Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF - 6/6/2026

Episode Date: June 7, 2026

The award winning Legal AF podcast with Ben and Popok at the controls provides breaking commentary on law and politics events from DC, Virginia, Florida, and Congress. Support our Sponsors: Smart Credit: Head to https://smartcredit.com/legalaf and start your 7-day trial for just $1. Pocket Hose: Text LEGAL to 64000 for your 2 free gifts with the purchase of any Pocket Hose Ballistic hose. Message and data rates may apply. Hims: Get a personalized, affordable plan for you at https://HIMS.com/LEGALAF Veracity: For up to 65% off your order, head to https://VeracityHealth.co and use promo code: 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://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

Seriously, why aren't Democrats in Washington doing more to stop Trump? I know. Have you heard about Phil Weiser and Colorado, though? No. Is he different? Yeah, A.G. Weiser sued the Trump administration 65 times. He's beating Trump in court again and again. Things like protecting Obamacare against Trump's illegal tariffs, and he even won against Ticketmaster. So he actually gets results. Exactly. As governor, Phil will fight for Colorado. Paid for by Phil Weiser for Colorado registered agent in Nand and Nostasy.

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor.

Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Staples Preferred Business Membership, built for busy business owners, because you've got bigger things to think about. With Staples Preferred, get free delivery, no minimums. Staples Preferred unlocks up to 3% back, plus 10% savings on print and exclusive wireless offers. One less thing on your plate.

Actually, a lot less. Visit staples.ca.ca. Preferred. That was easy. In Toronto, every arrival is a statement, and nothing says it better than this. Cadillac Optic was the number one selling luxury EV in Canada for 2025. Find your rhythm across a seamless 33-inch display and an immersive 19 speaker AKG surround audio system. This city demands agility, and Optic delivers with precision to make every drive extraordinary.

Let's take the Cadillac. Find out more at Cadillac canada.ca. Luxury sales claim based on S&P Global Mobility Canadian New Vehicle Total Registrations for calendar year 2025 for the Cadillac definition of luxury. This spring, denim gets a softer, lighter update. Introducing Old Navy's drapey denim wide leg, a new fit that moves with you. It's everything you want denim to feel like for summer. Easy, breathable, and effortlessly cool. With a fit that creates natural movement and a wide leg that feels modern, not overwhelming.

Plus, that signature, wait, for this price, moment. Old Navy's drapey denim wide leg. Donald Trump continues to lose case. after case in federal court, his cover-ups, his criminality being exposed will break it all down on legal A.F. So Donald Trump, of course, suing everybody for $10 billion, who's BBC for $10 billion, who's the IRS and the Treasury Department for $10 billion. All the $10 billion lawsuits are backfiring in his face in that lawsuit against the BBC for something about January 6th that Donald Trump's whining about. Donald Trump's refusing to turn over all financial,

records in discovery. Surprise, surprise, when you stand up for Donald Trump and you do aggressive discovery and litigation, Donald Trump backs down. We'll break down what happened there. We'll talk about Donald Trump's ballroom backfiring in his face as well as he ripped down the East Wing and he now is arguing that he should be able to tear down the Statue of Liberty. The argument that Trump's DOJ lawyer made is that even if conduct by Donald Trump is obviously patently unlawful, this was the argument, as long as we do it quickly and get it done before you bring us into court, then there is no basis for anybody to have standing to sue us. So we ripped it down so fast that the lawsuit happened afterwards, thus no standing is the argument. A court of appeals judge literally says,

So that means tomorrow you take down the Statue of Liberty. Nobody can sue you for it. There's no remedy. Trump's DOJ lawyer said, yep, that's exactly what I mean. As I mentioned, there was that $10 million lawsuit that Donald Trump filed against the IRS and the Treasury Department, which he then dismissed and then not informing the judge created a $1.8 billion slush fund for January 6th, insurrectionist, and then entered into a settlement agreement

with himself and Todd Blanche, his acting attorney general, who he wants to be his attorney general, waiving all tax liability against Donald Trump, through forever, basically. And Donald Trump's now arguing, well, look, this should not even be going before the courts anymore. It's non-justiciable because just trust me, bro, just take my word. I'm not going to be doing the fund. So just ignore the whole lawsuit and the whole deal I did with Blanche. Why would you even sue me about it to ask what was really going on? And I don't know, maybe get discovery about the communications that were taking place. Why do I don't want to do any of that? We'll break down what happened there and talk about the cover-up.

The transcript of Pam Bondi's, quote, informal interview with the House Oversight Committee was released at the end of last week. You may not even heard about it if you weren't watching the Midas Touch Network. We went through all 111 pages. And I just want to share with you my perspective of why I believe this was the most obstructive, obstructive thing I've ever seen. I don't want to even call it a deposition because it wasn't under oath. It wasn't before a camera. And on every major question about Donald Trump and Trump's knowledge of Epstein, Trump's cover up of the Epstein files, the Trump regime's cover of the Epstein files, searches about Donald Trump in the Epstein files. The answer was either executive privilege. I will not answer. It predates my time as attorney general, or I do not recall.

No wonder they didn't want that on camera, but we don't want this to be erased from history. So we're going to tell you what went down. We'll cover that and more on legal A.F. Let's bring in Michael Popock, who's in Philly. Popak, what are you doing in Philly and how are you doing? I'm doing great. Good to see you in our audience and everybody in the Midas and Legal A.F. Nation. I'm at NetRutes Nation, which is a collective of organizations and entities that are committed to democracy, to the protection of the right to vote, to women's rights, to abortion rights, all getting together with panels and other things. I've been honored to be able to interview, and I'll be able to talk about some of it here, Representative Summerlee of Pittsburgh. Congresswoman Lee, she was in the room for the Bondi statement, informal statement, whatever that was supposed to be. And I'll be putting that video up as a programming note probably Monday or Tuesday of next week,

but I know what she told me. And I just interviewed Representative Jamie Raskin, who, by the way, on your point, and I love the fact that he did it with Todd Blanche's name, he's just created an anti-super pardon law, law and act a bill that he's proposing it's called the blanche act it stands for block lawless agreement to nullify corrupt handouts and emoluments act b l a nc h a and and as he reminded me that attempted amendment of the settlement the day one may 18th they create or try to create

the weapon anti-weaponization fund on don on todd blanche's signature as a purported compromise of a legitimate lawsuit between Donald Trump and his own Internal Revenue Service. On May 19th, he tries to, Blanche tries to amend by himself. Can you imagine, Ben, if you and I settled a case and the next day, we decided to amend it by ourselves without the other parties, which of course reinforces that this was an entirely collusive conspiracy between all of these parties controlled by Donald Trump. And it's not just an exoneration of tax and audit exposure. It's for any crime that the Trump family may have committed from the time the settlement agreement was executed looking backwards. So it is the get out of jail free card

if it if it's lawful and not successfully challenged in the courts. It's it is the it is the one open spot, the one blind spot after the Supreme court made its immunity decision that gave Donald Trump, all of this criminal immunity, the one opening was now has now been closed by Todd Blanche. If this doesn't disqualify him from being confirmed to be the Attorney General, this nation should go up in arms and protests. Right. It's not surprising, as Donald Trump sees accountability coming in the midterms. He wants his criminal defense attorney, a guy who was representing him when he was convicted on dozens of felony counts to be the AG, because he's literally his criminal defense attorney. And it's not a surprise knowing what Donald Trump does and how he behaves,

that he wants Bill Pulte, some trust fund guy who's not qualified, nor has any background in intelligence, which is required by the statute if you're going to lead ODNI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The statute literally says you must have extensive. intelligence background. Not only does Pulte not have extensive intelligence background. He hasn't passed any intelligence background checks. He doesn't even hold a security clearance NBC is reporting. And there was a letter that we covered earlier on Midas Dutch Network that came from all of these top secretaries of the various service branches, all of these top generals and admirals who said, you are placing the United States in an imminent, imminent, perilous situation if you pick this

