Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF Full Episode - 10/22/2025

Episode Date: October 23, 2025

Dina Doll (in for Popok) and Karen Friedman Agnifilo anchor the top-ranked law and politics podcast Legal AF, and break down this week’s biggest legal and political bombshells at the intersection of law and democracy, including: 1) a new bombshell lawsuit against Melania Trump brought by Michael Wolff over Epstein claims; 2) Jack Smith striking back against GOP senators over their claims over his DOJ investigations; 3) a busy week for James Comey with two new filings and motions in his case; 4) Trump’s destruction of the White House east wing; 5) leaked texts from Trump’s pet prosecutor Lindsey Haligan, and so much more on the podcast that breaks down the legal chaos threatening our democracy. Support Our Sponsors: Lola Blankets: Get 35% off your entire order at https://lolablankets.com by using code LEGALAF at checkout. Experience the world’s #1 blanket with Lola Blankets. Dose: Dose: Save 30% on your first month of subscription by going to https://dosedaily.co/LEGALAF or entering LEGALAF at checkout. Miracle Made: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGLAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Delete Me: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join https://deleteme.com/LEGALAF and use promo code LEGALAF at checkout. Subscribe to Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you're with Amex Platinum, you get access to exclusive dining experiences and an annual travel credit. So the best tapas in town might be in a new town altogether. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Terms and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. This episode is brought to you by Peloton. A new era of fitness is here.

Introducing the new Peloton Cross Training Tread Plus, powered by Peloton IQ, built for breakthroughs with personalized workout plans, real-time insights, and endless ways to move. Lift with confidence, while Peloton IQ counts reps, corrects form, and tracks your progress. Let yourself run, lift, flow, and go. Explore the new Peloton cross-training tread plus at OnePeloton.C.A. Welcome to another midweek edition of LegalAF. I'm Karen Friedman Agnifalo, your co-host along with Dina Dahl, who is here for Michael Popock, who's traveling today. So thank you so much, Dina, for being here and stepping in.

I always love being able to do Legal A-F with you on this midweek edition. And we have so many things to talk about today. I can't even believe how many things are going on. from Jim Comey, the former FBI director, coming out, swinging and has two motions that he's already filed, one accusing vindictive prosecution, and what we're going to think is going to happen in that lawsuit that was brought in the Eastern District of Virginia. We're also going to talk about Jack Smith and what's going on with him. It was 10 months. We haven't really heard anything about him, and suddenly we're hearing about him all the time. And I don't know if that's the calm before the storm.

And if he's next on Trump's hit list for vindictive prosecutions, but we're now hearing and we're going to talk about how the Senate is accusing him of wiretapping their phones when he investigated the jam six riots, which couldn't be further from the truth. And so we're going to talk about that and talk about what he did do and didn't do. Also, we'll talk about Lindsay Halligan, who's the prosecutor who was flown in to prosecute Letitia James. and she also happens to be the Comey prosecutor, and how she, unsolicited, reached out to a reporter, Anna Bauer, and was telling her information,

and suddenly Anna Bauer is talking about, why is Lindsay Halligan talking to me about a pending grand jury investigation? Kind of strange. We also have to talk about this extraordinary demolition of the historic White House that is going on with just a wrecking ball. It is atrocious what is happening there in the East Wing and what Donald Trump is doing to build his vanity project of a ballroom, which is beyond absurd. It's twice the size of the White House itself.

I can't even get over what they're doing over there and taking down this beautiful historic building. And also, we need to talk about, and I think we should start today with Melania Trump is threatening an author with a lawsuit, and he is fighting back. by filing a lawsuit against her, accusing her of essentially trying to chill his speech. And it's all about the Epstein scandal. So there's just a lot going on in this intersection of law and politics that we talk about always on legal AF. And so I'm just so happy to be here with you and talk about these things with you. How are you doing, Dina?

I'm okay. I'm so glad to be doing this with you. There's, yeah, so many things here we talk about. I just want to also just do a shout-out for the breast cancer awareness month. Screen early, screen young, and for those who are living with breast cancer, there are so many great treatments out there, all of us on legal AF and might as touch are with you. So hang in there. That's awesome.

I love that. So why don't we start out with Melania Trump? Because it is just this incredible, incredible lawsuit. If you don't mind, can I frame the issue for us? because it is just this astounding lawsuit. So Michael Wolfe is an author, and he's written some books, mostly nonfiction and a few biographies. He's also done some magazine articles,

and he's gotten some awards, et cetera. And in various podcasts, Instagram posts, and writings, he has made statements about Melania Trump and her connection to Jeffrey Epstein. And those statements he talked about fall into a couple of different categories. But the statements are as follows. One is Mrs. Trump could have information

about her husband and Mr. Epstein. Number two, Melania was very involved in Epstein's social circle. Number three, she's introduced by a model agent, both of which whom Trump and Epstein are involved with. She's introduced to Trump that way. Epstein knew her well. The next statement, Trump liked

to F, his friend's wives, and first slept with Melania on his Lolita Express, meaning Epstein's famous private jet that many people are accused of having flown in, including Donald Trump many, many, many times. The flight logs corroborate that. Next, where does Melania fit into the Epstein story? Next, Epstein told you that Trump and Melania got together the first time on Epstein's airplane

and that Melania met Trump through the same modeling circles through which Epstein and Trump procured dates. Next, this sham marriage, trophy marriage, hardly any marriage at all, is part of the scam. And another one is the Epstein story in which Melania plays no small part. Where does Melania fit in with Epstein? You stated that Mrs. Trump is sending letters threatening to sue anyone who makes the connection between her and Epstein because they are hiding something they don't want us to know. that last statement is very interesting because she's saying that's defamatory what he's saying is you know what that's actually true and the defense to defamation is absolute truth if something is true or opinion or a hypothetical question those are all those all can't be defamatory those are statements and how do we know that that last statement is true that she's threatening people with lawsuits because that is exactly what she's done she wrote a letter a

demand letter, which is very common for lawyers to do prior to filing a lawsuit, where they basically say, this is my claim and let me know if you want to talk about it before I settle. And she basically said that she threatened in this lawsuit that, I'm sorry, in this demand letter, that her legal team threatened Michael Wolfe with a billion dollar lawsuit. If he didn't immediately retract the statements that I just have told you about and apologize, for the defamatory remarks linking Melania Trump to Jeffrey Epstein. So what Michael Wolf did was when he got this demand letter,

he filed a lawsuit against Melania. And he filed something called an anti-SLAPP lawsuit, which stands for a strategic lawsuit against public participation, S-L-A-P. So it's anti-SLAP. So it's essentially to, you're not allowed to, to suppress and intimidate speech on an issue of public interest by threatening a lawsuit. And so at least 35 states have these anti-SLAP laws.

