronounceable ingredients. The good news? There's a better option. I'm Will and I created IQ bar plant protein bars to empower doers like you with clean, delicious, low-sugar brain and body fuel.

IQ bars are packed with 12 grams of protein, brain nutrients like magnesium and lions mane, and zero weird stuff. And right now, you can get 20% off all. all IQ bar products, plus free shipping. Try our delicious IQ bar sampler pack with seven plant protein bars, four hydration mixes, and four enhanced coffee sticks. Clean ingredients, amazing taste, and you'll love how you feel. Refuel smarter, hydrate harder, caffeinate larger with IQ bar.

Go to eat IQbar.com and enter code bar 20 to get 20% off all IQ bar products, plus free shipping. Again, go to eat IQ bar.com and enter code bar 20. is sponsored by Talkspace. Last year, I went through many different life changes. I needed to take a pause and examine how I was feeling in the inside to better show up for the ones who need me to be my best version of myself. When you're navigating life's changes, Talkspace can help.

Talkspace is the number one rated online therapy, bringing you professional support from licensed therapists and psychiatry providers that you can access anytime, anywhere. Living a busy life, navigating a long-distance relationship, becoming a first stepfather, Talkspace made all of those journeys possible. I could speak with my therapist in the office. I could speak of my therapist in the comfort of my home. I was never alone. Talkspace works with most major insurers,

and most insured members have a $0. No insurance, no problem. Now get $80 off your first month with promo code Space 80 when you go to Talkspace.com. Match with a licensed therapist today at Talkspace.com. Save $80 with code space 80 at talkspace.com. Welcome to Legal AF. We've got a lot to discuss on today's episode. The Trump regime's cover-up of the Epstein sex trafficking ring continues. Les Wexner was deposed this past week by the House Oversight Committee.

Not a single Republican from the House Oversight Committee showed up. Les Wexner was the individual who basically funded Jeffrey Epstein. admitted during the deposition that he had probably given Epstein more than a billion dollars. He was unable to describe in his deposition why or what Epstein actually did for him. And at one point in the deposition, Wexner's lawyer whispered in his ear and it was caught on a hot mic that if you keep on speaking and saying more than five words, I'm going to effing kill you. Also, a Truth Commission was established in New Mexico in order to investigate the Zorro Ranch, which is the ranch that Epstein purchased in 1993. It was sold to a big Trump politician, a guy by the name of Don Huffines, in 23, through a shell company, San Rafael LLC. The Truth Commission will be investigating what went down at the Zorro ranch from the files. We know there was second. trafficking there. There was potentially murders that were taking place there. Now Dunhafein says that

there's construction taking place because he's turning the ranch into a Christian retreat for children and so that there's construction underway all of a sudden right now. So anyway, we will break that down. Also, of course, the big ruling by the United States Supreme Court striking down Donald Trump's tariffs against the world. Trump invoked something called the impovered. International Emergency Economic Powers Act to institute sweeping tariffs, first against Canada and Mexico, claiming that they were responsible for inundating the United States with massive amounts of fentanyl and drugs. And as a result, tariffs had to be imposed there. And then Donald Trump claimed because of a trade deficit with other countries, there was a national emergency as well.

And so tariffs needed to be imposed on the rest of the war. world. The Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump's tariffs against the world, and then Donald Trump responded by first invoking a law to, or unlawfully invoking a law, to impose 10% tariffs on the world, which I'll get into in a moment. And then he said earlier on Saturday, he was going to make it 15% tariffs against the rest of the world. And Donald Trump is yet again unlawfully invoking something to give himself powers that he doesn't have to now impose 15% tariffs on the world. He also removed the de minimis tariff exemption for goods that are $800 or less. So if you now, a consumer, anybody also is bringing in goods less than $800 even,

you're going to get a direct tariff as well on you. And so this was how Donald Trump responded with a temper tantrum following the Supreme Court's ruling. It was a six to three Supreme Court ruling. And you had Amy Coney Barrett and Gorsuch and John Roberts, three right-wing Supreme Court justices joined with the three liberal Supreme Court justices. We'll explain that ruling. I'll go through the ruling with you so you really understand.

What's Aipa? What are people mean by that? What does the statute actually say? What's Donald Trump invoking now? He's doing 15% tariffs on the entire world? What authority? There is no authority. He's violating.

the law, but we'll break that down as well. I want to go over with you also a bunch of federal court rulings from this past week, excoriating the Trump regime for violating human rights and basic humanity of individuals, not processing paperwork and detaining people unlawfully, consistently violating court orders. A Trump DOJ official was just held in contempt of court for violating court orders. And I will read for you decisions from federal courts in everywhere from West Virginia to California and everywhere in between where federal judges on a bipartisan basis. And I'm talking about Trump appointed federal judges and Obama federal judges, George W. Bush and Biden and Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointed judges. They're all saying

the same thing that the Trump regime's Department of justice is engaging in a frequent violation of court orders at a scale unfathomable heretofore by federal courts. And also, I want to give you an update on what's going on in the Don Lemon criminal prosecution, because to me, this shows just how pathetic the Trump regime is. To me, after targeting Don Lemon, in my view, unlawfully prosecuting him because he had the audacity to simply report on a peaceful protest that was taking place at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Now the Department of Justice is asking the federal judge to slow down the case. Don Lemon's like, let's go to trial, let's do this, let's bring this case before a jury, because I know

I'm innocent. And after the Trump regime persecuted, prosecuted, targeted, limited, and others, Now the Trump regime is saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, we need to drag this case out. This is actually a complex criminal case. This should not go to trial anytime soon. There's a lot more discovery that's needed. And by the way, this follows Donald Trump's strategy as his vexatious litigation that he's been involved in his entire life. It perfectly fits his format, right? what he'll do, whether he sues the, what he sues like the Nobel Peace Prize Board or the Pulitzer Prize Board,

or he sues this company or that company for a billion dollars or a trillion dollars, right? He files all those lawsuits that are frivolous. He gets the headline that he wants, and then he has his, on the personal side, he then has his lawyers delay, delay, delay, delay, try to drag the case out because he has these resources. to drag it out in order to kind of torture and terrorize the defendant who's been usually hauled into court improperly. And then Trump drags it out, drags it out, either tries to extort, in my opinion, a settlement, or when the case eventually gets dismissed three to five years later or sometimes more, because Trump tries to use every trick in the playbook to delay these cases. then even when the case gets dismissed five years later or four years later, people don't remember it. The press doesn't even talk about it. The filing gets the attention. But when Trump loses,

it just gets lost in a news cycle. That's part of his vexatious litigation strategy. So, in other words, we've got a lot to cover here on Legal A.F. Now, my partner on Legal A.F, he was hosting an attorney general forum out here in California. He's flying back right now, Michael Popak is. And so I want to give a special shout out to Michael Popak, a special shout out to the Legal AF YouTube channel. A special shout out, by the way, to Michael Popak's law firm, the Popak firm.

Go check out that. A link is in the description below as well. Make sure you subscribe to his YouTube channel. that attorney general panel that he hosted was absolutely incredible. You can check it out on the legal AF YouTube channel. So let's get into the news right away. Why don't we start first with Epstein, then the Epstein cover up, the child sex trafficking cover up by the Trump regime.

Next, let's talk about the Supreme Court ruling, striking down Donald Trump's tariffs against the world, where Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and we can then talk a little bit about some of these court rulings where these federal judges are going after the Trump regime DOJ and finding him in contempt. And then we'll talk about Don Lemon. Good structure. All right, let's go. So Les Wexner, he's the guy who owns the limited company, as it's called. That's one of the parent companies to Victoria's Secret and they own a bunch of other things as well. He apparently hired Jeffrey Epstein as a money manager, despite everything.