Pulte guy and you're violating the law. And Trump says, well, I just want Pulte to be acting. He's not going to be permanent because Trump knows he'll never be confirmed. But even then, the statute basically doesn't provide for like an acting. The Senate and the Congress back in the day in there when they created this right after 9-11, they kind of foresaw something like this happening where they're like, we don't even want an acting person

to be in that position. So it has to actually go to the deputy and the deputy has to be Senate confirmed. And so when you think about it, Trump wants his criminal defense lawyer to be the AG. He wants this guy who ran Fannie and Freddie, who Donald Trump appointed to run Fannie and Freddie,

who's been using his position in an obscure housing mortgage agency to go after Trump's political enemies to now get the top intelligence in our country, basically, in my view, to spy on people because what Trump is trying to do, listen to what Blanche said in an interview that he gave this past week, is create roadblocks for the criminal prosecutions and accountability that Donald Trump is. And before you move on, then you've got Donald Trump saying, after public outrage and an outcry,

led by Midas Touch legal app platform. That's why we talk about these things so much, because Trump does bend on occasion, more than one occasion. And when we all came out and said, Bill Pulte is not only obscenely unqualified, but as you pointed out, he's statutorily banned and barred from taking the spot. He said, oh, no, no, no.

It's going to be temporary just long enough for him to do all the firings, effectively, that I want him to do within the intelligence community. See, Donald Trump has hated the intelligence community of this country and therefore has undermined our national security because he blames the IC, the intelligence community and all of its constituent parts, whether it was John Brennan at the CIA or Comey at the FBI or any of the rest of them for driving him crazy about Russia collusion. He has hated the intelligence community. He doesn't trust them. Every leak against him, which is usually based on true information. He's blamed the intelligence community.

And now is the ultimate troll not caring about what happens to the American people and our national security because we have been made less secure the day he announced Bill Pulte. He said, oh, here's the ultimate troll. I am so going to shit on the intelligence community that I think somebody with no intelligence background whatsoever can do my bidding from now through the midterms. And that's going to be Bill Pulte. And just one last thing. And this approach that you just pointed out,

my personal lawyer is going to be my head of the Department of Justice. My bootlicker who runs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is going to do all my bidding in terms of intelligence community. We're watching this play out worldwide. Netanyahu in Israel wants to appoint as the controller

responsible for all investigations, including ones into Netanyahu, so his personal lawyer. Now, where did he get that idea from? Right. Let's get right into some of these topics, Popak. Why don't we start by talking about the slush fund as we're talking about Todd Blanche's personal lawyer entering into settlement agreements, basically with himself.

I've never seen a settlement agreement that's not signed by two parties. That's just a declaration by one party. It is hereby decreed and settled, $1.8 billion slush fund, and we waive all of Donald Trump's tax liability and the Trump organization and the Trump kids and anything Trump related in the next segment, we'll talk about how Donald Trump hides his money and he keeps it under an irrevocable trust. And then he has all of these kind of shell companies. So when you request his financial information and litigation, the way BBC smartly did, Trump goes, ah, that's a trust. That's a third party. I don't know what you're talking about. But they're willing to include those entities when it

comes to waiving all tax liability from Donald Trump, when his criminal defense lawyer turned acting AG does it. So after the public outrage, Todd Blanche said during a hearing, we're not doing this fund anymore. And then a Congress, I think it was a number of Congress members said, okay, well, you put it in writing. No. Okay. Well, then we don't believe you.

And then they filed a response to litigation in Virginia, which has temporarily block the fund and they said, judge, there's nothing you need to do here anymore. Let's just shut down the case because we're not pursuing this $1.8 billion slush fund. So now the issue is non-judicial. So the people who sued us trying to block this slush fund, there's no longer standing because we are saying the fund doesn't exist. So the lawsuit's over nothing. And now the people who sued.

And then there was an amicus brief filed by Senator Cory Booker and Republican Senator Cassidy, who Trump pushed out and supported the primary opponent in Louisiana, they're out there saying, you know, we need permanent court orders because you can't trust anything this guy says. Popok breakdown where we are there. And we should also acknowledge that starting six days or so, there's briefing that's due before Judge Williams. And you know the Trump regime is going to make the same judicial argument. Hey, there's nothing for you to do any more, Judge.

I know you want to do an investigation. but sorry, you can't investigate what we did because we're just not doing it anymore. You know, it's very interesting, which you just laid out. And by the way, our audience should circle June 12th as a red-letter day against this administration, both optically and empirically. First of all, it looks like the Kennedy Center is going to finally shed itself of the Trump name. It looks like they are not going to oppose Judge Cooper's decision. They've already started.

We've got the secret memo. from the general counsel, renaming it back to JFK, the Kennedy Center. And on the 12th of June, or by the 12th of June, they're ripping down those letters. And I think a lot of our audience should be out there applauding where they see the name come down. Also on the 12th is going to be the final briefing for Judge Williams now. Based on my interview, my exclusive interview with Judge Ludick, who led the charge, I now know, he yoked together those 35 judges. and wrote a lot of that filing.

He and the local council in Miami, who was a friend of mine, a guy by the name of Andres Rivera, they're convinced, as am I, that the judge is going to hold an evidentiary hearing once she gets the filing. And I'm going to try to get into the room for that hearing. What's at stake on a week from Friday is now the Department of Justice, the IRS, Todd Blanche and all,

are going to have to answer to Judge Williams about whether there has been a fraud on the court in the original filing of the lawsuit, the subsequent settlement of the lawsuit, the use or the court being used as a as a pawn to give an imprimatur of legitimacy to settle the case to then empower the Department of Justice and Blanche to use the judgment statute or the judgment fund to compromise claims that were illegitimate from the very beginning. And none of that gets resolved or gets mooted because they may file. a piece of paper, but they haven't yet, that says, oh, we're not doing the weaponization. I don't know if you heard, Judge, we're not doing the weaponization fund any longer, because that doesn't resolve whether the fraud on the court happened at the time of the filing and on the time of the dismissal of the case to avoid her jurisdiction,

much like it didn't solve the matter of criminal contempt when Jeb Bosberg in District of Columbia got to the bottom about those planes being afloan to L.C. Salvador. There's multiple cases going on in court about the Jan, this anti-weaponization fund. The first one to block it over a week ago, Judge Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia. She blocked it administratively until she gets her filings in order by that same week on the 12th. In the meantime, Judge Leon in the District of Columbia, the ballroom judge, has a case who he set up briefing there, about setting up his own injunction, in his case involves two Jan 6th officers who brought a case against it as well. Last night, before we came on the air, the Trump administration filed papers with both judges.

