Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF - 4/8/2026

Episode Date: April 9, 2026

The Legal AF Pod, hosted by Karen Friedman Agnifilo and guest host Lisa Graves (in for Popok) cover breaking law and politics news in the last 48 hours from the Supreme Court, DC federal courts, the White House, Congress, Iran and so much more. IQ BAR: Get 20% off all IQBAR products. Text LEGALAF to 64000. (Message and data rates may apply) SMALLS: Head to https://Smalls.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 60% off your first order PLUS free shipping! DELETE ME: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join https://joindeleteme.com/LEGALAF and use promo code LEGALAF at checkout. VERACITY: For up to 65% off your order, head to https://VeracityHealth.co and use promo code: LEGALAF We NEED your help! Legal AF and The Intersection podcasts are both FINAL 5 Finalists for the Webby Awards Best Podcasts! Voting is open for only the next 2 weeks. Show your support for our shows by voting for free for the Webby Awards, and gets friends and family to do the same! ➡️ Vote for Legal AF (Podcasts – News & Politics) https://vote.webbyawards.com/PublicVoting#/2026/podcasts/shows/news-politics ➡️ Vote for The Intersection (Best New Podcast) https://vote.webbyawards.com/PublicVoting#/2026/podcasts/features/best-new-podcast-news-business-society 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 The Ken Harbaugh Show: https://meidasnews.com/tag/the-ken-harbaugh-show 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 episode is brought to you by Tellus Online Security. Oh, tax season is the worst. You mean hack season? Sorry, what? Yeah, cybercriminals love tax forms. But I've got Tellus Online Security. It helps protect against identity theft and financial fraud so I can stress less during tax season or any season.

Plan started just $12 a month. Learn more at tellus.com slash online security. No one can prevent all cybercrime or identity theft. Conditions apply. This episode is brought to you by FedEx. These days, the Power Move isn't having a big metallic credit card to drop on the check at a corporate launch. The real Power Move is leveling up your business with FedEx intelligence and accessing one of the biggest data networks powered by one of the biggest delivery networks. Level up your business with FedEx, the new Power Move.

Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal A.F. I'm your host, Karen Friedman Agnifalo, joined by Lisa Graves, who's becoming a more and more frequent co-host. I love being on here with Lisa. It's so fun to talk to you about all sorts of things that are going on, even if the things we're talking about aren't so fun. But I love your perspective, Lisa, and your insight. And I just really enjoyed doing the show with you. So thanks again for being on. Popa can't be here this week. We have a lot to to talk about, you know, we would be remiss not to talk about the war in Iran and this somewhat of a ceasefire that's not really a ceasefire that's going on. So we can touch upon that and

just sort of update everybody on where we are with that. We'll talk about the election nights that's happening in America. There's all these elections that are happening prior to the midterms for various reasons. And it's looking more and more like there's going to be a blue tsunami. When the midterms come around, I think the Democrats are really doing extremely well, and the American people are really telling this administration what they think about this administration and making lots of gains. So that should give people a lot of hope and hopefully will really be kind of fuel, give the fuel that people need and the inspiration that people need, that hope is not lost and that we can take back our country from where we are because it really is quite bananas.

Along those lines, we should talk about what's going on with mail-in ballots because obviously Trump is trying to rig the midterms as much as possible by taking away our rights and trying to make it so that we can't have mail-in ballots. So let's just talk about that a little bit. And the Department of Justice, of course, is something that we need to touch upon and discuss because we are going to have a new Attorney General. There are people lying for the spot. Will Pam Bondi still have to testify before the House Select Committee over the Epstein files, this bipartisan subpoena that was issued?

Will she still have to testify? And who else is up for this? audition essentially for Attorney General. And who do we think is going to get it? Is it going to be Lee Zeldon? Is it going to be Harmeet Dylan? Is Todd Blanche, who's now the acting one going to do it? But lots of people are buying for the job.

And let's see who comes out at the top. It's almost like the hunger games happening right before our very eyes. And, of course, the Presidential Records Act is back in the news about Trump. and the documents that he stole from the American people and what he's trying to do now in order to not have to be held accountable for what he did before, which is always a question mark about what's going to happen with that case.

It's still, interestingly, Judge Cannon, Eileen Cannon dismissed the Mar-a-Lago documents case, but it's up on appeal. There are some interveners who intervened on appeal. And so that case is still kicking around, believe it or not. But of course, we have Trump and we have his current administration and trove of documents that he's trying to put the fix in by having his office of legal counsel issue a really an opinion, a legal opinion that is not based on the law, essentially admitting that the law is wrong and trying to rewrite history and say, oh, no, Trump can do whatever he wants with his documents. So we're going to talk about all of these things

and really what's going on at the intersection of law and politics, which is really what we talk about every single week. So good to see you, Lisa. You're traveling this week. You just gave a lecture to Duke Law School in North Carolina. So thanks for making the time to be on Legal A.F. this week. How you doing? I'm doing well. It was great.

We had a meeting of the American Constitution Society, at Duke Law School, and I had the chance to speak here along with the amazing historian Nancy McLean, who wrote the book Democracy and Chains, and we talked about the Roberts Court and the need to reform this court. And having come down here from Wisconsin, where we still snow on the ground, it's great to see the flowers down here in North Carolina in the Raleigh Dorm era. And I was going to say, it's always lovely to see you, Karen, and it's a joy to do this show with you. So thank you so much for your kind welcome. Oh, of course.

Of course. Thanks, Lisa. And of course, you were promoting your new book, right? Yeah. That's as well. So tell us a little bit about your book and people who should where they can find it and buy it. Yes, my book is called Without Precedent. And it's about John Roberts and how he and his Confederates, how he and his cohorts,

have really sought to dismantle our rights and destroy the Constitution in order to advance a pretty far-right agenda, as we've seen through the counter-constitutional immunity decision and a number of other decisions by this court. And so, yeah, the book just came out on audio, and they're doing a reprint of it. And so I'm really excited for more and more people to learn how we got here with this Roberts Court and also to understand how so many of the lower courts are actually holding the line in terms of trying to protect our rights, enforce the Constitution and Statutes, but how the Roberts Court has not. So, yeah, That's why I'm down here in North Carolina.

Thank you so much for letting me share that with everyone. Did you do the reading of the audiobook? Is it in your voice? I did the introduction, and then they had a professional voice actor. They did not use AI, so I was really glad to find that the publisher insisted on human voices. And so the audiobook is out now, and I got to read the introduction, the opening chapter. And it's like everything else. you realize that everything else people do is much harder than you may think it is. So I had a couple retakes on my audiobook, on the intro,

but it came out well. They did a really nice job. So I'm really glad to have the support of an additional reader of the book. That's great. I love audiobooks. It's a great way to multitask and drive and whatever. So let's dive right into the election night in America and really what's happening and what just happened.

