Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF 8/27/2026

Starting point is 00:00:00 Legendary has arrived in Alberta with BetMGM Casino. Sign up to unlock access to over 4,000 casino games, including exclusive slots you can't spin anywhere else. Survivors ready? The iconic TV show is now an online casino game, where you can tap into Island Fun. BetMGM has also brought the prices right, Game of Thrones, Family Feud, MGM Millions,

Starting point is 00:00:21 and so many more exclusive casino games to Alberta. Get Las Vegas right from your phone with live dealer games streaming from real tables. And every time you play, You can enjoy instant deposit options and fast withdrawals. BetMGM Casino and its legendary library of games are available. Download the BetMGM app. See BetMGM.com for terms. 18 plus Alberta only.

Starting point is 00:00:43 Please play responsibly. Subject to eligibility requirements. If gambling is affecting your mental health or well-being, 21-Alberta is here to help. Call or text 211 or visit ab.211.ca. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with the Alberta Eye Gaming Corporation. Standard message and data rates may apply. Look at the time. It must be legal A. F, the podcast on Midas Touch with Karen Freeman, McNipelo, and Michael Popog, wait to you hear the rundown. Not Karen. Karen knows the rundown. Wait to hear the rundown of what we're going to do today. And the guests that we have to help us do it, we're talking about all things Epstein, including Judge Sullivan's case, presiding over the Katie Fang case and a new weirdo appeal to the Department of Justice has tried to take. And then in the back end of that,

Starting point is 00:01:32 segment. We're going to bring in Danny Benski, amazing individual, one of the leaders of the survivor movement, certainly of the Epstein survivor movement, to do some running commentary with us about Galane Maxwell, who just got denied her petition for writ of habeas corpus to try to get out of jail. And I want to get Danny's reaction to the fact that to talk about perverse, the perversity of it all. Galane Maxwell use the Epstein files that were disclosed

Starting point is 00:02:10 for the benefit of victims to try to shore up her petition to get out of jail. I'm not making this up, but Danny Bensky will be joining us. And then as we go to the back end, the back half of the podcast, I want to really educate our audience

Starting point is 00:02:28 with Karen about mail-in ballots and what is going on and what's not going on. And this is right at the market. This is right at the moment. Many things happen today that you need to know about, including Judge Talwani and some orders of hers in Massachusetts, some new complaints that have been filed in Massachusetts, what the Supreme Court just did, what Katanji Brown Jackson just said, and who else, who's better to help us sift through with this complicated issue than the great Mark Elias, and Mark will be joining us. We have that discussion. Then I want to talk about the Kennedy Center, because

Starting point is 00:03:04 this is a huge hearing going on tomorrow at about 2 p.m. Eastern time in front of Judge Cooper, and our man, our man in the street, our man in the courtroom, Adam Classfeld, will be there. And when he pops out, he's going to do a live report with me on Legal A.F. Substack. So big hearing tomorrow about the audacity of Donald Trump now threatening to tear down the Kennedy Center unless they put up his name and lying to the judge along the way with an unsubstantiated an unsupported set of filings, including saying, we got to name it after him because it's the only way we can raise money when the Washington Post Exposé just said it's the exact opposite. Nobody's donating because his name is on the building, not the other way around.

Starting point is 00:03:45 And we've got an interesting development, which is not final, but it is interesting about a case I've been following on legal AF involving the state of Minnesota and the Hennepin County district attorney or attorney going after Christian Castro. He's the ICE agent that lied about whether a Venezuelan migrant who was stopped in a traffic stop, attacked him with a shovel and a broom. And then when the video came out that showed him chasing after this person as they went into a house and he fired through the front door, shooting the man in the leg and just barely missing a child. Okay.

Starting point is 00:04:24 So somehow he's still employed by ICE apparently. or he was, and there's been a motion to extradite him from Texas to Minnesota to stand trial on the four felony count charges, and Governor Abbott got in the way. There was a big hearing about it and a new ruling that just came out today, which is a day before the 90-day fugitive hold period, was about to end. Very interesting case. I want to update you all on it, but now I want to bring in my co-anchor and friend, Karen, Freeman, McNifalo. How are you? Good. Hi, Popa. How are you? Good to see you. I always feel like I'm introducing three people when I introduce you. So before we get started, what's, you know, kind of dog days of summer and, you know, it's hard to believe next week is the start of the Labor Day weekend.

Starting point is 00:05:13 And we're that much closer to midterm elections from your vantage point. Like, what's going on? What are you watching? What are you observing? You know, it's funny. I was having dinner with my husband earlier before we came on the air tonight. And he asked me, what are you guys talking about on legal AF? And I told him, I gave him the rundown that you just gave. And he just sat there shaking his head the whole time. He just, it can't believe some of the things that are going on and what's happening in our country. And as he put it, he says, we better get our act together. We're going to lose our democracy. I said exactly. And that's why we do what we do, Popok, because we have to educate people. so that people understand how important things are, what's at stake, and how important these elections are in particular to getting some semblance of norms and rules and the rule of law back into our country. And it's just, you know, you and I do this every single day, but people who don't follow these things as closely as we do, I think it's just shocking. Yeah, I think it's so well put of what we're watching. And we're watching, if you listen closely, you're hearing the groaning and the straining of our court. system and the lower court judges having to put up with the Supreme Court that rarely supports them on major issues. And yet, we have to continue to fight. We have to keep chopping the wood and

Starting point is 00:06:34 stack in the wood, especially as it relates to voting. There's probably nothing that's on people's minds more right now than their sacred right to vote and if it's going to be protected. I just interviewed it's up on Legal Affairs YouTube channel right now, Nick Brown, who is the Attorney General for the state of Washington. By the way, Washington, Washington is a universal mail-in ballot state. Everybody votes by mail. There's a couple of people that show up, and you can also show up during this week-long period at the election office,

Starting point is 00:07:01 but everybody votes by mail since 2011. No fraud. It's amazing. Hard to believe. But huge voter turnout because you lower the barriers to voting. It doesn't mean you're increasing fraud. It just means you're making it easier to vote, which is what we should all be in favor of.

Starting point is 00:07:17 And he is also the head of the Democratic Attorney General's voter protection task force, if you will. And I asked them, you guys can go watch it on Legal AF YouTube channel right now. I asked them, I said, are we ready? Are you ready? Are you ready at a moment's notice with pre-drafted lawsuits and injunctions to run into court to stop the assault on our voting? And he said with a lot of confidence, Moxie, absolutely. We've tabletopped all this. We went through Trump One.

Starting point is 00:07:50 We expect us to be 10 times worse than Trump one. We fought the post office the last time. We're going to fight the post office again. And that those kind of comments, when I talk to people like that or I talk to the ACLU, who says, we got 30 scenarios. We've dreamt up things that even Donald Trump's evil brain could not have dreamt up. We're ready to go. I want people to understand that we,

Starting point is 00:08:16 we don't just talk about these things. We do on the show and bring in the newsmakers and the people in the courtrooms and in the halls of Congress and things like that. But we are, there are people out there who we have platformed here on Legal A.F and on the Midas Dutch Network. All they do, 24-7 is try to protect democracy. People like Mark Elias, people like the Democratic Attorneys General. You know, I just interviewed today, it's going up tomorrow. Kristen Clark, the new general counsel of the NAACP, and the NAACP is out there with hundreds of cases against the Trump administration. She used to be, I mean, really, Kristen Clark should be in the running to be Attorney General of the United States. If a Democrat gets into power, she was the number three. She was the head of the Civil Rights Division,

Starting point is 00:09:10 when we had a civil rights division last time. Just remarkable, but the reason I'm so thrilled to collaborate, Legal AF collaborates with these public interest groups, is because it should give confidence in the briefings that we do in the videos, that there are people who are prepared on the front lines, tip of the spear to beat and beat back Donald Trump. And the Ed Martins, you know, the crazy election deniers, you know, Oh, Ed Martin's leaving the Department of Justice.

Starting point is 00:09:44 He's going to go work on voter, voter issues. Oh, there's a thousand monitors that the Department of Justice is going to. Forget all that. That's just scare. That's just the boogey man. This is going to be hard fought hand-to-hand combat in federal courts on emergency filings. And there's nobody who's more skilled with the acumen to win these than the hardened battle warriors like Mark a lot. and the ACLU and Democracy Forward and Democracy Now and Norm Isson and, you know,

Starting point is 00:10:22 you know, Lanny Davis, the list goes on. And they are ready, especially the ones that are devoted to voting. And I want people to kind of have confidence in that. We've got to cover the stories, but I want people to have confidence in that. Karen, why don't we talk about the thing that Donald Trump wishes he could rid himself of, you know, out, out damn spot, you know, the scandal that is his relationship with Clayne Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. I'm sorry that, you know, your two best friends were, you know, one of convicted child sex trafficker or the other one committed suicide or whatever in order

Starting point is 00:10:58 to avoid standing trial for it and pled guilty to an earlier charge. It's not my fault. And certainly things that are developing at a rapid speed in the Katie Fang versus Todd Blanche case. I would talk about that. And then when we bring it. and Danny Bensky, I want to talk about the Galane Maxwell and Judge Engelmeyer in your neck of the woods in New York. Let's start with Katie. Katie's and her lawyers. I've had Brendan Ballouin about once a week to talk about that case. Her lawyer is a public integrity project. And she sued, not just for a preliminary injunction about five categories of things. She sued to get the rest of the Epstein files. If there's three million produced, there's probably at least three million that

Starting point is 00:11:40 have been produced. And to go back through the original production and make sure things that should have been produced are produced and to get the 200,000 black pages of redaction, unredacted, and to get foreign language documents in an international child sex trafficking ring translated and things like that. That's which, and a special master to be appointed because we don't trust the Department of Justice to do this in order to oversee this whole process. That's her case. We talk about where we are procedurally in her case as being a preliminary injunction, about five things, but there's this bigger case here. And the judge is responsible for deciding all of this. And so the judge is about to enter in order about the missing redaction logs coming off a hearing

Starting point is 00:12:24 from a week ago. And in the midst of all of this tumult, you and I get a notice of appeal, but not a notice of a sort of a notice of appeal. And they say it's a protective notice of appeal. to the extent that what the judge did two months ago is injunctive relief that it is an appeal, but we're not sure, so we're just going to file this. What did you make of this filing? You know, to be honest, I had not even heard of a protective notice of appeal before this. From what I can glean, this is a way of preserving their right to appeal without actually going to appeal. I mean, I wanted to ask you about it.

Starting point is 00:13:04 Have you seen something like this? I mean, you know, it's sort of a weird quirk. No, you either appeal or you don't appeal. Exactly. And if you feel like I'm not sure whether procedurally I should appeal, then you file a notice of appeal. And you let the courts figure it out. They want their cake and eat it too. They want to play it out with Judge Sullivan.

