Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF - 2/4/2026

Episode Date: February 5, 2026

Karen Friedman Agnifilo and guest host Lisa Graves host the top-ranked law and politics podcast Legal AF and break down this week’s most explosive legal and political developments at the intersection of law and democracy. From the Supreme Court’s approval of California’s congressional maps, to the high-profile Hellerstein hearing on the attempted transfer of Trump’s Manhattan criminal case, KFA and Lisa explain how these decisions will shape the balance of power in Congress and the rule of law. They also dive into updates on the Epstein files, including how Judge Berman brokered a critical fix to victim redaction issues in that sprawling case. Finally, they tackle the latest developments in Minnesota, where federal immigration enforcement has been scaled back with 700 agents removed amid ongoing protests and legal turmoil. Americans United: Join in the fight: https://AU.org/LEGALAF Sundays for Dogs: Get 50% off your first order at sundaysfordogs.com/LEGALAF50 or use code LEGALAF50 at checkout. PDS Debt: Get your free assessment and find the best option for you at https://PDSDebt.com/LEGALAF. 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://substack.com/@legalaf 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

Bet mode activated. The scorebed app here with trusted stats and real-time sports news. Yeah, hey, who should I take in the Boston game? Well, statistically speaking. Nah, no more statistically speaking. I want hot takes. I want knee-jerk reactions. That's not really what I do. Is that because you don't have any knees?

Or... The score bet. Trusted sports content, seamless sports betting. Download today. 19 plus, Ontario only. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to you, please go to conicsonterio.ca. Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal A.F.

I'm Karen Friedman Agnifalo and with me today is the amazing Lisa Graves, who's a regular contributor on Midas Touch and Legal AF YouTube channels. And Lisa, I'm so happy that you were able to stand in for Popak who could not make it today and on this midweek episode. So thank you so much for being here. We have a really exciting lineup, things a lot going on. It's only February 4th, and already there's just so much to talk about this month. It's hard to decide what to talk about.

So we're going to talk about the Supreme Court today cleared the way for California to basically potentially gain five seats in Congress. This was something that the governor did in response to what Texas was doing and re-geriment, gerrymandering the state mid-decade. Normally it happens every 10 years around the census, and it's kind of like what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and Texas did it and was allowed to do it by the Supreme Court. And so California said, okay, two can play at that game.

We're going to read District 2. And they are hoping to flip five seats. We're going to talk about that because the Supreme Court ruled today, essentially saying that that is okay and what that means. We're also going to talk today about the latest in the Jeffrey Epstein situation and what's going on there and how the cases are, that the documents are finally being released, finally, not all of them, millions of them, but not all of them. And the DOJ blew past the December deadline that Congress set that they were supposed to have these documents by December 19th. They didn't. They blew past the deadline saying, we need more time because we have to redact sensitive information and victims' information and photographs, et cetera. And so they did this

giant document dump. And an easy word search, an easy name search of a list of victims' names, who they had, by the way, so they could have done this name search and word search, was the New York Times did it and found hundreds of examples where victims, thousands of examples, where over 100 victims' names were not only revealed, but personal and sensitive identifying information about them, photographs of them, et cetera. So the Department of Justice can't get out of their own way when it comes to the Epstein files. So we're going to talk a lot about what's happening there and the victims who have gone to federal court to try to get them to intervene, to get the courts to intervene to take this website down. We're also going to talk about Trump, who once again is

trying to get his case removed. Do you remember that case from a long time ago now, it seems like, where he was convicted of 34 felony counts by the Manhattan DA's office in my old office. He was convicted. He's trying to get that conviction and sentence removed to federal court. So he, and it's not the first time he's tried, by the way. He tried that a couple of times before, but he's trying again. And he went to federal court. court in front of Judge Hellerstein. And we're going to talk about how Judge Hellerstein responded to this effort to try to get the case removed to federal court. And what does Trump have up his sleeve? Why is he trying to do that? So I look forward to talking about that with you, Lisa. And

finally, of course, Minnesota. So much is going on in Minnesota. It's a huge cluster, you know what, over there. There's something like 3,000 ICE agents. And I think they finally are realizing that they have to back down because they're losing the battle there. And all the resistance, the protests, and the pressure is causing things to change. Then not only have they moved, Greg Bovino, who looks like a Nazi SS agent in his long coat, it's kind of quite scary, frankly. He was moved out of Minnesota. And it looks like Christy Noem has also been sidelined.

And Tom Homan, the border czar, has gone there to try to try to. to calm things down. And he's already drawing down over 700 of the ice agents and ice troops out of Minnesota, because I think they realize what a disaster they have there. Other things are going on in Minnesota, too. We have special AUSA who is trying to field all of these court cases of all of these individuals who are being detained and bringing rits of habeas corpus to try to get released. And they can't keep up. They just can't keep up. And she started crying in court and essentially asked to be held in contempt so she could get 24 hours of sleep. So very unusual for a Justice Department lawyer to respond that way. But I think it really just shows

how what a stress this has put on the system and how Trump just wasn't prepared. The administration was not prepared. You can't send this Operation Metro serve three thousand DHS Customs Border Patrol and ICE agents to Minnesota to do this huge wave of not targeted deportation, which is the opposite of what they said they would do, which is targeted deportation of people who are convicted of crimes or arrested and charged with crimes. They're just sweeping up everybody and they can't handle the volume. And so the system is crushing under its own weight. are resigning in mass. Half the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office has resigned or been fired.

And so they just can't keep up with the volume. And as a result, they're blowing through court orders that judges are getting frustrated. One judge said 96 court orders have been violated. 96. That's astounding. Court orders aren't optional. They are something you have to deal with. So we're going to talk about what all that means and everything that's going on. And Lisa, I'm so grateful that you are here. I want to hear your perspective on all of this and get your insight and knowledge. You come to the table with so much experience.

And so we're so thrilled to have you here. Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF. How are you, Lisa? I'm doing all right, Karen. Thank you so much. And as always, for that excellent introduction, the replay, the recap of what's going on and what we're going to talk about. So yeah, an honor to be here.

What have you been up to these days, Lisa? sir? Well, I've been doing some writing not yet published about the way the Roberts Court rulings have affected what's happening in Minnesota, basically the way they have tried to rewrite the rules in ways that make it harder for those lower court judges to issue restraining orders against actions that on their face, in my view, seem to be in gross violation of people's civil rights and their freedom to dissent, the freedom to assemble, and the like. So that's what I've been up to, but I actually, like you, can't believe it's February. Can't believe it's the fourth of February and already so much has happened. But that's actually been my reaction to the year 2026.

We came in, it was, I think of like, what's that saying? When April or May, comes in like a lion or comes in like a lamb and goes out like a lion, I feel like January, we had no respite, no real rest between the end of last year and this year, just actually an acceleration with what's been happening in Minnesota and more. So, yeah, I'm happy to be here, Karen, and happy to dig into these topics. Even the groundhog. It's a tiny fill here in New York. Even the groundhog didn't come out this year.

Or winter. I know if it's winter or if he's like, I don't know. I don't want to come out. Anyway, I don't want to read too much into that. So speaking of the Supreme Court and the Roberts Court and something that you're an expert in, Let's talk about what happened in this California redistricting victory that is a major victory for Democrats in California. I'll frame the issue, and I want to get your reaction to it.