And we keep seeing red states flip or red seats flip in ruby red districts or purple districts. They flip blue. Or what we also see is like in Marjorie Taylor Green's seat, although the Democrat didn't win, they made gains and strides that really were unexpected in a MAGA, a heavy deep MAGA-Trump district. And it's just really showing a lot of, of crap. in this MAGA system. And we saw this happen in Alaska, in Missouri, Wisconsin, where you're from, Oklahoma. And tell us a little bit about what you've seen and what's going on here. Well, it was a resounding victory in Wisconsin for Chris Taylor, who won a seat on the Wisconsin

Supreme Court. That makes the court now five to two in terms of liberals or progressives versus conservatives and that's a flip over the past couple of years from a court that was four to three dominated by right-wing appointees including appointees of the really controversial governor Scott Walker who led the state and and launched some of the ruin that Wisconsin has been experiencing. Chris Taylor was a judge at the lower court level before that she was a practicing attorney in Madison and she is the person one of the people who went to meetings of the American Legislative Exchange Council, Alec, which is a group that I helped expose in 2011 after a whistleblower gave me all of these bills that were secretly

voted on by corporate lobbyists along with state legislators, Republican state legislators. So Chris Taylor is someone who has experienced as a judge and also has seen with her own own eyes how the right-wing legal apparatus has moved in this country to try to rewrite our rights and the rules on a host of issues, including education and choice and the environment and more. So personally, I'm really excited that she won, but the victory was really strong, a tremendous turnout in a spring election, in a midterm year. And also, this was a case where we were watching closely to see if the big right-wing billionaires were going to weigh in, as you all may have seen a couple of years ago or over a year ago. It was $100 million spent on the Wisconsin Supreme

Court race to try to capture that court. Elon Musk was actively playing a role in the previous election, trying to, you know, create these incentives handing out these big checks for people who supposedly were eligible for his, you know, sort of a quasi-lottery that went to Republican Insiders. So there was a huge amount of money coming in from Musk and U-L-L-L-L-L-I-N. And Dick U-L-L-I-N, this guy who is a beer, who got rich on his U-L-I-N-E packaging business after the pandemic. And so we've seen a lot of big money in Wisconsin, including Coke money as well, but this year, not so much. This year, it looks like the Republican big spenders sat on the sidelines, and Taylor was able to win. In Georgia, really an also astonishing situation, even though the Republican

won the Republican to replace Marjor Taylor Green, now soon to be Representative Fuller, he wanted a district where Trump had won just overwhelmingly, along with Marjor Taylor Green, and the shift toward the Democrats was 25 points. So even though he won, he did not win by the margin of either Trump or his predecessor. And that kind of shift is extraordinary. I've been to that district in Georgia, one of my sisters-in-law used to live there, and it was really Trump country. And so to see that kind of margin, you know, politicians, when they're working with their

pollsters and they're talking about moving a race, is there a 1.3.5 point difference, The 3% plus or minus is usually the margin of error in polling. And so moving a race by five points is considered significant, six points. A 25 point shift is astonishing in a county and area that has been so staunchly Trump in the past. And it's consistent with a lot of the other special elections where Democrats have flipped seat after seat by substantial numbers, including in districts where the Republicans outnumber the Democrats by a substantial majority in, terms of voter registration. And so this is yet another sign, sort of a bellwether, of how poorly the president and his party are doing this year in the aftermath of all the extreme policies

and actions and disruptions by this president. Yeah, I mean, in Missouri, there was a big mayoral win that went Democrat. Same as school boards are also reacting in Oklahoma and in Missouri. and a lot of this is anti-book-banning, anti-LGB, anti-LGB, you know, just, I mean, anti-s sort of policies. Yeah, anti, there are policies that the MAGA people are trying to put in that are anti-LGB, anti-trans, and this book-banning stuff. And a lot of these school board flips, I think, are a reaction to that. Yeah, and yeah, go ahead.

I was going to say, it's extraordinary. And in Wisconsin, not only has, has, as it happened in that basis, but also mayoral races. So in Waukesha, which is bright red Wisconsin, it's where Scott Walker hailed from, it's where a number of the right wing operatives in the state have really focused on. A Democrat won the mayor's race in that town,

which has been ruby red and has been a real driver of Republican victories, in essence, in Wisconsin. And like you said, we're seeing it in state after state in southern states, northern states, you know, across the country, this tremendous outpouring of reaction to the extremism and this sort of extreme right shift that Trump and many of his supporters and really the funders that are behind that movement have been peddling in these states. And people, it just looks like people don't like it.

I will say personally, I don't like it, but a substantial majority, it looks like, do not like where the country is headed and the types of policies that these people have introduced. And as you mentioned, Karen, the school board races have been a real route against these right-wing operatives who've been trying to take over the school boards and push these very sort of discriminatory, hard-hearted policies that are contrary

to really decades of work to counter bullying, which is such a threat to children, the types of bullying that people can experience where bigotry is, when bigotry is allowed to thrive. Yeah, and the polling is really showing that a lot of this is really a reaction to Trump. and his approval ratings is the worst it's ever been. And CNN recently came out with a poll showing that among independence,

Trump's approval rating is worse than even Richard Nixon was after, you know, during the height of his criminality. I mean, it's just crazy how this is such a reaction to what's going on with Donald Trump. But let's talk about that a little bit, just this manufactured World War. that he has created, right? He brought us into this war and the strait of Hormuz was open. Iran was doing what they do. I mean, not a good place whatsoever and not a good regime.

And it was time for a change, but no plan was in place. And it was just this indiscriminate bombing plan that has actually made things worse. And now Trump is capitulating. to Iran and is basically agreed to a two-week ceasefire. And now, apparently, that's also in jeopardy because Israel didn't get the memo and they're bombing Lebanon. And Iran is not opening the Strait of Hormuz. And they're saying, okay, we'll open it, but then we're going to charge a toll, which is something like a million to two million dollars, a ship that goes through. So it was open before and Iran wasn't making money. They had sanctions against them, right? We had, like, we have

all these things in place to keep things at bay. And now they came up with this 10-point demand that Trump has apparently agreed to or is at least agreeing to in order to continue the negotiation and putting us in a worse position. I mean, it's a bizarre, like, who makes it worse, right? Yeah, I mean, this is Trump who, you know, has claimed to be the man who is at the helm of the art of the deal. And we've seen over and over how his deal making is actually terrible for other people. And often, even for himself, you know, he's just not actually that successful in reality. But this is a situation where, you know, if you look back at the Obama administration and its work to create to get an agreement in place with Iran in terms of limiting its capacity or

its ability to develop nuclear weapons, having inspectors come in, trump through that agreement out. That was one of the first things he did when he came in in the first term. And then, you know, we go to the situation in recent weeks where this was a war of choice. This was, there was no provocation, there was no attack on us, there was no immediate threat against the United States. This was a war of choice, which Trump even refused to call a war initially because he knew that it was not authorized by Congress and he didn't get congressional approval. But he has apparently had no real exit strategy other than just threats. And as you point out, the results of this folly, this disastrous war are that Iran actually does now control the Strait of Homoos, now does have the capacity or the ability to control traffic in, you know, through that narrow passage, which so much of the world's oil flows through, which was not the case before Trump engaged in these operations. And on top of that all, you've had, you know, not just the death of U.S. soldiers or, you know, U.S. people in our service, our military service, but also many civilians have been harmed.

And you have Trump saying out loud, threatening out loud, war crimes, the eradication of a civilization, the destruction of bridges, the, you know, targeting civilian, civilians and more. These are outrageous threats. And you also have a situation which in a single press conference, Trump can go from saying, we want. where we haven't won, but then we need someone, we need our allies help, but no, we don't need their help. And Trump has already alienated so many of America's longstanding allies through his actions before now. And so this war is a disaster for America. It's really a disaster for the world. It is going to continue to cause all sorts of volatility in oil prices and the price of goods, not just in the U.S., but abroad and on imports in the U.S.

you know, our country is already facing a really challenging economy. Most people are really struggling financially in part because under Trump, the cost of goods, the cost of things that people need have continued to rise due to his other erratic policies and destructive policies, like major tax cuts for billionaires that certainly don't trickle down that are driving our deficit. And then Trump has the audacity in the midst of this disastrous, destructive war that he initiated to come to Congress to demand doubling the budget of the Defense Department in addition to adding additional billions. And he said out loud over the Easter holiday,

he said out loud how we can't afford, and he said Medicaid, Medicare, or aid for poor kids because we need to spend it on this war. And I think the American people didn't sign up for that. I think most of the MAGA people didn't sign up for it. The independents didn't. The Democrats certainly didn't sign up for this type of scenario. in which a president is claiming he has the right to unilaterally go to war,

and that because of his unilateral choices, which were not well thought out, did not have an exit strategy, had no real accurate game plan for dealing with the Strait of Hormuz, which was always going to be a problem if this scenario played out. And instead, now he's claiming we have to sacrifice ourselves, our kids, our families, our futures, our access to these benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, support for school lunch and more, because of his folly. And I think that that doesn't just play badly. It's bad policy. And I think that he and his

party are going to are going to pay serious consequences for it. I agree. I think the reason he was popular and he was elected was a lot because of disgruntled people with the economy, right? People have to work two and three jobs. They can't afford to buy a home. People are in debt. And people are frustrated by that. And he made all these promises, no new wars, no expensive wars. I'm going to cut taxes. I'm going to make the economy better. And somehow we're spending billions upon billions of dollars a day in this unnecessary war that we didn't need to do. And we're going to come out with less money, right?