Not, and let me tell you what was it included, a sworn statement or affidavit by Todd Blanche, under oath that he was, that the weaponization fund was dead and that a stake had been putting through its heart and this zombie had died. No. Instead, they said, Judge, you watch TV, right? This is my artist rendering. Well, when Todd Blanche earlier in the week, and we had this on Midas and Legal AF, while he was giving some testimony to a congresswoman from New York, he said that the fund is dead. So that's it. It's not under oath. It wasn't an under oath to this judge and certainly did not address at all. The things that are missing from the filing is, what about the next day attempt to give Donald Trump and his family complete immunity from all prosecution, including

IRS and audits for the last 16 years. What about that? And what about the fact that Donald Trump continues to talk about the fund as if it's something he wants to see pass? And the fact that the Republicans, they called it in their filing last night, Ben, this is a political issue to be decided by the political branch. Well, the political branch doesn't seem to have the political will, to oppose Donald Trump and pass a bill or an amendment that would declare that the fund is dead. So no, forgive us if the courts are not going to accept at face value.

Todd Blanche, former private lawyer, his declaration that just watch the video, Judge, I said it out loud, that should be enough, right? Everything done here, and you don't have any more jurisdiction as a result. They did not file that paper with Judge Williams. Now, whether they weave that into their paper, that they need to file by Friday is yet to be seen.

So while all of that is going on and they're being tied down in court, the question is, are the politicians, are the Democrats going to be able to force the Republicans to vote up or down on that particular amendment, the one about the exoneration of Trump and his family, and on the settlement fund itself, because they've been running to avoid being 10, with that liability. It's radioactive for them, but they also, every time there's a vote and you, you covered it well on Midas, they find a way not to vote it down. So where is it? Is it political,

or do courts have to step in? So we'll have to see what do you think Judge Brincombe is going to do, or what democracy forward, and I'm going to bring on Sky Perryman to talk about it, what are they going to do in their filing to oppose this argument that the courts have no more jurisdiction because, see, no more fund. I think two different things are going to happen in the different courts. In Brinkima, I think they're going to say, okay, enter into a stipulation that confirms it in writing. And I think that the plaintiff's groups and the lawyers and the plaintiff's groups are going to say, okay, we hear them.

The goal of that lawsuit wasn't a matter of like the discovery and uncovering collusion. it was blocking it. They say it. So let's do what we do in every other case. We've prepared a permanent order that they should not oppose. So here's our proposed order and they'll just lay out the proposed order, which confirms the temporary order. And they should basically have Blanche agree to stipulate to it to show that that's truly what his position is. Absent Blanche doing that, the court should enter into the order if the parties don't stipulate to it. I think that's what happens there. I think you then go to the Southern District of Florida where the Trump regime, DOJ, will make the same argument. No standing. Judge, you said there wasn't standing. We agree.

And now it's not judicial. So you shouldn't really look into this thing because we're not doing the fund anymore. Well, that doesn't acknowledge the fact that there's still another thing tied to it, which Judge Williams pointed out this other settlement, this waiver of audits against Trump for tax evasion and Trump's family. Not just audits, all criminal liability. All away, yeah, a waiver is a waiver of everything. And then so I think the judge is still going to say, well, I now need to under a Rule 11 sanctions analysis, the way we're seeing federal judges in Rhode Island and across the country using Rule 11 and sanction analysis, should I be making state bar referrals? Should I be making criminal referrals?

Because, you know, you can't just say, hey, we tried to rob the bank. We took the money from the bank. And then we returned the money once we were caught. So it's non-justiciable, right? You can't do anything anymore. And I think the judge is going to say it wasn't the bank. This was the court. You used the court to commit the crime or to commit the unethical behavior.

and now you want to come back to the court and say, we're good, right? No, you try to use my name in this court to steal $1.8 billion from taxpayers and waive all criminal liability. I want to know how this happened. I want evidentiary hearings. I want to see what is going on there and how this even took place. So I think that's what's going to happen in both courts. But Popak, that leads us, though, to this next topic as well, though,

which is the fact that when you stand up to Trump in these cases and you push back, oftentimes he then fights for basically the status quo, which is before the lawsuit was filed, and then wants to call that a win because he got his headline. I have to make the parallel, though, that that's how Donald Trump does a lot of things once you stand up to him. He either huffs and puffs, says he's going to blow your house down, and you back down and you bend the knee,

and you let him roll over you, and we've seen so many people in the United States and abroad do that. Or you stand up to him, and the moment you stand up to him, he gets in a quagmire, whether it's a legal quagmire, a geopolitical quagmire, and then what his fight for, which is now the win, is to sell the fraud that what took place before the lawsuit is the win. Let's open up the straight of Hormuz. You closed it, idiot. And that's his mentality with everything. And I think the parallels are important because trust me, you don't think that Iran or Putin or Kim Jong-un go, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, Abrago Garcia can beat this guy.

E. Jean Carroll can beat this guy. You know, D.A., anybody who stands up actually wins when you just go the distance. Got it. So just don't listen to Trump's the best in a bad way. Fraudster, con artist, relentless floods the zone. maniac, psycho. But when you stand up to him, he loses. Let's talk about that, but let's take our first quick break of the show. A reminder, if you or somebody knows been injured in a car accident, trucking accident caused by the negligence of others, if you know someone who's injured

by the negligence of others, reach out to the Popak firm. Michael Popak has lawyers across the country who are willing to take your call. Give a call to the Popok firm 877 Popak AF or visit the Popok firm.com. That's 877 Popok AF or visit the Popock firm.com. Also, make sure you subscribe to LegalAF substack and LegalAF on YouTube run by Michael Popock. Let's continue to get the legal AF substack and the legal AF YouTube soaring. All right, let's take our first quick break of the show. Here's a little something most people aren't told about their credit score. It's not just whether you pay your credit cards. It's when you pay them. Yeah, most people don't realize that. Me, but smart credits data experts understand how credit bureaus operate.

So they created something called the best pay-down date built around how credit reporting actually works. So instead of guessing, you get a personalized strategy that shows you what to do and when to do it to help you maximize your score. And that matters because better credit can mean lower payments and more money in your pocket. And this is where it gets interesting. You can see your full credit picture in one place. Your score, what's affecting it? And if something needs attention, you can take care of it right there. So before you apply for anything, a car, apartment, refinance, it makes sense to start with smart credit.