So essentially, Governor Gavin Newsom published this redistricting map, and it was in direct response. They didn't even try to hide that this was a direct response or what the purpose was. It was a direct response to Republicans who did this exact same thing in Texas. And it's in an effort to gain an additional five seats in Congress and try to flip Congress in the midterms. So, you know, whether it will actually happen or not, ultimately it's going to take a lot more than these five seats because many states are, many red states are doing this like Texas or trying to do this. And some blue states are also trying to do it. But this ruling, this was an emergency application to the United States Supreme Court that was brought by the California Republicans, supported by Trump, and basically saying it's not constitutional, that they can't do this, saying essentially that they were trying to do this to try to give more votes to Latino and minority voters in California, which the Supreme Court has said, you're not allowed to make race the motivating factor, the primary factor. It can be a factor, but it can't be the primary motivating

factor. The Supreme Court's been chipping away at the Voting Rights Act, especially this Supreme Court. And so, but one thing that might be surprising to people is you are allowed to take partisanship. You're allowed to say, no, I'm doing this to gain partisan advantage. I'm not trying to give more votes to my minority voters, which you would think would be something that is something you want to do, right? You want to give people who are disenfranchised kind of more of a vote because they're in the minority. You want to give them more or give them appropriate access to voting, especially in the electoral college system. But the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that that is not okay. I think it was last year, actually, in fact. And instead, you are allowed

to redistrict and draw maps that are just for part. partisan advantage. And in fact, this was the same argument that they made in Texas for why it's okay. In Texas, they said, oh, no, we're allowed to do this for this reason. And so in California, the lawyers basically threw it in their face and said, this is what you argued in Texas. So we're arguing the same thing. And not surprising, the Supreme Court in an unsigned, no dissent's decision, basically said, we are not going, we're denying this emergency application, therefore the map stands, which is important because the registration for people who are going to run for these now open seats is opening right now. I think on Monday is when registration is. And so there was this temporal deadline, and so the map stands. And this is

overwhelmingly approved by voters in California. California has this thing called propositions. So Prop 50 was put on a ballot in November and was voted on and it overwhelmingly passed. And now this emergency stay basically says, okay, this is an emergency. So it's not fully briefed. It's not fully argued. So it has to go back down and make its way through the courts. But it doesn't matter because this election, this is going to go forward with this map. So talk about Lisa.

What are your thoughts on this? And what do you glean from this opinion, if you want to call it that, or this order? Yes, well, this is a good result today, and it is consistent with the recent precedents of the Roberts Court. As you point out, what happened was the Republicans were trying to stop California from doing redistricting

in response to Texas redistricting, which was actually quite outrageous, quite frankly, given the fact that the Republican Party had been defending what happened in Texas. And what happened in Texas is actually, unusual, relatively unusual in American history for, you know, just to kind of draw the lens back a bit, the reason we have maps redrawn is typically based on the census. And so the Constitution commands that a census be taken every 10 years and that based on the growth in population or loss in

population, then congressional maps are redrawn. And so our state maps on the same basis, but, you know, not because the Constitution commands it. And so for these maps, usually what happens is every 10 years on the zero, so 2020, there was a census, and then the next year the legislatures would take up maps to address the changes in population. But what Trump has triggered is this really unusual, in my view, quite suspect, a redrawing of maps mid-decade, not based on the results of the census, but in order to try to gain an advantage, in order to prevent the House from becoming democratic. and attempting to hold him accountable, whether that's through legislation, investigations,

impeachment, subpoenas, or more. And so Trump has said quite openly that he does not want the Democrats to win the House because he doesn't want to face any accountability for his actions, and he said that he could very well be impeached if the Democrats take the House. So he's been pressuring Republican-controlled legislatures with Republican governors to redraw their maps, to take seats away from Democratic districts or districts that lean Democratic and basically just skew the maps so that as many Republicans as possible can be elected regardless of the actual way and ordinary population my vote. And so earlier this, actually, I guess late last year, the Roberts Court allowed a change in

maps in Texas, these five seats that were redrawn by the Republican legislature to go forward, even though in that case the lower court judge found that those maps did have a racially disparate impact and race was a factor was being considered as part of that redrawing. And that's the redrawing that has effectively moved some leading Democrats out of their seats in Congress coming this election. And so at least one black member of Congress who's now running for, I think, Senator or Governor, you know, was the victim, in essence of this redrawing. And in response to that redrawing, California moved forward to say if you're going to redraw the maps, if this goes forward, we're going to redraw our maps too. And then the Republicans attacked that measure

even after they'd won in this ruling by the Supreme Court that allowed that Texas map to go forward. So it's a just result in that sense. But the underlying issue remains really problematic because the Supreme Court, the Roberts Court, has not yet ruled on the Calais case, which is a case out of Louisiana. In that case, after the 2020 census, the white legislature in dominated legislature in Louisiana drew maps that allowed only one one house district to be a majority of black Americans, even though in Louisiana, black Americans make up 30 over basically a third of the population. And so instead of having there be any proportion, which is not required, but which would be common sense, the white legislature drew maps that had five white majority districts and one black majority district. A lower court panel struck that down because the Voting Rights Act has long had provisions to protect against vote dilution, and there are Supreme Court precedents that say that you cannot have measures under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that dilute the black vote, that have the effect of diluting black votes, basically taking a vote that has meaning and

rendering it meaningless. And so the Louisiana legislature responded to that lower court ruling, redrew the map so that there were two black majority districts and four white majority districts. And then that map was pursued by white residents of Louisiana to attack it as unconstitutional. And that's the case that is still pending before the Supreme Court. I raise that because even though these districts are allowed to go forward in this election cycle in California, as the Texas seats are going forward in this election cycle in the 2026 race, I'm very concerned that the Roberts Court will strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, rule in favor of those white residents in Louisiana,

and say that going forward in the 28 election, that you cannot have maps that protect against vote dilution, against diluting the black vote. And I fear that Mike Johnson and Trump would use such a ruling to say that they're not going to seat any legislators who were elected in districts created to prevent the dilution of the black vote. And so it sort of could lay around like a loaded weapon, illegitimately to provide pretext for an effort to try to overturn the results of the 2026 election.

I hope it doesn't go that way. I hope that we have a fair election in 2026 in the midterms, despite Trump's claiming he's going to send troops or nationalize the elections in some way, despite what we are going to talk about later, about the Fulton County situation in terms of the federal government seizing ballots. I hope we have a fair election. We're going to have to work hard as citizens to get as many people out to vote. Basically, I don't care what your party is, but please stand up for the right to vote

and get more people out to vote so that the results cannot be set aside. But I'm concerned that this Republican Supreme Court, this majority on the court, this Roberts Court has been working to change the rules to aid Republicans. We know that the point you raised, Karen, about allowing partisan redistricting is a direct result of this Roberts Court because in a case called Alexander v. NWACP of South Carolina, even though lower court judges found that Nancy Mesa's district, the first district of South Carolina, had been constructed specifically to move over 20,000 black voters, out of her district and into a different district in order to give her a safe seat,

moving them out of a district that they, their parents, their grandparents had voted in for years on the Gula community. The Roberts Court, in an opinion by Samuel Alito, said that the South Carolina legislature could do that as long as their goal was partisanship, as long as their objective was partisanship, even if race was basically the core factor

moving these black voters out of that district. And so the court has put its thumb on the scale in favor of these Republican legislatures, even considering race like they did in South Carolina, expressly moving, like with statistical, methodical, unmistakable determination to move those black voters out in South Carolina. The court has allowed that, and that has unleashed this wave of mid-decade redistricting. And it, you know, it bodes poorly for the future if the Roberts Court ultimately strikes down one of the last remaining enforcement provisions in the Voting Rights Act, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. You know, your fear about Mike Johnson refusing to seat these members of Congress is not something that we know he will do, right?

I mean, he did it this. He refused to seat the one. Exactly. Exactly. Because she was going to be. be the vote they needed to vote the Epstein Transparency Act, the Epstein File Transparency Act, out onto the floor. And, you know, so he's willing to do that if it suits him. So I think your fear is well placed there, for sure. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is calling to nationalize state elections. What do you make of that? And what do you think, what, hey, can he make there? Well, it really is extraordinary. And if Mike Johnson had any, and I'll just say in my personal opinion, integrity, he would be objecting this because this is the Constitution specifically commits the power to handle state elections to the states. It is not a federal prerogative. It shouldn't be the federal government. The federal government should not be taking over the election process. It is one of the most significant threats to our democratic process that we've ever seen to have a president asserting this. It actually says it in the Constitution, right?