This is all our taxpayer dollars. We're going to come out now with even less money, a bigger deficit. And all of these programs that you just said are not going to be funded. and instead we are going to be now, we've weakened our relationships with our allies. We are a laughing stock around the world because we have this president who basically chickens out or his word means nothing and never follows through with these ridiculous threats. And not only are we a laughing stock, there's a lot of people who actually hate us because of this. I mean, think about the next generation of Iranians

who are gonna grow up now viewing us as these monsters that have created a scenario that is so much worse for them, too, right? I mean, it's just, I just worry about what this means 10 years from now, 15 years from now, you know, just what we're doing in the world. We are literally turning into these global pariahs, And it's kind of terrifying from that perspective. But the good news is the American people aren't having this. And they are waking up and they are reacting.

And you're seeing it because people are turning on him, MAGA is turning on him, Republicans are turning on him. Certainly Congress is not. Some members are, but in general, they've sort of given up their role as a check and balance that they need to, that they're required to do in the Constitution. But so many people are turning up. on him, but most importantly are the American people.

And that's what gives me hope is that there are so many people who are going to come out and they are going to vote in these elections. And that's why our next topic we really, I want to talk about, is what they're trying to do to suppress the votes, because this is so important that people understand this and do everything that they can to go out and vote, because we have to get this time in our history behind us, and we have to reclaim our credibility, our country, and what makes America great.

Because we are great. We've always been great. We didn't need to be made great again. And the only time we have not been great is right now because of this particular cult of personality that we have going. But first, we're going to take a really quick ad break because that's what we do to keep the lights on here. We have great sponsors that sponsor us. and we're going to listen to their products because they're great. They choose us. They know what we talk about. But also, we want people to, the more people who listen to this, the more people who share

these podcasts, the more you spread the word among your friends, your family, and others, the more the word gets out and people will understand what's going on. That's why we do this. This is why Popok has created the LegalAF YouTube channel. This is why Midas Touch exists. This is why we do so many videos, all of us, you included Lisa, on these various channels, because we're trying to get the word out so that people can stay informed because the Republican Party is obviously taking over legacy media.

That's what they're doing by having their billionaires buy the news so that they can control the news. And more independent journalists and independent people are coming out and saying, no, I'm going to use my voice and I'm going to come to. at and I'm going to talk to people and tell them what's really going on so that we can take our country back. So we're going to take a quick ad break because that's what we have to do. Well, this episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack, hydration and coffee sponsor. IQ bar protein bars, IQ Mix, IQ Mixed, and IQ Joe mushroom coffees are the delicious low sugar brain and body fuel you need to win your day. The ultimate sampler pack is the easiest way

to try it all. You get nine IQ bars. IQ mixed sticks, and four IQ Joe sticks. All IQ bar products are clean label certified and entirely free from gluten, dairy, soy, GMOs, and artificial ingredients. Their plant protein bars are the smarter snack choice packed with plenty of plant protein, tons of fiber, and no added sugar. With over 20,000 five-star reviews and counting more people than ever are fueling their busy lifestyles with IQ bars, brain and body-boasting bar. hydration mixes and mushroom coffees. That ultimate sampler pack of theirs includes all three. IQ Bar has become part of my daily routine,

starting my morning with IQ Joe or grabbing an IQ bar when I need a clean boost. And right now, IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ bar products, including the ultimate sampler pack, plus free shipping to get your 20% off text legal AF to 64,000. Text legal AF to 64,000. That's legal AF to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details. Well, I was getting ready to talk about the news and politics today,

and my cat Chanel decided she was the headline. She doesn't care about politics, but she has extremely strong opinions about her food. If this show ever runs late, it's because she refuses to let me talk about law and politics until her smalls cat food is handled first. It's 2026. Do you still feed your cat like it's 1926? This podcast is sponsored by Smalls. Smalls is protein-packed cat food made with preservative-free ingredients you'd actually recognize, delivered right to your door. And Cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food. Last time I fed my cat's small, she destroyed the bowl and followed me around like I changed her life. I even did a legit taste test, no, not that kind. Two bowlsers. side by side, and she immediately chose Smalls. Her fur is softer, her breath is better,

and she honestly handles the news better than I do. And Smalls is so confident your cat will love it. You can try it risk-free. They'll refund you if your cat won't eat it. Make 2026 your cat's healthiest year yet. For a limited time, because you are a legal AF listener, get 60% off your first order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com slash legal AF. One last time. That's 60% sent off your first order plus free shipping when you head to smalls.com slash legal a. We're back and I failed to mention and I want to mention this really exciting news that legal A.F and the intersection with Michael Popock, but legal A.F, our show is up for a Webby, which is like the Academy Awards for Podcasts or the Emmys. I don't know what would be more

what would be more analogous. And it's extremely exciting. Who knew that we were up for this? So please, yeah, vote for us. Press the button. Press on the link, because if we can get this award, how fun would that be to get this award and get the recognition? And, you know, again, like on Wednesdays,

when we do legal AF, there are times when it's hard because we're not, I'm not a full-time journalist. I'm not even a journalist. I'm a practicing lawyer, right? And I have a full-time caseload. And it's hard to keep up with this information. It's hard to really read all these briefs and read these decisions and do the work

so that we can bring the truth to people. And there are times on Wednesdays when I'm thinking, oh, can I really do this today? I don't have the energy or I don't have the time. But we do it and we do it every week. And I know this is what motivates Popak and you, Lisa, and all the people who contribute to Midas and legal AF, it's because we really are trying so hard to get the word out of what the truth is and really get people armed with information so that they can make their own decisions and understand what's happening

and how important it is to vote and how important it is to have those hard conversations with your relatives and family members that you don't want to have, some who just who are full on MAGA, like we all know people, or some who just put their head in the sand because it's too depressing and they don't want to know. It's still really important to have those conversations because this is like no time in American history. This is, I guess it's fitting, it's our 250th anniversary that we are really, for the first time in our history, facing, I guess not the first time slavery and the Civil War was, I guess, you know, a kind of really important time, too. But this is the first time in recent history, I guess, is a better way of putting it.

And certainly in my lifetime, where I felt that our democracy is on the line. And really just what it means to be an American is on the line and what it means to be a kind person and to be a caring person and a human being who doesn't try to make fun of or stomp on those who are either weak or disabled or, you know, marginalized or, you know, just if you're not like a manosphere, you know, alpha male. And I think that's what's always beautiful about Americans and about this country is we are a melting pot and we accept

and really try to lift up all people. And that's what's a, I think, I think, stake here. That's what's on the line here in these upcoming elections because it's really our identity and who we are going forward, not just internally, but also to the rest of the world. And this war, as terrible as it is, I think, in some ways, is showing the American people in living color just how bad things are. And so let's just talk about the elections because I do think that's really the key, or these midterm elections, because we have to take back Congress. We have to make Congress a functioning body again that will serve as a check against our

presidency and against the courts, because that's really what our country was founded on, was checks and balances and co-equal branches of government. And actually, Article 1 of the Constitution is Congress because they didn't want to make, the founders didn't want to make it the president, right? He's Article 2, and then the judges are Article 3. And that's because to send a message, right, that the president isn't the most powerful and Congress is very powerful and makes the laws. And the president's job is to execute those laws, and the court's job is to interpret those laws, right? And that's what the roles, the basic roles of our three branches of government are.