Starting point is 00:13:25 And they want to warn Judge Sullivan that they're going to appeal, which everybody knows. And then they have this other thing. I talked to Brennan Ballou, Karen, and he can't figure it out either. He can't figure out why they didn't appeal because he thinks it's an appealable order. the original June preliminary injunction, which I have right here. Yeah, those are typically appealable. Yeah, this order that the judge entered in which he ordered them to do by July 2nd a whole bunch of things on an order to show clause, that's an appealable order.

Starting point is 00:13:56 Right. And I don't know why they're still effing around with, I don't know whether we can appeal or not. Well, maybe, maybe the only thing I could think of is because it would be frivolous. I mean, do they not have any issues to bring, right? Well, yes, because you're right, because they keep playing hide the salami. That's the wrong phrase. They keep playing, you know, hide the evidence from Judge Sullivan, and it's pissing him off. I mean, he's about, Karen, to lower the boom on them with a contempt finding and granting her relief.

Starting point is 00:14:32 And he's the same guy that's going to decide whether a special master should come in because the Department of Justice has forfeited any credibility or any right to be continuing to run the Epstein file production. My favorite thing that Sullivan said was at a hearing was clearly frustrated with the DOJ over there not producing things and not doing what they were supposed to do. And the government was like, well, you know, it's forthcoming. And his response was, Christmas is forthcoming. Like, you know, you got to be, you got to give me something more here. Otherwise, you know, they're just not responding to a federal judge, which is in our world, right? If it was us, we would be in so much trouble.

Starting point is 00:15:16 You can't not respond to a federal judge. He told Andrew Block, the lawyer there, who according to Brandon Ballou, who was in the courtroom, and he said, I'm being diplomatic. And he was in the Department of Justice at one point in his career. Brendan said there were just these very uncomfortable long stretches of silence as Mr. Block just stared down at the podium and didn't answer questions. Like it was uncomfortable even for the Katie Fang side of the case. It was sort of like, it was like a Snickers commercial. Like you're not going anywhere. And because he didn't have anything to answer. And the one thing he did answer, he answered wrong. This is where they're going to get slammed. They shouldn't worry about filing notices of appeal if they don't have. on appeal, they should be worrying about the fact that Block, in response to a question from Judge Sullivan, Sullivan said, okay, listen, this side, the journalist side of the case, wants the handwritten FBI notes that go with each of the typewritten versions for the four

Starting point is 00:16:21 interviews of the woman who says that when she was a girl, she was sexually abused by Donald Trump when she was 13. We all agree that there is a difference between handwritten. notes and what finally gets typewritten. Things get left out in the typewritten part. It's not a transcript. And they're entitled to see it. And he said, and you've said, and I want to make sure I get this right, the reason you're not producing them is because they're identical or something like that. Has the FBI or the Department of Justice ever produced handwritten 302s in this Epstein File Transparency Act production, not related to Donald Trump? I don't think so, Your Honor. 100 times public integrity project filed a notice to inform the court that over a hundred

Starting point is 00:17:06 times they have five they have given over without objection the handwritten 302s and gave an example of the difference between written and and whatever and ask the judge judge while you're doing the in-camera review because he's now got it in camera keep in mind that they basically did not tell you the truth about the 302s when you decide whether to produce them or not so that's by the way just for people who don't know in-camera review just basically means the judge is reviewing it in private, you know, themselves. Yeah. Right. Without without, the other side, Katie Fangside hasn't seen it. Correct. The government has because they produced it. And there he's doing that in-camera review. I mean, we've learned certain, look, already we've learned certain things because Katie filed that case.

Starting point is 00:17:52 You know, for a long time, you and I were like, who, who is Epstein talking to about the sex torture videos? So we know who that is now. That's out because of the lawsuit. They keep saying it's a frivolous lawsuit. It's not, yeah, we already know more than we did before. I didn't know that I wrote it down before this. I didn't know that a sultan from Dubai or Brunei or whatever was talking about sex torture videos with Epstein. And now I do.

Starting point is 00:18:20 And we're supposed to know that. These are the things that are not supposed to be redacted or hidden. The only thing that was supposed to be protected was victims' names. Yeah, we know they know they didn't. do that very well. Right. So the victim's names get out. Danny Benski is one of those people that had happened to. And the predators remained under black line. And then they wonder why we just don't trust the Department of Justice under Toplanch or any other person. So we're waiting on to follow, through with this. We're waiting on Judge Sullivan, on the preliminary injunction issue, on the order

Starting point is 00:18:56 to show cause issue to make his final ruling. That I think is going to come out in the next week or so. Maybe this notice of appeal, not notice of appeal, will motivate him. I think it's going to be bad for Todd Blanche. I think this is my note to get on the show. Okay, I'm on. And then we have like this, you know, because we always have this cosmic world here of all things, Epstein.

Starting point is 00:19:21 Right at the same moment, Judge Engelmeier, Paul Engelmeier, in the Southern District of New York, finally made his way through this filing by Galane Maxwell. And I mean literally by Galane Maxwell because her lawyer did not participate. She wrote this jailhouse lawyer style from whatever they give them access to in her cushy federal penitentiary. She filed a writ of habeas corpus, which is the last ditch effort by a federal prisoner to argue that I may have lost all my appeals. even up to the United States Supreme Court,

Starting point is 00:19:57 but justice can only be done by letting me out. And here's why. And she used the Epstein File Transparency Act Library, where she tried to anyway, to try to support her case. How perverse that the person who was convicted of being a child sex predator and Judge Engelmeyer outlines it

Starting point is 00:20:20 is using the documents that were, were supposed to bring dignity and justice to the survivors to try to get out of jail. Yeah. I mean, look, the, the, her motion. So just so people understand, as you said, she exhausted all her appeals, meaning she already appealed her conviction and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court and Supreme Court declined, you know, it was upheld in the interim court and the Supreme Court declined to take the case.

Starting point is 00:20:49 So that means she's exhausted all her appeals. Sometimes, however, you can bring. bring another appeal. And one of those grounds under which you can do that is when there's newly discovered evidence. And so she tried to use the Epstein files as newly discovered evidence as a basis for why her case should be overturned, saying a lot of these documents I didn't know about at the time of my trial. And so therefore, I should get a new trial and my case should be overturned. And what I loved about what this judge did, and I think it was like a 67-page ruling is he methodically went through each and every one of her claims and actually refuted it.

Starting point is 00:21:32 I mean, this is like a bulletproof decision and essentially said, okay, yeah, there's new information that's in there. But guess what? Everything that's new that you pointed to actually supports your conviction. It's not stuff that might exonerate you. It's not stuff that's favorable to you. And he just went through and just one by one shot down each of her arguments and basically, denied her appeal outright and but really wrote I think a methodical um very well uh reasoned opinion

Starting point is 00:22:04 that again it was pro se as you said she wrote it herself but he responded to this and answered as if this was briefed by a lawyer and did a really great um did a really great decision yeah and and i have somebody perfect for us to kick this around with Danny Benski. Let's bring in Danny. Hi. Hey, Danny. How are you?

Starting point is 00:22:29 Awesome. Thanks. Hi, I'm Karen. I don't know that we've ever met. Nice to meet you. Thanks for coming on our show. Quares, thanks for having me. So for people that are just tuning in, Danny,

Starting point is 00:22:40 besides being a remarkable human being, is also what I consider one of the leaders of the Survivor movement and certainly of the Epstein Survivor movement. In fact, I don't know if you can talk about it, but you were doing something sort of Epstein investigative, related before you even, you know, earlier today. Can you talk about that? Yeah, a little bit. I was on a call with the New Mexico AG's office. And New Mexico has actually been really great and they are trying to launch these investigations by, you know, we're not getting

Starting point is 00:23:11 anywhere with the DOJ clearly. So we're trying to move through the states as much as we can. And honestly, it was the first time that I had conversations with law enforcement. that felt very supportive, very trauma-informed. I did have my lawyer present. So it was really a better scene than I had been a part of before. I think when I was subpoenaed in 2008, and that felt very much like an interrogation. And so I've been calling for reform as far as I was having a survivor advocate present.

Starting point is 00:23:42 So this was a very different experience, and it was something that felt big in a way because it just feels like at a time when we can't cut through their trial, trying to work with us and they really are trying to put pressure on the DOJ to get their unredacted files and to be able to move forward with an investigation. Yeah, and for those that are joining late, then I'll turn it over to Karen, who had been a sex abuse prosecutor back in the day with the Manhattan DA's office. Zorro Ranch, owned by Epstein.

Starting point is 00:24:11 There have been allegations that really terrible things happen there as part of his child sex trafficking ring and that maybe bodies are buried there. certainly New Mexico was cooperative when the government was in the hands of Trump the first time turning over files related to their investigation that ended up with, I think, with Maureen Comey, was prosecuting Epstein and Colleen Maxwell. And then at some point, and this is all public, the Bill Barr-led Attorney General, the Bill Barr DOJ under Donald Trump the first time put the kibosh on New Mexico's investigation and told them to stop. They thought it was because the feds were going to take over. Feds never took over. And here we are five years later with now New Mexico reviving their investigation and demanding cooperation from the Department of Justice. So that's what that's that was what you're participating in that process. And it's interesting. You know, I was never in New Mexico. And so I didn't know how I would be able to help them. You know, obviously like I feel for like anybody that was at Zoro and I want to help in any capacity

Starting point is 00:25:16 that I can. And so many of us do. But what they said was that they really want to establish patterns and that because this was such a large sex trafficking ring, that what happened in Florida, what happened in New York, what happened in Paris, like all of these things do speak to each other. So it felt it really was, it was invasive, honestly, like it was the most in-depth I've ever given my story and the details and the pictures I saw and what I saw all of it, right? And to walk back through it in that granular detail was a lot. But I appreciate what they're doing because now that's on record and they are able to help other investigations from other states. Yeah, I'm just said, I'm so glad you felt good about that

Starting point is 00:25:55 process. And finally, some prosecutors who are with dignity letting you tell your story. Karen, I'll turn it, I'll turn Danny over to you. We can talk about Elaine Maxwell, too. Yeah, first of all, it's amazing that in the same breath, you can say, I went in the more detail than I've ever been before. I had to talk about this again. It's like being retramatized all over again. but yet at the same time you can say it was trauma-informed and you were treated with dignity and the best you've been treated by law enforcement so far, which says a lot, right? It says a lot that you can do that and share that and still feel that way. And it just goes to show when law enforcement is properly trained and does this the right way.

Starting point is 00:26:41 It doesn't re-victimize the survivor every single time they have to tell their story. So, and so I guess that begs the question that when you have met with FBI and DOJ officials, it was not that way. No, definitely. So, I mean, it was, you know, a very rude traumatizing process, especially 2008 when I first went in. I did not have a support system. I really thought that I would be brought up on prostitution charges as that was something that Jeffrey had said to me.