Yeah, it's express. It's expressly. It says, yeah, go ahead. For the states, not for the federal government, not for the president. And we have a president who has denied their actual results of Americans voting in 2020 and sought to stop that vote from being counted. And in my view, incited the crowd to assail the Capitol to try to stop that vote. That's what the indictment on about January 6th, Jack Smith's indictment was about.

He said that he had ample evidence, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, to prove the counts that Donald Trump was charged with. But this court, the Roberts Court, intervened and effectively pardoned Trump retrospectively and paved the way for his return to power. And so we have right now someone in the executive office in the White House who should have no role taking over state, taking over elections during the midterms. Federal elections are handled by state officials. And state officials have been doing this correctly, properly for decades. They're well-trained. All of Trump's efforts to try to change the voting rules in 2020 to his advantage, to try to block people from voting absentee, to try to assert fraud.

Rudy Giuliani's really absurd claims that were rejected in court after court, he lost over and over. And so he's the last person who should have these powers. But in fact, it wouldn't matter whether it was Trump or someone else in the sense that that's not what the Constitution says. So this is just another anti-constitutional, counter-constitutional, unconstitutional maneuver by Trump in order to, in his desperation, try to stay in power regardless of what our law commands. What is he threat? I mean, what is your understanding of what he's going to try and do and to quote nationalize federal elections? and what do you think the Supreme Court, how do you think they'll respond to that?

Well, I think one of the things we're seeing is some trial runs. So, you know, I think one of the fears coming out of Minneapolis is not just this invasion, this siege by federal officers who outnumber the local police, but that there could be an effort to deploy ICE agents to polling places, to try to intimidate voters, to possibly arrest voters.

And, you know, we need. know that they've been engaged in racial profiling. They fought for the right, in essence, the quote, right to do so. And the Roberts Court in an emergency docket ruling allowed them in the case of their immigration enforcement to consider someone's race, ethnicity, appearance, last name, language, accent, profession as a basis for stopping someone for what had been called Kavanaugh stops. Because Kavanaugh, you know, basically gave this his blessing, even though he's tried to walk it back a bit. But I think that we could see Trump try to deploy federal troops or ICE agents to polling places to intimidate voters or even arrest people. Given what just happened in Fulton

County with, you know, the issue of the 2020 election in Georgia has been litigated, litigated, and litigated, and Trump has lost at every turn. Those ballots had been audited and then reexamined by local and state officials as part of their review of the vote in 2020. 2020, Republican state officials, the governor of Georgia, the AG of Georgia, both of whom are Republicans, the Secretary of State of Georgia, Brad Raffesberger, everyone basically affirmed the certification of those ballots is valid. And yet Trump has gone in there and had them seized, you know, had the DOJ seize them, had FBI, the FBI seized them, and was even on a telephone call, basically acting like a cheerleader to the FBI, FBI agents, for seizing those pallets of ballots. Now I think that no one can have any confidence in the integrity of those ballots,

now that they've been seized by the administration that has been determined to perpetuate the big lie, the big lie that Trump won. And we can see that in the White House website that they created around January 6th and other material that they've released in Trump's ongoing claims that he really won in 2020, despite the fact that he actually lost,

and that votes were counted, that ballots were recounted again to make sure of the election results. And he lost, lost, lost. He was the biggest loser of 2020 and he can't accept it. But now he has the power of the FBI and DOJ doing his bidding. And I will say to you, Karen, one of the things that was tucked in that immunity ruling that John Roberts wrote, the one that is extraordinary counter constitutional assertion, invention of this super wide power of Donald Trump of a president engaged in, quote, official acts,

that opinion basically said that the president could direct the FBI, could direct DOJ as part of this sort of unitary executive theory, as part of the so-called official acts of the president. And that's what Trump is doing. That's extraordinary in our political system for years and years, in fact, for decades, it has been seen as verboten for a president to be directing the prosecution of anyone, including his enemies, but anyone. And there's a long-setting set of agreements. I saw them, you know, review them from time to time when I was at the Justice Department, along with others in terms of the rules for contacts between the Justice Department and the White House, in order to prevent even the appearance that a White House is directing prosecutions or interfering in prosecutions,

let alone demanding that his enemies be pursued or that his conspiracy theories be pursued through the force of law. And so notwithstanding John Roberts' intervention in the January 6th indictment of Donald Trump and other potential criminal cases against Donald Trump, the fact is that what happened in Georgia is so unusual, so irregular, and so worrisome

because to go to your in inmate, question, Karen, we don't know if he's going to try to seize ballots during the 2026 election or immediately thereafter with his loyalists trying to go to a judge to try to make a case, to try to stop the results from counting, our votes from counting in the 2026 midterms. Yeah, well, you know, there's certain judges that they're going to make sure they bring cases to, right? Judge Eileen Cannon, for example, I could see them trying to maneuver a case down there. for sure. Right.

Exactly. Exactly. Or Judge Casmeric, right, in Texas. I mean, that's another one. There's certain judges that are, that you could see them trying to forum shop. So do you think he's going to try to also outlaw mail-in ballots as well? And I mean, that seems to be a rallying cry. And what was Tulsi Gabbard doing at the execute?

It was just, it's one thing to be, okay, yeah, he can be in charge of the FBI and the DOJ and whatever, and whatever, and they're there executing the search warrant to take these voting machines. But what was the Director of National Intelligence doing there? Well, to unpack your question a bit, like in Georgia, the head of the FBI in Georgia resigned because he would not pursue this really illegitimate, in my view, case. And in fact, they brought in an AUSA, not from Georgia, but from Missouri, to handle this case. And so the case is already fraught to begin with. And this is in line with what you mentioned earlier about what's been happening in Minnesota,

where six AUSAs resigned because of the actions of this administration. And one FBI agent resigned because instead of investigating goods' death, they wanted to investigate her partner for daring to, you know, dissent from the ISIS presence there in Minnesota. So, you know, what's happened in Georgia just in the past week is unusual in numerous ways, including the fact that longtime career officials who have, you know, they may be Republicans, they may be Democrats, but they have been trying to follow the law, have been, were unwilling to go along with this charade. But as you point out, who was there? The Director of National Intelligence,

which is the DNI, which is Tulsi Gabbard, someone who Trump chose to put in that role at the top, the pinnacle of our national intelligence infrastructure. The DNI is a position that was created after September 11th. is above the CIA, it's above the NSA, it's above, you know, the 10, 12 acronym intelligence agencies that found that Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 election, notwithstanding Donald Trump's repeated claims that it was a hoax. Our intelligence community found that there was an active effort by Russia to interfere. I'm sure if anyone ever had access to the books of Facebook, you would see it because they were spending millions of dollars on ads, targeting Americans, well in that 2016 election. But Donald Trump wanted to put someone who was someone he could trust,

a loyalist to him, in charge of national intelligence. And he put Tulsi Gabbard. We've never had basically the head of the spy agencies involved in an effort to seize American ballots, to seize the ballots of American residents. It is beyond unusual. It is, quite frankly, outrageous for the DNI to have been on the ground. Supposedly she was there because Trump asked her to. That's not her job. She actually doesn't have a role within the U.S. in that way. Her role is supposed to be focused predominantly on foreign intelligence,

on gathering foreign intelligence, and on the processes that these agencies are using, you know, for signals intelligence or geographic intelligence or human intelligence. They are not supposed to be focusing on Americans. They are not supposed to be involved in law enforcement, domestic law enforcement. So it was an extraordinary act. She went out there as a political act on behalf of her benefactor, Donald Trump.