Epstein really having no background in that. And it's also unclear in terms of money manager what the function was that Epstein actually did for Les Wexner because Wexner gave Epstein full access to all of his money and all of his assets. And then Epstein basically took a lot of it for himself. It wasn't subtle. It wasn't like even a great con job.

just took the guy's money basically. And in my opinion, it was pretty much in plain view, right? Like if you're a billionaire like Les Wexter, I perhaps understand maybe you don't see $50,000 leave your account. I know that's crazy, but maybe you don't see $100,000 leave your account. Maybe you don't even see half a million dollars leave your account. But a billion dollars leaving your accounts and going to Epstein that wouldn't raise red flags throughout the late 80s

and the 90s and into the early 2000s, I wouldn't be like, hey, man, what are you doing there? Or how about when, I don't know, Epstein took over your homes on the Upper East Side in New York? Yeah, you know that Upper East Side or wherever Epstein was living in New York? And remember how Epstein sold the adjacent townhouse, the next door house, the townhouse,

to Howard Lutnik from the Trump regime, the Commerce Secretary. both of those units, both of those townhouses, both of those gigantic mansions in New York City, they were owned by Les Wexner. And so Epstein seized the title, it took the title to both of Les Wexner's homes right by each other.

He took one for himself, that's his New York City property, and then he gave one to a new York City property, one to Howard Lutnik or he sold one or the deal with Howard Lutnik in my opinion is pretty shady how Howard Lutnik even even got it. Remember that Howard Lutnik said, I got it in 2005 from Epstein and I saw him that one time and he told me to come up and I saw a massage table in his living room and I was so disgusted that I said to him, I'm leaving and I told my wife that man Epstein, he said he had a massage table in his living room.

that man is disgusting and I never seen him ever again. I never did business with him. I never talked to him. I knew what he was up to. He was blackmailing people. He was disgusting. And then, of course, we learned in the Epstein files that Lutnik brought his little kids to the Petto Island, to Epstein's Island where children are sex trafficked.

And Donald Trump knows about that. Lettnik, no one in the Trump regime sees that as an issue. And then, of course, Lutnik did do. business with Epstein. They were on a transaction together. Epstein gave $50,000 to some award that Lutnik was receiving in 2017. They talked about exchanging nannies with each other. A nanny exchange is what they talked about and the files. And you know the rest. We've covered that in detail here at the Midas Church Network, but I digress. So, Les Wexner had a deposition taken. Just so you all know, a deposition is an under oath interview or interrogation that takes place in litigation or here.

It takes place in House Oversight hearings. This specific hearing took place in Ohio, the House Oversight Committee, which is led by James Comer on the Republican side, who's trying to basically cover everything up for Donald Trump and his regime. And Democratic Congress member Robert Garcia is the ranking member. Democrats take control of the House. Garcia becomes the chair of the House Oversight Committee, which that would be incredible. They sent a subpoena to Les Wexner.

The pressure from the people was such that the Democrats who were in the minority were able to force the majority because the subpoena power lies with the committee. They were able to force Comer to issue this subpoena because the cover-up. is now known to the American people who are putting pressure on these politicians. So Comer felt I had to issue this subpoena, but no Republican showed up to this deposition. The subpoena was to have Wexner deposed. You have subpoena power in the Congress. It's one of the powers that they have. And so Les Wexner was there with his lawyer, and the deposition is done under oath.

In my career, as a lawyer, I probably have taken thousands of depositions when I was practicing law. I might do three depositions a week. There were some days where I would do three depositions in a day. I would do a morning, afternoon, evening deposition, you know, maybe three hours, three hours, three hours, especially sometimes as you got close to trial and there may be some loose ends. If discovery was still open, you may take lots of depositions there as well. In any event, let me just show you what went down at Les Wexner's deposition this past week. Here is Les Wexner saying that the FBI and DOJ never once contacted him about Epstein or Geelaine. Here, play this clip.

That's a hidden. Do the FBI or Department of Justice ever directly speak to you about Epstein or Maxwell? Has the FBI or DOJ ever directly contacted you or spoken to you about? Not to my knowledge. Never. Never, not to my knowledge. He's a major co-conspirator. By the way, I want to be very clear.

I don't care what administration was in power. Okay. I don't care if it was Obama's, Biden's, Trump one, Trump two. That individual, this is not a political issue, okay? That individual should have been contacted by the DOJ. But surely with everything that's going on right now, with all we know from the release of these files, with everything out there publicly,

You don't think that Trump's DOJ should reach out to this guy and ask him questions at all? Not one, not one point of contact at all. So then during his deposition, Les Wexner struggled to explain why he even hired Epstein in the first place. It's odd. You don't know why you hired the guy? Here, play this clip. Going all the way back to when you first hired Mr. Epstein, if you could just articulate what you recall about what you thought you were getting from him.

You described what he ended up doing for you, but what did you understand yourself to be hiring him for at the time? You did figure out. I mean, how do you not immediately know what you hired the guy for? How do you not know that? And look, I understand he's an 88-year-old guy. I get it, but you don't know why you hired the guy. Okay.

Then Les Wexner's attorney did not like the answers. that less was giving on certain things. And so in a moment, I've never seen in my history of litigating. I've litigated some of the craziest cases imaginable. Okay. My background as a litigator where I represented plaintiffs, defendants, all sorts of cases. I represented trustees in billion-dollar Ponzi scheme cases.

against the Ponzi schemers. I've represented victims and survivors in sexual assault cases. I've represented a lot of people and a lot of different things back when I was a litigator. I've never seen anything like this where the lawyer turns to hit their own client and says, you know, I hate cursing, but I just want to tell you what it says, I'll fucking kill you, I'll fucking kill you if you answer another question with more than five words, okay? Here, play this clip. It was just really, regularly done. Excuse me.

Answer the question. Answer the question. Okay. Two things to point out there. One, the guy saying, I'll effing kill you if you answer the question with more than five words, but then Les Wexner laughing about it. And I showed another video in a video I did earlier in the morning and before with Howard Lutnik like laughing several months back when the Trump regime was asked if they were

holding emergency meetings in order to try to cover up the Epstein files. There's this video of Lutnik like, you know, especially all the things that we know now about Lutnik's connections with Epstein while he was lying to the public. You know, these people are just laughing in our faces. This Epstein class, they laugh in our faces. They think that they are above the law because they've been treated as above the law. Heck, the Supreme Court in the United States created a doctrine, an absolute immunity for Donald Trump, who I believe is the leader of the Epstein class. Royalty in the UK doesn't have absolute immunity. Just think about that.

The United States was created on the premise of no kings, right? If you want to boil down the Declaration of Independence into two words, I would say it's no kings. And if you want to boil down our Constitution, I would also say into two words. I would say no kings, and I would add another word, you know, freedom and right. and power to the people and co-equal branches of government, right? There's no word absolute immunity in our Constitution, yet the right-wing Supreme Court created this fiction called absolute immunity. So even though I think they made a good ruling as it relates to Trump's tariffs against the world,

they made that ruling because it's economic, okay? That they're still protecting economic interests. Yes, it is going to help consumers, but they were also protecting economic interests of business as well who were actually being hurt by Donald Trump's tariffs against the world. So that's where the right-wing Supreme Court was willing to step in because it involved, you know, economic stuff. But the right-wing Supreme Court creates absolute immunity for Donald Trump.