Starting point is 00:27:11 I had turned 18 while I was there. And so that was in the back of my head. He had threatened friends of mine. So there was a lot going on. on at that time. And then, of course, with this DOJ, you know, we're constantly running into walls to say the least. And of course, my information was outed in three different tranches and or nine different data sets. So it's been a lot. And honestly, the meeting with Todd Blanche was one of the most gaslighting experiences I've ever been a part of. And I was in an abusive relationship where he

Starting point is 00:27:41 was a professional gas later. So there's a lot there. So yeah, needless to say that my experience with law enforcement and experience, especially with the DOJ, has not been one that I would rate highly. So, you know, it was really, really exceptional to sit there and here, you know, we are on your side. We are just trying to find investigations. And also just the fact that they're saying that there are things to be investigated, like that's something that we've heard over and over from the DOJ. There's nothing here. There's nothing to see. There's nothing to be investigated. Well, we know that there are investigations. And actually, they are actively obstructing the investigation. right now in New Mexico by not handing over these documents. So just to kind of be, you know,

Starting point is 00:28:24 it's a new perspective to sit there with these special agents and say like, we are very much all on the same side. We just want to see convictions. We want to see accountability and justice for everybody. So I have a question for you. So it's been reported that there's over a thousand Epstein survivors, which is astounding to me. I mean, absolutely unbelievable. And I understand that you are, are part of a community of Epstein survivors and you all talk to one another. And from your conversations with other survivors, from your perspective, are there other perpetrators out there that, I mean, no, this is a good, I'm not going to ask you names or anything like that, but from your perspective, are there other perpetrators, this wasn't just Jeffrey Epstein and Ghulaine Maxwell, you know,

Starting point is 00:29:16 abusing and assaulting a thousand girls and women. From your perspective, are there other perpetrators out there who also sexually assaulted girls and women? And you know of them, these are women who will come forward or have come forward and who are just asking that their cases be prosecuted, be investigated and prosecuted.

Starting point is 00:29:43 And you're nodding your head, yes, emphatically. And I think that's the story that gets lost for a lot of people because we keep hearing the gaslighting, as you said, from DOJ and the FBI and Todd Blanche and, you know, others saying, oh, you know, if you have information, come forward. What you are saying loud and clear is that you and others have information about other rapists, you know, other people who have committed sexual assault and that this Department of Justice. also has that information, or at least it will be brought to them. You have people who are willing to do it, and they are not bringing, they're not investigating those cases and they're not bringing those cases. Yes. We have been in the halls of Congress so many times. We've taken meetings with so many congressional reps and leaders, senators, and we have shown investigative leads to them. We have talked to them about our own stories. You know, you're hearing stories like mine and like a few

Starting point is 00:30:45 others that are pretty much exclusive to Jeffrey, because Jeffrey's dead. And of course, like, the level of, I shouldn't say the level of fear is any worse. Like, it's still awful, and I definitely still live with fear for, like, it was a sex trafficking ring, right? So in order for Geline Maxwell to be convicted on five out of six counts, who was she trafficking too? It was not just a Jeffrey, right? So we already, for it to be established as a sex trafficking ring, there are already buyers involved. Demand is already there. We know that to be true. And so then of course, like within our survivor sister community, we do talk often. But I don't want to say that my story is one of the safer ones to tell.

Starting point is 00:31:23 But, you know, some of these stories are really complex and they're really challenging. And there's a lot of defamation involved and there's like some really scary parts to it. And so everybody loves to yell at us, name the names, name the names. And to be fair, like we have read them at filibusters. We have said them like we've read Virginia's deposition. I get to hear and ramble off. You know, we've said Glenn Dubin, we've said, Alan Dershowitz.

Starting point is 00:31:46 We said, like, and those are not names that are, like, pertaining to my story. Those are names that are in the files and that we have taken to Congress and said, like, here is a lead. Here's a document that you need to follow up on. Like, there are people that you can talk to. Just start investigating. And for some reason, we get up to the DOJ and we're just budding our head against the wall at all times. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:32:08 And one of the problems, Danny, you've spoken about before with me in our audience, is that there may be, I've actually heard the number closer to 1,400 or 1,500 abstin survivors, but only about, this is the part that I was followed on my chair when you said at the first time, what's the number that have actually come out and identified themselves, which is their right to do? It's a very small number. It's a solid question. I don't have that number. I think there are about 10 to 15 of us that are regularly out there and doing advocacy see work at this point. There's probably about 30 of us that have come forward. So 30, and as you said, and I'm paraphrasing, you said a version of that 30, depending upon

Starting point is 00:32:52 when they met Jeffrey, how he groomed them or recruited them, what walk of life they came from, they can't tell the whole story. Because there's, right, how can 25 tell the story of 1400? Well, and I think it's my belief that Jeffrey had different girls for different reasons. And, you know, for me, I felt like I was sort of in this weird broken dreams category where in a lot of New York, he was always going for models, dancers, actors. I was a dancer. I, you know, was taught to be very compliant and the compliance was key for him. So all the grooming that I had leading up to my time with Epstein really, you know, took a role in this. And so I do think that, but I think my ultimate, like what he wanted from me, he always asked me to recruit other girls and I didn't.

Starting point is 00:33:41 But he basically would say to me all the time, like, you can end your abuse by just bringing me more people. You know that right. And you put it back on me. But, you know, that's my story. And I know that there are others that he groomed to traffic. Like, he had different girls for different reasons. And it feels awful to say that. But now that we look at it and sort of understand pattern a little bit more, I think different properties held different things for him.

Starting point is 00:34:07 So when you're looking at the scope of this, it's just the magnitude is. so huge. So to update our audience, you get Melania Trump, who for me was like Beetlejuice recently. If you say Natalie Harps name three times, Melania Trump pops up. But she stands in front with this crooked finger at a press conference. Nobody knew was coming, including the White House, in which she says, I was no relationship. And no, they're all lies. But the victims should have their day in Congress. The congressional hearing should happen. And like, okay, well, that's victimizing the victims again. That's interesting.

Starting point is 00:34:43 And then you have Todd Blanche, who's forced like a wayward schoolboy to go to go meet with the Epstein survivors. Like he's got a stone in his shoe. And he goes and does it. Now, since those two events, has anything happened in Washington? Okay. No, but the judges are doing great. That is so hopeful, right? Like what we saw from Engelmeyer this week and what we're seeing from Judge Sullivan and Katie's case, it's like, okay, there is a moral compass still.

Starting point is 00:35:10 there somewhere. Yeah. God, somebody's got. But no FBI. I mean, when Todd Blanche, you came on the show like the day after you, you met with Todd Blanche, Todd Blanche, oh, it's the FBI. And here's my sex crimes victim prosecutor. And here's her number.

Starting point is 00:35:25 Has there been any reach out to set up any interviews to develop to develop any of the leads that you've talked about here? I actually ran into Ali Serrano. It was an interesting experience. I think in a former life, Ali, and I could, like, I would have. been wanting to talk to her. But it was at Todd Blanche's, the Senate Judiciary Confirmation, right? So it was the day that the vote passed through Senate Judiciary before the final vote. And we were in the room together and we chatted for a moment. And, you know, at first it was

Starting point is 00:35:59 very cordial. She did give me her phone number and she said, you know, reach out. Like, we definitely want to help you. And I was sort of like, okay. And then she said, you know, like, you should be so lucky that like other, what I should say, like, it never happens that victims and survivors get to meet with their acting AG. Like, you should be so lucky that you met with Todd Glac. And I was laughing to myself because I was thinking, like, well, no other acting AG actively exposed survivors like in every tranche, nude photos of us, our information, every bit of like abuse that happened to us, right? Like, we're so far out of the realm of what is normal that like, but I should be so lucky, right? we should all be so lucky. So, and I don't think she actually meant it that way,

Starting point is 00:36:41 but it definitely, it sat with me for days after that. And I was like, man, like, as she felt for like Blanche Law Cup, and I was like, oh, it just feels like we're just brainwashed. So, what, your name wasn't public until they outed you? My name was public before that, but it's sparingly. It wasn't, I mean, I was, I came forward at Gulen Maxwell's pretrial hearing in 2020, I believe it was. And it was just, it happened, it was done, and then it was gone.

Starting point is 00:37:11 And then I believe it was when Trump had made a comment that there were no files or something like that in July. And that was when I had decided that I would use my name and I would come forward and discuss more. But that's where it kind of felt targeted a little bit of whose names were outed a lot. And so, I mean, it was 100 victims that I know of that were outed and many were Jane Does. So I can't say for sure that it was like specific targeted people. But I mean, I hadn't gone into like the full intimate details of abuse until, you know, 302s were out there. And yeah.

Starting point is 00:37:51 Wasn't there a moment? I think you told me that when we were wearing masks, remember those days? Yeah. When the good guys were wearing masks. When people thought you were Virginia, Jeffrey. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I came out of Geline's pretrial hearing that I had gone to.

Starting point is 00:38:06 I had never met anybody in person. because of starting the pandemic, right? So I did go to see Tigrid McCauley, my lawyer, and just to thank her. And I really wanted to meet other survivors, to be honest. And I got there, and I was the only one, right? And so, but to Sigrid and I had this incredible conversation in this elevator shaft about the other survivor sisters and talked about Virginia actually at length. And that, it just gave me so much hope in a weird way because she was so strong. And I really did feel like I could stand there because of Virginia and because of Maria Farmer and her art. And I just felt very connected to them. And as we walked out the front door, press was there, like nothing I had ever, you know, encountered her scene.

Starting point is 00:38:48 And they were screaming and they were screaming Virginia's name. And I'm like, look, you know, Virginia's here. Like, oh, no, it's me. Okay. Oh, God. You know, it was just like masked. And they're like, give a comment, give a statement. And she said, you know, this isn't Virginia.

Starting point is 00:39:01 This is another photographer. And of course, then they were like, oh, another survivor, who are you, who are you? Right? And so I walked up and I did give a statement just saying that it was vindicating to see Gila and Maxwell sit there, you know. And then I laughed and they like, you know, were like cutting me off down the street and running all over the place and asking for my name. And I remember just feeling like if Virginia could do it, I could do it.