She called Donald Trump on his cell phone from the scene of, you know, the process of seizing those ballots and having the FBI agents there. He called her back. She put him on the phone to cheerlead to those agents that they were doing the right thing, even though this is basically unprecedented in American history to have this kind of intervention by a president over an election that was already litigated and resolved years ago and he lost. And there was no deterrent to her personally, in terms of her own integrity, in my personal view, or her actions or her actual official roller duties,

nothing impeded her from going there, even though it was totally not her job. And it's actually quite worrisome. Because now we know there are a lot of relationships that Trump has with foreign governments. We know that there's been these deals struck and rewards or presence or, you know, all sorts, all manner of intermingling of his personal interests and our governmental actions with respect to some foreign company, pardon me, foreign governments and foreign leaders.

And I don't know that we can have really any confidence about what Tulsi Gabbard may or may not say or assert about foreign involvement in our elections when this administration has rejected the actual independent assessments of the intelligence agencies in 2016. and now he is in essence directed the head of the national intelligence for the United States to be part of the process of seizing American ballots with no public statement of any evidence of any foreign involvement or interference in that Georgia election, no indication that the ballots would indicate any involvement by foreign agents or foreign governments. And in fact, back in 2020, when this issue of foreign interference was litigated in Arizona, in the face of conspiracy theories that was Chinese paper or other completely ridiculous laugh out loud false assertions

about the Arizona election, those were roundly rejected in court. There is no evidence, none that has ever been made public, none that exists in my view, to indicate any foreign interference in that Georgia presidential race in 2020 or any state, for that matter. Yeah, it's crazy. And people aren't outraged by, enough, I think not because it's not outrageous, but because there's so much going on that it's like, how do you decide, you know, any other normal time, this would be something that would

be on TV, on the news, in the papers, every single day. What was she doing there? Why are they executing a search warrant now four years later, or no, more than four years later? It's like six years later. Six years later. How is there, how is it not stale for search warrant purposes. How did a judge, why would a judge or a magistrate sign off on this? Like, there's so many open questions to try to unpack here, but, but, you know, it's like a fire hose of outrage, you know, with Minnesota, with Epstein, with, you know, all the things going on, but it's important that we have to keep calling these things out and really underscoring for people how unusual this is and really how important the midterms are and people have to go

and vote and vote, vote, vote. I mean, we have to go. have to because that's what's so critical what's going on here. The world does not look anything like it has looked in my lifetime. It's so, you know, over the years, it's like, sometimes we're liberal, sometimes we're conservative, sometimes you're Democrat, sometimes we're Republican. This is not liberal or conservative. This is not Democrat or Republican.

This is truly lawlessness and autocracy, and it's terrifying. And so the more we can kind of call this out, talk about what it is, and talk about about the fact that it's really our democracy at stake. I think that's why we are spending so much time talking about these things and bringing them to everybody's attention. So we have to take our first break. So obviously, we have to keep the lights on here at Legal AF

and on the Midas Touch Network. So please, if you're not a subscriber, subscribe to Midas Touch and to the LegalAF YouTube channel and to LegalAF Substack. And all, there's so much that you can watch and read to stay informed and we really appreciate all the support and this whole community that is here. So if you can subscribe and you can be a part of that, that really helps us as well, My Distouch Network

is over 6 million subscribers now and Legal AF YouTube channel has over a million. So we're growing at lightning speed and it's because of this amazing community and all of you. So we're gonna take our first break from one of our, from some of our, our sponsors who pick us, they know what we talk about, they know our point of view, and they decide to advertise on this network. So we like our sponsors and we vet them and we're happy to bring them to

you. Well, when it comes to dog food, it feels like you have to choose between fresh and healthy or easy to store and serve, but never both. Well, you don't have to choose anymore thanks to Sundays. Sundays was founded by a veterinarian and mom, Dr. Torrey Waxman, who got tired of seeing so-called premium dog food full of fillers and synthetic. So she designed Sundays. Air-dried real food made in a human-grade kitchen using the same ingredients in care you'd use to cook for yourself and your family.

Am I Lily? A border collie chocolate lab mix loves it, and we love it for her. Every bite of Sundays is clean and made from real meat, fruits and veggies with no kibble. That means no weird ingredients you can't pronounce and no fillers. Compared to kibble or other brands, out there, Sundays invest 50 times more in its ingredients to ensure premium quality. Because your

dog deserves food made with care, not in the interest of cost cutting. Even if you don't have a dog yourself, you still want the dogs you love to get the same quality food you'd want for your own family. Real ingredients, no fillers, and something that actually supports their health. And the best part, you just scoop and serve. No freezer. No thawing or prep. No mess. Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundays for Dogs.com slash legal AF50 and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use code legal AF50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at Sundays for dogs.com slash legal AF50. Sundays for Dogs.com slash legal AF50 or use code legal AF50 at checkout. We're a year into the new administration and it's getting harder to read the news and see

attacks on our First Amendment freedoms daily. Now is the time to look for the helpers, those who are strategically fighting day in and out to preserve our constitutional freedoms. One of the organizations fighting the good fight is Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Their mission is to protect everyone's right to live as they are and believe as they choose so long as they don't harm others. A.U. is fighting back against the wave of Christian nationalist threats happening across the country. They filed 11 lawsuits last year alone, multiple against the Trump administration,

to protect your individual freedom of and from religion. Whether you support public education or passionate about LGBTQ plus and reproductive rights or some combination of all, AU relies on the help of its supporters to do this important work. If you're looking for an organization to support and learn from, head to AU.org slash legal a.m.

to see how you can get involved in their work and support the fight against Christian nationalism. That's A.U.org slash legal AF. When America's divided, we are Americans United. Learn more at A.U.org slash legal AF. All right, we're back. I want to start with what's going on in federal court in Judge Hellerstein's courtroom.

Essentially, just to remind everyone, And so Donald Trump was convicted in May of 2024, of 34 felony counts by the Manhattan DA's office where I spent the better part of my career. 30 years I worked there. And he was convicted of falsifying business records related to these hush money payments that he made to Stormy Daniels, who he had an affair with. Or I don't know if you call it an affair, but he had relations with him. And his fixer attorney at the time, Michael Cohen, helped broker these hush money payments, and they doctored the books to make it look like legal fees.

And he went to trial, was prosecuted and convicted of 34 felony counts in Manhattan. Now, Trump tried to get the case removed from state court previously to federal court. And it's called a removal. Right? That's what they call it under the law. And it's essentially it's when federal officers are being prosecuted or someone who's being prosecuted who has a federal defense. And they want to have it removed to federal court so that they can have their case handled there instead of state court. And he tried to have the case removed. But Judge Hellerstein said, said, no, that was entirely personal conduct. That had nothing to do with your presidency.

That happened when you were a private citizen. It doesn't belong in federal courts. So that went down. So he rejected that. I think there was twice he went for removal in Hellerstein's court, and twice it was rejected. So he finally went to trial. He was convicted.

And he, after he was convicted in May, in July, a couple months later, The Supreme Court ruled, came down and ruled that this ruling about presidential immunity. Right. And that just created the whole situation we're in, but I'm not going to digress. And essentially said, you know, I think you said earlier, it's almost like pardoning in advance, you know, proactively pardoning him and retroactively pardoning him for anything that you do while you're president. And so Donald Trump made the strategic decision to appeal to the state court first, Judge

Mershon, and say, I'm immune, you know, you can't now, you have to vacate my conviction. Judge Mershahn ruled that essentially this was entirely private conduct. almost none of this happened while you were president except one conversation that you had with Hope Hicks. And even if I took that out of the equation, the evidence, you know, the evidence against you was overwhelming. And so let's say we take that out. I still find that the jury should have found you guilty or could have found you guilty. And so we're going to proceed to sentencing. After that, he then went to Judge Hellerstein and said, okay, I would like you to now remove it again based on, I want to make this removal application again based on the immunity decision.