So what was Trump doing last week, signing an executive order, essentially creating a suppression contraption between the American people and the ballot box, right? That's what he has essentially did. He basically said that I'm going to put all these agencies, Department of Homeland Security, Social Security, the Post Office, right? The U.S. Postal Service. They're going to create this voting database machine thing that essentially will take away from the states the ability to set the time, place, manner, and how elections are going to be run, who can do it, who can do mail-in votes, et cetera. And, you know, Article 1 of the Constitution actually says that the states control the time, place. and manner of elections. It's in the Constitution, not the president.

And so him doing an executive order. And, you know, it's taking away, it's violating the First Amendment, it's violating Article 1. It's violating the 10th Amendment, which is state's rights. And it's also violating congressional law that talks about this. So why don't you talk a little bit about where we are this executive order and what's going on with this voter suppression, this latest voter suppression issue,

because we know Trump has been trying to do this through the Save America Act and other ways, but let's talk a little bit about this executive order and then what's happening in response. Well, I just want to begin by thanking you for what you said about our democracy and the perils we face. And really, democracy is a method for us securing our freedoms.

And one of the most important ways we secure our freedoms is through the right to vote. The right to vote is sort of the gateway, the gateway right that helps enable all the other rights, helps us secure the other rights. And so to see a president, any president, asserting that he himself has the power to set the rules for our elections is unfathomably dangerous. It's unconstitutional. It's contrary to the express language of the Constitution, as you mentioned, which expressly says that states are the ones that set the time, place, a manner of elections,

and Trump is trying to usurp that power. As he's tried to usurp power in other ways, he doesn't have any authorization in the Constitution in Article 2 to play this role. He doesn't have any power delegated to him to do so to direct these agencies to intervene in our elections. And he doesn't have the sort of the congressional consent. In fact, he's losing. He's a big loser in this area, too, where, in fact, Congress has failed to pass his really intrusive and outlandish SAVEE Act, which I refuse to call the SAVE Act, because it's really

not about saving anything other than trying to save him from any accountability from Congress by trying to rig the rules against us to make it harder for people to vote. And in particular, harder to make it harder for millions, tens of people. millions of American women to vote who change their name. People who do not have a passport, for example, who may have a hard time getting the documents to show that they are a U.S. citizen. When in fact, in America, analysis after analysis, blue ribbon panel after blue ribbon panel, audit after audit has shown there is not a problem in America with immigrants voting as citizens in elections. This is not a problem. It's fake. It is something that has been invented as a boogeyman.

to try to push people into these voter restrictions. The fact is that if someone who's not a citizen votes, they could face criminal consequences or deportation, it's not a thing. Every single person who's studied these issues knows it's not a thing, and that has not stopped Trump's loyalists in Congress from trying to push this terrible bill, the SAVE Act, forward.

And in the face of the fact that they do not have the votes as yet to pass it, Trump has tried to go around Congress, which he's done numerous times in the past year or so. He's trying to go around Congress to get what he wants anyway by declaring it through an executive order. Now, executive orders, these EOs, are, I think in some ways, they're not worth the paper they're written on. They're like as if someone wrote on a paper napkin.

Just because he declares it as an executive order doesn't actually make it binding law, which is why American Oversight and a group of historians have challenged in a separate action. we'll talk about later, you know, another declaration of his or another declaration of his department about power. And numerous of his executive orders have been challenged by other litigants, other advocacy and rights groups because just because he signs an order doesn't make it law. He's asserting a power. And in this instance, on the voting rights, it could not be more disruptive than what he's proposing,

which you described, Karen, you know, quite accurately, of course, in terms of trying to direct all these federal agencies to take over voting, take over checking who's on the voting rules, try to declare that certain people can't vote, put new restrictions on the envelopes and the type of mailers that can be used for mail-in voting. And this comes at a time when Lewis DeJoy, who is his postmaster general, has already massively disrupted the functioning of our mail. Almost every American who's watching knows it takes longer for your mail to get there now under Trump's Postmaster General. to Joy. That's because he's been consolidating the mail sorting processes into a couple regional areas, basically so he can later try to privatize them. So he or his successor can privatize our

mail. So they've been moving the mail away from the local post offices in terms of routing and even postmarking. And so these are efforts that are, you know, in other ways designed to disrupt the mail and vote. Millions of Americans vote by mail. Millions of Californians voted by mail in the last election in Oregon, I think almost everyone votes by mail. In many states, voting by mail has become a regular part of the process because it's been a safe and secure way to vote. Again, there's no evidence of any fraud or any election-changing problems whatsoever, but Trump is trying to invent problems. And I, you know, just would not trust any sort of like 1-800 big brother to have this Trump administration dictating from, you know, Washington, D.C., whether you, you know,

get to vote or not, rather than have your states make those decisions, which they've always made throughout our entire history. So this is another voter suppression effort by Trump. It shows the level of desperation he's experiencing in his fear of any accountability from Congress, from having a House of Representatives that is not supine and willing to do whatever he says, like Mike Johnson, and his fellow loyalists with only a few exceptions around the Epstein files. The fact is, is that Trump and the Republican Party are looking exceedingly weak, as we've discussed earlier today, in terms of their electoral prospects for this fall. And so this is another sort of, it's kind of a hail-marry pass by Trump to assert a power he doesn't have to dictate the terms of who can

vote in America. That is extraordinarily dangerous. No president, no one president should have that power. One of the ways our voting system has been secure is because it, is the powers to count the vote, the power to register voters, make sure people are registered and the like. These are powers that are dispersed. They're not concentrated in one person or a band of loyalists. So I hope when this case gets fully heard by a federal court, it gets struck down, this assertion of executive power by the president because he doesn't have it. In fact, expressly, the other parts of our federal system, the states have that power, not Donald Trump. Yeah, so several groups have already gone into court,

into various different courts, to challenge this executive order. And P.S., just Donald Trump voted by mail, like two weeks ago. So the irony of that, you know, I'm trying to ban voting by mail, but let me drop it in the mailbox, you know. Just such a hypocrite. But anyway, but several groups have rushed into court as soon as this executive order dropped, which thank God for them. Yeah, Montelaius, I think, is one of the groups and the other group. Yeah, groups have come in to say,

this is not, this is counter-constitutional, this is an unconstitutional order. Exactly. There's, there's one, there's, I think two in Massachusetts, one by the ACLU and the League of Women Voters. Also, I think the 21 attorneys general also filed in Massachusetts. And in D.C., the NDACP filed a suit as well that at first we thought was going to go to Judge Kohler-Kateli, but as a related case, but it, uh, he, this, this, now it's looking like it's just going to go, uh, right, and be random. But, you know, there's, there's three separate cases and at least three separate cases. And we'll see where these go. I think they're going to try to get an injunction against this executive order. And, and, you know, let's, let's see where this lands.

We've also got the case in the Supreme Court that was just heard oral arguments last week. Why don't you talk a little bit about that and just catch everybody up on that case. Yeah, so this is the birthright citizenship case where Donald Trump, again, through executive order, has asserted that he has the power to determine who is a U.S. citizen and who is not, even though the 14th Amendment of our Constitution, in its very first sentence, says that people born in the United States are citizens of the United States or naturalized. And so it could not be clear.

And it's been interpreted that way by courts going back, you know, more than, than 100 years of consistent precedent about how that clause means that in the United States, we have citizenship based on birth, based on territory. This is based on longstanding U.S. law and common law and the law that the U.S. inherited, in essence, from England, which also had this condition of if you're born in that country, you are a citizen. Other countries have not followed that practice. Some other countries have had citizenship based on blood or their ethnicity or race, but the United States has not had that practice ever since it became the United States of America.

And so just last week, the Trump administration was arguing before the Supreme Court that the Supreme Court should uphold Donald Trump's order, basically asserting that a statute allows them to declare that people who are born in the United States are not citizens if they deemed them not to be so based on their parents being here on a visa, a temporary visa, for example. And so that's not the way the law has been written or read in the entirety of this, you know, basically our country. Solicitor General Sauer, that's John Sauer, who Donald Trump chose to make this argument, who was also the person who made the arguments on Trump's immunity claims before the Roberts Court two years ago.