New York has a very strong one, stronger than Florida, in fact. And so the lawyer was very, Michael Wolf's lawyer, was very smart to bring it here in New York. And this lawsuit basically says that, you know, talks about this demand letter where she threatens to sue him for a billion dollars. if he doesn't apologize and retract it and basically says, look, these statements are either true or they're my opinion, or I made them in, I was talking hypotheticals, like, what was Melania's involvement with Epstein? That's just a question, right?

There's nothing wrong with asking a question. That's not defamatory. And that they were not made with actual malice, which is the standard to prove defamation against a public figure. And of course, she's a public figure. So the thing that interests me the most about, this lawsuit is it gives Wolf's subpoena power. So since the statements pertain to matters that largely occurred here in New York, like I said, this will permit him to subpoena and take

depositions and get discovery from many, many witnesses, everyone who frequented or were part of Epstein's circle, including Donald Trump. So it's a pretty big deal, this lawsuit. And boy, has Melania Trump opened up a can of worms by sending that demand letter? So what are your thoughts about this, Dina? Yeah, I mean, anytime that they are beat, Trump or Melania have to actually face a court where there's rules of laws, it goes badly for them. So, you know, here this anti-SLAPP motion, it brings the issue forward quicker. That's the benefit of it.

That's why so many states, California has one as well, have these in place. because otherwise, just the threat of being sued or actually being sued for defamation and all the costs, the protected nature of a civil lawsuit can drag things out for years and it's very expensive and that in itself is like chilling a free speech. So this brings the matter to a head quicker, sooner. And that benefits, of course, Michael Wolf here,

but frankly, anybody who wants to speak out and say something against Trump or Melania and all the others, you know, trigger-happy lawsuit folks out there, which there are many, it seems like, taking the cue from Trump. So this is good. It's good to get it out front. I mean, is she really going to continue this process? Is she really going to be willing to sit for some sort of deposition? Is she really going to be willing to, you know, have sign an affidavit under perjury of law? It seems unlikely. I mean, frankly, Trump is shutting down the government,

it seems to not get the Epstein files released. They're doing like anything but that. I can't imagine she's going to not, you know, want this to now quietly go away. But if she does, he now can look at all that because as to your point, which you framed it all so well, the fact of the matter is if something is true, then that is a complete defense.

If something is an opinion, that is a defense. And they have this very high threshold, Melania has to prove, which is even if you said something that's untrue, and even if you said it as a fact, you have to have knowingly said that untrue. And that's very high to prove. This is why a lot of public figures don't bring a defamation lawsuit to begin with.

Here she has, like we know, Trump is very litigious. He's refiling his lawsuit against the New York Times. But this anti-slap motion, which some states have, the whole point of it is exactly this situation. situation to not have people in power chill free speech. It's crazy how many lawsuits Trump brings, you know, anything to shut down dissent, right? Calling people on the left terrorist, domestic terrorist, right? Or bringing lawsuits against his enemies or prosecuting his enemies. Anyone who speaks out or says anything negative about him, he uses the full force

in might of the federal government or lawsuits against them. He's like, such a bully. And, you know, he has so much more power than everybody else and so much more money because he, you know, he has all these schemes that he's doing, crypto schemes and free airplanes that he's going to keep and real estate deals and all the things that his kids are doing. I mean, it's just unbelievable. And so he just has more money, more access and obviously more power and immunity so he can do whatever he wants. And it's just, really, it's just astounding to see this. And I think you're right. I mean, the one thing he cares about most

is not releasing these Epstein files. That's why, although the federal government is shut down, Mike Johnson is refusing to swear in Representative Griehalva from Arizona, who would be the 218th vote in the House to release the files. And he's saying, basically, he's claiming that, oh, well, the house, the house is closed. And so Congress is closed.

so I can't possibly swear her in. Not true. It's a pro forma thing, and they used to do it all that. They've done it many, many times. He's already done it several times, not in session to do a pro forma. He's just trying to not release those Epstein files. And that's clearly coming from the White House.

And it's just unbelievable to me. I read something recently. Someone said, it was like a meme when Trump released George Santos from jail, which is just also unbelievable to me. This guy, you know, George Santos isn't just a total liar. He stole people's identity. Like, he's an identity thief and then stole money from them. He's a complete thief. And he, the fact that he would let him in, I saw this meme that was like, uh, that basically said Donald Trump will release anything except the Epstein files. Which I thought was so funny. Because it's

true. It's the one thing. I mean, George Santos, I, I I just can't get over the fact that he commuted, that he pardoned him and let him out. I mean, or I should say commuted his sentence and let him out. It's just unbelievable to me, but you're right. Like more than anything, this is the thing he can't stand. But it's also the thing that he can't stay away from. I mean, even his ardent supporters like Marjorie Taylor Green are insisting and breaking away from him when it comes to Epstein.

Yeah. And Attorney General, Kristen Mays, filed a lawsuit, trying to get the congresswoman from Arizona sworn in. I mean, thankfully, we have some attorney generals in this country who are willing to stand up to Trump. And so that's going to be an interesting one to follow to see where that goes. It's shocking that that is actually happening.

And hey, folks, like, Arizona is a purple state. I grew up actually in Arizona. I'm not from there, but I grew up in there. And they are the independent street that got Senator McCain elected elected elected, you disenfranchised. Disenfranchising 800,000 Arizona voters is a bad look. They're not typical Republicans, above all else. They just like the independence and its major government overreach to not swear in their elected official.