And Judge Hellerstein, there was a hearing. He hasn't ruled yet, but he essentially said, you don't get two bites of the apple. You waited too long. You should have come here first if that's what you wanted to do is removal, but instead you made a strategic decision to see if you can get Judge Mershon to do it. And then when he didn't go your way, now you're trying to get us to do it. And Judge Hellerstein doesn't seem like my reading of the tea leaves wasn't having it. And because essentially what the lawyer for Donald Trump admitted to or kind of said was, we just need you to make any ruling so that we can then appeal it and get it to the Second Circuit. Just bring it to federal court.

I don't care if you rule for us or against us. If you rule against us, that's fine too. Because then we can just go to the Second Circuit, get them to rule. Again, it doesn't really matter what they do. because we want to go to the Supreme Court, because we know the Supreme Court will basically do, you know, we have our best chance at an audience there, but they have to get there.

They have to get to the Supreme Court. And Judge Heller seems skeptical. I don't know, what did you pick up from the hearing? Yeah, I'm skeptical too, and I think he's rightly skeptical. And, you know, this is an area where, as broad as that ruling by John Roberts, that edict, declaring that Trump had presidential immunity or immunity from criminal prosecution, It was specific to official acts.

Now, they're an enormous array of so-called official acts that includes, as in essence, they've asserted pardons, the, you know, they've asserted all sorts of things that the president does in his physical capacity. But as you point out, and as the judges have pointed out, Donald Trump's payment of this hush money for this sexual relationship with Stormy Daniels, this was before the election.

This was before he became a president. You can't have immunity. Even though I object to the Roberts' ruling on immunity for president while acting as a president, you certainly don't get immunity for your actions before you become president or after you stop being president. So it's really extraordinary that he's doing it. But as you point out, it's all about getting to the Supreme Court and trying to make the case to the six Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that perhaps five of them would find some way to rule in his favor to get this case to get this case to get this case to. dismissed. I think that on the merits, as you pointed out, and as one of the judges pointed out, you know, only just a teeny, tiny percentage of the activity occurred after he became president.

It was like incidental to what was already going on to try to keep this out of the news. Because what was really going on was that Trump and, you know, his lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, did not want Stormy Daniels to speak about the fact that Trump had had sex with a woman for money shortly after his wife, Melania, had given birth to their son, and that this would look bad for Trump, that it could affect his chance of becoming president in 2016.

So the whole case, the whole hush money, the payment of the money was all about trying to win that 2016 election. And the idea that Trump can assert immunity or try to drag this case into federal court, I do think that it's a bad case for those claims. I don't think that he would prevail, except that this Roberts court is a wild card

in the sense that they have done so much to put their thumb on the scale in favor of Donald Trump in all sorts of ways. In any normal environment, I think this would be an open and shut case against Trump, but we just don't know what this Roberts court is going to do, given so many of the other things it has done to basically allow Trump to do things

that no other president has been allowed to do, like these tariffs, that the tariff policy is specifically committed to Congress, not the president, like birthright citizenship, but you know, all these things that are being challenged before this court that the court had not yet ruled on are things where in any other ordinary court, I think people would have a right to reasonably expect that this court would not rule in Trump's favor,

but we just don't know with this court. Yeah, we really don't. It's so interesting to see see what happens. So people are probably wondering, well, why is this happening now in front of Hellerstein? And it's because Trump brought this, you're supposed to bring it within 30 days of a ruling. He brought it almost 60 days later after he had already gone to Judge Mershon. He made this application. Hellerstein denied it. It was an appeal to the Second Circuit. And the Second Circuit sent it back down to Hellerstein essentially saying, you have to consider some of these

arguments and have a hearing and make findings. And so that's why it's still, that's why it's still bubbling around and we're going to have to, he's going to have to rule and make a decision. And I think take into consideration the things the Second Circuit wanted him to do. So this is still a live issue. It's still going on. And we'll see, we'll see what happens. So let's turn now to across the hall from Judge Hellerstein, Judge Berman, also in the Southern District of New York, who was the judge who was the trial judge for Gilane Maxwell. Yep.

And he, although that case is over, although she's appealing, but it's over. She was tried and convicted, and she's now in prison, people keep running. running to him to kind of and try to deal with the Epstein files, right? So that trial happens and then Congress passes the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which basically gave until, I think it was December 19th, as a deadline for the Department of Justice to turn over all records that they have. That it's got some holes in the law.

It doesn't include things like the IRS records. It doesn't include other government records. It's like the DOJ and the FBI, right? So there's still a lot of other records out there that relate to people who were financing the Jeffrey Epstein, his lifestyle, et cetera. There's a lot of government records. So I think they need to pass an amendment to the law that fixes that. But the law also has some holes in it that says DOJ can withhold certain things if there's

an open investigation. So it's not a perfect law. But even so, there are lots of documents that should be turned over. And they keep running to Judge Berman because some of those, small portion of them, but but some of those records were grand jury material, for example. And grand jury material is sealed. And so Judge Berman had to unseal them in order to comply with the law. They've also gone to Judge Berman to try to enforce the law because DOJ blew past the deadline.

And Berman said, I have nothing to do with it, right? This is not my case. Like, my case is over. I can't enforce this law. Maybe you should bring a new action. so that we can enforce the law. And in the meantime, the DOJ said, no need, we're working on it. We're working on it.

We've got people working on it around the clock. We've got lawyers working on this around the clock. There's millions. Sometimes they say there's hundreds of thousands. Sometimes they say there's six million. Then they say three million. Who knows? There's million.

We know there's millions of records and documents. But we need to redact out the victim's information and redact out victims' photos and names. et cetera, as well as certain other, they would, said they're not going to redact people out for political reasons, but there are people who I think they are taking out who they've determined are, either they, either they were innocent or, you know, it didn't go anywhere.

And so they're not going to let some people, you know, get wrongly tarnished with this, with this. So there were certain names to redact out there. What the victims did, is they gave over 100 names to the DOJ so that they can know the names that need to be redacted out. And the way that works, because I'm a criminal defense attorney and I was a prosecutor, the way it works when you get terabytes of millions of discovery documents, whether you're turning them over as a prosecutor or receiving them as a defense attorney,

no one expects you to be able to read every single document. And so, I mean, sometimes you have to read the vast majority of them, But typically the way you start such a search is you do word searches. Yeah. Right? You put them in a searchable database and you do word searches. And so by giving over the victim's names, that was in an effort so that the DOJ who had the Southern District of New York, I believe, had almost every lawyer in the office working on this

around the clock. And it's a way of giving them the names so that they can, whatever files they were in charge of, they presumably should be able to put the names into a computer. and it should show you everywhere that it shows up. Same thing with photos. There should be a way to search for, at least look at all the photos, unless there were so many of those, and be able to redact out that information. Well, the New York Times, when three million documents were dumped,

were able to find thousands, thousands, not one or two or a few that they miss, thousands of records where over 100 victims' names, and personal identifying information, including photographs, were leaked. And the New York Times tried to do the right thing and tell DOJ what you did, there's a problem here. And in the meantime, a lot of the victims are like, I never came forward.