John Sauer made a whole bunch of really slippery arguments claiming, you had to be domiciled here, et cetera, like inventing basically new claims about the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It looked like the Supreme Court justices were mostly skeptical other than Sam Alito, who seems to always be a tool for Trump no matter what. But I would say the skepticism is, I don't want to give them too much. credit for skepticism because in reality, this should be a 9-0 slam-dunk case against Donald Trump. But what the court has done, the Roberts Court has done, has intervened.

They took the case away from letting an intermediate appellate court to issue a ruling, took the case right out of the district court's hands, had issued orders last year, emergency orders, barring these district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions against the enforcement of this executive order. So, you know, it has to be litigated sort of individually or on a class basis in district after district across the country or circuit after circuit. So the court has already behaved, in my view, badly in ways that are disruptive of having a coherent interpretation of the law and an interpretation that is fully consistent with the language of the Constitution and the precedents. So I hope that the Roberts Court rejects this absurd claim of Donald Trump backed by, you know, Steve. and also backed by other lawyers who were at the center of Donald Trump's efforts to overturn,

overturn the 2020 election. You know, one of the big advocates, you know, for him is the guy who was the architect of the effort to overturn the 2020 election illegitimately, who's been, you know, subject to criticism by the bar in California and more. I'm not going to go into too much detail about that, but the fact is that this was terrible advice, in my view. It's a terrible claim of an assertion of power by Trump. It's the arguments by Sauer, I thought, were really quite appalling. But Donald Trump showed up to hear them. Left before hearing the arguments of Cecilia Wang from the ACLU,

didn't want to hear the opposition. You know, instead had to go back to the White House for an Easter celebration in which he asserted that we didn't have the money to pay for Medicare or Medicaid. That was his priority to go make that speech. But the fact is, is that if this court rules in Trump's favor, I think there will be no coming back from basically how destructive this court has been. I think this court has been deeply destructive, obviously, in the immunity ruling and the emergency rulings on the shadow docket last year. But this is a case that, but for the level of deference to Donald Trump, the unjustified deference to Donald Trump shown by the Robert 6, this would be a 9-0 decision of summarily affirming the level. lower court rulings and restraining orders against Donald Trump.

Not to mention all the people who think they're citizens, who think they're going to vote. And all of a sudden, now they're no longer U.S. citizens. You know, like, it's just, it would be such a ridiculously disruptive in the worst possible way decision if they rule in Trump's favor. And, you know, just sticking with the elections for just a second, there's also the Mississippi case, right, that was just heard about in the Supreme. court about mail-in ballots as well. Yes. Yes. So maybe that was when you're asking me about Karen.

I'll hop over to that. But let me just say, so the order, you know, one of the things Sauer said just briefly on that order, the executive order, was that this is only, this would only apply prospectively. But the reality is that if Trump were to win this case, they would certainly apply it retroactively. They would go back and try to block people from voting. And one of the people that they, that one of Trump's close allies has targeted is Kamala Harris, because she was born to two students who were here in the United States. And so, you know, part of their vision is this prospective vision, but in reality, what they really want to do is strip people of their citizenship.

People have been born here who are clearly United States citizens under the Constitution. But the case you were probably asking me about was... It's all related. It's all related. It really is all related, is the case involving mail-in voting. And this is where the Republican Party in a state has sought to get the United States Supreme Court to block the counting of votes, votes that are mailed before election day or on election day. So they're postmarked correctly. But because of no fault of the voter, they arrive the day after the election or two days after election. And typically those are counted because they were postmarked

before the election and because in general, the states before now have had a philosophy of trying to make sure people's votes count. If you have an intent to vote, to try to have your votes count. And the fact is that in the two or three days after the election, you know, usually on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, there's curing a vote. So sometimes people will vote provisionally if they didn't have their ID and have to come back and show their ID so their vote can count. Military votes are occur by mail. So many military members, you know, are working abroad, serving abroad. And so those votes come in. They don't always come in before the election. They can sometimes come in the next day and those are counted. This is an effort to basically say that states would be barred across the country from counting ballots that are postmarked before, you know, in time for the election, but just arrive a day or too late. And it's possible that if this Roberts court says that the federal government through a statute can set election day and by setting election day have the effect of barring the counting of votes cast by election day, but that arrive afterward,

that ruling could be the basis for saying you can't have early voting either, that everyone has to vote in person on election day, that there could be no early voting. But the fact is, and this really, I think people really need to understand this, mailing voting, the mail of voting has been going on since the Civil War under President Lincoln. And that was in order to enable soldiers in the Civil War to cast their votes in the 18th. 64 election. This is a long-standing practice. It's been going on for 150-plus years. And now suddenly, just because Donald Trump is president and has this irrational hostility toward mail-in voting,

except for himself, now we're contending with actual Supreme Court cases considering whether we, the people, have the right to cast our votes by mail, which has been done, as I said, for more than a century and have those votes be counted just because the Republican Party aligned with Trump is doing everything it can to make it harder for the American people to cast their votes. Not to mention, yeah, and not to mention the fact that Trump, with this executive order, is trying to make the post office in charge, he could just have them slow roll it. Yeah. Right?

Or they could slow roll it wink and nod at his desire. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah, it's, it's, it's, I think he's going to lose birthright citizenship, and I think he's going to lose this one, too. That's, that's my prediction because I think these are. I'm going to hope so, but you're right, you know, this question, you know, it's certainly, we've never seen this happen. I don't think in the history of the United States, but it certainly could be the case that there could be political operatives who are, you know, aligned with, aligned with a party who in districts where people are voting by mail and they happen to be predominantly Democratic districts. you know, drive those vote, drive those ballots in slowly or, you know, take a little bit longer

time so they arrive after election day. There's so much manipulation that could occur if the court rules in favor of Trump. It would be, it would really be another blow to the integrity of the American electoral system. Yeah, not to mention the fact that J.D. Vance is out in Hungary, stopping for Victor Orban, you know, like, now that's, that's the model of democracy. I mean, it's just unbelievable to me, the values of MAGA and this party. Okay, so that's where we are with voting. And if you only hear one thing that we're saying in this whole segment, it's you have to vote. Make sure you vote, get everyone you know to vote and make your vote count because voting is

going to be the single most important thing. And while you're at it, vote for legal AF and the intersection at the Webby's. while you're voting and help us get to the number one spot. So I want to talk about what's going on with the Department of Justice right now, and Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche and really sort of what's unfolding now that Pam Bondi is fired. will she have to testify before Congress? Who are all the people who are vying for the Attorney General job? And this Cassidy Hutchinson investigation from the Department of Justice

I found to be really alarming what's happening to her. If you remember Cassidy Hutchinson, she was in Trump won. In Trump's first term, she was just out of college, kind of low-level staffer for Mark Meadows, the chief of staff. And she was at the White House, or she was there that day with Mark Meadows on January 6th. And she was somebody who was very involved in kind of the conversations that Meadows was having with Trump about the riots and the Capitol, and she was a fly on the wall, and someone who was urging Meadows to stop this from happening, she also ended up testifying before Congress about, about the Jan 6th Committee about that day,

and about what she heard and saw and what somebody told her, including that Trump's driver, his Secret Service driver and the beast that Trump was trying to. to take, grab the steering wheel, that this driver told her, she didn't see this, but told her that Trump was trying to grab the steering wheel to go towards the Capitol. And they were saying, no, it's not safe. And then he went to go grab him around the neck. And it was just this heated exchange.

And she also testified, sorry, and so that's where she testified was there. She's also spoken. out against Trump in this last election. She said she was not going to vote for Trump, that she was, even though she's still a Republican, that she's going to, she was going to vote for Kamala Harris. And she also wrote a book.