It's just such a bad political move, I think, for the state of Arizona and obviously a legal move. And so it'll be interesting to see what Chris Amaz's a lawsuit is like. Yeah, that's definitely one to watch because they got to release those files. I mean, they're just, and the fact of the matter is if there's nothing in there, just release them. And people will stop talking about it, but they keep them in the news every single day, every day that they don't release these files. And you got to wonder, what are they hiding? It's just, you know, unbelievable. Well, her book, Virginia Dufre's book just came out yesterday, which I have bought, but I have not, you know, I haven't finished reading, but I know some of the excerpts have come out in The Guardian and elsewhere.

And she gives a lot of details in that. And I know Ben interviewed a survivor recently. The, I think the files are so bad, like, so horrible. It was shocking even to see the details that she's been talking about. I definitely know when we, I finished reading that book, we'll talk about it again. But what all the girls went through, the abuse they went through, they need justice.

This is a really, really tragic situation. And the more that they stall, the more word I think, you know, what is in those files. Yeah, well, I look forward to reading it as well. I mean, that's just, that's going to be great. Why don't we pivot to James Comey and what's going on with James Comey? So just to make everyone catch up to where we are, James Comey, the former FBI director, former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

He has been on Donald Trump's hit list for quite some time. time. Donald Trump can't stand him. He's one of his enemies. And he has wanted him prosecuted for anything. And there was an investigation into him, into the Eastern District of Virginia, which is a U.S. Attorney's office. And they were investigating him and told the U.S. Attorney Eric Siebert that there's no case. And Eric Siebert agreed. There's no case. Line prosecutors looked at this, and several supervisors looked at it and even the U.S. attorney who Trump appointed as an interim U.S. attorney. So he appointed him and he could serve for 120 days until he was confirmed by the Senate because U.S. attorneys, although they are known as inferior officers, there's a statute that says

they have to still be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. they're important enough. So the checks and balances of our Constitution, the separation of powers. And James Comey, I'm sorry, and Lindsey Halligan was, so back up. Eric Siebert, where I was, was appointed. He served out his 120 days. And the statute, which is 28 United States Code Section 546, specifically says that a president can put someone in interim for 120 days. And then when that expires, the courts may appoint somebody. And that's how it's supposed to work. It's like 120 days goes, and then the court gets to appoint somebody.

And that person is appointed again until the Senate confirms somebody. And that's how things go. Well, Eric Siebert was named interim. The 120 days expired. And apparently, according to everybody, he's, even though he's Republican, he's, I don't know him at all, but he's a respected lawyer. and a respected career prosecutor, and the judges voted him in.

And so he was the interim United States attorney pursuant to that clause of Section 546. And when he told whomever, whether it was Pam Bondi or Donald Trump or, or, God, why am I blanking on his name, the pardon, the eagle, Popat calls him, Eagle, it'll come to me. Taub Blanche? You talk about? No, no, no. Ed Martin, Ed Martin, Eagle Ed Martin, sorry. Sometimes I just, I can't, I don't know.

Does things ever just leave your name? I don't know if it was Ed Martin or Pam Bondi or who. And they basically, he basically said, look, there's no case. We're not bringing a case. We can't bring a case. There is nothing here. And Trump didn't like, Trump got wind of it, didn't like it, and wrote a message to Pam Bondi,

this, that famous message that now everyone is saying was an accident, right? He publicly tweeted and basically was like, Pam, you know, in all caps, and basically you have to go after Comey and you have to, and you know, Lindsay Halligan is great. She likes you, you know, like this weird message, but basically telling her what to do and directing her to bring a case against Jim Comey, he fires Seabert,

and appoints Lindsay Halligan. She's never been a prosecutor. She was, I think, an insurance lawyer, has no experience. And within a couple of days, she indicts Jim Comey. And she, it was right, the reason that she did it when she did was the statute of limitations was about to run. And nobody in, people resigned over this. Career prosecutors resigned.

Nobody in the office would go into the grand jury with her. Nobody would sign the indictment. She signed it. The indictment has all sorts of errors. It's too thin. It probably isn't facially sufficient. She clearly doesn't know what she's doing. And so the case is being prosecuted by all accounts, by all lawyers who have looked at this indictment. It's confusing. It's not substantive. And from what people can glean, the accusations are, it will never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is. just a crazy case. And so Comey hired one of the great lawyers in this country, Pat Fitzgerald, who was the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, and he's just got an impeccable reputation. And I've never met him, but I've known of him forever. I mean, he's brilliant lawyer, great writer, and good friend of Comey's, and he brought him on the case. And so he's going to outlawyer Halligan and everybody else in the Eastern District of Virginia. They asked for a quick trial date.

They got a date for early January. I think it's January 5th. And that's common in the Eastern District of Virginia. They have a rocket docket. And Comey came out swinging today, or this week, with a couple of really incredible motions, beautifully written motions. And do you want to talk about them, Dina?

Do you want to frame the motions? Sure. So yeah, there were two motions. One is to disqualify basically his indictment because he's saying that Lindsay Halligan was improperly appointed. So technically she was not a valid DA when she sought and signed that indictment.

And then second is just a motion to dismiss the charges our rights saying that it is a violation of his free speech, as well as the due process violation that this is selective prosecution. He has a 60 page, attachment of all the communications, all the public communications of Trump and Comey about each other. And just that alone is such strong evidence. I mean, to say some, the government is selectively prosecuting you or vindictively prosecuting,

or this is a violation of your due process. Obviously, it is super high hurdle. But when you have statement after statement from Trump, who was the president of the United States, going back in 2017 to that latest truth social post, which was like, obviously, just go get them because we're becoming unpopular. Our credibility is hurting. But it was interesting. Not only I do think that that was obviously very strong evidence for his case.