Starting point is 00:39:24 And I did it in real time and I didn't even know what I was doing in the moment. I was just like, this is what I got, you know. So I do feel like just such a strong like that survivor sister ship is, real and even if I, I didn't meet her in person. I know her family incredibly well now and we're like, but to have that sort of camaraderie and knowing that that we're in it together is everything. And I feel that with the survivor sisters now. Did you have an opportunity, Danny, to read Judge Engelmeyer's decision in rejecting the petition to let her out of jail? I did not. I haven't read it all thing. I need to. You'd like it. I mean, in terms of the description of

Starting point is 00:40:04 how much of a monster she is and having been convicted. And not letting, you know, it's something that doesn't, it's a weird thing. We can talk about it here with the three of us. It's a weird thing because Donald Trump's on record is saying he's considering partnering her. I mean, we haven't heard it lately, but, you know,

Starting point is 00:40:22 he, well, a lot of things happen there and who knows and all. And we've seen the Department of Justice roll over play dead to give Jan Sixers money. or, you know, Ashley Babitz family money or whatever. But they opposed the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Jake Clayton, who was then the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, signed a very sharp piece of paper that said the solemn, I love now the solemn verdict of the jury should be honored,

Starting point is 00:40:56 except when Donald Trump's subject of the jury verdict, the solemn verdict of the jury found her heinous crime. times against children, she should not win her on her habeas. I was like, did anybody tell Trump that Jay Clayton is filing papers like that? But it doesn't mean he's not going to pardon her. Right. But even his own DOJ. Don't even say it.

Starting point is 00:41:17 Right. But even his own DOJ thinks she's a monster. Yeah. Yeah. But then of course, then why is Todd Blanche going for nine hours and talking to her? You know, and I mean, I guess that's where she feels like she has preferential treatment a lot of the time. And she feels like she can probably work the system.

Starting point is 00:41:33 And so this was like a beautiful, you know, slap in the face that said, no, you, you know, you are convicted by a jury of your peers. You had a free trial that was absolutely a fair trial, you know. Spending nine hours with her and then putting her in a, you know, in a camp essentially. With a puppy. Yes, yes. I mean, the fact that that is where she is. And it's like I saw this thing about like the sailors, right, are like in like worst conditions. Like Gila and Maxwell.

Starting point is 00:42:01 it's like just be happy that you are where you are it's bad enough that you only got 20 years i can't even imagine absolutely and for me the most perverse thing and i think it was for judge engelmeyer too the way you wrote it is that the fact that she tried to use the epstein file transparency act library to support her case like that's not for you that's for the dignity of the survivors you monster yeah well dignity of the survivors of course now it's like even in katie fang's case right now right like tag blanche is saying we're protecting the survivors and because, you know, to make sure that their secrecy is, you know, confirmed. I'm like, you never cared about survivors ever.

Starting point is 00:42:41 You outed us all over the place, literally nude photos. That's all I have to say is like nude photos. Like, I don't know how much more you could not care about survivors while protecting perpetrators. Literally, Jeffrey's name is redacted in the files. Right. Like, how does the nude photos slip through the redaction team, right? Like, that's just insane. But they can't figure out how to redact handwritten FBI notes.

Starting point is 00:43:04 Well, and okay, so the handwritten, let's jump to Katie for a second. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The handwritten thing for a second really got me because, like, I saw a file where my name is on the side of a manila envelope with my birthday, unredacted, clear as day in handwriting, right? And the front of that manila envelope has case notes about somebody else, another victim entirely. And so it's like, he's saying that there's nothing that was handwritten in that file. I'm like, I've seen the handwritten note. And none of them are even marked correctly and they're all all over the place. So what do you who are you protecting?

Starting point is 00:43:36 Which is always been at the heart of this, right? That we are protecting perpetrators. Like I don't understand how you have an email talking about 14 and 15 year olds and another email talking about torture that you know that these are men that these are coming from. These are perpetrators and their emails are redacted. And yet in our duplicitous, you know, files, which a lot of them are duplicates, you have one where my name is redacted. You have the next one where Danny is redacted.

Starting point is 00:44:01 You have one that's not redacted at all. Like, it doesn't make any sense. So anyway, I digress. Yeah, no, no, no. Don't, don't, you know, go, go to town on that. You have, nobody on this podcast has more credibility on that issue than you. And, yeah, go ahead, Carrie. No, no, I was just going to say, I really hope that the fact that you met with New Mexico, I think is amazing.

Starting point is 00:44:24 I hope more local prosecutors, state and local prosecutors meet with survivors. because, for example, I worked at the Manhattan DA's office, and I know Jeffrey Epstein's mansion is in Manhattan. If there are any survivors that, you know, have any other leads for other people, right, who were sexually assaulted and trafficked by Epstein and Maxwell in Manhattan, they can go to the Manhattan DA's office. And what's interesting is, is the word of a survivor alone is enough. You don't need corroboration. You don't need external information or evidence. The word of a survivor alone is enough. It's so interesting that you say that because in our meeting with Todd Blanche,

Starting point is 00:45:09 he said that we needed corroborative evidence and that Virginia's deposition could not be looked at because we needed somebody to be able to corroborate all of it. So it's interesting that I appreciate that you're saying. What do you make of that, Karen? You know, Virginia is not available to, you know, testify. So I think that that could be what he meant there because, you know, she sadly passed away. But, you know, if there are, but any survivors who are willing to come forward and go to law enforcement and talk about what happened to them. And again, it should be somebody other than Jeffrey Epstein because, I mean, he could be part of the story, obviously, since it's part of.

Starting point is 00:45:53 of the trafficking, but to just pure rape, right, pure sexual assault, especially a minor, there's no statute of limitations in New York for that. And so it doesn't matter when it happened, as long as you have a survivor who's credible and willing to come forward and talk about what happened, that's enough to bring a case. And I hope that word gets out that that's the case as opposed to federal law does not have rape, right? They have sexual. trafficking. And so it, which has many elements to it. There has to be a child or forced fraud and coercion. There's all sorts of elements to it depending. And so it might actually be harder to bring a sex trafficking case. And let's say they do have individual cases of sexual assault

Starting point is 00:46:44 by other people who raped these young girls and women, you know, as part of, you know, as part of the sex trafficking ring, but maybe they weren't the traffickers, right? They were just customers or whatever you want to call, whatever you want to call them. You don't have that same problem in state prosecution. So I just put that out there as something for you all to think about that. Sounds like the Survivor's Sisterhood should be meeting with Alvin Bragg,

Starting point is 00:47:11 the Manhattan, D.A. I mean, seriously, if offline, if you want to talk offline, I'm happy to talk to you about all this and see if there's anything we can do about it. always wondered about why we didn't do more at the state level in New York, right? Like, that's my, my abuse truly happened in New York. For me, it was purely Jeffrey, but there were the inner workings, right? Like, I was talking to Leslie Groff. She scheduled me, like Cecilia Steen used to schedule me.

Starting point is 00:47:41 Like, these are all names that are out there. They're in the files. But so I keep wondering, like, why there wasn't more of a, like, state-side investigation. So I think something that we've been hoping for is, like, a truth commission in New York, something that we can start to. But even then, like, you know, I do think we have each other to corroborate now. I think there's something that's unique about that because even in all of our different times, like I was 2004, 2005, I know now five other

Starting point is 00:48:08 girls that were during that time period. And as we talk about these things, we're like, oh my God, that happened to you too. Oh, my God, no way. I remember seeing that picture. Right. So in a weird way, yeah, we can absolutely say like, okay, well, I was, you know, this is, I can add to your story here and there, right? So the puzzle pieces are slowly coming together. So that could be really an interesting way to move through this, go to the Manhattan VA's office. Yeah, feel free to reach out if you want. I'm happy to talk to you about it. And also anybody else who's out there listening, who is a sexual assault survivor who's hearing this and maybe part of the 1400 who haven't come forward, I'm easy to find, I'm easy to reach. I'm happy to chat with you completely confidentially and

Starting point is 00:48:51 help, you know, help make introductions if that, if that makes sense. That's awesome. See what happens on Legal AF? Last thing, Danny, and so generous with your time, I mean, I mean, being a sex survivor, a survivor leader doesn't completely define you. You have a family. You have a successful career and to take time out and continue to revisit this issue and brief our audience is so amazing.

Starting point is 00:49:16 What can our audience, because they're, you can see it in the chat tonight because we're alive. is chomping at the bit to help. What can they do to help the survivors? Everything's sort of out of session right now, right? So the House comes back, I think, on the 31st, Senate comes back, I think on the 12th. And we will continue to push Virginia's law, which would change the statute of limitations. We have the Redact Act is something that we're looking to push through, which is the legislation that would allow us to hold the DOJ accountable for the very botched redactions that happen.

Starting point is 00:49:47 And we're going to be out there on the road, actually, with the reading room, A lot of survivors will be out there. And the reading room is all of the bound files, the 3 million that currently exist. And while you won't be able to actually look through the books, you can stand among them and you can see so much of what we've been through. And there's a timeline. It is epic as far as an understanding of the magnitude and the gravity. So, you know, you can come out and we'll be in different cities with the Bookmobile.

Starting point is 00:50:18 So I would say look for the bookmobile, look for the reading room, come talk to a survivor, and we'll have more information as, you know, this season unfolds and as the midterms progress. And I think get out there and vote. Absolutely. Danny Benski, leader of the Survivor Movement and Epstein Survivor Movement. And we'd love to have you back on as we get closer to the midterms and we get out of the dog days of summer. And we can continue to platform these issues and make sure that the survivors get the justice that they deserve once and for all. We won't rest here until that happens. Thanks for being

Starting point is 00:50:53 with us, Danny. Thanks, Michael. Thank you so much. So nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. And you're on Legal A-F at the midweek with Karen Freeman McNifalo and Michael Popak. When we come back from our break, a short break, we'll have Mark Elias of the Elias Law Group and Democracy Docket and updating us all about how to protect the sacred right to vote what's happening with these mail-in ballot cases in Massachusetts. Senate, the United States Supreme Court. So many different ways to support what we do on Legal AF. You're here.

Starting point is 00:51:23 That's one major way. Bring your friends with you next time as well. Hit that QR code that's above Karen's head, and you can download the audio. We need more audio downloads and five-star reviews. It does help with the ratings and kind of keeps us on the air. It's a fuel of our business, so to speak. We have a YouTube channel that I curate called the Legal A.F YouTube channel. Can't get your fill of everything we do here twice a week.

Starting point is 00:51:50 Come over to the legal app YouTube channel. We do 10 to 12 videos every day. I have amazing contributors and collaborators there, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP, Democracy Forward, the Court of History, Court Accountability Action, lawyers for good government. They're all there under one pane of glass doing reporting for you at the intersection of law and politics.

Starting point is 00:52:14 And we have a parallel universe called, substack. If you're on substack and you're not on legal a F, make fix that right now. Come on legal AF substack. Another 10 or 12 pieces of content there every day. I do a live report every day. And if you are, I don't know what substack is coming on and joining legal AF is a good way to learn about substack itself. And then we've got our sponsors. And you know, we've been on the air for more than six years, one of the first law and politics podcast out there. and now award-winning because of the fervent support of our audience. And we've got some sponsors picked by Karen and me and Jordy, Mycelis.