But former Prince Andrew, Andrew Mountbatten, he doesn't have absolute immunity. He gets stripped of his royalty titles and he gets arrested. And in connection with giving classified information or confidential information to Epstein, he gets arrested for that in the UK. So they don't have absolute immunity where they actually have kings and princes. They don't have absolute immunity. But in the United States, which was created as a reaction to and in opposition of kings, we created a king doctrine called absolute immunity.

I mean, look what happened in South Korea, where President Yun, who was their insurrectionist leader, was just sentenced to life pretty quickly. The courts moved expeditiously and Yun was sentenced to life in prison. Look in Brazil where their insurrectionist president, or Bolsonaro serving 27 years in prison. Think about it, the Brazilian court system, the South Korean court system, sure function better than our system right here in the United States. But to me, that laughter, that mocking laughter of Les Wexner,

of Howard Lutnik, of Treasury Secretary Scott Besant, when you see him out there, saying, we're not going to give tower refunds to people. We're not going to give you refunds. It's this Epstein class. they think they're better than us. And they've been given all of these, not just these trappings of absolute immunity and power, but they've been held unaccountable.

That changes. That's stopping now because the people, we are recognizing that what's taking place here is deeper and bigger than politics, that the politics was meant to divide. But what's really happening here is this Epstein class versus the rest of us. plus that's what's actually happening here.

All right, one more clip I want to show you here of Les Wexner's deposition. What were the things that the lawyer did not want Wexner talking about? I'm going to effing kill you. Well, it was things like this where Wexner said, at some of the fashion shows, Jeffrey Epstein was there and some Trump was there. Here, let's play this clip.

I would go to some of the Victoria's Secret fashion shows because it's very important to the brand. At some of the fashion shows, Jeffrey was there and some Trump was there. And I remember because Trump would always introduce himself to me. And I always thought it was kind of odd that he was at the fashion show because he had nothing to do with fashion.

Oh, that was odd. But let me show you what James Comer, the Magger Republican chair of the Oversight Committee had to say. Because when he was asked about the deposition of Wexner and about everything, He says Les Wexner had already been investigated by the DOJ, and he had already been questioned by the DOJ. Well, we know because we just heard from Les Wexner,

that that is false. Play this clip of James Comer. Let's play it. The Department of Justice looking at the unredacted version of the documents. Who all is the Department of Justice question before? And obviously we deposed someone this week, Lex Wexner, who was one of the co-conspirators, but he's already been investigated by the Department of Justice.

We're trying to focus down the investigation on who has never been questioned by the Department of Justice and how did, number one, Epstein accumulate so much wealth, and number two, how was he able to surround himself with so many rich, famous, and powerful people, and hopefully we'll be able to get some answers on that. I mean, maybe showing up to the deposition of Les Wexner and learning that Wexner was never questioned by the DOJ and that Wexner gave Epstein a billion dollars. I don't know. It doesn't seem to be that it seems like if you actually follow the money and do your work, you find that out. But look, you got to hand it to them. I mean, it's a skill to lie like that. But that's Epstein class. Rept,

you know, they, they lie about everything. The words are meaningless. Words are a mere tool of how you trick people. And that's all they do. It's a web of lies. And that's why Trump's the leader of that. Cabal, the guy lies about everything. Take our first quick break of the show, a reminder. If you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident, a trucking accident, if you're the victim of negligence, if you know someone who got killed in an accident, reach out to Michael Popock's law firm, 877 Popak AF or visit thepoppopfirm.com. They're available 24-7. Consultation is free. A link is in the description below. Make sure you subscribe to Michael Popock's Substack and YouTube channel. That's the Legal AF substack and the LegalAF YouTube channel. Help LegalAF get two million subscribers on that note.

Let's take our first quick break of the show. We will be right back after a quick break from our sponsors. Here's a quick thought. A lot of people notice alcohol hits differently once life gets busy with work, workouts, travel, and real adult schedules, even responsibly having a few drinks, can impact sleep and next day readiness. You can literally see it on a device like Apple Watch or aura. That's why I wanted to show you Cheers Restore. Obviously, there are more negative effects from alcohol than just dehydration. Otherwise, how could alcohol be hard on your brain and your liver? Alcohol has a depressant effect on specific receptors in your brain, and alcohol is toxic to your liver. So Cheers Restore is a dual action after alcohol aid.

Its ingredients support both your brain and your liver after consuming alcohol. Cheers was originally invented by a student at Princeton, based on research into a novel compound called D-H-M, designed for how alcohol actually affects your body, not just dehydration. You just take three capsules after your last drink or before bed, and this is about responsible nights out, not going overboard. Same night out, way better morning with Cheers. For a limited time, our listeners are getting 20% off their entire order by using code

legal AF at CheersHealth.com. Just head to CheersHealth.com and use code legal AF for 20% off. Look, after you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them our show sent you. Magnesium, it's something most of us lack. And if you're taking the drugstore variant, you're still not getting the full picture. industrial farming, chronic stress, and everyday aging all make it worse. Most supplements only use one form of magnesium, but magnesium comes in many forms that support your body in different ways.

That's why you need to try qualia magnesium plus. It combines 10 bioavailable forms of magnesium with more than 70 trace minerals for comprehensive full spectrum support. Sleep deeper. Think sharper. recover faster, support muscle strength, a steadier mood, and balanced energy metabolism. It's not just a sleep supplement. It's a full body, magnesium system built for modern living so you can feel your best every day. Look, since I added qualia magnesium plus to my routine, I'm feeling easier recovery from workouts and a calm, more centered, wind down at night. It's been a supportive addition to my daily wellness routine. Experience the most trusted magnesium for purity, potency, and performance.

Plus, it's non-GMO, vegan, and gluten-free, making it a choice you can feel good about. Go to qualiaLife.com slash legal AF for 50% off. And here's a bonus. Use the code legal AF for an additional 15% off your order. That's Q-U-A-L-A-L-A-L-A-L-A-F and use code legal AF. Thanks to Qualia for sponsoring this episode. Welcome back to Legal A.F. Thank you to all of our sponsors. Discount codes are in the description below. And again, want to thank Michael Popak for hosting a great attorney general panel or panoles, plural. With Legal AF, you could catch that on the Legal AF YouTube channel. Make sure you subscribe there to the Legal AF YouTube channel. It's just so great that Legal AF is now, you know, one of the main places, if not the legal AF, YouTube channel. It's just so great that Legal AF is now, you know, one of the main places, if not the legal AF, main place where attorney generals or attorneys general across the country are able to get out their

messages and communicate about law and order with the American people and we need that right now because corporate news is certainly not doing a good job or a job with that at all going back quickly I want to kind of close the loop here on the latest update on the Trump regime's cover up of the Epstein files I was showing clips of James Comer on state regime media where he lies and says that Wexner previously was contacted and investigated by the DOJ in question, which we know was false because I played you the video deposition of Les Wexner. Anyway, here's James Comer saying that from the documents that have been released, it's very, very clear that one thing is true. Here, play this clip. Well, the Democrats didn't care about Epstein until someone had the

notion that Donald Trump may have been involved. And what we've seen from the, you know, millions of documents that have been released is that Donald Trump is completely exonerated in the whole Epstein saga. But what we've seen is a lot of honestly unfinished business with respect to Epstein and the crimes that he and Maxwell committed, any potential co-conspirators and holding people accountable. And again, the thing that the Epstein class does, they just lie all the time. Of course Donald Trump was not vindicated or exonerated in the Epstein files. 38,000 references to him and not just like passing references, like very serious allegations that

have gone uninvestigated, need to be investigated. You know, and by the way, there's Donald Trump's own words about him sexually assaulting women. He talked about it. He said that he does it and he's rich. You get away with it. How in beauty pageants, he inspects girls naked because he's the leader of the pageant. And he says, that's what you do when you're the leader of the pageant.