And so all of this, I think, got under Trump's skin. And she's on his list of people he's not a fan of, one of his enemies' lists. And I think one of Trump's, one of the people, Harmeet Dillon, who's the chief of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, who rumor has it is also vying for this Attorney General job, is now investigating Cassidy Hutchinson and whether or not she lied to Congress. So I want to talk about all things DOJ, including Cassidy Hutchinson, investigation. When we come back, we're going to take our next quick break. We'll come back. We're going to talk about that.

And we will wrap it up as well by also talking about the Presidential Records Act and all things involving the Presidential Records Act, et cetera. Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. Look, as someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me. There's just too much personal information floating around online, and I don't have time to track it all down myself. Delete me. Does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites. Delete me isn't just a one-time service. Delete me

is always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the internet. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners, get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join DeleteMe.com slash LegalAF and use promo code LegalAF at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to join deleteme.com slash legal AF and enter code LegalAF at checkout. One more time, join deleteme.com slash legal a.f code legal a. I used to think about food constantly. Craving, skill, repeat.

It was exhausting. And I just wanted something that actually works without making me feel like I'm doing a science experiment on myself. This podcast is sponsored by Veracity. Welcome to an all natural way to slim down, get energized and sharpen your focus. Veracity is revolutionizing health by tackling the root cause of so many issues. metabolism if your goal is weight loss you need to try metabolism ignite the number one doctor recommended g lp1 booster and glp1 alternative it sold out 10 times for a reason no side effects no allergens metabolism ignite is a natural safe plant-based aid that results in an 85% reduction in

hunger and it's clinically proven to lose on average nine pounds in 90 days i started metabolism ignite recently just two capsules with breakfast and i feel more in control of my hunger throughout the day. Veracity founder and CEO Ali Egan is a certified hormonal health coach and her personal experience with metabolic issues inspired her to develop holistic solutions for achieving optimal health. It's made with lemon verbena and hibiscus extracts, green coffee bean extract, and magnesium. And even if you're on GLP1 medications, ferocity is safe to take along with them to boost metabolism and appetite control. Since it's made from 100% natural, ingredients and as caffeine-free, clinical trials show no negative side effects.

I love that it's scientifically legit and so easy, just two capsules every morning. So before metabolism ignite sells out again, make the switch to GLP-1's the natural way. Head to veracityhealth.c-o and use code legal AF for up to 65% off your order. Once again, that's V-E-R-A-C-I-E-E-Halth.co for 65% off and make sure you use my promo code, legal A-F so they know I sent you. All right, we're back. Let's talk about the Department of Justice first before we talk about the Presidential Records Act and this Cassidy Hutchinson investigation.

Where do you want to start? You want to start with Pam Bondi gets fired, Todd Blanche is the acting, and who are the people in line for Attorney General? Well, yeah, let's start with Bondi being fired because that happened quickly. I think she should have been fired a long time ago, but not for the reasons that Trump has articulated or that his adherents have suggested. The fact is that she is someone who has, in my view,

abused the office of the Attorney General in order to advance Donald Trump's personal partisan political agenda, his desire for vengeance against anyone who crosses him. And this is precisely why they're going after Cassidy Hutchison, who I thought testified, compellingly before Congress. She was very clear about what she saw versus what she heard, the hearsay part of what she testified to.

The fact that some others testified to the contrary doesn't mean that she committed perjury at all. In fact, there was incredible pressure, I'm sure, on people close to Trump to not testify, to not affirm what she said she heard and what she saw. And to have the civil rights division of the Justice Department involved in trying to prosecute her,

is really extraordinary. It's just another abuse of power to have the Civil Rights Division deployed that way. The Civil Rights Division is a division that its predominant responsibility over the years has been to protect voting rights, to protect the right of people to vote. In fact, that's not what this Justice Department is doing.

That's not what the Civil Rights Division is doing. Instead, by the way, the Civil Rights Division was advertising for getting lawyers to defend gun rights versus voting rights. That was its sort of new priority. But this could be a nice, another case where we see a political person, a partisan person, someone who's another Trump defense attorney or former attorney, basically auditioning for the job by showing that they are going to pursue his enemies. And so that's, you know, that's personally my opinion about what Harmeet Dillon is doing.

But you just don't have a good cast of characters at the Department of Justice at all. You have, you now have an acting attorney general Todd Blanche who was Donald Trump's criminal defense attorney, who has basically acted like he's Donald Trump's criminal defense attorney. as Deputy Attorney General of the United States when he, in essence, seemingly cut the deal to move Galane Maxwell from the prison that she was rightfully incarcerated in for her very serious crimes, her sexual predation, and her work to procure young girls for Jeffrey Epstein and got her that sweet deal.

Blanche basically immediately after he interviewed her and she claimed that Donald Trump was always a gentleman, she was moved to one of these club-fed men security facilities where she has all sorts of perks and privileges. And so, you know, the Department of Justice is ailing. It is really strayed from its mission. I was Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department in the Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Policy Development.

I worked with the Attorney General with Janet Reno and then with Mr. Ashcroft. I was proud to come into the Justice Department. On the Pennsylvania Avenue side of the DOJ, carved in the building is the saying that the place of is a hallowed place. I always felt like we were trying our best to set aside any partisan or, you know, anyone's religious beliefs or, you know, particular views in order to serve the American people. But now you have a Justice Department that is just serving Donald Trump, serving his personal agenda. And that is in no small part because John Roberts gave Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution.

And in that immunity decision, that despicable, terrible decision that John Roberts orchestrated, and wrote in the summer of 2024, he tries to articulate in that opinion. He claims and asserts that, of course, a president can direct the Justice Department, direct its prosecutions. And that's because Donald Trump was being charged in part with trying to use the Justice Department to advance his own personal political agenda, his effort to stay in office despite losing the 2020 election. And so John Roberts planted language in that immunity decision saying that presidents can direct DOJ. Well, there has been longstanding rules for DOJ agreements

between the White House Counsel's Office and the Attorney General and other parties that's about who can be involved in making decisions about prosecutions. And the president is not supposed to be doing that. That's not the role of a president, even before Nixon, to basically decide who gets prosecuted and who doesn't.

That's the job of the Attorney General, not for political interference, even though the president is the leader of the executive branch, this, you know, the rules of the executive branch with the... Right, he could set priorities. He could, you know, he could say, I want you to focus on civil rights or I want you to focus... Exactly.

Whatever it is, they can set the agenda, but they're really not supposed to go after individual people for, you know, retribution, which is what he's doing. And, you know, that's one of the things that... There's been a lot of speculation about why Bondi was fired, right? Some people think it's because her handling of the Epstein files. Other people think it's because she was unable to, as the head of DOJ, she was unable to secure these indictments against many of his enemies, like Letitia James, like James Comey, and like the 12 members of Congress

who bravely stood up and made that video saying that the military, members of the military, do not have to follow, lawful orders. In fact, it's their duty not to. But it's interesting because Todd Blanche said, nobody knows why she was fired except Donald Trump, right? God forbid, the American people should be given information. And so no one really knows why, but she couldn't have been more loyal to him. And it's hard to see how any of these other candidates, Todd Blanche, included, are going to be able to execute his agenda any better than she was. I mean, it's the grand juries and the judges are the ones who are rejecting these prosecutions

more than, you know, more than anything. And so it's just unclear how they're going to be able to please him and, you know, stay in this job, but for some reason they actually want it. And, you know, this Cassidy Hutchinson's one is a perfect example. I mean, why now, right? Why are they going after Cassidy Hutchinson now? She was a low-level person who testified before Congress. And, I mean, as you said, she was very clear about what she saw and then what others told her. She certainly, you know, I feel sorry for her.