Go to smartcredit.com slash legal AF and try it for just $1. You may be surprised to see how many points smart credit estimates you can gain. That's smartcredit.com slash legal AF results vary. Cancel anytime. Our next sponsor had a story that really resonated with me, especially with everything around metabolism and trying to approach it the right way. This podcast is sponsored by Veracity. Ali Egan, Veracity's founder, CEO and certified hormonal health coach,

experienced compromised metabolic health firsthand, including years of undiagnosed Hashimoto's, an autoimmune disease that impacts the thyroid. she found functional medicine, which focused on underlying root causes and helped her take her health back into her own hands. Veracity was created to give people access to holistic solutions and support optimal health. With their most popular product, metabolism, ignite, you get an all-natural caffeine-free formula made with ingredients like lemon verbena, ibiscus extract, green coffee, bean extract, and magnesium. Clinical trials showed no negative side effects. the ingredients. I like that it's a simple doctor-formulated option to support your metabolism.

So learn from Allie and make the switch to Veracity. 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-T-Y-Halth.C-O for up to 65% off and make sure you use my promo code, LegalA-F, so they know I sent you. Welcome back to Legal AF. Thank you to all of our sponsors there. They make the show possible. The discount codes are in the description below. As noted before we took the break, I want to continue to highlight when you stand up to Donald Trump in litigation, politically, geopolitically, you win. Donald Trump backs down. What he will do in the law, geopolitically, wherever, is he will really, you will release. relentlessly flood the zone. Frankly, I've never seen anything like it. And he can convince his own kind of kamikaze army, if you will, whether it's kamikaze lawyers or kind of kamikaze cabinet members, whoever he convinces lots of people to not just throw away their reputation, throw away their lives. He dresses them up in weird outfits, you know, like he gives.

Rubio and the cabinet, Florenstein shoes that don't fit them. He acts like they're like children that he abuses. It's a very, and people like get sucked towards that. And weak people, the whole thing is really weird, but he'll flood the zone.

He's able to, the media is entranced with the guy. They'll lie for him. They'll become a stenographer. And it's just a barrage. And it never stops. And he doesn't forget about things that even happen ever. Like he'll still be talking about 2015 and 2016,

even more than he's talking. It's 2026. It's deranged. And because it runs counterintuitive to human behavior and experience, most humans, if you're listening and watching this on a Saturday, or if you're watching it the next day on a Sunday or whenever you watch it, you're like, okay, what am I going to do today? Maybe I'm going to see a movie.

I want to read a book. I want to see my grandkids or see family members or do something or, go to a hobby or go to a sports game or whatever it is, watch TV, you know, and then it's like when somebody just relentlessly blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah at some point a human reaction maybe at first you fight stop. Stop, I'm going to stop. And it's like, I'm fine, what do you want? All right, fine, just whatever, do it. And that's what he's relying on kind of with everything. And on legal AF, we document all of the times when people stand up to Trump and don't submit, they win in litigation, whether it's Trump going after the law firms.

They win in litigation, whether it's Donald Trump going after hospitals to get information about transgender children. The hospitals win. The universities that stand up win, the universities that submit, he comes back and takes more from you. Abrago Garcia stands up to him and wins and embarrasses the Trump regime and exposes it. E. Jean Carroll, when Trump threw everything at her, everything, and then did interviews further defaming her, launching criminal investigations against her. She wins. We look at New York Attorney General Letitia James after everything thrown. She wins. Alvin Brack. I could keep on going over. I give you so many examples of that. And so Donald Trump sues Wall Street Journal, for example. The thing is, because there's this quasi- collusive relationship between Trump and Murdoch, Wall Street Journal is not fighting the

litigation the way it needs to be fought. And I'll tell you how it needs to be fought. Instead, Wall Street Journal will file what's called the 12b6 motion to dismiss. They'll make a very highfalutin legal argument about why the case should go away. It'll get dismissed. Trump will file an amended complaint. It then gets dragged out. It eventually gets dismissed. Wall Street Journal has insurance. Trump gets his headline, Wall Street Journal gets the case dismissed, and then it kind of goes away and both sides get out of it what they want. To some extent, that same detente exists with other media entities, even though New York Times Trump less collusive, the New York Times litigation strategy similar to Wall Street Journal, don't do the discovery right away, just file the 12b-6 motion

to dismiss. Trump will do an amended complaint. These things have a two-year life cycle. by the time the cases get dismissed, the public doesn't really even remember what the case was about because Trump's flooding the zone with new $10 billion lawsuit headlines. Trump got his initial headline where he feels he was able to manipulate the media with the propaganda. Sure, there may be a short day of stories about Donald Trump losing, but that's kind of expected. And so the cycle continues. And Trump raises all of this money with his super PACs. And so for him, it's like a hobby.

It doesn't really matter unless you go right for the throat, unless litigation-wise, you go right for him. And you hit him with the deposition notice. You hit him with discovery. Okay, you're demanding $10 billion. Let me see your bank records. Let me see your tax returns. I want to verify how you claim you were injured by us,

$10 billion and then $10 billion and then $10 billion. All right. I want your deposition. You want to file a defamation case against, ABC because George Stephanopoulos used the word rape and not sexual assault. And so you're saying you're defamed because Stephanopoulos would have implied it was penis versus finger sexual assault. Okay, let's take that deposition. Sir, you are aware that a civil jury found you liable for sexual assault. Yes or no. Yes or no. And you were aware that finding refer to digital, meaning

fingers. Are you aware? I don't know. You don't know that a jury said that you were found civilly liable for sexual assault. And let me be very clear, what's your lawsuit alleging? You're saying that it was because New York has a different technical definition of penis versus finger. So therefore, you're not to, is that what your lawsuit's about, sir? I mean, boom, go for it. Go for it. And then say, let's talk about your past. Let's talk about your Epstein relationship. Let's sit down. Let's go through it all. You said he was a great. guy, was he showing up to Mar-a-Lago and getting massages? Were you setting, when you said that Jeffrey Epstein stole Virginia Jew-Fray, what did you mean by

that? He stole her from you? What is that referring to? You were aware that she was a victim of Epstein, right? And at that time, were you aware of that, sir? Sir, you've also said publicly that you grab women by their vaginas because when you're rich, you get away with it. Use the P-word.

So is that how you feel, sir? Is that how you feel? and you said that you go and inspect girls naked at beauty pageants. And so you're saying you're defamed here that this is causing you $10 billion in damages. Let's go through your damages. Let's talk about your deal with the Qataris. Let's talk about your deal with the UAE. Let's talk about MBS and any monies he promised you.

Let's go through all of those deals. Let's go through your taxes. You recently entered into a settlement agreement for taxes with the IRS. Does that include, is that part of your damage calculation here? Let's take a look at what you did there. What are you claiming as deductions? What are you claiming as losses? Do you claim that you actually made any income last year?

Or are you taking a full loss and saying that because there's no tax liability against you, therefore you don't have, I mean, just just think about that right there. And so I think it's important that we highlight. all of these things and you're aggressive. That's precisely what the BBC is doing. Trump sues BBC for $10 billion. And in this $10 billion lawsuit filed against the BBC, Trump alleges you manipulated what I said on January 6th and,

wow, wow, wow, wow, you know, I'd love to articulate what the cause of action is. They're saying you manipulated the footage. Trump says, I said it was patriotic and a beautiful day. and I never said anybody should attack the capital. You made it sound like I said, attack the capital, and I didn't do that. So therefore, I'm suing you for $10 billion. BBC says, okay, let's take a look at the financials. Let me take a look at your financial records.