Here's a guy who was found civilly liable for sexual assault. by a federal jury. A jury heard a case against him and said that in New York found that he was liable for sexual assault. You have somebody whose home, Maralago, where he lives, was a site where sex trafficking took place by Epstein. We know Virginia Joufrey when she was a child with sex trafficked. And she was at Maralago. And then Trump previously said, ah, he took her, he took my property or he referred to her, something like that. I mean, just listen to what he's actually even said as well. And then you add that with the allegations in the files. And we know that there was, you know, one accuser of Trump who was interviewed four times by the FBI and a number of those

interviews are missing. Where are those? And there's a lot of there that needs to be investigated. And, you know, as I've said, too, it's undisputed that the guy's been found liable. A jury has found that he's liable for sexual assault. Why can't we all just with moral clarity say that? And here's what Donald Trump says. He goes, he was on Air Force One. He says that he's been exonerated. He declares that he's the expert on Epstein. And he says that he feels very bad for Andrew, former Prince Andrew Mountbatten. And he feels very bad just for the whole royal family. That's who he feels bad for. Because he's a protector of defense. Epstein class. That's what someone who protects the Epstein class would say. He doesn't express

sympathy for the survivors. He hasn't done so once. Pam Bondi didn't even look at the survivors during her testimony. And here's Donald Trump saying he feels bad for Andrew and the royal family. Play this clip. It was not a good one, Peter. What do you think? I got a question about something big overseas today. The former Prince Andrew, arrested by the police fair, related to something with Jeffrey Epstein. Do you think people in this country at some point, associates of Jeffrey Epstein, will wind up in handcuffs too? Well, you know, I'm the expert in a way because I've been totally exonerated. That's very nice.

I can actually speak about it very nicely. I think it's a shame. I think it's very sad. I think it's so bad for the royal family. It's a very, very sad. To me, it's a very sad thing. When I see that, it's a very sad thing to see it and to see what's going on with his brother, who's obviously coming to our country very soon, and he's a fantastic man, the king.

So I think it's a very sad thing. It's really interesting because nobody used to speak about Epstein when he was alive, but now they speak. But I'm the one that can talk about it because I've been totally exonerated. I did nothing. In fact, the opposite. He was against me. He was fighting me in the election, which I just found out through the last three million pages. the documents. Yeah, please. Yeah. And of course, we know he was not exonerated. The documents make

things far worse for him. He's been calling this all the hoax. Just think about that. He called all of this a hoax when we're seeing accountability, at least in other countries, although the Trump regime, they think that they're above the law, they behave above the law. The cabal is in the Oval Office. It is. It's 16-100. Undisputed. We know that. It was like the center of it.

It is the center of it. And the people know that. The people know that right now. Just two other quick updates. There were the Truth Commission established in New Mexico. Their legislature unanimously approved this Truth Commission to investigate what happened at the Zorro Ranch. Epstein purchased it from a former governor of New Mexico in 1993. We know from the files sex trafficking took place there potentially.

There was an incinerator there, potentially murders took place there. A lot of horrible and horrific things took place there. It was purchased by a guy named Don Huffines, a former Texas state senator. Big MAGA guy. His whole thing is he's ultra-maga, like his whole identity was going to Trump events. Don Huffines purchased the property for approximately $13 million. The Huffine family is generationally wealthy. Their great-grandfather founded an automobile dealership in the 1920.

20s and so they've got a lot of money and they put that money into real estate. And so kind of trust fund kids, they make a lot of money. Russell Huffine, Don's child son, works in the White House in a senior position. The position that Russell held before being in the White House was called like Big Boom Fireworks. That was his job. So Russell worked at Big Boom Fireworks. I may be butchering the name a little bit, but it was something like Boom Big, but Big Boom Fireworks. was the one job he held. And then he turned that into a senior position at the White House. The Huffines purchased the Epstein Ranch through an LLC holding company, San Rafael.

And now Don Huffine says, well, with the investigation taking place, he said, look, I'm open. If you want to investigate it, you can investigate it. But there's construction underway in the ranch right now. we are turning it into a Christian retreat for kids because I wanted to buy this ranch, he said, to turn the darkness into light. And so because of the horrible things that happened to kids, I want to be the person who brings the kids there and gives them joy. So that's why I bought it is what he says under a holding company,

under Shell Company, San Rafael LLC. And that's what he's going with. And he told that to Matt Gates on OAN. And of course, Matt Gates was found by the House Ethics Committee to have had sex, rapes, actually assaulting. When it's an underage girl, I don't really call it sex. It's, in my view, it's a sexual assault. Not, I think, in everybody's view, that's what it should be viewed as. With an underage girl, more probably than not was the finding by the House Ethics Committee.

They reached that conclusion in their report, but it was Gates interviewing Don Huffines. And then, of course, you know, the update on Andrew that we just discussed. right there. All right. Let's get into the Supreme Court ruling, striking down tariffs against the world. Friday morning, first off, a lot of bad economic data was coming in Friday morning, right? GDP grew at a sluggish 1.4% for quarter four when the Trump regime was saying, it's going to be 5% or 3% or 10% Donald Trump said. Okay, very slow. They want to blame it on the government shutdown, which is not accurate. They've slowed down this government, they slow down this economy significantly over the past year with their disastrous decisions. PCE, a measure of

inflation that deals a lot with consumer prices and the rise in consumer prices came in hotter than expected with core PCE up around 3%. So we got a bad inflation readout, a bad GDP readout when you have a situation where the economy is contracting and inflation is rising and unemployment is rising, that's a recipe for something called stagflation, which is really, really bad. So that's how we started Friday morning, and then we got the Supreme Court ruling, where the Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump does not have authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEPA to impose tariffs delivering a major blow to Trump's sweeping emergency tariff regime. So when you hear me say AIPA, or people say AIPA, and you're like,

what are you saying? Aipa? What word is that? That just stands for International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That was something that was passed in 1977. I'll go talk about that law in a moment. We'll read the statute together because that's what we do here on legal AAP on the Midas Dutch Network. We read statutes. By the way, make sure you subscribe. Help us reach six million subscribers here on this YouTube channel. Look how close we are to six million subscribers. We could potentially hit it by tomorrow. So just double check that you're subscribed to this channel. And by the way, when this program ends, send this episode to 10 people that you know on text message. That would be hugely helpful for us to our growth. And that's the best way you can help. So when this show ends

later, just text message it and say, hey, I think you'd like this fact-based, evidence-based show, they go through the statutes, they show me the evidence, they talk through the law, they're not just ranting and raving and giving opinions, they go through this methodically. That's what I hope we're doing here first and foremost on the Midas Touch Network and Legal AF. So this Supreme Court ruling was a six to three decision striking down Trump's tariffs under IEPA, Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by George W. Bush, wrote the majority opinion, joined by justices Sotomayor and Kagan.

they were appointed by Obama, Gorsuch, Barrett, they were appointed by Trump, and Jackson was appointed by Biden, Justice Kavanaugh, appointed by Trump. He's the guy I love drinking beer, I love drinking beer, right? And there were all those accusations against him in high school as well. He dissented, joined by justices Thomas and Alito, Thomas, George H.W. Bush, Alito, George W. Bush, just so you know who appointed who. That's the dynamic of the court. So two Trump justices went against Donald Trump and then went with John Roberts, who was a George W. Bush appointee, and they sided with the three liberal justices in order to strike down these tariffs under IEPA. Let's just take a look at what IEPA is. You go through the opinion and it says enacted in

1997, IEPA gives the president economic tools to address significant foreign threats. When acting under IEPA, the president first must identify an unusual and extraordinary threat to American national security, foreign policy, or the economy originating primarily outside of the United States. He must declare an national emergency under the National Emergency Act. He may, Then, after declaring such a national emergency by means of instruction, licenses, or otherwise, take the following actions to deal with the threat. Investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct, and compel, nullify, void, prevent, or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal,

transportation, importation, or exportation of, or dealing in, exercising any right power or privilege with respect to or transactions involving any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest. So a natural question that you may be asking is, hey, I don't see in there any word tariff or tax that Donald Trump has the right to tariff. or to impose unilateral taxes. Well, that was a major part of the Supreme Court's ruling. The Trump regime argued that it could unilaterally declare a national emergency and then it couldn't be challenged by the court.