I mean, I didn't even know my name was in there. Or I never had anything to do with this. I wasn't one of the people who wanted to do this. Now my life is turned upside down. Or some of the other victims are like, I came forward, but you promised this wouldn't happen to me. You know, it's, it's, it's, very upsetting and so they ran to Judge Berman understandably to basically say

take down the website make them take down the website and and essentially the DOJ they were supposed to have a hearing today but the judge canceled it because the DOJ agreed to handle this right they agreed to to fix this so but it's just it's just unbelievable to me I how this happen. I mean, and under any normal Congress, they should be having hearings to figure out what happened. I mean, I don't know. What are your thoughts about this, Lisa? Well, we've spent, we the taxpayers have spent millions and millions of dollars on this redaction effort. The redaction effort began in part because Trump ran in part saying, you know, along with some of his

supporters that they needed to make the Epstein files public. Bondi promised to make them public, claimed she had them on the top of her desk and she was going to release them all, or had a client list, et cetera. It was just a constant drumbeat. And then suddenly this past spring, it turns out that Bondi informed Trump that he, his name appeared numerous times in the files. And then suddenly they were trying to say, oh, no, never mind, nothing to see here. No files could be released.

There's nothing more to see. Even though in many of these instances, the men who were involved in predatory behavior with the women and girls that were recruited by Gleine Maxwell for Jeffrey Epstein's operations, even though basically they were, the people who victimized them were never charged, other than Epstein and Maxwell. And so, you know, that's what resulted in this effort in the House, where some Republicans joined Democrats and saying, look, make the files public. And so since then, since that law passed, there's been this sort of round-the-clock effort that's been described as involving FBI agents, AUSAs, prosecutors and others to redact the files. And yet, we've seen a really sloppy process, quite frankly, despite the millions have been spent. we saw, as you point out, the names of survivors of this racket, this Epstein, Galane, Maxwell

racket, them name with personally identifiable information. Anyone who runs a website in America is actually required under U.S. law to protect against revealing personal identifiable information is specifically defined in the law. But in this instance, to take special care, if they were supposed to be doing anything with this redaction, it was supposed to protect the survivors, the victims, the victims. of this multi-year scheme by Epstein and Maxwell. And instead, what we've seen is redactions and deletions to protect Trump.

At one point, just this past week, they redacted a photo of Trump like his face from a photo that was just a public, like a publicity photo. So there was extra effort paid to try to protect Trump in some ways. We don't know all the redactions. There's been no cataloging of what things were redacted on what basis. Some of the redactions seemed super irrational, and very much designed to protect Trump.

But now we've seen that they have been not so careful in handling the information about people who survived it. And there's, I guess, two other things that I just want to flag for our watchers, our listeners. One is that in Blanche's, Todd Blanche's press conference, he's the Deputy Attorney General, the guy who was formerly a criminal defense attorney for Donald Trump. Now he's being paid by us as the deputy attorney.

Attorney General, Blanche said that certain information was removed from files, including information about people who were either assaulted or killed. He expressly talked about the removal of information around deaths. And I think the American people have a right to know if there were deaths, in fact, discussed or documented in these files. It is horrifying that he uttered that sentence. There seems to be no reason for him to utter that sentence unless there is evidence. And the evidence that some have suggested is that some part of Epstein's operations might have included snuff films,

which involved killing the person who is being preyed upon by sexual predators. So that should be known. If that in fact happened, where are the prosecutions? Where are the potential prosecutions or at least some sort of public accountability for presumably the men? who were involved in this predation against these young women, or in some instances, certainly with regard to Jeffrey Epstein and Gilles-Maxwell, children, girls who are not young women at all, but are minors. So that, I think, is a really important component of this.

And then the second important component is there's no, like, Blanche just said, that's it, we're done, even though there are more files that have not been released, that they possess and that they have not, I think, asserted in any proper legal way, a legal basis for excluding those or for not giving anymore. It's just like they basically said, look, here's enough, hope this satisfies you, we're moving on. And then in response, Trump has asserted that the files exonerate him when in fact the files are very, very troubling.

First of all, his name is mentioned, I think according to the New York Times count, at least 5,000 times in these files in different ways. And that's just the parts that we can see. There are other places where his name appears to have been redacted based on the context of the files. And so that's just the visible mentions of him. That's a lot of mentions by a sexual predator. There are other components of the files.

The second thing I would flag is there are conversations between Jeffrey Epstein and Steve Bannon about the 2016 election as it's going on. And that's at a time when Bannon was the key advisor to Donald Trump trying to protect his efforts to win the presidency, to win the White House in 2016. And even though purportedly Donald Trump stopped letting Fstein come to his club, circa 2006, 2007, 10 years earlier, even though they'd been best friends for years and had been involved in these modeling agencies and these other activities that have resulted in complaints. against Trump, complaints that he's denied, but complaints of, you know, sexual abuse or potential rape by Donald Trump, which he's denied. So there's a lot more that Congress should be investigating. Congress needs to get involved in investigating what happened, why there were no

prosecutions, why Alex Acosta did not insist on a prosecution based on the more than a dozen girls whose evidence was within the FBI files, within the law enforcement files at the time of Jeffrey Epstein's plea agreement back in 2006-2007. There's, you know, the fact that we do not have justice for these survivors, that people have not been held accountable other than Glynne Maxwell, who Todd Blanche, you know, met with, and then suddenly she was moved from a proper prison at the right level security for the length of her sentence and moved to one of these country club camps,

prison camps in Texas. You know, there has not been accountability for these crimes. against so many women and girls. Yeah, except Congress is going to be having the Clintons come and testify, which is, you know, that's their big flex, you know, that the Clintons who've initially sent a letter saying, this is the hill we're going to die on, we're not coming, and now are coming. But that's the only hearing they're going to have is with regard to the Clintons.

I mean, where are all the investigations? Now that we know how many, that there's more than a hundred, there's hundreds of survivors that there are the number of men that are involved in this are it's it's astounding and yet we don't we don't know about any investigations right we don't know about any prosecutions that are that are pending and presumably there aren't any because if they were open investigations into these they wouldn't see the files because that's that's one of the exceptions to the Epstein Files Transparency Act is that if there's a pending investigation, we can withhold those files. So by releasing them, they're basically saying all these things, these horrible crimes that you're seeing,

that you're seeing evidence of, we're not investigating any of these. We're just going to allow this to continue. So it's... I was going to say, I mean, I think it's a cover up for Congress not to investigate. And just to have, like you said, just this flex around Bill Clinton to demand that he testify, but not demand that Trump testify or that other people who are mentioned in these files be called to testify. I'm sorry to interrupt Karen. No, you're right. You're right. They are complicit in this cover-up if they do not take further action to investigate. And if laws need to be changed to address sexual misconduct that may have expired in terms of the statute of limitations,

as has happened in other instances regarding, you know, some famous comedians and other various. famous people, then maybe we need to revisit those laws that might give some impunity for some of these abusers to get away with it. Because if that's part of the issue in terms of the lack of criminal investigation, that needs to be addressed. If Jeffrey Epstein was acting in some sort of intelligence capacity as Acosta asserted and then tried to walk back, but now you've seen these files, these ties to Russia and this notion of potential compromise or, you know, compromising material, we need to get to the bottom of that. If a sexual predator was allowed to pursue women and girls in America because someone in the intelligence community thought that he could provide them

value information, we should know who made that decision. Yeah, no, there's a lot that needs to be done. And I imagine if the Democrats take back Congress, this is going to be one of the first things they take up and do real special investigation into all of this. We need to take our second and final break and then we are going to go straight to Minnesota where, again, so much is still happening. So we're going to take a quick break and come back and find out everything that's going on in Minnesota. And we'll be right back. Fresh start, same system.

Banks win you pay. Fees and calls piling up monthly. Unless you fight back, PDS debt has already helped hundreds of thousands, cut their debt and put money back in their pockets, not the banks. Whether you're struggling with credit cards, personal loans, collections, or medical bills, PDS debt has customized options for anyone in that situation. PDS debt understands your specific scenario and will help you provide alternative solutions to becoming debt-free with a personalized plan designed just for you.