But on a side note, you could see Trump's cognitive decline there so well. his posts in 2017 are sharp like they're not sharp but they're short and actually seem to have a point and then you see as it progresses this term it's these rambling long posts that make no sense anyway complete side note i just thought like actually seeing the post from 2017 onward was kind of stunning to see like how much worse trump has gotten but to you know you know combe concedes in his filing that this is a high hurdle, the one dismissing the charge is outright. But as we know, you know, Kilmar Garcia has already gotten a judge, Judge Crenshaw, that there allowed discovery on the same motion saying that this was a vindictive prosecution, saying that there was a reasonable likelihood that

the DOJ indicted him in a vindictive way. So there is precedent already showing that the DOJ is acting in an unequal manner violating people's criminal defendants constitutional rights. So I think he has enough evidence here to at least have the judge maybe do the same idea and have discovery on this. His motion regarding the fact that Lindsay Halligan wasn't appointed properly, I think is going to be the harder battle because of the fact that the Supreme Court has expanded the view on what a president can and can. not do. He had to file that motion, and that will probably ultimately go to the Supreme Court at

some point, whether or not they take it up or they affirm a lower court's decision. But that one, to me, in this like realm that we see where the Supreme Court is allowing Trump to hire and fire agencies that they typically wouldn't, that one to me seems a little bit harder. But in terms of just flat out this being selective and vindictive, Trump himself has given. been the best evidence that could be given in a case like this. I love one of the opening lines in Pat Fitzgerald's motion on behalf of Comey. It says, the indictment is fatally flawed because it resulted from a paradigmatic paradigmatic violation of the Constitution's Appointments Clause.

Core element of separation of powers that defines when and how officers of the United States acquire their authorities to act. It's just so like he's so right. It's all about the separation of powers. He says the remedy is clear. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held the effect of this is nullity. And because no properly appointed executive branch officials sought and obtained the indictment, the indictment is equally nullity, which basically means he's saying she was not validly appointed and therefore this indictment is invalid. Because, you know, when you think about it, imagine if I, yes, I was a prosecutor, but I'm no longer a prosecutor, I'm just, you know, a normal person. Imagine if I claim to have indictment power. And I indicted someone and I asked, went to court and tried to put them in jail.

I mean, I'd be laughed out of court, right? I have no authority. I have no power. It's such a powerful thing that Congress has actually spoken. Congress actually passed a law that says, this is how it's done. It's the appointments clause. And it's just preposterous to think that, oh, you could just keep pointing new interms. You could just appoint someone for the 120 days and then the 119th day, you remove them and put someone else in. And then that starts the clock again for another 119 days and then another 100. I mean, you could just keep doing that and completely get around the separation of powers that, you know, requires the checks and balances, the advice and consent to the Senate. I mean, it's kind of a preposterous thing that they're saying, yes, I agree with you. God only knows what the Supreme Court's going to do.

But I think it's a really strong argument that this is exactly what the statute specifically says you get one shot, 120 days. You can put four people in to make up those 120 days, but you only have 120 days for that interim appointment, right? You can stack people within it. Once that 120 days is up, the next thing that happens is the court is supposed to appoint someone. And they did here.

And so you can't just now start the clock again. I don't know. I think they have a strong. I think the problem was, though, is I wish he hadn't resigned Siebert. If he hadn't resigned, but he had been fired, I think that that is a much stronger argument for Comey. Trump says he was fired. Well, I know, but technically, yeah, so you're going to take a deposition to see because Siebert said he resigned. I don't, I mean, this is, this is why it's not as perfect of an argument for Comey as it should be. And honestly, this is like

what happened with the FBI director, right, who stepped down because you knew Trump was going to replace him? Do you remember leading up to the Trump admin? Why do they make it easy? They shouldn't make it easy. He shouldn't have resigned. He should have let Trump fire him because you are, you are allowing Trump to circumvent those exact laws. The FBI director wasn't supposed to be able to be fired by Trump. But by resigning, he created a vacancy to appoint Cash Patel. And the same thing, think happened with Sieber. It's too bad he decided to step down instead of letting Trump fire him. And then I think Comey's argument would be much stronger. Well, I don't know. Trump says he fired him. So we'll see. We'll see what that turns out to be. It's interesting about

the vindictive prosecution, which is the other motion, right, not just the one about to disqualify her as U.S. attorney. The interesting thing about that is Fitzgerald did a great job. at listing out all the information that led to this, right? It's just a brilliant kind of story. I told the story of how this is really vindictive. And vindictive prosecution basically means you're prosecuting someone vindictively because they exercised some sort of right. And the right here was his free, protected speech.

And Comey was somebody who spoke negatively. He was about Trump. And so he's saying that because he exercised his free speech, speech that that's the vindictiveness and that's why he's going you know going back going against him he's also making a selective prosecution argument which essentially means other people similarly situated aren't prosecuted you know and that as well look also the case itself just substantively really sucks you know it's like it's like it's it's uh i don't there's no way it makes out perjury it just doesn't and so they have either way they just have a really tough

road to Ho in this case. And, you know, Trump, of course, is trying, is also now trying to get Pat Fitzgerald disqualified, saying that he has a conflict of interest because he may have had a part in leaking the information to the media on Comey's behalf, because Pat Fitzgerald was Comey's lawyer. So they're trying to, they want him off the case because he's such a great lawyer. I mean, they had to fly up. So all the career prosecutors in Virginia wouldn't take the case. So they brought up to people from, I think, North Carolina or South Carolina, who, are going to prosecute this case, and they're like, oh, look, slow it down. We need more time. You know, and the judge is like, nope, you decided to bring this case. You're doing it. And so they

want to get Pat Fitzgerald off the case because I think they know that he will outlawyer those, certainly outlawyer at Lindsay Halligan and those others. So, you know, that's what's going on there. And we'll see if it actually goes on January 5th. I'm not sure because I think that the judge will dismiss the case before then, and then they'll appeal it. And so I don't know, that we're going to have a trial anytime soon. Yeah, and them trying to disqualify Comey's lawyer. I mean, all of this, the indictment against Comey, the indictment against Letitia James,

criminal defendants in this country have such strong constitutional rights. It's one of the things our founders got right. Like, they forgot to put term limits into the presidency, but they knew the power of the government against somebody accused of a crime was so imbalanced they needed to protect the criminal defendant. And that is coming into play. And a criminal defendant has a very strong right to have the counsel of their choosing.