They could just say a national emergency exists because they claim Canada is flooding the United States with fentanyl when we know that's false. They say that Mexico is flooding the United States with fentanyl, which is more accurate, certainly, than can. Let's be clear about that. Is that the type of national emergency, though, that would then allow tariffs becomes the next question? Well, the statute doesn't even say tariffs.

So the Trump regime claimed the word regulate is so expansive that it means tariffs. And the Supreme Court said, well, if that was the case, and if Congress intended to give up its power, where Article 1 of the Constitution, Section 8, deals with Congress having the exclusive power of taxation, a tariff is a tax,

if Congress in 1977 intended to give up its tariff power, one of its main powers, its taxation power, Article 1, separation of powers, why would it not say in the law, in AEPA, we intend to give up our powers because it's a pretty big deal if they're just going to withdraw one of their main powers, the power over taxation. Why would Congress is what the Supreme Court said basically do it as a riddle and hide the word tariff by using the word regulate? Why wouldn't they just say you could tariff or you can tax and here's the amount that you can

tax or tariff? So that was a very, very, very, persuasive to the Supreme Court that IEPA doesn't cover tariffs against the world. And also, the Supreme Court was skeptical and did not think that Trump could just unilaterally say, national emergency, therefore tariffs against the world without any accountability or without any check by the court at all. And you even had people like Justice Gorsuch, again, who was appointed by Donald Trump, in his what's called a concurrence, that's where you also kind of write on and agree with the majority opinion. Remember, the majority opinion, 6-3, was written by Justice Roberts.

He wrote for the court, but then other justices who agree, but may want to express other opinions. That's called a concurrence. And so here's what Gorsuch says, and his concurrence worries that granting a president sweeping new powers based on vague delegations from Congress would risk permanent accretion of power in the hands of one man. In other words, seizing all the power and giving it to one person, a king. And without doctrines like major questions, our system of separated powers and checks and balances threatens to give way to the continual and permanent accretion of power

in the hands of one man. That is no recipe for a republic. In other words, he's accusing a Trump appointee who's confirmed by the Senate is accusing Donald Trump of destroying the Republic. That's what Gorsuch says. And when you hear this term major questions doctrine, that basically is a framework used by the Supreme Court to try to glean congressional intent where people dispute language in a statute, right? So here the dispute was with the word regulate, which I don't think was a dispute at all. The Trump regime used the word regulate in a 1977 statute called Aipa to say that gave unlimited power to a president to tariff at any amount without limitations, without any scope of time, without any limitations at all,

to do whatever they want. That's a pretty big issue. That's a major question, right? The major questions doctrine is a doctrine of this is a big deal. deal. So the thought is, well, if Congress wanted to do what you said, Donald, why wouldn't they just say that? Why would they hide it in the word regulate? And also, why would Congress over many years, both before IEPA and after, when they did delegate some power to the executive branch over tariffs, why did they circumscribe in those cases limits? Because if IEPA has no limit, at all, then wouldn't everything else that Congress did be void ebnissia? Right?

It wouldn't exist because there's this statute that says the president can do whatever. So if Congress forfeited everything, why in future and past statutes regarding tariffs is Congress very specific, 150 days, 10 days, 10% limits, 5% limits. It wouldn't make sense for them to basically give you this right in IEPA. that makes no sense at all. So that was basically the holding by the majority right there. When you read the language, it makes sense. And remember, when I talk about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,

Article 1 of the Constitution is Congress. Article 2 is the executive branch. Article 3 is the judiciary. And when I talk about Article 1, Section 8, I'm referring to the congressional powers like taxation and tariffs are taxation. So that belongs to that branch of government. And if that branch of government was going to give away some of its power, that's a major issue, a major question. They need to do it publicly and very clearly and not try to hide it.

And that's why they said Congress never intended to give away such a power ever. So what did Donald Trump then do after that ruling by the Supreme Court? He goes, it's my great honor to have just signed from the Oval Office a global 10% tariff on all countries, which will be effective almost immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter. So after losing before the Supreme Court under Aipa, right, we now know what Aiepa stands for, with his tariffs against the world from Liberation Day

where he targeted Canada and Mexico based on drugs. The rest of the world, he declared the emergency was trade deficits. He said trade deficits were a national emergency. That's why we need these tariffs against the world. The Supreme Court said, no, you can't do that. Right? You don't have that power. So what Donald Trump does, because he's a wannabe dictator and he breaks the law all the time, is he found another version of IEPA. It's not called IEPA. It's called a Trade Act of 1974. And the Trade Act of 1974 has language that does not apply to a specific situation. But Trump, in bad faith, latches on to that and says, well, we didn't have the 1977. IEPA. So I'm going to go in 1974 trade act, which does not do again what Trump said. But Trump's lesson from unlawfully invoking AEPA is that this took 16 months before it was

adjudicated by the Supreme Court or more. So I'm just going to invoke unlawfully another statute that doesn't apply. And then I'll drag this out another 16 months. And I'm going to impose 10% tariffs on the entire world. But then on Saturday morning, this morning, Donald Trump posted, you know what? I changed my mind. Fifteen percent. I've raised it. In 12 hours, I'm going to go from 10 percent to 15 percent tariffs based on a thorough detailed and complete review of the ridiculous Supreme Court decision. He goes, I am now raising this tariffs against the world to 15 percent. Well, when we come back from our next quick break, I want to go through with you the Trade Act of 1974, Section 122 is what the Trump regime purports to invoke.

And I'm going to show you again why this is unlawful by the Trump regime and how they're doing what they did unlawfully with AEPA again here as it relates to the Trade Act of 1974. And then I want to pull back for a second and just say the following. I don't care what political party you're from. That's what I hope you understand that what I'm arguing here, what I'm saying here, What I'm doing here is actually not a political exercise at all. I'm going through the language with you so you can read it, so you can see it. So you can see that he is violating the law quite frequently over and over again.

And this is ultimately hurting you. This is not helping you. That should not be a partisan issue. I'm just trying to describe this truthfully through this objective legal lens. So you understand what's happening here. and to the extent other people want to use talking point, you know, I want to use evidence not talking points. That's what this show is about.

So let's take our last quick break of the show, a reminder. If you or someone you know has been injured in an auto accident or a trucking accident, if you know someone who's been killed because of the negligence of others, or seriously harmed, medical malpractice cases, sex assault cases, call or text 877 Popak AF or visit thepopfirm.com. 77 Popok AF or the Popak firm.com. They're available 24-7. Michael Popak has lawyers across this country who are here to help.