There's no minimum credit score required. They're here to help you save more, pay off your debt faster, and start putting money back where it belongs in your pocket. PDS Debt is A-plus rated by the Better Business Bureau, has thousands of five-star reviews on Google and a five-star rating on Trust Pilot. Every month you wait costs you more in interest and fees. The best time to start was yesterday. The second best is right now. Don't wait another month.

Take back control in 30 seconds. Get your free personalized assessment and the best option for you at PDSdebt.com slash legal a.F. That's PDSdebt.com slash legal AF. PDSdebt.com slash legal AF. You're 30 seconds away from being debt-free. Get your free assessment and find the best option for you right now at PDSdebt.com slash legal a. We're back. And Lisa, I want to turn our attention now to Minnesota because big news coming out of Minnesota,

Tom Home and the Borders are, went to Minnesota, sideline Christy Nose. and the others who were there and essentially is trying to take the temperature down is moving about almost a third of the officers who were there over 700 of them still going to be over 2,000 of them there but they're going to move a big chunk of them to try to scale down the efforts in the area and he said essentially that you know officials in Minnesota made significant progress working with state and local officials despite some differences they're allowing ICE to take custody of illegal, you know, people who are here illegally or undocumented

before they're released from jail. But my question is, it's unclear what policy has changed because there's never been a problem with ICE and DHS to take custody of people who are in jail or prison. I mean, even in blue states like New York, that's where most of the deportations happen. I mean, you've got someone who's arrested, you've got them convicted, they're in jail, they're in prison and that's when they start the deportation proceeding. So that's always been the case, but I guess he's going to advertise something that already existed as a win. And they're going to go back to targeting, you know, targeting these individuals, people who

are convicted of crimes. And this is cooperation, which has led to a safer environment, for ICE officers, blah, blah, it's just kind of BS. But it is a good start. It is taking the temperature down because, people were losing their lives, right? Over 100 people were injured. Many people were arrested.

Two people lost their lives, Renee Good, and Alex Prattie. I admire Frey's name in my head. Of course, Alex Prattie, who tragically was shot and killed. And this Operation Metro Search, which has been really catastrophic for Minnesota. in so many ways. I mean, people, neighbors are losing loved ones, right? People are getting deported. People are afraid to go to work, so businesses are losing revenue. People aren't going

or staying home. And, you know, it was heartbreaking today. Renee Goods, family members testified before Congress before this minority oversight committee talking about her and the brothers, her brothers talking about losing her. And it was, It was really heartbreaking to listen to and, you know, just really outrageous that this was Democrat-led, and the Republicans, of course, wouldn't come. And you've got this prejudging that's going on at the federal level, right? We all saw with our own eyes what happened to Renee Good.

We all saw with our own eyes what happened to Alex Pretty. But unfortunately, there's this gaslighting where no-no, justified, self-defense, you know, and because they say that, somehow we're supposed to believe it. And they prejudged it without doing an investigation. And perhaps they were justified. Perhaps they weren't. But you don't know until you conduct an independent investigation into all a dispassionate one. You don't prejudge it and say, oh, no, it's justified. And I've worked on many of many law enforcement involved fatalities. The one thing, the police commissioner, the district attorney,

the governor, the mayor, whoever it is, never does, is prejudge it. They wait for an investigation. And that can be frustrating for both sides sometimes. No, I want you to call this outrageous. Or no, I want you to say this was OK or not OK. But that's really what you're supposed to do. You have to really look at all the facts,

interview witnesses, analyze. We don't even know. Alex Preddy's case, who shot, whose gun went off, right? Who shot him? How many people shot him? Did his gun go off? We have no idea what the forensics are. And certainly, because there is no investigation into it, law enforcement presumably does not know either.

And instead, for example, in the Renee Good case, you know, there were prosecutors who resigned rather than investigate Renee Good and her wife. It's just the level of kind of topsy-turvy upside-down world or bizarro world here is outrageous, you know, because they're not doing things the way they should be doing it. They're doing it the way that fits their narrative. And, you know, it's putting a huge strain on what's going on in Minnesota to the point where we have a lawyer who was a special assignment,

a special AUSA or a special. special assistant United States attorney who had to go work for the U.S. Attorney's Office. Her name is Ms. Lay. And she, I think her name is Julie, her first name, and Julie Lay was, I think she was like general counsel to ICE, or she worked for ICE, and she went over to the Department of Justice to be, especially USA, to help deal with this overwhelming number of claims that were being filed hundreds of claims being filed saying rits of habeas corpus, you know, basically saying, I'm being people who are here who are being held in response to this immigration enforcement,

who bring these writs, who bring these legal claims saying, I'm being held illegally. There was this huge number of them being filed and they couldn't keep up. So she came over to help with that. And unfortunately, they still couldn't keep up with the responses frustrating federal judges. And she broke down in court in a way that I've never heard of before crying, asked to be held in contempt, saying that's the only way she's going to get 24 hours sleep and said, this job sucks, the system sucks, it's broken. You could tell the judge was trying to calm things down, okay, okay, you know, like, let's not have a breakdown in my courtroom because this is so unusual, but I think the strain on her is really showing because if you're going to have an operation

and Metro Surge and you're going to sweep up everybody, including people. You know, they didn't go in with a scalpel, right, to take the people, this targeted enforcement of violent criminals who they said they were going to do. They just swept up anyone who looked, you know, black or brown or spoke a different language or fit the profile that they, they thought, you know, fit what they wanted. And as a result, a lot of people who are here legally who are citizens, there was a fire, was a five-year-old child, you know, people who are getting, are getting swept up in this, and it's outrageous. So these amazing lawyers are doing an incredible job to try to bring these actions

to release these people who deserve to be released, and they're not getting released. And judges are getting frustrated, right? There was another judge in federal in Minnesota who, who essentially, because Julie Lay, who, when she talked about how upset she was about the system, that was in front of of Judge Blackwell. Well, another judge, Judge Schlitz, essentially was ordering the acting director of ICE Todd Lyons to appear before him last week, basically saying, why shouldn't I hold you in contempt because 96 times ICE has violated court orders in 74 cases, 96 times. Like, you know, it's outrageous. I know it's a word that I'm using a lot tonight, but it is. You can't violate a court order, right? It's not optional.

It's not something that you're allowed to do. And so if you were going to do this type of operation and send 3,000 ice troops, you probably should have been prepared and sent a lot of lawyers, too, who are going to handle all these filings so that you can deal with this barrage of incoming and not hold people that you're not allowed to hold and comply with court orders. So it's really kind of a really disorganized.

to say the least and an unprepared operation that's going on there that are causing innocent people to be held in jail when they're not supposed to, who it's causing people to lose their lives. And it's, I don't know how they're gonna get out from under this, but I wanna hear what you have to say about all this, Lisa. Well, it really is outrageous.

I wish I had a stamp. I would just be stamping it all over everything because it's extraordinary, it's outrageous, it's unprecedented, it's really unacceptable in America for this to be going on, to have this siege of an American city by the president, through his loyalists and through these agents who have been either poorly trained or allowed to think that they've got the license to hurt people.

It's extraordinary what we've been seeing on our TVs and on our social media over these past several weeks. And I want to just begin with the point you made at the outset, which is this is, or at least I'm going to take, I'm extrapolate from a point you made at the outset, which is this is all in part due to the lie that Donald Trump has been telling the American people and his followers about the supposed millions of criminal aliens in America everywhere. It's just not actually true. It's a lie. There are people who are in the United States without documentation who've been working as dishwashers or hotel maids or you know in other capacity who have not committed any crimes at all and in fact being in the United

States without documentation is not a crime it's a civil violation and one that subjects someone to the potential for being removed some people without documentation are in the process of getting documentation perhaps they've married someone or they're trying to adjust their status or they're awaiting an asylum petition to be finalized whether or they're whether they are going to be awarded asylum or not based on the circumstances that they fled in their home country. And what we've seen in Minnesota is people who are U.S. citizens, including a guy being dragged out of his house in his underwear or his shorts, in freezing cold weather, just based on either non-existent evidence or evidence that's not accurate or just a whim,

They were going door to door to door in neighborhoods of Minnesota, not based on any probable cause of any crime whatsoever. And seemingly in response to a memo that Todd Lyons issued last May, but was leaked just last month, in which he asserted that this administration had a right not to follow the Fourth Amendment, that they did not have to get a warrant, that they could engage in warrantless searches of people's homes, seize people without warrants and to do so without following, you know, longstanding rules.