So it's not gonna be that easy for the prosecution to get Patrick Fitzgerald disqualified. If they can truly show that he would be both a witness and a lawyer in this case, then even our professional legal responsibilities as a lawyer would have Patrick Fitzgerald step down voluntarily or have the judge disqualify I am based on like an unfair trial but you know that's a stretch okay can they actually say it

you know we see the DOJ saying a whole bunch of stuff and not being able to prove it in court but Comey letitia james and all the rest who are going to get um indicted by trump have quite a bit of constitutional protections on their side and they're going to need every single one of them yeah i agree with you all right well i want to keep talking but we have to take a break But when we come back, we're going to talk about Jack Smith and all that he's been doing and coming out swinging, the fact that we've heard from him and so many other topics that we're going to talk about. But first, we're going to hear from our amazing sponsors who keep us on the air and have great products. And they know who we are. They know what we stand for.

And they sponsor us and support us. And I'm so proud that we are sponsored by each and every one of them. So we're going to take our first ad break. Delete me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. As someone with an active online presence, privacy is really important to me. Every week, we're covering stories about data leaks and hacks, people's personal information being exposed, and it really hit home. I've seen how easily your private details can end up all over the internet, and that's why I use Delete Me. DeleteMe does all the work of wiping your and your family's personal information from hundreds of data broker websites.

And it's not just a one-time thing. Delete Me is always working for you, constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the internet. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join DeleteMe.com slash legal AF and use promo code legal a.f at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to join delete me.com slash legal a.f and enter code legal a.f at checkout. That's join delete me.com slash legal a.f, code legal a. F. The weather, it's heating up and your nighttime bedroom temperature

has a huge impact on your sleep quality. If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle Maids bedsheets. Miracle made sheets are inspired by NASA and use silver infuse fabrics that are temperature regulating so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long using silver infused fabrics inspired by NASA. Miracle made sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long no matter the weather. So you get better sleep every night. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands and feel as nice, if not nicer than sheets used by some five-star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores, causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with

Miracle. Upgrade your sleep as the weather heats up. Go to try Miracle.com slash legal a.F to try Miracle made sheets today. And whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today, you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo LegalAF at checkout, you'll get a free three-piece towel set and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product, it's backed with a 30-day money-back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF and use the code legal AF to claim your free three-piece

towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's try miracle.com slash legal a.f to treat yourself. Thank you, Miracle Made, for sponsoring this episode. We're back and I just want to thank again our amazing sponsors and just really they're so fabulous and if you can help support them, you're helping to support us and you're helping to keep the Midas Touch network and the legal AF YouTube channel on the air and we are so happy to be able to do these podcasts and whether it's Michael Popock who has who curates the legal AF channel who has his podcast, the intersection, and is bringing amazing content on the Legal AF channel. It's fast growing. He's got so many subscribers. He also has a legal AF substack and is working really hard to bring content to everybody so everyone can keep up to date. So please hit subscribe.

Please follow us on these various platforms. And of course, always the Midas Touch network, which is just the number one network in the country right now. and it's just crushing it. I'm so proud to be one of the original podcasters here. We've been around for a little while now, and everything's going great. And it's really because of the people who are listening to this podcast, frankly, the community that has built this podcast up and made LegalAF what it is and made the network what it is. And so just I'm so grateful to be here with all of you tonight.

And thank you for listening every Wednesday and every Saturday to Legal AF. Let's continue on now with Jack Smith, Jack Smith, the special counsel, who I used to work with at the Manhattan DA's office. He's a prosecutor's prosecutor, great guy. He's prosecuted locally at the Manhattan DA's office early in his career. Then he went on to the U.S. Attorney's Office. He's worked in the main justice. He worked in, he was the United States attorney at one point, I think in Tennessee, if I remember correctly. And he also was an international prosecutor.

I mean, he's a true public servant. He's never worked in the private sector. I would have no idea what political party he is in. We've never talked about politics. He's apolitical. He just is a prosecutor, right? He does justice and follows the facts wherever they lead without fear or favor.

Understandably, he was the perfect person to be chosen by Merrick Garland and Joe Biden to do the investigation into the, January 6th and the riots and the horrible day that that was. And, um, and, you know, I always wondered when Trump was going after all his, his enemies, you know, Letitia James and Jim Comey and Adam Shifty Shift and all the stuff he says. I was always wondering, like, why isn't he going after Jack Smith, you know? Because you would think just that's somebody that would be in, in his crosshairs. And it's been a while, right? We haven't heard from Jack Smith. He hasn't spoken publicly.

And then all of a sudden, Jack Smith starts to speak publicly, spoke, who's interviewed by Andrew Weissman. My theory is that Jack Smith must have gotten wind that he was up next, you know, whether it's somebody contacted his lawyers, whether people, whether they're starting to issue subpoenas, something. And so he decided to come out. And again, this is just a hype, like a theory. I don't have any inside information, but I don't think it's any coincidence that Jack Smith came out and started talking publicly. And now all of a sudden, he's in the crosshairs. of Trump. And now Trump is talking about him and he wants to go after him and Andrew Weissman. And of course, what's going on? The Republicans in the Senate are doing Trump's bidding for him, right?

That's how it works. They will, they, there is no independent Congress right now. It's, it's so unbelievable how they are doing, they're just letting Trump do everything. They have abrogated their duty to have oversight, to provide checks and balances, to be an independent body, independent of the president. They're just being an arm of the president. And here, Senator, the Republicans, apparently, the Senate Republicans have accused Jack Smith of wiretapping them.

And they said that it, It was political weaponization, and they said that the FBI disclosed a report in 2023 showing court orders used to obtain phone information belonging to certain, I guess, eight senators and one House member, and they covered calls surrounding the four days around January 6th. And this was a letter by Chuck Grassley, and essentially, or I should say not a letter, this was an accusation by by the Senate Republicans. And so Jack Smith wrote a letter to Chuck Grassley and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee through his lawyers. And the Democratic, I think one is

Dick Durbin. And they basically said that, look, there wasn't any political motive in obtaining these records. They were disclosed in 2024 in the indictment. So there's no secret here. And P.S., there was no wiretap. And, you know, so I want to just explain to people what was done and what is always done in almost every prosecution is you can subpoena phone records that have no content, like words in them. There's no communication. There's no content in them.