Starting point is 00:52:54 And some of them, in the middle of us for like the very beginning, some of them are brand new, but all have something in common. They all support our First Amendment rights to speak. They don't tell us what to say. We would never allow that. And they therefore promote your First Amendment right to be heard. And now let's take a quick break from our sponsors. You know what I love finding something that brings back those sales?

Starting point is 00:53:15 Saturday morning cereal memories without the sugar crash. That's why I've been into Magic Spoon. It's a high-protein zero sugar cereal that tastes like the classics I grew up with, and every serving packs, 12 to 14 grams of protein and just zero to two grams of sugar. It's also certified gluten-free, so it's a really fueling option, whether it's breakfast, a late-night snack, or after a workout. They've got classic flavors like fruity, frosted, peanut butter, cocoa, and cinnamon crunch. And if you're feeling extra nostalgic, well, they've also got new classic marshmallow and smores flavors with real marshmallows and two grams of sugar that really capture those childhood cereal vibes.

Starting point is 00:53:58 Look for MagicSpoon on Amazon or at your nearest grocery store. And if you want to try something new, check out Magic Spoon's protein pastries. Yes, they're packed with protein and taste like the nostalgic toaster pastries you grew up with, but without all the sugar. You can get $5 off your next order, including the protein pastries at magic spoon.com slash legal a.F. That's magic spoon.com slash legal a.f for $5 off. All right. Let's be real. Who likes wearing a bra? Nobody, especially when you're working out, right? Sports bras are terrible to wear most of the time. And they, whether it's that they dig into your shoulders on the straps or the band rolls up and feels too tight around. your rib cage or, you know, whatever it is. They're a pain to take to put on. They're a pain to take

Starting point is 00:54:50 off and they're so uncomfortable. But Honey Love has this sports bra that is different. And they have this wonderful new product called the Honey Love Cross Flex Activity Bra and it immediately felt different from every other sports bra that I have worn. It feels like a sports bra with a support, but it's also designed for all day wear. And it's support. And it's support. without feeling too tight, too stiff, or suffocating. It has easy to take on and take off, and it's wireless using their technology called CloudFuse. So there's no poking or digging or pressure points, which is actually what I love the most about it. And it gives you, of course, great shape and separation instead of that Unibube look that sports bras can often give you.

Starting point is 00:55:39 So if you find yourself reaching for a sports bra on a daily basis and who are, because you need the coverage and you need the support, but you're looking for something comfortable that you could also wear all day, I highly recommend the Honeylove CrossFlex activity bra as the solution you've been searching for. So it's really fantastic. They are now offering a crossover triple bra bundle. So if you want a full refresh on your top drawer, you can get a huge savings by buying three at once. They are an independent female-founded brand with products designed by women who actually wear them, including the founder Betsy. Honey Love doesn't just make bras and shapewear. They've built a full line of tanks, body suits, and underwear with supportive structure,

Starting point is 00:56:26 smoothing fabrics, and premium finishes. And they recently launched their new crossover contour bra, which features their best-selling wireless crossover bra design plus built-in molded light foam pads for extra support and beautifully contoured shape. Treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shapewear on the market. Use our exclusive link to save 20% off Honeylove at Honeylove.com slash LegalAF. That's Honeylove.com slash LegalAF. And after you check out, they'll ask where you heard about them.

Starting point is 00:56:59 Please support our show and tell them LegalAF sent you. Experience the new standard in comfort and support with Honeylove. And we are back on legal A.F. And Karen, voting, right? If you stopped on the street or in our comments, we are often bombarded with questions and concerns about the sacred right to vote. And fortunately, you and I know people who are out there actively filing lawsuits in courts going up to the United States Supreme Court to protect the right to vote. And when I saw it, all the things that have happened over the last five days between the United States Supreme Court, the United States Postal Service, the Judge Talwani up in Massachusetts at a couple of cases there,

Starting point is 00:57:51 it kind of brought back not good memories of the birthright citizenship case in which there were multiple rulings all over, but the Trump administration found a way to take the one appeal so they wouldn't reach the merits of the case and then bought more time and delay, delay, you have the added overlay here of there being a midterm election happening and the chaos that they're sewing, which is obvious on purpose, around mail-in balloting to undermine it, is having to be addressed now by, you know, 24 Democratic Attorneys General and groups like democracy, you know, Mark Eliasist group and the League of Women Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union. And so there was a lot going on and there were a lot of competing headlines because

Starting point is 00:58:35 that things were happened so rapidly in different procedural postures in different cases that I said, I got to get Mark Elias on here. So this is like, this is the only one who can solve this Rubik's Cube masterfully and in an entertaining way is Mark. Let's bring in Mark. Hi, Mark. Hi, Mark. With that intro.

Starting point is 00:58:56 So, okay, let's talk about the Supreme Court for a moment. Supreme Court issues a ruling. and a procurium ruling six to three effectively, that ignores the fact that three days before the Postal Service did enter a final rule about how they were going to implement Donald Trump's March executive order about the post office using special scannable envelopes

Starting point is 00:59:34 and using a database before they'll deliver a ballot or deliver it to an election office. And all the things that they were talking about hypothetically in the Supreme Court ruling had already been implemented in rulemaking by the post office. Talk about that. Then we can talk about the two cases before Judge Talwani, including new filings today by the Democratic Attorney General in a case involving them to try to get to the merits of the case as the time is ticking off here. The calendar is burning down. The candles burning down on midterm elections. What's happening?

Starting point is 01:00:11 Yeah, so I noticed the same thing you did with the Supreme Court decision. And I think what happened, I don't know, obviously, but I suspect what happened is that the justices, who had had this petition from the United States for some weeks to block the lower court's order, blocking the U.S. Postal Service. Okay, so Donald Trump issues this anti-voting executive order, the Postal Service, starts the rulemaking process. A bunch of lawsuits are filed. We file one in Washington, D.C., state AGs file one in Massachusetts.

Starting point is 01:00:44 That case gets the Supreme Court, and the government is trying to allow the Postal Service to go forward. And the Supreme Court had this case for a few weeks. And I suspect what happened is that the majority opinion, which, you know, there is one here, right? There's a majority, even though it's an emergency order, there is a majority opinion. I suspect that they had gotten it written and agreed to by the end of last week.

Starting point is 01:01:12 And then we're probably taken by surprise that late last Friday night, the U.S. Postal Service then finalized their rule. And so by the time I got to Monday morning, we're ready to issue the opinion, they were not going to go back and renegotiate with each other changes to that document. And they were just like, ah, screw it. We're just issuing it, even though you are exactly right, that it reads as a bit of a non sequitur, because it keeps talking about how the Postal Service is not yet issued a rule and the Postal Service could issue a rule that's different than what Donald Trump wanted. And we're all scratching around and being like, the Postal Service just issued their rule two days ago, like on Friday night. So I think that that's what probably happened there. What the justices would say, what the conservatives would say is, look, what we were saying was not right was when the original complaint was filed and when the original

Starting point is 01:02:02 preliminary injunction was granted. And that was all before the Postal service have finalized there. And so we're saying that it was too early, and so, you know, we're lifting the stay. What has happened since then over the last 48 hours is, first, my law firm representing the Democratic Party, as well as Democratic leadership in the House and Senate. We filed a new complaint and amended complaint plus a request for a new preliminary injunction in Washington, D.C. That was followed by similar filings in Massachusetts in both the A.G.'s case and in a case brought by nonprofits, who's also followed by another nonprofit group's set of groups filing a similar motion in Washington, D.C. So there are now four sets of

Starting point is 01:02:48 plaintiffs that have all filed amended complaints all have sought preliminary injunctive relief. If you made me guess, I think the judge in Massachusetts is probably looking to go first. I'll read something from her order lifting her injunction, which I think indicates you're right. The Tawani has two. Who's your judge in D.C.? Judge Nichols, who is, yeah, who was appointed by Donald Trump, but is a fair judge. And look, I think that there are benefits to having this proceed on both tracks. Obviously, you know, I think the trial judge in Massachusetts seems pretty favorably inclined for circuit, very liberal.

Starting point is 01:03:31 Circuit. And so that makes sense. On the other hand, I think if Judge Nichols were to grant our relief, understanding this is eventually going to wind up in the Supreme Court, you know, it probably is not a bad fact that the case was heard by a more conservative judge. All of this is a lot of tea leave reading. I think in the end, one or all of these cases will wind up there, either on appeal from one side or the other. So that's great. Let me just for our audience today, Judge Nichols refused to dismiss on the papers submitted the indictment and the conviction, sorry, the conviction of Steve Bannon, who he presided over the trial and sentenced him four months and Bannon spent four months. And he said, no, under Rule 4080, no, you have to

Starting point is 01:04:18 give me more than you want to dismiss the case. And I'm not sure I can. There's some case law that says, perhaps I don't even have that church. He's pretty by the book, Judge. You know, he has a conservative bent probably, but he's a very fair district court. Not MAGA. Here's what Judge Talwani up in Massachusetts when she had to, she felt like she had to lift the stake. Because what I said at the moment, which was true, is that don't worry about the Supreme Court case right now, even though on procedural grounds, they found there was a lack of rightness and lack of justiciability and all this other. You know, with this Supreme Court, it's the Goldilocks problem. You're either too early or you're too late.

Starting point is 01:04:53 You're never right on time for them, especially when they want to kick a case. I said, don't worry because just Talwanese injunction is still nationwide injunction is still in place. And then, of course, the government figured that out. And they went to Talwani and they said, no, under this new case by the Supreme Court, it's probably not right for these parties either. You need to lift yours. She did in inviting the new suits to be filed. Yes.

Starting point is 01:05:18 I don't think she had a choice. She did. But here's what she wrote here at the end that I liked. She wrote, despite acknowledging that this on page 7 of her, order, despite acknowledging that the disposition of the government's emergency application, quote, does not mean that any measure taken by the government to implement the order will necessarily be lawful. The Supreme Court found any judicial review of the merits unavailable at this time. Instead, without any consideration of whether the executive's goals are lawful or even likely lawful or

Starting point is 01:05:49 possibly lawful, the Supreme Court concluded that appellate review on the merits of the court's final judgment in California versus Trump would come too late for the 2026 midterms. Her footnote says this finding is notable where the notice of appeal in California versus Trump was filed on July 1. And rather than seek an expedited appeal of this court's final judgment on the merits, defendants chose to seek only an emergency stay where they could avoid review of the merits. And then quoting Justice Jackson in her dissent, she said, under the majority's approach, the executive can intentionally act in harmful ways that violates the law, declined to defend the legal merits of its unlawful actions, and nevertheless put challengers on the defensive by thwarting injunctions on the

Starting point is 01:06:34 basis of alleged flaws, thereby extending the unlawful activity for as long as possible. This is noxious litigation strategy that should be a red flag for courts. Well, so, and she invited new filings, and she got her new filings on the merits, on the issue of the postal regulation that got promulgated on Friday, right? That's exactly right. And look, I think that there are two sets of issues that have been a part of this case, and we need to untangle them. The first were a part of the executive order that says that the federal government

Starting point is 01:07:12 will send to the states a list of eligible citizens to vote. And along with that, they announced that it is a. the priority of the Department of Justice to criminally investigate and prosecute local election officials who allow people to vote who are not eligible. I think that part of the executive order, which does not involve the Postal Service, we will wait and see how that fares on the second roundup. I think that that poses like a different set of standing and right, or yeah, standing and ripeness questions. I think the Postal Service question is clearly right now. Like, I don't think, I'd be surprised if even the government argued jurisdictional objections here.