You know, I just don't understand why they're going after her. and why they think that they can go after her. I mean, they have until June of 27 before the statute of limitations runs. This is a five-year statute, and she testified in June of 2022. But, you know, she, it's just that one seemed kind of weird to me. Well, that's why I think it might be an addition,

like basically trying to say, look, I can go after her, you should name me attorney general. That could be, you know, that's speculation, that could be part of what's going on, could be other factors as well. And I do wonder whether Donald Trump fired Pam Bondi in order to try to prevent her from testifying before the House because she was subject to a subpoena that was signed by the Republican chair of the committee that was agreed to by the Democratic ranking member of the committee. It was issued to her as Pam Bondi, attorneys general in the United States. And perhaps they think that because she's no longer Attorney General, they will get away with not having her testify.

It's unclear whether Republicans will go along with her testifying, even though she's no longer Attorney General. She has relevant information. Her relevant information has not ceased just because she's no longer Attorney General, but she has said that she won't appear. And in fact, meanwhile, the Democratic Ranking Member has said that they're going to try to pursue her to appear. So we don't know where that's going to go,

but I wonder whether that was also a factor in trying to prevent her from being grilled by Congress, even though she's demonstrated that she's willing to not answer questions and use the Justice Department as an attack machine to try to attack any member who asked her a difficult question. And as you point out, she has served Donald Trump with extraordinary loyalty, even in ways that were very disrespectful to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, people who were in Congress when she was testifying and she refused to apologize to them. And so I hope that she is called to testify. I hope she does testify about what she knew, when she knew it, and more. But the fact is, is that we now have the person at the helm of the Justice Department, Todd Blanche,

who had the audacity to claim just a few months ago, that notwithstanding the fact that there were many, many, many more files that had not been disclosed despite the Epstein, the Transparency Act that Congress passed, he stood before the American people and claimed this was it. There were going to be no more documents. And by the way, he had made sure to remove any documents showing or documenting people being killed or assault it. Now, of course, there was a rightful effort to redact images of torture or abuse or to protect the names of the innocent of the survivors or victims of Jeffrey Epstein and some of the male predators that he was with in some of these incidents that are documented in these files, but Blanche literally said, we've removed any evidence, basically any evidence of

killing. And so no one has been prosecuted other than Epstein and Maxwell for any of the crimes that may be revealed, in fact, may be shown in those Epstein files, including files that they have not released. What was the killing that's in the episode? Yeah, what is the killing? That's exactly right. His statement, when you look at that January press conference, he expressly talks about removing any images of death. So bizarre, because these allegations are sex trafficking and rape and child sex trafficking. Yeah. So, yeah, that's so bizarre.

And the fact that, let's just talk about this subpoena to Pam Bondi. So if you recall, when Trump ran on the promise that we're going to release the Epstein files and demanded it, right? And everyone was demanding it and release the files. And in the beginning was like, yes, we're going to release the files. Pam Bondi famously said, there's a list. It's sitting on my desk for review. I'm going to release it. And then they slow walked it and they refused to do it.

And they didn't release it. And then suddenly Trump's saying, things. like, why is everyone still talking about Epstein? You know, the guy's dead. And everyone's saying, because you've made a promise, you're supposed to release these files, you didn't do it. And so Congress had to take matters into their own hands, and they passed a law, a bipartisan law that were actually Republicans crossed over.

And it was the Epstein Victims Transparency Act. And they gave a deadline by which these files had to be, released. Of course, they blow through the deadline and they released victims' names, even though the victims and their lawyers provided the list of names that needed to be redacted. So all they had to do is run it through their database and it would show up any place it was there and it would redact that out. And same thing with pictures, et cetera. And so they bungled the release of the documents. They re-traumatized many of the survivors by releasing their names, their photos, et cetera. And they haven't met with any of the survivors.

They, according to them, according to the survivors, they haven't made any arrests or done any meaningful investigation that anyone knows about. And Congress is frustrated, rightly so. And when, and so they issued a subpoena to Pam Bondi to testify April 14th before Congress. And it said Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General of the United States. It didn't say to the Attorney General. It said to her, comma, attorney general. And I say that because the Department of Justice is taking the position that she doesn't have to testify because she's no longer attorney general that this was a subpoena to the,

Attorney General and since she's not there anymore, it's not true that she doesn't need to, she doesn't need to comply. But Nancy Mace has even said, no, no, no. She was subpoenaed by name, not title, and we're demanding that she appear because this is an oversight committee about this law, about this Epstein Victims Transparency Act. And we are conducting oversight over that. And why did she, it was her job, but why did she stonewall Congress and refuse, to follow the law. And Nancy May said she either shows up or she's going to face contempt. So it's those are fighting words. So I don't think this fight to get Pam Bondi to testify is going to go away. And P.S. Where is the DOJ coming up with this whole, oh, well, because she's not AG anymore,

she doesn't have to testify. Gee, I'm sorry, why did Hillary Clinton have to testify? She's no longer, you know, Secretary of State or, you know, whatever. Like, like, you don't, a lot of people have to testify who are former's. Yeah. That's, you know, who are nevers, right? Right. That's the way it goes. And the other part of that that is really, you know, is also, I think, extraordinary in

terms of the way this administration has approached this is that you have, you clearly have Pambandi, there's reporting, basically, that Pambandi was all gung-ho about getting the out until she looked at the files and realized that Trump was in those files, his name was repeatedly mentioned. And then she told Trump, this is what the reporting shows. She told Trump that he was in the files repeatedly. And then suddenly it was like, oh, why are we talking about these files anymore? So she has a lot to answer for, both the statement that she had, you know, she had these lists, the lists of who were the main predators, in essence, on her desk, that she was going to release them. The fact that she, you know, according to the reporting was telling Trump, oh, wait,

wait, wait, you're in them. You're in the files, even though I guess they thought perhaps that he was not. There's actually a Wall Street Journal article on the reporting side, not the editorial page side, but on the reporting side that documented in the previous release, the release from the estate, how many times Trump was mentioned. And then I think they did a follow-up of how many times he was mentioned in the known files. And then you had Jamie Raskin, representative Raskin from Maryland who reviewed some of the files that have not been released and said that Trump was in there even more than he's in the files that were released. And so this looks like a cover-up, quacks like a cover-up, you know, walks like a cover-up. It's a cover-up. And Congress has the right

to know what happened here. And Bondi has evidence, you know, that she has observed that needs to be brought to bear. People, or she can try to take the fifth, I suppose. That's certainly her right to do so, but the American people have a right to know what happened here and why still to this day, the Justice Department under Pam Bondi for all these months has done nothing to prosecute anyone who has been implicated in these files for crimes involving sex trafficking or sexual predation or the like. And the only thing this Justice Department has done seemingly is give Maxwell like a slap on the wrist, basically by giving her a cushy place to serve her sentence until or unless Donald Trump pardons her, you know, in an immoral act.

But like, there is a lot for Congress to investigate. And it's not just Congress. It's we the people have a right to know. We absolutely do. And speaking of Jamie Raskin going through the files, one of the things that Pam Bondi inadvertently or accidentally released was an internal memo that was written by Jack Smith, about the Mara Lago case, basically saying that there was a clear business motive

for Donald Trump to keep the classified documents, including the one that was so super top secret, it could only be seen by six people and waved it around on a plane. And that was something we had never seen before, right? Because we always wondered, why was he keeping it? And they were saying there's a business motive for him. And that has created, you know,

it's no small coincidence that Donald Trump had the Office of Legal Counsel, which is the office within the White House that basically advises the president on the law, wrote a 50-some-odd-page memo, basically answering a question that I didn't even realize was a question because it seems so antithetical to what the actual law is, that says essentially, as president, these are private records. You can, when you're president, when you can leave, you can do with them what you want. You can destroy them. You can not turn them over to the National Archives because the Presidential Records Act is a law that came in the wake of Nixon.