It's just literally, like, who does it belong to? Right? Like you can get information about phone calls in a certain area. And so you want to, or you can have information. I guess what they were doing here was there was, there were news reports that certain senators and House members were in communication with the president around surrounding January 6th.

So they asked for those targeted individuals. Yes, they happened to be eight senators and one house member, their phone records to see, is that true? Were they in communication with the president? This was an investigation into the president. And so they issued subpoenas for those phone records. And what you'll get is you'll get the name. You'll get the subscriber information.

You'll get the phone number. And he did it for those four days only. So it was very targeted and very narrow. And you will get all the calls incoming and outgoing listed just in a list, like this number called this number for this amount of time all for those four days. That's it. It doesn't say what like what they spoke about. It doesn't say anything about the content. And you can do that with a subpoena. You don't need a or a search warrant. You don't need like a wiretap order. And so he got that information. And that's, the information that he got, just a list. And so it was a very short time. It was consistent with this very focused effort to confirm or refute, frankly, these reports from these multiple news outlets. And, you know, this letter points, has pointed out, too, that, look, those same kind of records were also obtained by Robert Hurr when he was investigating Joe Biden and his

mishandling of the classified documents case or Senator Bob Menendez in his bribery case also and so it's just crazy I mean Grassley's saying oh you know this is worse than than Watergate and this is so terrible they wiretap senators in Congress and it's just not true they did not wiretapping means that you're listening in on the calls it means you get content because you get to hear what was said that's what wiretapping is and this isn't that this is just who called who, or what phone number called what phone number. Somebody else could have had the phone, right?

It's just what phone number called, what phone number, at what time, on what date, and for how long. And that's what it shows. I think we're seeing Jack Smith unleashed from Merrick Garland. Merrick Garland, I believe, truly held back Jack Smith. And I'm so glad that he is standing up for his reputation and, frankly, the facts. Because as you said, that Senate hearing, Cash Patel, acting like he's literally wiretapping senators or representatives would be huge, would be huge. But that, as you said,

isn't what happened. And I'm so glad this whole thing of like, oh, they're lying about us. We're just going to ignore it is gone. Jack Smith putting in his letter and now the public, telling the public that that is not what happened. And I like to how he's put in that letter, that this information about the fact that they tried to figure out who Trump was talking to General 6 because they were trying to determine if Trump was asking certain senators or Congress people to not certify the 2020 election. That is what he was investigating. And he was, like you said, it was out in the media about these conversations. And they were trying to piece together who he was actually talking to in order for them to investigate and make their case. He said,

all of this got turned over to Trump in discovery as his indictment, Trump's indictment, proceeded. And so people who are now in the high level of the White House and the DOJ know the facts. Todd Blanche, we're looking at you. Who else? Who knows? Because Trump has basically taken all of his personal lawyers and put them into the DOJ and the White House. So there's a bunch of people who actually know the truth. And so I like that he called him out and he's not going to be willing to allow Republicans to frankly lie about the facts because we're not. not there anymore. We got to be louder. They're loud. We have to be louder. And I really hope we hear more from Jack Smith, because I think there was like a potential in him. We haven't fully realized

yet. I hope he's just getting started. Yeah, look, I have to say, again, I haven't talked to Jack Smith in a very long time, but having worked with him years ago and just knowing how he was trained and how he was brought up, this is the last thing he wants. The last thing he wants. The last thing he wants is to have to speak publicly about this or to go out and defend himself. He's not, like, that's why no one had really ever heard of him before he was appointed. And you never really heard anything about him. He didn't speak publicly, he did everything quietly. I think he gave one or two very short press conferences and he's just, he's just not that guy.

He's not this ego-driven guy who's going to go out and talk unless he has to. And so I think that's what's happening. And I think that's, like I said, that's why I think he must have known and gotten wind that he was next. And so he has to defend himself. But I honestly think if Trump had never started this with him, you would not have heard. Jack would have gone. And again, this is just me hypothetically, you know, I'm just thinking, I don't have any inside

information, just knowing him from before, I think he would just be very happy to go about his life. He did his duty. He served the public. You know, when when Trump v.S. came down by the United States Supreme Court and basically said it's not a crime, he dismissed the case. That's it. He's a rule follower. He's a law follower. He's not an ego-driven, grandstanding narcissist, you know, he's not that guy. And he truly exemplifies a public servant.

And so I'm sure we'll hear more from him because he has to. I don't think this is what he wants or kind of where he wanted to be. He just wanted to do his job and serve the public. So, by here we are it is serving the public to just combat the lies and information and they did it in senate hearings on the record so even if he's not got an indictment i'm really glad that he spoke out to correct the record because that is a really big accusation to make and that needed to be answered by the person who knew the person that anybody with any sort of credibility and that was him and so i'm I'm glad he spoke. I agree.

And it's just, you know, what's really kind of offensive is the senator who's saying it is Chuck Grassley. He's the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He knows about what a wiretap is, because he provides oversight at that, right? That's what his job does, is he oversees the judiciary system. He oversees what happens in criminal cases. He knows what a wiretap is, and he knows what a wiretap isn't.

And for him to accuse Jack Smith, doing a wiretap when it's clearly not where it is absolutely not where this is just getting phone records is really misleading the public and kind of offensive, right? And so it's just it's just kind of appalling to me that this that they're saying that and I agree with you. I am glad that they're that they're correcting the record. It's just and that's what we have to do here. We have to tell the truth what what things are and what things aren't and that's what we're trying to do here is just get facts out and then people can make their own opinion. So we're going to go to a quick second ad break, Dina.

And then we're going to come back and we're going to talk about the White House demolition, which is just so ridiculous. And also this Lindsay Halligan texting, this rookie move to text a reporter and, you know, talking about grand jury stuff. So we're going to come back and we're going to talk about those two issues. And let's take our next ad break. I'm officially obsessed. This is my Lola blanket, and I'm telling you, it's not just a blanket. It's a full-on experience. The first time I wrap myself in this thing, I audibly said, oh, my God.