Starting point is 01:07:53 Perhaps they'll argue, you know, standing for some of the plaintiff groups. But I think there's no question the states have standing. There's no question that my clients, the Democratic Party, have standing under a earlier case called boss, which basically said candidates always have standing in election cases. So I think that the courts are going to have to adjudicate the merits of this postal regulation. And when you look at the postal regulation, it is frankly indefensive. But how are they going to do it in time for the midterms? That's what I don't understand, the merits, because they don't come back until October, right? By then, so many ballots will have been mailed out, so many people, or at least they've been printed,

Starting point is 01:08:34 and the procedures are in place, right, to start these elections. Like, how are they going to get all this done before the November election? Look, I mean, this is complicated in both directions. though. I mean, this is not just a problem for the folks on my side. This is actually a problem for the Postal Service because you could just as easily ask the question, how the hell is the Postal Service going to get all of these things in place in time for this election for precisely the reasons you say? And now imagine that the judge in Massachusetts, you know, later this week's, enjoins the Postal Service regulation again. Like, you know, at that point, you, I'd flip the question.

Starting point is 01:09:16 question on its head to you and say, how would that, with the Postal Service unable to take steps forward, how will they possibly get that done in time for 2026? So this is going to be a lot of ping pong, I suspect, back and forth between the two sides. I think where the judges are at any given time is going to be really important. But I also would not discount just the practical realities, which is I'm not sure that even if there was no court involvement, there was no Postal Service, you know, regulation being challenged. I'm not sure how the Postal Service could implement this and the state's implementing. Right. I mean, because they're supposed to provide a list of eligible voters. There's no list. That's a static day. It's not a static list, right?

Starting point is 01:10:02 It's a living, breathing, organic database that is constantly changing. People are getting added. People are being taken off. I mean, right. Like, it just, this makes no sense how, how it just seems like a On that note, Mark, I had Nick Brown, the Attorney General of Washington on with me today with a YouTube video off on Legal AF. He said that, and that's a universal mail-in-ballot state, right? You can vote live like during this week-long thing, but nobody does. It's really all vote by mail. Everybody votes by mail since 2011.

Starting point is 01:10:34 And is anybody shocked? There's no fraud in Washington, but there's very high voter turnout because you make it easy to vote doesn't mean you're making things fraudulent. He said that based on the data that was given to them by the post office, that it's going to take one minute per envelope. It will take Washington State nine years to count its ballots. Nine years. People were upset with California.

Starting point is 01:11:00 Went out like a month. Yeah. Look, I think that there are two possibilities here. The first is that the Postal Service and Donald Trump know that this can't be done. And that's actually the point, right? That's not a flaw. That's a feature. Because what they want, what Donald Trump wants is for states to fail at achieving what it is the postal service is told them to achieve.

Starting point is 01:11:25 So that Donald Trump will then be able to say that the states disregarded this regulation, the states were, you know, were ripe with fraud, whatever it is. Right. So like in some ways, they want this to not be a smooth process for the sake of pointing that out that when Democrats win control of Congress, can point to that. The second is that Donald Trump's going to somehow just declare that, well, you know what? If states can't do it, then no one can vote by mail, which would obviously be a enormous constitutional problem in states like Washington and Oregon and California and Nevada, and even states like Florida and Arizona that have very large contingency of people who vote by mail.

Starting point is 01:12:06 I mean, most of the country would impact in that way. But again, like maybe Donald Trump wants to provoke that kind of widespread legal sort of crisis. Yeah, you're right. He just wants to sow chaos and then point to it, right, and try to set it all a fire. And my view is, you're in the trenches, you know, with your law firm, is that, all right, the Supreme Court's doing

Starting point is 01:12:34 whatever it's doing, making these broad pronouncements and letting databases be created and most offices to be used. But isn't it going to be like the local district court judge that you guys and others are going to run into when voting starts or, you know, when counting starts that is going to be making a lot of these decisions subject to appellate review? Yeah, look, I'm glad you raised that because I've struggled, you know, with how to present this to the broader public in a way that is both digestible and meets people where their concerns are, you know, and as you know, I'm a lawyer. We're litigating

Starting point is 01:13:13 80 plus cases around the country. I also run democracy docket, which is the news outlet that tries to keep people informed. So I have a lot of different ways that I try to balance this. And in some ways, what's going on with the Trump administration is just one facet of like the litigation and the legal challenges. Like as you point out, most of the ways in which elections get adjudicated, most of the ways in which things are challenged, the way you deal with voter suppression, frankly, are polling place by polling place, county by county, state by state. And you know, and you're oftentimes in local state courts, you know, as often as you are in federal courts. And when you're in federal courts, you report trial judges. And they are very much in the weeds

Starting point is 01:13:56 of the particular problems facing that particular jurisdiction. So for example, you know, just like with this executive order, there are probably some states, and maybe Washington state is one of them, that that prints their ballots essentially. But, But most states, the ballots are actually printed at the county level or even some places at the sub-county level. And so you can imagine that as this rolls out, it's not even a problem that like secretaries of state can solve. It's going to be like the ballot is going to be different.

Starting point is 01:14:29 And the ballot envelopes are oftentimes different in Philadelphia than they are in Lancaster, you know, in Pennsylvania or they're different in, you know, Jacksonville than they are in Miami in Florida. And so I do think there's going to be a lot of litigation, a lot of administrative actions that take place at the local and hyper local level. And like I said, I struggle with how to inform the audience that what goes on there is actually in some ways more important because that's how this stuff actually gets implemented. Yeah. Yeah, I think we're doing it. We're doing it. We're talking about it right now. And there's just only one I'm on with you, by the way, do I use Florida is my example. But I feel like, I feel like I got to go with the home team.

Starting point is 01:15:11 Yeah. And of course, who's the number one bail-in ballot person from Florida? Yeah, the orange guy. Exactly. Who just voted that way. I mean, my whole career was launched, if that's the right word, by fighting it out in the streets of West Palm Beach during the hanging Chad period when Pat Buchanan took Boca. And I happened to be, yeah, there were protests in the streets. I happened to be a lawyer in West Palm Beach, and I got caught arguing with another pro, whoever, you know, Bush person at the time.

Starting point is 01:15:45 And I got put on a show I never heard of called Hardball with Chris Matthew. I was like, what is this show? Who watches this show? But you're a New York guy originally, right? Yeah, I'm a New York guy. But I happened to have moved down there right at the right moment to vote in the 2000 election and all of that. And for our audience, and to educate them, Mark, the hand-to-hand combat in the courts, which is inevitable. it will be going to happen as all of you united groups race to the courthouse with lawsuits

Starting point is 01:16:12 on voting, on counting, on postal, on times for, shortened times for voting and keeping polls open. Is that federal or state? Usually it's state. I mean, you know, it's funny because it feels like for this is like in some ways a very different world for me because it does feel like now there are like a million. groups and law firms and people interested in these cases. But I will tell you when it comes down to showing up in the local Justice of the Pieces courtroom to keep the polls open for two hours, we are not usually running across a whole lot of other lawyers doing the same thing. Even, you know,

Starting point is 01:16:54 for example, this week, you know, my law firm and I, we had a big victory on behalf of the red wine and blue, which is a progressive organization and the Alliance for Retired Americans. In Ohio, we struck down their proof of citizenship law, you know, a mini version of what the Save Act would do. And like I said, like we didn't trip over a whole lot of other lawyers. So, so I, these things are oftentimes in state court. If there are federal claims, then you can be in federal court. But oftentimes they're just the administration of state laws without any particular federal claims. But my message to all the other lawyers is, you know, come on, come on in the water. There's plenty of room to swim.

Starting point is 01:17:34 Are you worried at all about, or should our audience be worried all when you hear Harmeet Dillon? I read a piece on Democracy Docket. Here Harmeet, Dylan, announced, besides swearing in a couple of hundred people in her civil rights division, including somebody who got caught hacking election equipment back in the day, is now in that group. She also announced a thousand election monitors will be sent to the polls. Can you give our audience a brief rundown of how far? away from voters, these election monitors have to stand and why they shouldn't be that concerned about this?

Starting point is 01:18:10 Yeah. So look, this is one of these things that the Trump administration is very emotionally attached to. This goes back to the 1960s, late 1950s, actually, where the law gave the Department of Justice the ability to send monitors to jurisdictions to ensure that they could observe and only observe, problems that black voters were having with voting. It was a information gathering exercise. And over the years, it's been used to ensure, you know, to track problems with minority voter suppression, disability communities, language minorities, right? It's kind of part of,

Starting point is 01:18:52 like I said, the fact-finding effort of the Department of Justice. Well, the Trump administration has become enamored by this. You probably remember in leading up to the fall of the 2025 election. the off cycles, they announced they were sending these folks out. And now they have been sending them into various states in some of the primaries. And Harmie Dillon announced they're sending a thousand of them out. The only reason why I am very concerned about this is who are these thousand people? Because like the civil rights division doesn't have a thousand election observers. So like where are they getting these people to do this thing? And will they be trained at all on what you are alluding to, which is the strict limits on what they are allowed to do,

Starting point is 01:19:34 which is to not interfere at all with the voting process. So, you know, the thousand number jumps out at me because, you know, that doesn't sound like anything we have seen before in terms of scale. Well, Mark, it sounds like one of the amazing things you can do is help educate people and let us help get the word out far and wide are, A, what exactly are those rules? What are these people, what are these thousand people allowed to do and not do, number one? So when you go, you can know whether someone's actually violating their rights or not. And then number two, if they see that happening, you might have a poll worker, for example, sees that happening or a voter seeing it happen.

Starting point is 01:20:16 What do they do? Who do they call? How do they respond? I think if we give people tools, I think that will be really important. And you are uniquely positioned to do that, given your expertise. Yeah, so first of all, they have to be outside the polls, right? So they're not inside the polls. They're outside the polls, and they have to be a distance from the polls.