Show it to me. Donald Trump says to BBC, I'm propounding 437 document requests. BBC says, fine. We're litigants. We expect it. Here's 50,000 documents. BBC turns over its documents and its records. And then what's the response from Donald Trump when he's asked to turn over his records?

Zero. Don't it whole. No records. No discovery. No documents at all being produced. I want to bring in Popak. Popak. This is what we've seen over and over again.

This is how he litigates things. And just like, you could talk about Pam Bondi as well, when she sat for her deposition and she was asked questions. I don't recall, I'm not gonna answer questions before 20, 24, refusing to answer and I won't answer any questions about my communication, so I'm done, I'm out. Yeah, I mean, I'll use as, I'll pick up one of the points that you made. I mean, if you wanna be aggressive in litigation,

you can do what you and I did against Kanye West. You can set a quick deposition. And if the deposition goes well for you, maybe the case goes away. Or you can sit around and do the nice cities. I mean, the Wall Street Journal has a very good law firm. All they do is First Amendment litigation. They know what they're doing. They were successful in getting the first complaint dismissed.

And a new complaint has now been filed that's no better than the original complaint about Donald Trump's theory that there was a time-traveling fraudster. that went back 30 years and in volume three of a four-volume leather-bound birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein, somebody went to page 232 and pasted in a forged birthday card, which has been released to the American people through the House Oversight Committee, which should have killed this lawsuit where it stood. I know Judge Gales, the judge that's handling the case, I'm sure that as soon as the next motion to dismiss comes in,

he'll dismiss it again. As to Rupert Murdoch, you're right. Even though there's times when his editorial board will come out swinging against Donald Trump in the Wall Street Journal or maybe the New York Post, he was on the receiving end of some aggressive tactics in the case about the birthday book. They try to get him under oath in a deposition

like in the first month of the case, arguing that he's 95 years old, that he's had a number of mental, physical ailments. This is ironic from Donald Trump's arguing this. And then they compromised and decided not to take those depositions until all the motion practice was over. But there's also inconsistency in strategy, which I don't understand. Same lawyer, Alejandro Brito, this guy in Miami, who files all these defamation cases for Melania and for Donald. In the Wall Street Journal case, He agreed not to go forward with depositions and discovery until the motions to dismiss were fully resolved.

But in the case involving the BBC, for another $10 million, they didn't agree to stop discovery. And now we're complaining that the BBC is fired back with 47 subpoenas, including to the Trump family, cabinet members, Jack Smith Special Counsel, because they say in order to defend themselves, they need to prove that Donald Trump fomented the violence on Jan 6th. Because this was about a 12-second clip that the BBC, not even the BBC, a subset of the BBC,

a channel that doesn't even show up in America. You have to like hack your way to go get it illegally. And on this little watched subset, a sub-channel of the BBC, they ran a 12-second clip where they cut and paste it. You know, Trump went on for an hour. It cut and paced at the beginning of the clip, the ellipse speech in the end. They put it together, and Donald Trump said, oh, that made me look bad. They said, all right, well, made you look bad.

You say you have $10 billion worth of professional reputational damage? All right, we'll send a subpoena for all your business records. Oh, no. You can't do that. That's a fishing expedition. No, that's what happens when as a headline, you want to put a $10 billion number in your complaint when you don't need to put any number at all.

The only thing you have to do in a complaint is list that you satisfy the jurisdictional amount that's in controversy, which for a federal case is $75,000. The reason you see big fat numbers in things is because they want to grab the headline and have the paper and us report on a $10 billion lawsuit when it's not.

It's really just a paper tiger. So I think they're ultimately in front of this judge they're going to lose on many of these subpoenas and on the argument that they don't have to turn over their financial records in a case where they're seeking $10 billion. But I love the fact that the BBC, which already apologized, by the way, they've already issued an apology before the lawsuit was filed about the cut and paste.

They fired the executive that was responsible for it. They did all of that. But at the end, what they're arguing is there's no defamation because it was either a statement of opinion or it was substantially true. And what they want to prove is, all right, you want to take us on here? We're going to have to prove we believe our defense says you started the fire of Jan 6th. You led the insurrection.

And therefore, we want to get Jack Smith's report and his findings about the mental state of Donald Trump and all of this other stuff. So here you go where you open up a Pandora's box because in one case, you say, no, you want to take discovery, take discovery. And then when they do aggressively, which the BBC is doing, you say, oh, no, oh, no, you can't do that to us. Yeah, you can. That's called Welcome to the World of Federal Lawsuits. And the reason that you and I, for years, never talked about a president in a civil lawsuit is because unless they're the plaintiff, when they're the defendant, the Supreme Court protects presidents by saying they got a day job.

No, they're the president. They can't be, they can't get down in the mud of a civil lawsuit. that'll have to wait until after the term is over. But when you're the president and you're the plaintiff, then you have to sit for depositions and you have to do all of these other things. So those are the two things that we've seen between the BBC and the Wall Street Journal.

Same things going on with the New York Times and another part of Florida. You know, when you fight against Trump, you win. Because generally, he doesn't give a shit about these cases. These are just headlines to cash shapes. on institutions that have been that have been rigorously reporting on him for years and he doesn't like it and he feels he'll get some sort of advantage by fighting back this is the weaponization this is the this is Donald Trump's retribution campaign that he is just checking off the list you know going after eugene he doesn't like eugene carroll the the victim of sex abuse that you just outlined oh she's got to new documentary that's coming out that's going to outline everything that happened to her and everything that happened during the trial oh department of justice open it say you're opening up a criminal

investigation of eugene carroll to step on that story right on cue it leaks from the department of justice that they're opening up a criminal investigation and then when it's pushed the prosecutor says oh no i'm not prosecuting her i'm looking at reed hoffman you know one one thing that came out of the eging carroll thing long as we're on it for here for a minute is this is the new strategy that you and I have to watch closely for our audience, which is to argue that public interest groups and democratic donors, when they create these organizations, are lying,

they're arguing that they're lying and defrauding their donors because they're putting their money in places maybe the donors didn't know about or wouldn't have approved. That's the basis for the Southern Poverty Law Center, because they're arguing donors didn't know that they're using the money to pay informants within those organizations, propping those organizations up. By the way, sure we did.

When I donated to the Southern Poverty Law Center, sure I knew that they were doing undercover operations with my money. Same thing when they went after Reed Hoffman of LinkedIn fame because he gave some of the money from a charity over to E. Jean Carroll's lawyer to defray the cost of certain of her public interest lawsuits. Oh, the donors didn't know that. That must have been fraud.

We need to investigate that. This is all about trying to cash aid on the icons and the institutions that make up the Democratic Party go after its leaders. Biden. Biden is the autopened. Obama is still Barack Osama, and he maybe spied on my campaign. And over and over again, and what we're watching is a Department of Justice led by Todd Blanche and Donald Trump that will do anything that Donald Trump

tells him to do. As we came on the air, I'm sure you caught it in your home state there. California is counting, methodically counting its ballots, okay? California led by Attorney General Rob Bonta and the governor are counting ballots. They have certain rules in California that make it so it takes a minute to count ballots, okay? Out of the 16 million people that voted, 13 million people voted by mail-in, that means somebody's got to open an envelope, compare a signature, and then cast that ballot or have that ballot counted.