It's insanely soft, like next-level soft and the design. It actually looks good thrown over on my couch. Total upgrade. I'm a blanket person. No shame in that. After a long day, I wind down with the show. And now with this blanket, mine's the large, and it's perfect. But the extra large, massive. Like, bring a friend massive. Lola blankets are machine washable, vegan. somehow they don't pill or shed. No joke. I've already thought about replacing all my other blankets with Lola. They've seriously ruined other blankets for me. For a limited time, our listeners get 35% off at Lolablankets.com with code legal a.f at checkout. That's Lolablankets.com. Code legal AF for 35% off your entire order. And don't forget, after you buy,

tell them we sent you. Wrap yourself in luxury with Lola Blankets. Did you know the liver is the second largest organ in your body? It's responsible for over 500 functions. But for some reason, liver health doesn't always get the attention it deserves. Over 30% of Americans have a sluggish liver. A problem that often goes undetected until the very last minute. Dose is on a mission to educate us all on why it's so important to maintain your liver health and has created an incredible product to help you do just that.

I mean, I found a clinically supported potent and effective solution, and I can't wait to share it with you. Dose for your liver was formulated to cleanse your liver of unwanted elements, a digestion. I mean, it acts as your body's filter, flushing out unwanted elements and breaking down what you consume into essential nutrients. The liver produces and regulates cholesterol, stores vitamins and minerals, and impacts digestive and metabolic health, among many other things. Doses science-backed formula promotes liver function, aids digestion, eases bloating, and even boosts energy levels. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, dose for your liver, lowered liver enzyme levels by 50% and over 86% of participants. Stick with dose and feel

the incredible benefits over time. More energy, better digestion, reduce bloating, healthier liver enzyme function, reduction in brain fog, and better sleep. One dose for your liver shot is equivalent to 17 shots of turmeric juice. Dose is gluten-free, dairy-free, sugar-free, and vegan. Save 30% on your first month of subscription by going to dosdaily.co-slash-legal-a-f or entering legal a-f at checkout. That's D-O-S-E-D-A-I-L-Y dot CO-L-A-F for 30% off your first month subscription. We're back. Thanks again to our amazing sponsors and to all of you who are still with us. And thank you for listening every single week and all the comments that you leave us.

If I'm ever having a bad day, I go and I read the comments, and they always make me feel so much better. So just not because I just love the engagement. It doesn't have to be positive comments, even negative comments. It doesn't matter. Just the engagement, just people who are engaging in the discussion, that people are involved. I love looking at the live comments while we're podcasting and the people who are just so involved in this community. It's just such a beautiful community that's been created on the Midas Touch Network and people who watch legal A.F. You know, it's just, I know it, I feel it when I'm out in the community and people come up to me and they always want to hug me and thank me and say, Thank you so much for what you guys are doing.

And you can tell, it's just this heartfelt, I need to feel like I'm part of a community and somebody who's telling me the truth, because the times we're living in are bonkers. I mean, absolute bonkers. Today, I was telling somebody about the fact that the president of the United States, okay, our president of the United States,

when we had this unbelievable protest on Saturday, the No Kings Day, where seven to 10 million Americans were out and about. I happened to be in a really small town in the Berkshires that day, and even they had at least 100 people out, and cars were driving by and honking, trucks, tractor trailers were driving by and honking in support. It was an amazing thing. And what was our president doing? Our president posted this horrible AI-generated image of him in an airplane, calling himself a king, wearing a king's crown, and dropping poop all over the protesters.

I mean, like, it just makes me cringe. You know, he has no respect for the office of the presidency. You know, the office of the presidency has always been this majestic thing where, you know, anytime he would walk the president would walk out, it would have so much pomp and circumstance and ceremony surrounding. And if you go to the White House, it's like, it's so inspiring. There's so much history there. You see pictures of just past presidents and portraits of past first ladies and just different dignitaries who have been there in historical events.

And it's just, you get this sense of importance and grandeur and just majestic kind of awe, frankly. And you have so much respect for the office of the presidency. even if you don't care for the president, even if you didn't vote for the president. And every president up until now, in my lifetime, at least, has respected that. And again, even if you don't like them, they've upheld the dignity of the office.

And he is just literally and figuratively tearing it down. He, again, that video is so upsetting to me, not because I can't take a joke, not because I'm a snowflake or weak or what, whatever. I laugh at jokes like anybody. But it's just that the president, it's just so disappointing that that's what he is posting. And it's just gross, too, right? It's just disgusting because he's disgusting. And, you know, I was so offended that that's what the office of the president is doing and doing things like that. You know, he's just really, he's just really torn down the office of the

presidency, which, you know, frankly, leads us to what we're talking about right now, which is he's literally tearing down the White House. After telling people that the East Wing is going to remain intact, he said that out loud. It's going to remain intact. We're not going to touch it. They have pictures, they have videos of literally these giant, like, construction equipment just with claws ripping the facade out and the wires out and the, like, they're just

taking a wrecking ball. They're not even, I've seen people do renovations, even like, targeted renovations. that add-ons, you take off pieces, piece by piece. You don't have to do like a total wrecking ball. And frankly, there might be historic value to preserving pieces of that White House. What a waste. I bet some people would love to reuse part of the White House

if it was going to be taken down. Frankly, it's also not his house. Who said he can do that, right? He doesn't own it. And it's just crazy to me that he would just take a literal wrecking ball to the entire east wing of the White House, and he's putting up a 90,000 square foot ballroom. I just can't, I just can't get over it, you know,

but after putting gold in all the rooms, you know, dripping with gold. I mean, he's just really, and then the Rose Garden, like, making it cement instead of what it's been forever, like this beautiful garden. It's not longer a garden, it's like a patio or something. I don't even know what it is. And now what he's doing, to the White House?