Starting point is 01:20:33 It depends a little bit on the makeup of the location and the state laws there, but they are, they are there, they are not there to interfere with the voting process at all. The question of what do you do if they become aggressive or what do you do if they are violating the rules? My advice to voters is, in the first instance, bring it to the attention of the poll workers. Okay, these are not poll watchers. Don't forget to their attention. Bring it to the attention literally. of the people behind the desk who are working the polls because they will have county by county,

Starting point is 01:21:02 state by state protocols for any kind of interference in voting, whether it come from right-wing vigilantes, whether it comes from disruptive individuals, or whether it comes from the federal government. And we saw actually even in some red states, there were concerns raised and those were dealt with by the local election officials. So that's really should be your first,

Starting point is 01:21:24 your first line of information there. If you want to learn more about these rules and others, I'd recommend going over to Democracy Doc, and you'll see we have a whole section of resources and articles and stuff. And to put it in perspective, I just used chat GBT for something. There are 176,000. I don't think you're supposed to say that. I know. Why? The drunken Miller just try to take down Besson, his buddy, doing the same thing. No, there's 176,000 federal voting precincts in America. They're talking about 1,000 people out of 176,000 precincts. And I've been a poll watcher and a registered voter, let's say in Florida, in four elections down in Florida,

Starting point is 01:22:04 trained by the Democratic Party to be a poll watcher and knowing whatever the rules were at that given moment. When I'm a registered voter in that place, I can be inside the polls, or at least I could. And I can watch between you and me, it may not be written down anywhere. But if you bring a box of donuts and some apple cider early on and you get there a few minutes, before the polls open, you become really good friends with the poll workers. I'll just leave it at that. So they tend to look to you for some answers if they can't figure it out themselves, which is why I was able to save a bunch of provisional ballots and got them into the right box.

Starting point is 01:22:38 But I've been a poll observer because I wasn't registered to vote. I've been outside the precinct around the library, so to speak, which, you know, there's a lot of stuff going on out there. And a lot of stuff where they're crossing the line of campaigning. campaigning, right, and where they're not supposed to be campaigning and coordinating a little bit on that. So there's ways for our audience to get involved on the day of election and get trained and be an observer and all of that. And Democracy Doc is such a great resource. Yeah, and look, on that front, let me say, we have shortages of everything, right? So if you are able to

Starting point is 01:23:18 dedicate the time and energy to be a poll worker, okay, like literally be trained by the county or the state or the municipality, almost everywhere needs trained poll workers. So like that is great. Go do that. If you can't do that, you don't have the time or it doesn't work with the jurisdiction you're in or it's a vote by mail jurisdiction where they don't need as many people, then you can volunteer for the party, because in most places, Michael's exactly right. The parties get sort of special placement. Sometimes are appointed by the county party, the state party, some by candidates, but essentially partisan observers. And if you can do that, that's great. If you feel like you don't want to be in a partisan frame of mind, you don't want to be seen as, you know, working for a partisan

Starting point is 01:24:13 organization or it's not your gig. There are lots of of nonprofit organizations that are nonpartisan that do the poll observing that Michael was describing that he's done for the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party also will do that outside the polls. And there are, so there are lots of nonprofit organizations that simply put people outside the polls to help, you know, with a clipboard to help answer questions like, are you in the right polling location? You know, are the people who are handing out sample ballots or or, you know, suggesting who you vote for? Are they too close to the polling location? And so there really is, an opportunity to engage in democracy on whatever terms you feel most comfortable.

Starting point is 01:24:52 But the most important thing is that you engage in acts of democracy and understand that, you know, there's not a permission for you to do nothing. So well put. And starting point for everybody should be Democracy Docket. Go on that website. It's updated minute by minute with developments about voting, about maps, about everything. that everything that you care about, about our democracy and the rule of law, Mark Elias and his team are on it. And he's so generous, you're so generous with your time to come on here in

Starting point is 01:25:24 brief our Midas Touch and legal a AF audience in real time about things that are happening and more importantly, or as importantly, how they can get involved. Because our audience is revved up and ready to go, LFG, about protecting their sacred right to vote. And Michael, you still owe me a live event in Durham. It's going to happen. Mark Elias of the Elias Law Group and of Democracy Docket, joining Karen Freeman, McNifalo and Michael Popak here on LegalAFs. Thanks, Mark for joining. And we'll, can't wait to have you on next. Thanks, Mark.

Starting point is 01:25:56 You're on the LegalAF podcast. What a great show we've had so far tonight. Danny Benzky and Epstein Survivor and leader of that group talking about things that you're only reading about, the New Mexico Ranch investigation and meetings with Todd Blanche and what the Epstein survivors know about predators, are still at large that have not yet been brought to justice. And then we bring on Mark Elias to solve the Rubik's cube of everything related to voting. And that's really a compliment to our audience, the generosity of their spirit and their commitment to what we've built here

Starting point is 01:26:29 on the Midas Touch Network in Legal AF. I want to talk, Karen, briefly about a quick update about tomorrow's hearing in the Kennedy Center, attempt to rename it again, the, you know, with several lines of script on the front of the building again by Donald Trump and to try to shut it down. And now the new threat in the last 24 hours, I'm going to tear it down if you don't put my name on it. The petulance of it, the audacity of it. And there's going to be hearing tomorrow at 2 o'clock in front of Judge Cooper. What do you make of this last round of filings and who do you think is best positioned to win the hearing? Representative Beating, who's trying to protect the public trust or the Trump trustees who are under his thumb

Starting point is 01:27:18 that want to give him his name on the building. Who do you think Chris Cooper, Judge Cooper, is going to side with? That's a great question. I mean, I think in this particular instance, I think Bidi is going to have the better argument because it really does seem like they are. are just trying to get around the rules, right, that say you can't put Trump's name on there. Okay, so we're not going to name it after him, but we're going to say it was renovated by him and name a park after him. It just, and they said, you didn't have a, the judge said, you didn't

Starting point is 01:28:00 have a proper hearing when you did this. Okay, so now we're going to have a proper hearing. I think they're trying to be too cute. I also didn't like the kind of almost like the veiled threat Trump the administration gave, which is, look, we can't fundraise unless his name is on there and nobody will give us money, which as you pointed out, actually, that's been debunked and it turns out it's the exact opposite. But we can't fundraise unless it's there. And if we can't fundraise, we can't renovate. And if we can't renovate, it has to be torn down.

Starting point is 01:28:32 and we'll put like an amphitheater up or whatever they called it, you know, in its place. That, and we know what Trump did to the East Wing, right? He will tear something down in a hot second if he wants to before anyone gets a chance to run to court. So I worry a little bit about that, but I think at the end of the day, I think it's pretty clear what's happening. And I think Trump is going to lose this one. That's my prediction. Totally great. I think Chris Cooper, you know, who wrote a.

Starting point is 01:29:02 96-page decision does not agree with the Trump side, which is that this is a frivolous suit brought by a litigious congresswoman who would rather watch the Kennedy Center burn than to put Donald Trump's name on it. She's a partisan hack. That's not how Chris Cooper sees this case. He's never seen it that way. He entered a permanent injunction, permanent injunction, a case over on the naming. There's nothing about how, I mean, you're going to put his name. with an honorific of president, bigger than, larger than in multiple lines of typeface underneath John F. Kennedy Memorial. And you're going to say that's not a memorial.

Starting point is 01:29:43 That doesn't undermine the tribute that was created, the sole tribute that was created by Congress. I just don't see it. As to whether the tear down should happen, I think that's just the petulance that'll that'll show why he should enjoin them. It has to immediately come in off tomorrow's hearing, enter at least a temporary stay or an administrative state to stop this. Because they said, if they're not, the good news about them, to paraphrase Maya Angelou,

Starting point is 01:30:07 is they tell you exactly what they're going to do. So you should believe them. They said on September 8th, they're going to put the name back up. And so he's got to enter that injunction between now and some, and I don't even trust them on September 8th. I mean, you know, it could be like over the weekend, over the Labor Day weekend. They could be putting, the last time they voted.

Starting point is 01:30:25 And the minute they voted, there was a crew putting up the letters. So as if it was a foregone conclusion, which it was. So we'll cover it. I wanted to update people what's happening there. Tomorrow, Adam Klassfeld, All Rise News, and LegalA.F is going to be in the courtroom. And as soon as he comes out, it's very hard for journalists to report while they're in a courtroom for various reasons and orders. But as soon as he pops out, as we've done before, he'll set up his remote, he'll get his camera on a gimbal. I'll get that microphone set up.

Starting point is 01:30:56 It'll come on with me on a YouTube video for. legal AF or on a substack live. And so we'll be able to update everybody there. So many different ways to support what we do here on LegalAF. You're here already. I guess we're going to do the YouTube first. Go on the YouTube channel. Hit the free subscribe button.

Starting point is 01:31:13 Help us continue to grow our pro-democracy channel. Get 11 videos or so every day. Come over to Legal AF substack, where we are already regularly in the top 20 of U.S. politics. 10 pieces of content there. A lot of writing, live report by me every day on LegalAF substack. And then we've got our pro-democracy sponsors, and we're going to take another quick break for them.

Starting point is 01:31:35 And when we come back, we're going to talk about a very interesting case involving justice in Minnesota for people who were abused during Operation Metro Surge. Let's take our quick break. I love our cat, Chanel, but I definitely don't love everything that comes with having a cat, especially the litter box.

Starting point is 01:31:53 Since switching her to Smalls, though, I've noticed a real difference. Small's fresh cat food is protein-packed, made with preservative-free, 100% human-grade ingredients you'd find in your fridge, and it's delivered right to your door. My cat goes absolutely feral for these recipes, and I've noticed more energy, a softer coat, and a whole lot less stink.

Starting point is 01:32:17 It makes sense because Smalls' is fresh, gently cooked food is made without preservatives, so cats get more of the nutrition they actually need. In fact, after switching to Smalls, 88% of cat owners reported overall health improvements. And if you're worried your cat might be picky, you can try Smalls risk-free. They'll refund you if your cat won't eat their food. So stop serving your little carnivore-a-bola process shortcuts for a limited time because you are a legal AF listener.

Starting point is 01:32:49 Get 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life. when you head to smalls.com slash legal a.F. That's 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com slash legal a.F. Have you ever actually looked at the ingredient list on your dog's food? Well, after the first ingredient, good luck. Most kibble is made using extreme high heat to keep it shelf stable, which means brands have to add back synthetic vitamins and minerals with ingredients you can't even pronounce.

Starting point is 01:33:29 Sundays for dogs is different. They start with more than 80% all-natural meats, then add superfoods like kale, ginger, and blueberries, and gently air-dry everything instead of using high heat. It doesn't look or smell like dog food. It looks like high-quality human-grade jerky. No fillers, no nutritional blends, no chemicals, just simple, complete nutrition. Founded by veterinarian Dr. Tori Waxman, Sundays was created to meet her high standards as both a veterinarian and a dog parent. And there's no fridge, no freezer, no prep, no mess, just scoop and serve.