And we represent, Michael Popak represents a lot of people who listen and watch the show. Don't be shy. The worst they're going to say is you don't have a case. But, you know, tell your friends, tell people, reach out to the Popat firm. You've got one. Let's see. Let them evaluate it. Also, let's want to remind you go to LegalAF YouTube channel and LegalAF Substant.

and Legal AF Substack. Both are growing fast. Help Legal AF YouTube get 2 million subscribers and help keep that Legal AF substack as one of the top substacks out there. All right. Let's take our last quick break of the show. We'll be right back in the home stretch. See you after the break. Busy days, big goals, but no time to cook. I've been using Factor. Fully prepared meals designed by dieticians and crafted by chefs so you can eat well without the planning or cooking. One of my favorites lately is the garlic herb salmon. It fits perfectly into my February routine with lean protein, colorful vegetables, whole food ingredients, and healthy fats,

plus no refined sugars, no artificial sweeteners, and no refined seed oils. Whether you're focused on healthier eating, calorie management, or getting more protein factor makes it simple. They rotate over 100 meals every week, including high protein, Calorie Smart, Mediterranean diet, GLP1 support, ready to eat salads, and the new muscle pro collection for strength and recovery. Everything is always fresh, never frozen, ready in about two minutes.

No prep, no stress. I use this and you should too. Head to factorneals.com slash legal AF 50 off and use code legal AF 50 off to get 50% off and free breakfast for a year. year. Eat like a pro this month with Factor. New subscribers only varies by plan one free breakfast item per box for one year while subscription is active. Okay, so what do you get the person who always says, don't get me anything? I recently found the funniest personalized gift ever, and it's an actual full-length book. This podcast is sponsored by bookbyanyone.com. Bookbyanyone.com lets you create a fully personalized AI-generated book where your friend, partner, or family member is the main character in a wild

sci-fi, fantasy, thriller story, or even a non-fiction book about themselves. This is not a novelty pamphlet. It's a professionally printed hardcover book with over 200 pages of completely original content. The entire book is generated around the person, the title, cover, table, and contents, story, even the back cover fake reviews. I recently sent a book from Book by Anyone to a friend. and they absolutely loved it. How do you make a book from Book By Anyone?

It's simple and fun. You head to Bookbyanyone.com, answer a few questions about the person, pick a book idea and cover, and Bookbyanon.com does the rest. It literally takes two minutes, and you have a professionally printed book on your choice of paperback or hardcover.

I can't stop talking about Book by anyone. For me, the reactions are the best part, seeing someone open a book and realize they are the hero is genuinely hilarious. It's a perfect gift for birthdays, holidays, or people who are impossible to shop for, like me, because literally no one expects to open a book about themselves. Plus, book by anyone has printed over 450,000 books so you can trust they make a quality product. And shipping is always free so you can get the best book at the best price. For a gift that's truly unforgettable, head to bookbyanyone.com.

Order your book today and enjoy free shipping at bookbyanyone.com. One last time, that's bookby anyone.com. All right, we're getting into the weeds here on LegalAF. We're doing statutory readings over here, and I'm showing you why Donald Trump's invocation of all of these statutes and laws on the book are all bad faith, unlawful, in my opinion, they're frankly criminal. And just for a second, talking about Aiepa for a moment and the Supreme Court's ruling,

striking down Donald Trump's tariffs against the world. It's very clear from the Supreme Court decision that because the invocation by Trump of AEPA around Liberation Day or whatever he called it, which was really one of the biggest destructive days in the history of our country's economy, as a result of that, that there's going to have to be all of these refunds that are going to be taking place to the tune of about $175 billion. And now the Trump regime officials are saying that, oh, they're going to try to hold up the refunds in litigation and that they're going to fight it every step of the way. But you've got like Treasury Secretary Scott Besson saying, oh, I doubt that we're ever going to

actually pay these refunds. I mean, look, as you all know, tariffs or taxes, they were paid by the importing company. They were paid by companies here in the United States and passed on to consumers. So when the levy, when the tax was issued, you know, at the port of entry or wherever the point of the where the import came into the United States, that's where it's paid. It's a tax that's paid, you know, to our government. And so the companies that paid that tax have the right immediately to a refund. They would file their lawsuits and there's a specific federal courts that deal with trade.

And so it would be filed in that type of court and they would ask for their refunds. It'll be interesting to see what argument the Trump regime is going to try to make to block that. But then one of the questions is, well, it get passed on to the consumer. And one of the problems is, is that in terms of being passed on,

will consumers now get the benefit because consumers have had to pay more? And I think unfortunately, the consumers will not get the benefit. It's possible the companies will get some money refunded, but the Trump regime says they're going to fight it. But in any event, as I've described before the break, the Trump regime is now invoking another law from the 1970s unlawfully to continue to impose these tariffs after the Supreme Court struck down AEPA. So just to remind you, IEPA was a law passed in 1977. But separately, there was a law passed in 1974, and this 1974 law is called the Trade

Act of 1974. It has Section 122 in it. Let me just read for you what Section 122 says, balance of payment authority, whenever fundamental international payment problems require special import measures to restrict imports, one, to deal with large and serious United States, balance of payment deficits, too, to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or three, to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance of payment disequilibrium, the president shall proclaim for a period not exceeding 150 days unless such period is extended by active Congress, a temporary import surcharge not to exceed 15%. So Donald Trump initially did it for 10% on Friday. Then Saturday morning,

he raised it in a 12-hour period to 15%. As you see, it only can last 150 days. And so this statute, by the way, was brought up at the hearing regarding AEPA. Remember what I said before the break. One of the things the Supreme Court said is there are other statutes out there which have different types of circumscribed limitations, but they're limited in days. They have very specific requirements. And so this statute was brought up because it was like, well, why didn't you invoke that statute? Why are you invoking AEPA and not invoking the Trade Act of 1974? So Trump's lawyers were asked that because the Supreme Court justices said, well, Congress did do this law and it says 150 days. So do you think this law applies?

Guess what Trump's lawyers said in oral argument on AEPA? They said on the record, there's a transcription of this. They said, no, we can't invoke the Trade Act of 1974. It does not apply to Donald Trump's tariffs against the world. So we had to do it under AEPA. That's why we didn't do it under the Trade Act of 1974. The true answer is that both the Trade Act of 1974 and IEPA do not apply, and Trump can't invoke both, but in any event, Trump's own lawyers, the Solicitor General John Sauer, conceded that the Trade Act of 1974 does not apply during oral argument.

So now Trump is doing something that his own lawyer said was unlawful. But why is it unlawful? Well, when you read the statute, it also has a predicate act. And the predicate is that there must be a fundamental international payment problem that requires special import measures to restrict imports. What is the fundamental international payment problem that exists? Look, the dollars weak right now as a result of Trump's policies, but that's not a fundamental international payment problem. payments to and from country A, B, C, and D are able to flow pretty freely, right. Currencies can be exchanged.

There isn't a payment problem right now where, say, the American currency is being shut out of another country and thus a retaliatory measure is needed because of payment problems where a country's not accepting dollars, for example, right? That's not what's happening. So because the predicate isn't met, all these other things that follow can't be invoked. But then it says to deal with large and serious United States balance of payment deficits. Balance of payment deficits is not trade deficits. Balance of payment deficits is along the lines of what I said before.