That takes a minute when 13 million people vote that way. In addition, they also have a rule that says that ballots can come in seven days after the election, which means the election isn't even over in California for another three days because they're still waiting for ballots to come in postmark the date of the election until the 9th. In addition, there's a 21-day period or so to compare significant. So the election, we're just watching the methodical operation of an election, but Trump tweets out, oh, there's fraud with the Democrats in California. And right on cue, the 40-year-old guy who's a Trumper who runs your L.A. U.S. Attorney's Office, a big, big Trump guy says, yes, my office is going to

get to the bottom of all that we've opened up criminal investigations to try to scare the crap out of people and make them not vote, which will ultimately backfire in this rage of voter outrage. that's coming for the midterms. Yeah, and last point I want to make, and I did a whole 30-minute video on this, so I'll abbreviated here in about three minutes, which is when you finally try to hold these Trump regimeers accountable, at least right now as it relates to congressional subpoena power,

and you bring Pam Bondi in and you subpoena Pam Bondi for a deposition under oath, because the Republicans control the House, They have the ability to convert a subpoena under oath deposition into an informal interview as a first phase. You can then later do a subpoena, but the MAGAs want to run out the clock and delay, delay, delay. So they took a subpoenaed deposition of Pam Bondi, as you probably now know, and they turned it into an informal interview without video camera so that we couldn't see what was actually happening and we would just have to read the transcript knowing that with all the weapon of mass distraction that the Trump regime pushes out, who's going to go through a 111-page

deposition to actually point out what was going down at Pambandi's deposition? And if you don't see video, it's hard to really visualize what was actually taking place. And so we went through the exercise of doing that here on Midas Touch and Legal AF. And what we showed, is that you go to page 44, for example, and Bondi was there, she was there without a lawyer, except a DOJ lawyer was there, Harmeet Dillon making objections on behalf of the DOJ, and then instructing the witness on behalf of the DOJ, Pam Bondi, not to answer questions. And so you'll see here, Harmeet Dillon says, you're not going to dictate the objections that I make, but you can ask your questions.

and I will instruct the witness to answer or not accordingly because she is here on behalf of the United States Department of Justice because her testimony is concerning that time. Then the lawyer for the Democrat says, okay, I want to show you this email from 2019, which is redacted and a list 10 individuals, co-conspirators of Mr. Epstein. Who are those individuals? DOJ, she's not going to answer that. question. Ms. Bondi, are you refusing to answer the question? And then they don't answer the question. Then later on, what is your understanding that Trump was aware of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislane and Gleine Maxwell? So it says, during your tenure, did Trump direct you or any of your subordinates to take any official action relating to Epstein or Glein? Answer, I'm not going to discuss any

conversation that I've had with the president of the United States. Okay, why? Basically, privilege question. And you or your counsel can elaborate what the privilege is. We're not going to get into any conversation that the former attorney general had with other senior members of the executive members of the White House and the immediate staff of the president. That's covered by privilege. And this is a voluntary assert. This is a voluntary interview. And so the assertion of privilege is not even legally required. So it's just a choice that you're going to answer or not answer. And then she doesn't answer the questions.

And then as you go later on to this deposition, it says, what I'm asking you, this is Congress member Subramani and says, what I'm asking you, though, is before the release of the Epstein files, during the process of releasing the files, Ms. Bondi, was there any effort to look through for President Trump's name or any other administration's officials before you release the files? Ms. Bondi, I don't recall. Are you aware of an effort to do that?

I don't recall. I'm just asking, was there any effort to look for Trump's name or anybody before? I don't recall. I don't recall. I don't recall. So the trick was, or the technique was anything 2024 or before I'm not answering. That's not within the scope of the deposition. That's actually not a deposition.

It's an interview. And so during the interview, I'm not going to answer if it's within the scope. and it's about Trump or the administration. So I won't answer those questions. And if you manage to ask me a question which falls out of those two buckets, I don't recall. And that should piss you off no matter what political party you're from. And so when we come back, Popak, I want you to talk about what's also pissing the people off right now

is when the Trump regime lawyers go in and they say a version of this, which is once we break it, once we destroy it, there's nothing you can do about it. And the judge goes, so like you're saying tomorrow, you can destroy the statue of liberty and no repercussions. Yep. Yep. I want you to talk about that and what's going on with the Kennedy Center when we come back. A reminder, if you or somebody who knows has been injured an auto accident, car accident, trucking accident because of the negligence of somebody else.

And you need a lawyer. Reach out to the Popak firm. They're representing legal AF listeners and viewers. call 877 Popok AF or visit the Popok firm.com. They've got lawyers and staff across the country. The consultation is free. Don't be shy. Reach out to Popok.

And in case you didn't get the number, it's also in the description below. Also, make sure you subscribe to the LegalAF YouTube channel and the LegalAF Substack. Let's continue to grow those channels. Legal AF substack, LegalAF YouTube. All right, let's take our last quick break of the show. We'll be right back.

Oh, I'm excited to tell you. about the world's number one, expanding garden hose. And their brand new product, the pocket hose ballistic. Look, I'm tough on hoses. I drag them across the driveway, yank them around the yard, and somehow they always gink or leak. But the pocket hose ballistic has been a game changer. It's super lightweight, easy to manage, and easy to store.

Turn the water on and it grows. Turn the water off, and it shrinks back to pocket size. And this thing is built to last. The pocket hose ballistic, is reinforced with a liquid crystal polymer used in bulletproof vests, making the anti-burst sleeve practically bulletproof. And now for a limited time, when you purchase a new pocket hose ballistic, you'll get a free 360-degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb-drive nozzle.

Just text legal to 64,000. That's legal to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase. text legal to 64,000 message and data rates may apply. Sure, you've got weight loss goals, but hitting them isn't easy. That's where weight loss by Hymns comes in, offering access to an affordable range of FDA-approved GLP 1 medications, including the Wagovi pill at its lowest price ever and the Wagovi pen. With Wagovi at Hymns, you can lose up to 20% or more of your body weight when combined with Diovi-Wi-Emms, and exercise. It helps regulate your appetite so you eat less and it's the first and only GLP1

available in a pill so no needles needed. Everything happens online. You'll connect with a licensed provider to see if treatment is right for you. And if prescribed, your medication is delivered right to your door. No insurance necessary. Plus, HIMS supports you beyond medication with 24-7 care team messaging and personalized plans, including lifestyle tools like meal plans, recipes, and fitness content to help you stay on track. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hymns.com slash legal a.F to get a personalized affordable plan that gets you. That's hims.com slash legal a.f.

Hems.com slash legal a. Based on advertised cash price for 30-day supply of medication only, membership required, fee not included, and billed separately. Weight loss by HIMS is not available in all 50 states. Wagovi is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk AS. to get started and learn more, including important safety information, Wagovi clinical study information and restrictions, visit Hymns.com. Welcome back to LegalAF. Thank you to our sponsors.