When Nixon didn't want to turn over his secret tapes, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act that essentially says the National Archives is in charge of the records, any records, any documents, anything that was from a presidency, right, that belongs to the people. And so, that's the law. That's clearly the law. And that's what everyone's thought was the law, including there's a Supreme Court case that also said, that's the law. And what did OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel, do? Prepared this detailed legal men. memo, essentially saying that that Supreme Court case is wrong, that that Supreme Court case is actually Nixon versus the GSA, the General Services Administration, and where Nixon made the same argument,

basically, they're my papers and they're personal, and the Supreme Court rejected that argument. So OLC coming out and saying, oh, no, that's wrong. The law is wrong. The Supreme Court got it wrong. and it's a violation of separation of powers for Congress to try to legislate over the executive branch and their papers. And they also, the Supreme Court also rejected that executive privilege applies. So, you know, it's really not the law.

It's clearly not the law. And out of the blue, this memo comes out now when Jamie Raskin happens to expose the Mar-a-Lago thing, I think it's a bit of a coincidence. But, yeah, so I don't know, what are your thoughts on that?

Well, I really like how you described it. That history is spot on, and the fact is that these sorts of claims have already been rejected by the United States Supreme Court. Those papers aren't the private papers of anyone. They are the papers of the American people. They are the papers of our government.

It's not a private affair. The White House is not private in that way. And the National Archives has a long history of maintaining those records, maintaining the records of the public records that the public has a right to see. And so, you know, this assertion, let me just say about OLC. So the Office of Legal Counsel advises the president, but advises the Attorney General and is within the Justice Department. And when I was in the Office of Policy Development, the Office of Legal Policy, we used to have buttons that said that basically were countering OLC, and they said, just because it's constitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea.

And that was our way of joking about the fact that OLC, its job, it sees its job as maximizing executive branch power. It is not a neutral entity. It has been led by people like William Rinkwist, who was one of the most regressive, repressive justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. OLC is the entity that John U. worked for in the George W. Bush administration when he wrote the memos justifying torture,

trying to get around the requirement, the legal requirement that America comply with the Geneva Conventions. OLC's reputation has been tarnished by the actions of this administration and previous administrations in terms of its willingness to basically be subservient to a president to try to, in my view, illegitimately maximize presidential power,

contrary to the will of Congress, contrary to the Constitution, contrary to good public policy for the American people and for our world and our place in the world, as with the Geneva Convention's issue, where in that case, a subsequent LLC had to pull back on some of those memos that were written by John Yoo. So this is another example of how the Justice Department has been perverted into being not just an executive,

a servant of the executive branch, but a servant of this president, to assert things that are so contrary to longstanding law, statutory law that's been long accepted, Supreme Court precedent, but to do so in service of Trump. And as you point out, part of this is based on the fact that the Mar-a-Lago case was about Donald Trump evading the requirements of law for the archiving of materials, the fact that he did not have a right to retain these very sensitive documents, the fact that there's now information, from those Epstein files, suggesting that Donald Trump was doing so in order to use some of those papers for his own personal self-interest, his own financial benefit, which is horrifying and likely illegal. And you also had Donald Trump storing those files in a toilet, in a bathroom at Mara Lago that was accessible by an unknown number of people. this is another case in which the Justice Department has been basically misused to try to protect Donald Trump from the consequences of his past actions, and who knows what they're trying to protect him from in terms of his current or future actions.

Well, we certainly know he's using the entire presidency to further his business interests. So that's consistent. And the American Historical Association, which is an association created by Congress in the late 1800s, was created to make sure that certain things are preserved, right? I didn't even know it existed until they filed this lawsuit. And there's a filing that they just filed, essentially, saying that there's strong reason to believe that Trump will retain records for himself after office.

And so they're seeking an injunction against Trump to make sure that he doesn't destroy any documents, and they say that Trump violated the Presidential Records Act in his first term by refusing to give records over to the National Archives. And, you know, they're preparing in advance for what he's about to do. And they filed it because they're concerned he's going to do it again. And so, you know, it's just very interesting. So this is all going to play out in the courts once again.

Yep, that's right. And American Oversight was part of it as a plaintiff. that suit along with the Historical Society. They're a group that has been really active in trying to defend our rights, defend the rule of law, the rule of justice, and the statutes. And I think that is a well-pleaded complaint. We'll see what the courts do in terms of a restraining order,

temporary restraining order, and ultimately what they do. But again, this is an instance where the Trump administration is trying to basically vindicate Nixon in its own way, although that only has their primary motive. But the effect is to basically try to overturn almost all of the progress, made in the aftermath of Watergate to have checks and balances on the presidency, to have rules, to make sure

that a president is governed by rules, to make sure that we have independent prosecutors, special prosecutors like Jack Smith, who can independently review allegations of criminality in order to assert, determine whether to bring a suit and not have that be directed by the Attorney General, directed by a president. And so this is a wholesale assault on all the progress made,

toward transparency since the Nixon administration. And I am hoping that the lower courts will hold the line and we'll see what happens ultimately with the U.S. Supreme Court. And in the meantime, it's we, the American people, who also have an obligation to hold the line back to your earlier point, Karen, about the absolute importance of people making sure that they are registered to vote, that everyone they know is registered to vote,

that they get their votes submitted, and they make sure and help guard to ensure that those votes are counted. You know, it's fascinating to me. You know, growing up, Richard Nixon was such a stain on our presidency, right? He was, no one was a fan of Richard Nixon after, you know, he was a criminal, and he did these terrible things. And yet, it's, there's almost like a fascination with him by this administration, right? And the things that he did and the positions that he took, you've got, Roger Stone has a, has a, has a, the tattoo of Richard Nixon, a giant tattoo of Richard Nixon,

and blazed and I think it's on his back. I mean, it's just interesting that they're citing to things that are frankly shameful in our history as somehow precedential and presidential. So I don't know. Yeah, here we are. 2026. Here we are, 2020s.

Yeah, but you know what? This just, this election, these election victories, that we're having in these special elections, just give me so much hope, Lisa. It just goes to show that most people are aligned with us and not with what's going on. And we just have to withstand it as long as we can. I know that some people are talking about invoking the 25th Amendment, which, you know, basically declaring Trump incompetent. And I don't think that's going to happen. But if we get Congress, maybe we can impeach him. Yeah, I mean, there's going to be so much need for oversight.

There is already so much need for oversight that's not being done. And there's a need to have a strong Congress that can reject these efforts to bankrupt us for Trump's folly. And there's also a really important effort to hold people accountable for breaking the law to ensure that we do not have this expansive criminality, this lawlessness that basically Trump has ushered in to allow that to stand. It's inconsistent with American value. It's utterly inappropriate for this to be how America marks the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from a kingdom, from King George III.

We have a lot of work to do together to have these conversations, have these efforts to support each other as we stand up for these values that really have helped America be a light for freedom in our world, even though imperfectly so. But right now, I think most people see that America is on the wrong track. And we have an opportunity, and I certainly say this in my personal capacity, I'm devoted to do whatever I can as an individual citizen to try to get us back on the right track. And so am I, which is why I do this every Wednesday. And I love doing it with you, Lisa. You're one of the smartest people I know, and I learn so much from you every time you're on this show. So thank you so much for joining. Thank you.

I learned so much from you, too. And I was going to say, Karen, you are an amazing trial lawyer. And you are a journalist. We are engaged in this new journalism in 2020, 6, in the world we live in. So I'm honored to have the chance to be on the show with you and be part of this effort with the Midas Touch Network with Michael Popock and the whole gang, the production crew and more. But Karen, it's always a joy to be with you and learn from you as well. Well, we've reached the end of another midweek edition of Legal AF.

Vote for the Webbies. Vote for Legal AF and the Insurrection. at the Webby's, please click on the button that we're going to... The intersection. The intersection. What did I say? The insurrection. Oh, my God.

Oh, my God. It's okay. That's a floating slip. I can't believe I said that. Oh, I'm so sorry, Popak. It's all good. The intersection. The intersection.

We're all good. The intersection, both for the intersection and legal A-F. And oh my God, I can't believe I said that. And thank you so much for joining us. for being here and being loyal and being here every Wednesday and every Saturday watching Legal AFF and being part of the Midas Touch Network and the LegalAFers.