Payment deficits does not equal trade deficits. Then section three says to cooperate with other. countries correcting an international balance of payment disequilibrium. Again, you don't see anything here that references trade deficits or any other form of national emergency. Therefore, it is unlawful. Now, Neil Katayal, who argued the Aipa case before the Supreme Court and won. Here's what he said. Seems hard for the president to rely on the 15% statute, Section 122, when his deal, DOJ in our case told the court the opposite, nor does Section 122 have any obvious application here where the concerns the president identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits,

which are conceptually distinct from balance of payment deficits. And as Katail points out, if he wants, if Trump wants sweeping tariffs, he can do it. There's a mechanism to do this. He should do the American thing and go to Congress. If his tariffs are such a good idea, he should have no problem persuading Congress. That's what our Constitution requires. And guess what? Republicans control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate.

They control all of government right now. So if they thought that this was a good plan, go and pass a law about it. even Republicans, though, in the House and Republicans in the Senate are against this. Not all of them, but some of them are enough to block this because tariffs are taxes and they increase inflation and they harm American consumers and they harm American business. We know that. That's why our economy is struggling right now. That's why goods are higher. That's why when inflation was declining at the end of former President Biden's term, when he had to get Trump, out of control spending and record high debt and record increases in deficit under control

and finally did towards the end of his term and it was going to hit 2% had Trump done nothing. Trump's Liberation Day or liquidation Day caused tariffs to go to cause prices to go incredibly, you know, to surge again and inflation to surge again. All right. So I just wanted to explain to you in a very detailed statutory analysis what went down there. So that's the status of everything right there. Trump has put these 15% tariffs against every country. They're unlawful.

Lawsuits will be immediately filed. Trump will lose. He'll try to drag it out for 16 months. The American people suffer. Trump doesn't want to issue tariff rebates or doesn't want to issue tariff refunds. He promised tariff rebates, it would be clear. Trump promised that everybody would get a $2,000 tariff rebate because everyone's so rich that that tariffs had made us so wealthy, he said, that everybody would get $2,000.

The same way he promised everybody would get $2,000 as his health care plan. So instead of actually dealing with health care or affordable care tax subsidies or dealing with the fact that health care is expensive, Trump's like, I'll give everybody $2,000. He didn't do that. He promised a $5,000 doge dividend check. That was a lie. He promised a $2,000 tariff rebate check. That's a lie.

What's the commonality here? And I say this in a non-political way. the guy lies about everything, covers up for the Epstein class. These are liars. Howard Lutnik, I never went to the island. He did. He went to the island. He brought his children to the Petto Island.

These people lie about every damn thing. Trump, the Epstein vials are a hoax. They're not a hoax. It's a very serious thing. So how are federal judges talking about the Trump regime right now? Well, as Kyle Cheney points out, the federal judges in West Virginia, where ICE has been pulling over and detaining people on the freeway, are literally screaming about ICE's tactics. It's an assault on constitutional order.

Just read this order right here from a federal judge. Anti-septic judicial rhetoric cannot do justice to what is happening. Across the interior of the United States, the judge writes, agents of the federal government, masked anonymous, armed with military weapons, operating from unmarked vehicles, acting without warrants of any kind, are seizing persons for civil immigration violations and imprisoning them without any semblance of due process. The systemic character of this practice and its deliberate elimination of every structural feature that distinguishes constitutional authority from raw force place, it beyond the reach of ordinary legal description. It is an assault on the constitutional order.

It is what the Fourth Amendment was written to prevent. it is what the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment forbids. And then the conclusion was, an anonymous government is no government at all. It cannot be held accountable. A masked agent freely uses force without justifying his actions and the public cannot name him to challenge his conduct. A regime of secret policing has no place in our society.

Here, the government's power is derived by the people and the people must be able to identify the government when it acts to infringe on their liberty, masks obscure government action and deprive the public of its Fourth Amendment protection. Or how about Judge O'Hern in New Jersey livid about apparent violations of her order, barring the transfer of an ICE detainee?

And she notes that the presumption of good faith towards the Department of Justice has undeniably been eroded all over the country. Whereas the presumption of regularity and integrity previously and routinely afforded to the executive branch and the United States Attorney's Office has been undeniably eroded in this jurisdiction and across the country, and this court will no longer blindly accept statements of fact from respondents unless they are made under oath by an individual with personal knowledge. Indeed, recent proceedings in this

district included an instance of a district court judge ordering the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District, New Jersey, to file an affidavit, enumerating each instance in which the respondents or people acting on their behalf violated an order issued by a judge of this district between December 5th, 2025, and the present, and they list like hundreds, hundreds of violations. Or how about this? A U.S. District Court judge in El Paso, Texas, Laura Provenzino found a government attorney in civil contempt of court for violations of her orders in a habeas case. The attorney cited as a guy named Matthew Ishiara who was a JAG attorney. This is a military attorney who now works as a federal prosecutor within the DOJ because over 8,000 lawyers and staff members at the DOJ have either quit or have been forced out or have been fired by the DOJ.

the Trump regime. They've lost all their top talent, no longer working at the DOJ. And right now, you have JAG lawyers serving as assistant United States attorneys. Being an assistant United States attorney was one of the most sought after jobs by lawyers. It was a job that was viewed as like the Navy SEALs of prosecutorial work. And now they don't have any people to even do the job because no one wants to do it or they've been fired. Judge Provenzino ordered a detained immigrant held in ICE in El Paso to be released in Minnesota with all of his ID papers, ICE released the man in Texas with none of his papers, forcing his attorney to find him shelter for the night before flying him back to Minnesota. So Trump's Border Patrol and ICE Gestapo

kidnapped people in Minnesota or elsewhere. They then immediately fly him to detention centers, concentration camps in Texas without due process, without bond hearings, about anything. Then when their order to release the individuals because they've been unlawfully kidnapped, they then just throw them out in the middle of the night without paperwork or IDs in a different state, without a cell phone, without anything, for them to basically die and starve to death. And this practice is known. So the lawyers representing the migrants or even citizens who have been kidnapped by Trump's Gestapo have demanded that in these orders, the judges order their IDs, their paperwork, phones, all of that be given to them.

That was violated here. And the lawyer, who was this JAG lawyer, who, when I read the facts here, he just says that he was overburdened and he made a mistake and they're overworked and he didn't mean to do it. He apologized to the court, but it's people's lives on the line. The judge, Matthew Ishiara said that he was deeply sorry. He was apologetic. And it was because of staffing issues at the DOJ. office and that he can't handle the paperwork. And we've seen this over and over again.

Finally, I want to go to what's happening in the Don Lemon case as well, because as you know there, my friend, Don Lemon, he's at my wedding. I mean, Don's a super close friend in mine. But frankly, everybody in that case, Georgia Fort, you know, everyone has been treated so horrifically there. There was the protest at the church in St. Paul. First, the protesters were arrested. And then the jury. who covered the protesters were arrested. Donald Trump ordered the DOJ, Pambandi, and others to go after Don Lemon. Don Lemon was arrested in California when he was covering the Grammys,

and he was charged with reporting on what went down in the church. I believe that the grand jury was misled and given false information about Don Lemon. Lemons requested a grand jury transcript, given all the irregularities taking place. But setting that aside, it's easy to get indictments. against people because you just have an FBI agent testify. Defense lawyers aren't present and judges in present. You just take an FBI agent and the FBI agent, you know, hypothetically could lie and give the jury,

a grand jury incorrect facts about what happened. And the jury bases it on the FBI agent who's doing the testimony. So the FBI agent could say, oh, here's what I observed, here's what I saw, here's what's in the video. And it could actually not be what's in the video. You don't have to show the grand jury the actual video of what happened. in an ethical DOJ. You show them everything or you don't indict people like this,

but this is an unethical DOJ. And by the way, I'm not sure if you saw, but Donald Trump's been putting massive billboards of his face all over the DOJ building. That's something we see in Nazi Germany, what we see in Stalin's, Russia, Soviet Union. That's what we see in North Korea. Trump's face all over the DOJ building right now.