Discount codes for all of those sponsors are in the description below. Popak, let's get right into it. I want you to talk about this oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. I thought that at least one of the judges on that panel really demonstrated the extent to which the Trump regime believes that they are above the law. And then I want you to talk about the updates in the Kennedy Center because a lot of big updates there as well. And I think both are related. Trump regime wants to break stuff, vandalize stuff, and then dodge accountability. Yeah, we'll throw the pool in there too.

You know, oh, the pool's painted, so there's nothing you can do, Judge. You lost your jurisdiction. We put the American flag blue on the reflecting pool. We're pumping water in. Donald Trump posted AI meme about filling the pool with the tears of his critics. I'm not making this up. But it was extraordinary in many ways, but then run of the mill for the Trump administration and others, this oral argument.

And we posted it up on legal AF. It's still up there under the live. tab. We had over 150,000 people participate with us in that live stream. And it was a three-judge panel, Judge Millett, an Obama appointee, Judge Garcia for Biden, and Judge Rayo, who's trying out for the United States Supreme Court in the Trump position. And it broke down the way that I thought. They start every oral argument. And this was Yaakov Roth, who works under Todd Blanche and a guy named Brett Schumate, who is the head of the civil division. now. They started the same way. You have no jurisdiction. You have no jurisdiction or they don't have

standing or nobody can sue over this or it's done and it was done on the moment we we bulldozed over the Eastway, which means if I had my bet, lawyers were involved with the decision to go forward with the demolition without a permit. Don't bother asking for permission or ask for, you know, ask for, don't ask for permission at all and just do it, and then we'll deal with it on an injunction later after the thing is already demolished. I think lawyers were now involved with this decision making to do the demolition in the building. So he argued that you have no jurisdiction, putting aside for a minute whether the National Trust, a congressionally created not-for-profit, has standing, or anybody has standing, because their view is nobody can bring this lawsuit.

We'll put that aside for a minute, Your Honor. You don't have any jurisdiction and no way to block anything because the thing has already happened and it's now up to Congress. And that led Judge Millett, who really led the charge to say, let me get this right. They can do anything they want. They can break it. And then we have no ability to do anything about it in the courtroom. And he says, yes, under those principles that I'm advocating, that would be the case. And she said, let's use a statute of liberty as an example. You know, a statute that, you know, our forefathers and ancestors saw, the first thing they saw as they entered the United States, that could be demolished and there's nothing that a court can do about it in terms of oversight? Yes, which led the lawyer very smartly for the National Trust,

a lawyer from this law from Foley Hogue, to do something I'm sure you've done. I certainly have done it in my appellate advocacy. When you're in second position and you're waiting patiently and you got your prepared notes and you know your three or four things that you want to make points you need to make, you have to respond to the questions of the panel, but you also have to get your points out, and you're sitting there and you're taking notes off of how the case is being presented off the briefs during the oral argument, if you're smart, and this guy was something that just happened that was so extraordinary, you don't bury that and wait 45 minutes into your argument to say, well, remember an hour ago? No, you jump on it right then. You throw away your prepared notes,

And that's what this advocate did, which was really smart. He said after he signed in and said, may it please the court, what that guy just said was extraordinary. And also a misstatement of the law ever since 1807 in Marbury v. Madison, which established that courts, federal courts up to the Supreme Court, are the court that provides oversight over the other two branches. It declares whether Congress in passing a law has passed a law in violation of, of the Constitution. It declares whether the president in executing those laws has either violated

the statute or the Constitution. That is the role of the court. And so he spent a fair amount of time reempowering the court, or at least supporting what Judge Millett had said, which is you do have the power, you do have the authority, because the issue that was just to clean up the procedure here. The issue that was up for grabs at this particular hearing was whether they were going to continue to, whether they were going to block the construction of the ballroom, below ground and above ground for the duration of the appeal. So let's call it six to eight more months up to the United States Supreme Court, or they were going to allow it to continue to build while they considered the appeal. That was the issue. Now, going into the hearing, they had already lifted

the injunction of Judge Leon, frankly because it was a only a month and this is a two and a half year project so they were like, well, just continue below ground. We'll deal with it at the hearing. But now Millett is expressing, and you heard it in her questioning, that if I let you continue to build, you're going to come back in here and tell me too late, it's up. Billions have been invested. Millions have been spent. Security is at risk. And maybe we need to preserve the status quo by blocking you. Now, in terms of the injunction, courts have to look at three or four things. First thing, they've got to look down the road under the hood

and decide whether the party asking for the injunction is likely to succeed on the merits. Who's going to win on the last day of the trial? Is that the National Trust or is that Trump? They also have to decide whether an injunction is necessary because money is not going to bring back the East Wing. It's irreparable harm and inadequate remedy of law. And then balance of interests between

And Trump's saying, I need it because I keep getting shot at. And the National Trust saying, where did my East Wing go? And so the way that Judge Rayo, who of course is trying out a Clarence Thomas clerk, who got sworn in by Clarence Thomas, who is trying out, it's an open secret in Washington, she wants to be on the Supremes, she is not going to ruin her audition by ruling against Donald Trump on the ballroom. So she went after it in two ways. One, National Trust doesn't have standing. Nobody has standing.

You don't have a unique type of injury that would justify you coming into this courtroom and asking us to do anything. In fact, nobody would under their view. And they had a lot of this ridiculous, I mean, everybody was listening to it on Legal IF, this ridiculous back and forth about, well, if you stand at a certain angle, you wouldn't have to see the ballroom. The judge was like, is this like, when you put your thumb up and you block the moon?

What are you trying to say? Like, the ballroom is 90,000 square feet, and it totally overwhelms the look and the dimension and the artistic and the architectural features of the White House. It dwarfs it. What are you saying? She gets to stand. If she stands on a certain angle and looks back,

the national trust person won't be seeing the... That's not the issue. The issue is there is no more East Wing. She wanted to see an East Wing, and she doesn't any longer. And what can the courts do about it? The first argument is standing. The second argument is balance of equities where Judge Rayo said, you know, basically it's national security versus she's taking her dog for a walk.

I mean, that's how they try to minimize the standing argument. My prediction, I believe that at an exquisitely timed release, I'm hoping July 3rd or July 4th a month from now, right on the birthday, you're going to get a two-to-one decision. I think it's going to be Garcia and Millett blocking the construction of the ballroom. Trump can then go run to the Supreme Court and try to get it unblocked. And then Millet is, and then Rayo is going to be in dissent talking about no standing and no, and the balance of equities is not in their favor. And then it's going to be up to John Roberts first. Here we go again.

And the shadow docket without a proper record having been fully developed. and with only two briefs and no oral argument making a decision about the ballroom. And if they decide to let it continue, it's going to continue. It's going to be because once it's up a year from now, a lot of that structure is out of the ground, Supreme Court is not going to rule against it. So you and I are going to watch very closely on the ruling that will probably come out in a month or so, and then what over the summer the Supreme Court does about it. Now we flip over to the Kennedy Center.

one's sort of interesting. I guess even Donald Trump knew he wasn't going to be able to get away with that, scarring the legacy of JFK. And it's the only living memorial to JFK in D.C. is the Kennedy Center, created in the wake of his assassination, forevermore under the organic statute to bear only his name. And Trump slapped his name on it. And so after the Judge Cooper issued a 94-page decision last week that Donald Trump railed against. Like, it's a leaky piece of shit. I'm the builder. If you don't like it, I'm throwing the keys back to Congress.