And the point you made at the beginning of this conversation was about the normal process. So there is a small number of people in this country who commit crimes. Most of them are citizens. A smaller, the percentage of that, like much smaller are immigrants who commit crimes. When they commit a crime, they're seized, they're charged. They're usually held without bond because of flight risk, whether it's in federal or state court depending on the rules and they face trial, they go to trial or they plead, they're convicted, they're sentenced and they are transferred to what used to be called INS to the control of the Department

of Homeland Security and they are removed. This has been the process in place for decades. When I was working at the Justice Department on asylum law and helping to rewrite the asylum some rules during the Clinton administration. There were only in super rare cases where people not removed. And those instances, it was some people, a very small number of people from Vietnam and Cuba, because we did not have diplomatic relations with those countries. And so could not make a transfer from the US to travel directly into Vietnam at that time or into Cuba at that time because of the lack of a formal relationship between our two countries.

And those individuals were not. then released into the public. They remained in custody and there was an actual set of issues about whether you could hold someone indefinitely because they could not be removed to their home country. So this notion that there are all these convicted criminals who are foreigners who are just randomly walking the streets is not the case. If someone may have had a drunk driving arrest and they're awaiting an immigration proceeding to determine whether they could be removed based on that arrest or conviction for drunk driving, you know, maybe that person could be subject to one of these sweeps, but even then, they're already in a legal process with DHS through the immigration

court. And what this administration has been doing has been seizing people when they show up for court. They're not fleeing. They're not people who are absconding from process. They're people who are participating in our legal process and trying to defend their rights. And so it's no surprise, as you point out, that in the face of 3,000 plus agents being flooded into Minnesota, a state which does not have a huge population of immigrants, has a very well-integrated population of Somalis who fled the Civil War there and were granted permission by the United States government to come to the United States, many of whom have adjusted their status, have become citizens, many of whom have had children here, U.S. citizen children. They work in all fields of industry,

in Minnesota at the airports, you know, pushing people's wheelchairs so they can get to their flight. They work in restaurants all over the community. And they have been targeted because of racism by this president, an attack to try to weaponize, you know, a fraud investigation that was already resolved separately in order to justify this surge, a surge that has put more ICE and CBP or whatever acronym they're using on any given day

agents into Minneapolis, then there are police. There are, I think, fewer than 800 police in Minneapolis, handling all the things that happen in Minneapolis, car accidents, you know, crimes, you know, investigations at, you know, people's houses. And there are, you know, four times, there have been four times as many ICE agents as actual police. It's overkill. It's designed to intimidate. It's designed to disrupt. It's something that no president has ever done in, you U.S. history and it has targeted Minnesota in part, I think, because it did not support Trump, it did not vote for Trump. And you can see the sort of twisted way this is proceeding because just two weeks ago, Pam Bondi sent a letter or message to Governor Wall saying that they would

withdraw the federal officers from Minnesota if he would just give over the voting files of Minnesotans that this administration has no right to. So it's extraordinary what we're we're seeing. It's extraordinary that we're seeing people being killed. Those two deaths, Alex Pretti and Renee Good, have been ruled a homicide by the coroner. We're seeing the federal government abscond with evidence. Take evidence from the scene of those potential crimes, and I think they were crimes in my opinion, and not allow state officials, whether they're the state prosecutor's office, the state equivalent of the FBI, to investigate those crimes. they, you know, not cooperating with them, but also keeping the evidence from them, hiding the names of the agents who were involved in those killings of people from other authorities,

asserting that revealing the names is somehow doxing them when, in fact, America has no place for secret police, no officer, whether they're an agent with ICE or our local police, should not have to have a name badge and a number to know who they are. In fact, we don't even know, how do they know who each other is when they don't have any actual valid insignia on the outside of their uniform saying their name other than just a, you know, a vest saying police, which could be bought, you know, in all sorts of locations in the country. It's a crime to impersonate a police officer, but I don't even know if they know who they are. And in fact, they've sent these squads in, in what almost seems like they've got some sort of quota of the number of people they're trying to arrest or seize or pump these numbers. and people are exercising their rights. Their fundamental due process rights under the Constitution, which specifically says that no one can be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

No person. And so people, whether their citizens or immigrants, have a right to seek court intervention if they are seized by the state, that is one of the most fundamental human rights in our Constitution and in our Bill of Rights. And yet this administration is acting as if it does not have to follow those rules.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. And it is just listening to you, talk about it. It reminds me of all the things that I can't believe is going on in Minnesota. There's just too many to count. And this whole thing started because of them, right? This whole thing started. There's upset and unrest in Minnesota because they brought all

those ICE agents and DHS agents there. Minnesota was doing fine before, right? This is nothing to do with, like, that's the only reason there's a problem because they're going in and lawlessly sweeping up so many people. And Renee Good should be alive today and Alex Pruddy should be alive today. And I think you're probably right. There probably is a crime that was committed against them. But I still reserve. I still think there should be an investigation because I do think that is important, but yeah, it doesn't look from what we see.

It certainly doesn't, I would say, the opposite of what Trump says, which is it's justified. It does not look justified. And so if it is justified, that's why they need an investigation, because from the naked eye, it does not. It looks like assassination. It looks like a murder. It looks like they lost their temper and, you know, they like, F you, F me, F you. Like, that's what it kind of looks like to me. And you were so spot on, Lisa, about Pam Bondi saying, oh, okay, we'll stop, you know, because like, either there's unrest or there's not, right?

Either there's a problem or there's not. Oh, but we'll stop if you give us your voting, you know, your ballots, your voter rolls and your ballots. Well, those things are unrelated. And I think she's just, they're just saying how this is a political complex that they're doing, another one. And I'm happy to see, though, that people, the American people are pushing back. and it's working. And the more we talk about it, the more we take to the streets, the more we vote with our fingers and our feet, everything we can do to stop this. We all have to do what we can do, whether it's podcast, write a book, whatever time you have, even if it's just listen to a podcast,

even if it's just subscribed to the Midas Touch network or to the Legal AF network or to the substacks, whatever it is, that is helping. And being a part of the community, putting your head in the sand and not saying, oh, politics, it's just so depressing. I'm not going to have anything to do with it, which I know some people want to do. And I get it. But it's important and it's important because we need to stick together. We need to stay informed and we need to fight like hell. And so Lisa, we have reached the end of another midweek episode of Legal AF. Again, so grateful to you for stepping in for Michael Popock, who couldn't be here. And we hope you'll come back often and your perspective is great and we really appreciate it. Is there any final

words you want to say to people before we sign off? I just want to say, Karen, it's a joy to do these with you, even though these are hard topics. I so appreciate your experience as a prosecutor in Manhattan. It really helps inform people across the country about what the legal rules are or the norms are or should be. And really, it's an honor to be part of legal AF and I just stand in solidarity with our our viewers, our listeners, because together we actually can get through this. We can make sure this does not continue to happen in our country. We can vote. We can speak and we can hold each other's hands as we get through this.

Okay, until the next episode of Legal A.F. on Saturday with Ben, Myzealous and Michael Popock. Or next Wednesday with me and Michael Popock. Say good night to everybody. to everybody. Take care. Thanks for listening.