I mean, how despicable is that? But in any event, they arrest Don Lemon, they charge him and Don Lemon's like, okay, I want to go to trial now. I'm ready for trial. You very quickly went after me. You threw all of the resources of the government to attack. I want a trial.

Let's put this before a jury immediately is what Don Lemon said, right? Now, if you're the prosecutors, wouldn't you want that? Like, if you brought the case and you think you're going to win the case, wouldn't you want to bring that case to trial? Well, if you go back and look at Trump's litigation tactics before he was in office, his litigation tactics are exactly what the DOJs are. He always wanted to get the headline, $10 billion lawsuit, $5 billion, $100 billion lawsuit. That gets a catchy headline.

He fundraises off of it. He does media appearances off it. People go, oh, you filed a lawsuit? Wow. New York Times must have done something bad or Wall Street Journal must have done something bad. or Pulitzer Prize board must have done something, but whoever, he sues everybody, right? I mean, he's probably, he's probably filed literally thousands of lawsuits.

He's maybe even 10,000 lawsuits. He's filed thousands and thousands of these types of lawsuits, and he's rarely, if ever, won them ever. And what he does is he files it. Then the other side files a motion to dismiss. And then he requests that he get to file an amended complaint the day before, the hearing is set to take place. By law, a litigant gets to have an amended complaint.

So then he files an amended complaint. And then he asks for a delay, I need 60 days because I'm doing this or I'm doing that. And usually the courts grant initial scheduling issues. So then the court will often grant kind of a scheduling delay. And then or Donald Trump won't serve the party. He won't even serve them with the lawsuit for a significant period of time.

because the more time that drags on for Trump, the better. Because the goal is actually just to now drag it on, delay, delay, delay. And ultimately, you know, he, when these cases get resolved, they could take years based on all the delay tricks that people with money can do in litigation. And so he tries to delay, delay, delay. And then when the case gets, either he drains somebody of resources, because lots of defendants don't have this money, he gets them to try to settle, because it'll take a long time to litigate.

And sometimes you may, you know, whatever, just I'll just make this guy go away. It's the worst thing you can do to somebody like that. Or when Trump loses, the loss doesn't get the headline, like the filing of the lawsuit. The New York Times wins summary judgment motion. Okay, it doesn't. We cover it here, but lots of times the media,

it doesn't get coverage when he loses, or it just falls into the new cycle because it doesn't have that 10 billion headline. So that's how we litigated. He's doing the same thing with Don Lemon. Let me just read for you from Don Lemon's motion, because here on Legal A.F, we read from the motions. Again, this criminal case is in the district court from Minnesota. And here's what Don Lemon writes.

The hallmark of the short life of this case has been the government, Trump regime, unprecedented and unabated rush to charge. The reason for this rush is no secret. The highest authorities in the administration demanded to see Ms. Fort, George, Fort and Mr. Lemon in handcuffs. The government was then undeterred by not one by two judges explaining that no probable cause existed to charge these journalists. The government twisted itself into procedural novel knots in seeking a complaint. When this effort failed, the government sought and obtained an indictment from the grand jury. The government then rejected offers by the defendants to self-surrender. At every turn, the government sought to condemn Miss Fort and

Mr. Lemon in the court of public opinion, the government never once paused in its extraordinary efforts to arrest Ms. Fort and Mr. Lemon on federal charges. It then goes on to say, having achieved this goal, however, the government now asks this court to slow things down. The same government that tried to charge two professional journalists in two days now seeks four months to review, organize and produce the evidence upon which those charges were supposedly based. This is unwarranted and unfair. Ms. Fort and Mr. Lemon are eager to clear their names. As all participants in the system know, the weight of a pending federal indictment is heavy, especially here, where the indictment has been politicized at the highest levels. There are collateral consequences, including stress on the defendants

and their family. These consequences are compounded by the government's ongoing efforts to to criticize Ms. Fort and Mr. Lemon publicly and to try their cases on social media. Here are the pending federal charges also chill First Amendment speech that of Ms. Ford and Mr. Lemon as well as other broader journalistic communities. Perhaps this is a feature and not a problem for those who demanded the charges be levied. In any event, these charges are uniquely weighty. Ms. Ford and Mr. Lemon seek to move this case forward expeditiously because they believe the case law will support the dismissal of the charge.

charges, as has occurred in other cases that have been rushed, politicized, and brought by this administration. The government seeks to designate this case as complex. This case is not complex within any precedential meaning of the law or the norms of the district in Minnesota. The volume of discovery previewed by the government, 2,000 pages, video footage that is largely public and phone downloads, is typical for the run-of-the-mill cases in this district. That said, the designation itself is less important to Ms. Ford and Mr. Lemon than the resulting delay. So you see what's happening in this case? It's why it's important that we understand the dynamic. And look, Don Lemon's a friend of mine. What's happening to Georgia Ford, another great journalist.

I mean, is absolutely horrific. But this is a broader pattern of abuse taking place. And the abuse mirrors Trump before coming into office, right? Why I talk so much. about Trump being a sexual abuser, being a felon, being a fraud, being a bankruptor, being a loathsome human being, a con artist, someone who destroys, not builds business, is that when you step into the White House, the character traits are amplified. And so all of those things you see here in the way it's not surprising and shocking that a felon that a bankrupt or that a sexual abuser engages in this conduct and it is important that our system of law hold people like that accountable and for too long our laws have been abused by the epstein class who are abusing the american people and as we

see in the epstein files are sex trafficking underage children or covering up sex traffic of underage children or engaged in other horrendous conduct at the Epstein class engages in. In general, in general, you see a broader pattern here beyond the child sex trafficking. You also see a pattern of trying to just destroy the world as well. And sex trafficking being used as a currency, destroying those lives of little girls. So that's where we'll leave the episode today on a nonpartisan, non-political message, which is, what does law and order mean to you?

Because law and order means to me justice and accountability. That's what it means to me. That's why I went to Georgetown law. That's why I was a litigator. That's why I co-founded Legal AF with Michael Popak. Okay. On that note, make sure you hit subscribe. Help us get to 6 million subscribers.

We're so great. for all of you. More importantly, subscribe to the Legal AF YouTube channel, help them get two million subscribers. Subscribe to Michael Popak's substack as well, the legal AF substack. And also, if you or someone you know has been injured in a car accident, auto accident, trucking accident, somebody who knows been killed by the negligence of others, horrible things happen. Popak represents people in catastrophic injury cases. That's what he does when he's not doing legal AF. So go to 877 or call 877 Popak AF or visit the Popak. firm.com, see if you have a case. Consultation is free. He has lawyers across the country and people

across the country answering your calls to vet these cases to see what you got. We represent a lot of people. He represents a lot of people who call from legal AF. So don't be shy. Call. The worst they can say is you don't have a case. But if you have a family member or you know somebody who's in a situation, have them reach out to Michael Popock. Right? The worst Popock's going to say is that it's not a case. On that note, thank you everybody so much. We're grateful for you. Hit subscribe here. Let's get to $6 million before Monday.

Remember, Midas Touch is doing our own state of the union event. We're calling it the People State of the Union. We've got a number of over 20 senators and members of Congress or boycotting the state of the Union who will be joining the Midas Touch State of the Union. Pretty historic what we're doing there. That's what I got for you. Thanks so much for watching. Shout out Midas, Mighty.

We appreciate you. We're grateful for you. See you next time. You'll lay.