And then going after Judge Cooper's marriage, I mean, just so depraved and disgusting. But in a secret memo, not that we got our hands on, and Politico got their hands on, the general counsel for the Kennedy Center has formally announced that they need to take the name off the building and off the stationery and the website and the emails. So and reference that the name has to come down by the judge's deadline, which is Friday, June 12th.

A lot of things happening on Friday, June 12th. And I thought, well, they're going to appeal that, right? No. They just filed last night. I have a video up on an on legal AF. They just filed last night a joint report in which the lawyers for the Department of Justice and the Kennedy Center said, we're effectively, we're not opposing the needs. name change. We're considering our options about the judge's ruling, the second part of the ruling,

which was we can't shut down the Kennedy Center for two years so that Donald Trump won't be embarrassed by the fact that he can't get anybody to perform there. I mean to remediate and repair, we won't shut down the Kennedy Center for two years, but they didn't say that in the memo. They said the judge did not order that we don't have, that we can't shut down. He just said we needed a better record. That's not what the judge's order says. The judge, preliminarily enjoined any shutdown and lack of programming at the Kennedy Center for the next until there is a proper decision made on a proper record with the participation of Representative Joyce Beattie, who's a congresswoman who they barred from the room during the vote. She's back in the room voting,

and now they're going to have to make a better record. So when I read that, I'm like, well, where is the reference to the name? Nowhere. Nowhere on the docket at appeal. They haven't rushed. I mean, they could between now and a Friday, but I don't think so. I think this name is coming down, much like when Saddam Hussein's statues got pulled down by horseback in Iran. Why do you think he's, if I'm right, why do you think, Ben, he's relenting on the name? I don't know. You know, I think we need a little more data there. What's your suspicion?

I don't know. I think even there he thought that his grounds to do it were, I'm pretty sure. shaky grounds. And even his Department of Justice has said, this is take the loss. We're not going to win this with the way the statute's written by Congress and you've gotten so much shit for crapping on the family on the name that there are JFK name and all that. Just get the name off. You'll do everything else. You want to rebuild the Lincoln Memorial with the pavilion. You got the blue pool, tidy bowl liner for the for the reflecting pool. You'll want to. You'll want to put up the art. What he really wants is the art, I think it's that he really wants the

arc to triumph. He still wants the arc of Trump, the 250-foot sky-high thing, and he's going to, he's picking his battles, and he's taking the name off the Kennedy Center. I think I'm right. We'll know better if by the 12th we see the cranes coming in to take those, those, that scar, that scar tissue off of the Kennedy Center. Yeah, I also think that he's embarrassed by the fact that nobody wants to show up to the events with his name on it. And so his view is, I'll put my name on everything else. Then they'll go to the Kennedy Center and then, you know, and then they'll see that, to your point, they'll see the arc.

They'll see my stupid UFC stadium in the White House. But I think it goes back to a central theme of this, which is when you stand up to him and you fight back, he will recalibrate. So to me, is it fully relenting? I think he may try to come at it from another angle. He'll prioritize UFC arts, this thing, and the other thing. Redo world, you know, redo all these, you know, monuments and try to go there with other authority

and then try to come back here, you know, later. Nothing's ever done until it's done. I mean, this is a guy who while he speaks with Putin on a regular, basis removes oil sanctions against Putin, sends the ballroom guy, one of the people on that commission that approved the ballroom to show off the ballroom in the St. Petersburg Economic Forum. By the way, while you see oil depots across the waterway that are being hit by Ukrainian drones to show off Trump's ballrooms and all of these things, Trump will still be talking about, I was framed. I have no Russia connection. Russia, Russia, Russia. It's like, you guys in Russia right now

is showing off the ballroom. Putin was in Alaska. But this is, but this is his mind. He will, it's like the, like the zombie movie. And sometimes I refer to kind of the MAGA movement as the zombieification of these humans when it's like when they start parodying things that are untethered to reality. And sometimes I know our audience and you probably feel like this, like am I in the zombie movie? and I haven't been bitten yet. And I'm trying to understand how these people are talking about these things as though they're semi-normal when this is like the craziest behavior imaginable. But like, you know how in the movies like, you know, you get rid of them and they come back.

And they come back and you get rid of them again. It's like, all right, we're there. And it's like the sequel. It's like, no, get away. Get away. And we'll close the episode with this unless there's any other topics you want to hit Popak, though, which is their true. truly needs to be, it's obvious, a holistic, systemic review of our laws, of our Constitution,

of the gaps that exist, and they need to be closed. And the loopholes need to be closed. So many of our laws, and certainly our Constitution, rely on faithfully executing those laws, That's why the Take Care Clause of Article 2 is the ultimate good faith and fair dealing provision of a contract. That we say it is the law. It is required that the executive branch take care that the laws be faithfully executed and the Constitution be complied with and with loyalty with the oath that you take because the Constitution does. doesn't spell out everything. Laws don't spell out every permutation, but you have to faithfully execute the spirit of the law. And when you don't do that, you then have to say, well,

how do we change this? How do we avoid this? There needs to be constitutional amendments preventing absolute immunity. There likely needs to be term, not likely, there needs to be term limits and massive reform in the United States Supreme Court. There needs to be a whole, set of laws that very specifically restrict executive action. There needs to be immediate permission of standing for the general public or for Congress to be able to go into courts to enforce things if you have a rogue executive. Again, there needs to, you know, I understand Democrats are referring to it as a project 2029, if you will, but it needs to be far more expansive then 2025.

If 2025 was about the destruction of democracy, what we really have to think through, whether you call a project 229 or whatever you want to think about, is the restoration of democracy, the ability to create all the checks and balances against an authoritarian that our founders took for granted that would naturally exist when you have the separation of powers. So with all of that said, we appreciate you watching.

A quick reminder, make sure you not only subscribe to our YouTube channel, subscribe to the LegalAF YouTube channel. Let's get Legal AF 2 million subs. I'd love for them to get 2 million subs soon. Also subscribe to the Legal AF substack. If you or anyone you know are on substack, make sure you subscribe there. And if you or anybody you know has been injured in a trucking accident, an auto accident if you've been injured by the negligence of others and you want a lawyer.

You're looking for a lawyer. Reach out to Popok. He's a practicing lawyer. I'm not, but he is. 877 Popok. I was a practicing lawyer. I'm a law professor now. Or go to the Popok firm.com. They've got lawyers available across the country who can and staff across the country who can tell you if you have a case. You may know somebody looking for a lawyer who had a family member or a tragic injury happened. Tell them, reach out to Popok. And in a case. you didn't get the number or the website it's also in the description below so thanks everybody for watching we appreciate you and uh we'll see you next time on legal a f shout out legal a fers shout out might as mighty