Starting point is 01:34:04 With over 100,000 dogs already eating Sundays, it's easy to see why so many picky eaters are excited for meal time. Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to SundaysforDogs.com slash legal AF50 and get 50% off your food. first order. Or you can use code legal AF50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at Sundays for dogs.com slash legal AF50 or use code legal AF50 at checkout. And we are back. Karen, let's put your prosecutor hat on for a moment. Minnesota and it's Attorney General Keith Allison and it's Hennepin County prosecutor. Mary Moriarty have been doing the work that the Department of Justice has refused to do,

Starting point is 01:34:56 trying to bring justice for people in Minnesota and Minneapolis who were murdered, assassinated, maimed, injured, or worse, by ICE and federal security forces during Operation Metro Search. And that includes Alex Preti and Renee Good, which the Department of Justice is doing nothing about, and and people like Christian Castro, who was a rogue ICE agent, who along with his partner, did a traffic stop when Mr. Sosa-Cellis ran from the traffic stop. I don't know what his immigration status was, but he certainly didn't want to have an interaction with ice. And he ran and got behind a close door of his home. And then Agent Castro, based on a video that we all have seen, fired at will through

Starting point is 01:35:47 the door, not caring at all, who was on the other side of it, and hit Mr. Castro in the leg and almost killed a child. They were indicted. I don't mean Castro. I mean the person he shot, because Castro and his partner lied that Celes and his friend attacked Ice with brooms and shovels, which did not happen, as we know, for the video. Ice had an egg on its face. It had to go to court and dismiss the indictments and also say they were internally investigating the lying under oath that led to the indictments by a Christian Castro. Christian Castro gets called back to Texas because he was part of an ICE unit there and is in Texas. And he is not in Minnesota for his arrest warrant.

Starting point is 01:36:40 And so they go get an arrest warrant from a judge. Guy doesn't show up and they treat him as a fugitive from Minnesota. And they go and find him in Texas. Texas Rangers arrest him. And he's put as a fugitive in a 90-day hold in Texas while they work through the paperwork of extradition. Governor Wall signs the extradition request and it goes to Governor Abbott. And then Karen, why take it from there what's happened and what he thinks is going to happen next? Yeah, so just to tell everybody kind of how routine this is and how common this is.

Starting point is 01:37:15 So if you are indicted for a federal crime by the federal government and you are anywhere in the United States, any federal FBI agent or whoever the agency is that is prosecuting you can go and arrest you and bring you to the jurisdiction where you were indicted and bring you before a court. Okay, so they don't need to ask permission from the states because it's federal government, federal law enforcement. And that happens all the time. But as you said, this was a local prosecutor who arrested, who is indicted someone or charged somebody. And the police officers or law enforcement from any state does not have jurisdiction to arrest someone, their powers, to arrest someone. to arrest someone are limited to their jurisdiction. They can't arrest someone in another state. So if you get arrested in another state pursuant to an arrest warrant, which again, happens all the time. People flee or leave jurisdictions all the time. You go to that local law enforcement.

Starting point is 01:38:25 You bring them your warrant and you say, look, you have someone in your state who has been indicted in my state. Can you go arrest them? They go arrest them. They bring them before a state court a state court judge in that jurisdiction. And again, what happens is so routine, one governor has to ask the other governor for permission to extradite them. Or a person can waive extradition and can volunteer to go because that process can sometimes take a long time. They have up to 90 days to grant this permission and then it takes time to go pick the person up. And so sometimes people just want to go to the other jurisdiction quickly and not languish in jail in in in in in in another state while you're waiting this extradition process it's it's a ministerial thing right this it's it's a call

Starting point is 01:39:18 the governor's warrant and you get extradited to the other state it's ministerial well texas in this particular instance refused governor abbott refused to do this ministerial duty and to send the ICE agent, Mr. Castro, Agent Castro, to Minnesota, which frankly, my understanding is within these 90 days, almost 90 days that Castro has been held in Texas. He's been detained in Texas for almost 90 days because that's how much time the law allows you to try to get this governor's warrant. And permission was asked a while ago, but Abbott is sitting on his hands and not signing the paperwork. And once that expires, that 90 days, Castro gets released. Since this has happened, since this request has happened, Abbott has agreed to extradite other people to Minnesota who have

Starting point is 01:40:18 fled to Texas. In fact, I think three other people have been extradited since Mr. Castro's indictment to Minnesota. But he's refusing to do Castro, the ICE agent. He's refusing to sign it. He won't say one way or another. So he's letting it expire. Castro will then be released from... Tomorrow. Tomorrow. Tomorrow. And the judge basically said there's nothing I can do to force him. You know, you can't force him to make a decision. But why can't you? It's called Arita Van Damas. I don't understand. You can force him to do it. That's what a writ of Van Damas petition is. Well, let's see. Go ahead. Try and force Governor Abbott to do it. Well, I mean, his position is in his 13 pages because Abbott hasn't made the decision whether to do it or not. He can't force him to do it because he still might do it on his own. I think that's ludicrous. Abit has said out loud. I mean, I just interviewed Keith Ellison. It's going up. It's up now on Legal Life YouTube channel from this morning. And Abbott has said things as part of the record. Like, I'll sign it when Governor Wall. admits that he's committing fraud in Medicare.

Starting point is 01:41:34 Like, what? Are you? This is a guy who shot another person. This is a governor. Let's remind you. Not just shot another person. Then lied about it. Had the person arrested.

Starting point is 01:41:44 Yeah. What happened to the Law and Order Party? This is the governor who sent the Texas Rangers to Chicago to go arrest Democratic Texas lawmakers who had left to avoid a quorum and the vote on congressional maps to arrest them and drag them back to Texas. This is the governor who dropped off. human beings in the middle of winter without proper winter coats in East Coast locations and dump them off there in New York and New York and Nantucket and other places. I think one person died from exposure.

Starting point is 01:42:16 So, you know, for this guy to sit there advised by Ken Paxton, right, for senator, this is why Paxton should lose against James Tolariko for many reasons, but certainly this one. And you've got a federal judge who, you know, is sitting in court in Texas. I'm not sure who appointed him. And he's like, again, you're too early. We don't know if he's not going to do it yet. That's what a mandamus motion is for. You don't have to, you should be sitting around. The guy's getting out tomorrow. So we're going to have to see because as soon as Abbott, Abbott shouldn't be rewarded for not making his decision. Well, look, there's one, I think one reason it's not being pushed is because, or hasn't yet, is because there is one small substantive issue here, which is it's usually

Starting point is 01:43:06 this is for when someone is a fugitive, when they flee a jurisdiction. And what Castro is saying, I'm not a fugitive. I didn't flee the jurisdiction. I was transferred as part of ice and part of my ice duties. And so, you know, there's a little squirly wiggle room for, I think, for governor, for the governor to be able to say, look, you know, extradition here isn't appropriate because he didn't flee, whatever. We'll see if that comes to bear, but the problem is, look, where they are in Texas, it's at the Mexico border. I'm not saying Castro will flee, but certainly he could if he wanted to, and then you've got worse problems. But he's facing indictment in Minnesota for a very serious charge, right? He didn't just shoot someone, an innocent person. He lied. He lied and lied under oath and caused someone

Starting point is 01:43:56 to be prosecuted by lying. He's got some big problems to face. Yeah, and I'm going to get a hold of Keith Allison, and we're going to talk about what they're going to do next. I think they're going to have to take it. They may take an appeal, maybe an emergency one because the guy gets let's out tomorrow. And then, so when is he ever able to be extradited?

Starting point is 01:44:16 I don't care how he got there. He's in another state. He's not answering for the crimes in an indictment and knows about it in Minnesota. And so call it. what you want, but you have to be able to get him back. It can't be this nether world where he's not really a fugitive, so you can't use extradition. Well, if they release him. Yeah. Arrest them again? No. Well, so if they release him and then they schedule a court date, they serve him with the,

Starting point is 01:44:45 make sure he served with the court date. And he doesn't appear. In Minnesota. In Minnesota. I think that's when he officially becomes a fugitive. Okay. Then they then they, then they, dot that eye and cross that tea and get him served and get the clock running on him not appearing. Or maybe he does appear. Maybe after all of this, he understands he's going to stand, he's going to stand in a courtroom one day for what he did. But again, it's frustrating. I know our audience is frustrated by these shenanigans. I mean, this is, as you said, and as Keith said in my interview, this is normal.

Starting point is 01:45:21 I mean, not only has Texas granted extradition since this time, Texas regularly extradites people to Minnesota. Minnesota regularly extradites to Texas. It's only on this political issue, you know, where they're trying to make a political case out of it. But this happened, literally, this happens every single day across the country. That's how routine this is. Yeah. Yeah. Keith Allison said that Governor Walls, in his case, turns around,

Starting point is 01:45:51 extradition request about in 72 hours, you know, from when it gets on its desk. The only question for the governor's office is, do we have the right Christian Castro? Like, I'm not kidding. They check things like photographs and fingerprints and name and they check, okay, what is, what does it show and what is the paperwork? And is it legit? Okay, here's the signature. Yeah, yeah. So we'll follow that case closely. There's so many other things that you and I, even as we're on the air, that you and and I are looking at like, oh, crap, there's another thing we've got to follow tomorrow morning. Thanks for everybody for being here. We went a little bit longer because we had two guests that we just couldn't live without

Starting point is 01:46:29 Danny Betsky and Mark Elias. And Karen, check your text messages. And you're on LegalAF, the podcast here on the Legal, the Midas Touch Network. Support us, as you know. Use that QR code above Karen's head. Download the audio. That really, I wouldn't ask for it if it. It didn't matter.

Starting point is 01:46:49 That really does help us in five-star reviews. and all of that. Come on to LegalAF the YouTube channel and hit the free subscribe button there. We just crossed 1.21 million subscribers and almost 770 million views. We're less than two years old. And with your support by the midterms, we're going to be right where we need to be growing, growing, growing. Legal AF substack, keep us in the top 20, if not the top 10 of all U.S. news substacks. I think you'll enjoy the content there on LegalAF Substack. And thanks so much to our sponsors of pro-democracy sponsors who, you know, know what our point of view is and are happily here to support what we do and our work that we do on the Midas Touch Network and on legal AF. Last word for Karen Freeman, Ignifflin.

Starting point is 01:47:35 You know we're not a network show when you go an hour in 47 minutes. You have dogs barking in the background. No, but that's one of the things I love about it is it's just us, you know. I'm like sweating to death because the building turned the air conditioning off. My face is turning red. It's like here we are live. And anyway, I love you, Michael Popok. I love our audience.

Starting point is 01:48:01 What a great show. And thanks to everyone for hanging in with us for this, this a little bit longer show. It's a bonus episode. Extra bonus. Thank you to everybody. Thank you to our producers and our team. I think of the work round the clock to bring you this content and support.

Starting point is 01:48:19 us and make us look great every day. And shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal A-Effers.

Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF 8/27/2026

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.