I just can't even believe it. Yeah, I mean, he's borrowing it and he's acting as if it's his own. And it's a perfect metaphor for what he is doing to the government and American citizens in general. He is demolishing, you know, free speech, health care, rights of immigrants,

frankly, rights of citizens who speak a different language or worth an accent. I mean, he is demolishing he is acting like the United States belongs to him, including the White House. And the only thing, honestly, to give me solace, because that was very painful to watch as well. I mean, it's such a historic building.

I still hadn't brought my son there for a visit. And you just are like, oh, like, how is this? Is I think, okay, you know, things have burned down and been destroyed in the past, and they always can recreate them. And the rebuilding the White House, how it was before, I think should be part of rebuilding the country. There is so much we have to clean up, repair and put back.

And frankly, we can tear down the ballroom and we can put back the East Wing how it was. And I think we should. I'm so tired of it being like, well, this happened. We need to accept it and move on. When we get into office, when we get into power, we need to undo so much of what we did. And frankly, I think as a country, we gave too much respect to the office of the president. had traditions and expectations and culture that the president was going to, you know, act a certain way. And we frankly did not have enough laws to put that office in its place as an equal branch of government. We did a lot after Nixon, but we have to like quadruple that, if not more, after Trump. We, it's no longer a handshake between gentlemen. That's how our founders made it.

we saw how that hurts the rest of us. The oligarchs, it still works for them, that handshake among gentlemen. But the rest of us, like, I don't know if Trump is lawless or is it just our laws are bad. We have so much cleanup we have to do. Some of it is because of how we have treated the office with, frankly, too much deference. And we have to stop it, clean it up, rebuild it, and that includes the White House. That ballroom should be gone. And it should go. back how it used to be. Well, who's going to, I want to know who's paying for it. You know, is it taxpayer dollars, or is it donors, or is it rich people?

Because I know he had some dinner with a bunch of wealthy donors who claim they're going to pay for it. So now they're buying access to the president. I mean, it's such a dangerous thing that he's doing. He's also trying to build this, you know, arc to triumph, like from France in Washington, and call it the arc of trump you know he's he's involved in renovating the the kennedy center he's apparently doing all kinds of uh renovations that he's very involved in i'm one who's paying for all this you know it's like it's like he gets he brings in doge saying you know waste fraud and abuse let's save the government money but yet he's spending a friggin fortune on his vanity projects

you know the the the free airplane from katar that's not really free because it's going to cost a billion dollars to make it presidential, right? Make sure that there's no hidden listening devices in there. They're going to have to take it completely apart. They have to make it be able to withstand a nuclear explosion. They're going to have to make it so that he can have access to everything, have a full command center inside. It's going to cost a billion dollars.

It's not free. All of these things he's doing is not free. But yet he, you know, yet the government is shut down. People aren't getting the benefits that they need. he's out spending our taxpayer dollars, I want a gold toilet. I want to, whatever he's doing, it's just unbelievable to me. And frankly, he's not acting like somebody who's going to leave in three years. I agree with that.

How long is that ball of them going to last? Why do you care that much about the Kennedy Center? You know, and same with the plane. Okay, how long is it going to take them for retrofit it? I haven't heard one word about how much it's going to cost to take all of that off. Because otherwise, his personal plane is going to be one of the most secure plane in the world. I mean, he is acting like he plans on being in power. And we aren't even asking enough questions. He says it out loud. He gives hats away that says Trump 2028. Like, he says it out

loud. He's not planning on leaving anytime soon. He's not planning and leaving. And what are we going to have the Constitution does not allow it? Does not allow it. But here he's going to have a plane. He could be up in the sky. Nobody can even do anything about it. I mean, I wish people were be asking that question more. Are they planning on reversing all of those protections when he goes into private personal life? Or give it to the next president. I mean, honestly, right? It's just so offensive to me that, like I said, that, you know, Doge is so hypocritical that they claim they're, you know, waste, fraud, and abuse. Well, the biggest place to look for waste, fraud, and abuse is right there in the White House.

And just the amount of money, taxpayer dollars that pay for his golf games, that pay for him to have a wrestling match on the White House, that pay for him to do these vanity projects. I mean, that's where the waste, fraud, and abuse is, in my opinion. Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think Doge was just a way of getting Musk and their friends' access to departments and to do their policies without going through the Senate, even though he supposedly had a mandate in the Senate,

but they wanted to try to undo a lot of policies by cutting the funds. I think for sure. I mean, we have never seen a president as financially corrupt as Trump, whether, you know, even honestly from his free, you know, right after he was elected before the inauguration, his inauguration committee got hundreds of millions of dollars of donations from corporate, you know, CEOs and companies who all wanted to make a deal for when Trump got into office.

You know, he has been making money, literally stealing from the American people because he takes money from these companies and then he gives the companies a pass and it goes on and it goes on and it goes on. We have to win the midterms next year to at least, you know, start slowing this down. I agree. You know, the thing that just sticks in my craw the most, and maybe it's just because I, this is the thing. I just, I don't like people who lie.

Yeah. And it's okay to disagree. I'll talk to anyone who might have a different point of view. We can talk about it. But people who lie, it's the one thing I just can't stand. And that's what just drives me crazy, is there's no consequence to his lying. I mean, just, and he does it constantly.

Like, literally, he just said in July that this, that the demolition wasn't going to impact the existing structure of the White House in any way and said it wouldn't even touch it. And then he goes, I mean, there's video of this demolition where it's taking a literal wrecking ball to the side of the White House. It's just a bold face lie, and he does it every day. And there's no consequence.

And that's just what drives me crazy. And that's what the reason I do legal AIA, frankly, and the reason I'm here week after week is because I want to be part of this movement that is trying to bring truth to the American people. Again, if we disagree on issues, fine. But at least let's tell the truth about the issues. Let's at least tell what's going on. And then we can disagree, right?

And that's what a democracy is. And then you go to the polls and you vote. And sometimes we win and sometimes the other side wins. But you try to make your case. You try to win over hearts and minds. But to lie and get where you are by lying. And that's just what he's been doing all along. It's just really drives me nuts.

Lying and just common decency, which we have really lost. And that to me is, you know, the poop plane. The human to human connection that is like the fabric of any group, organization, foundation, foundation, country, you know, his completely tearing that down, you know, is, it's not just a matter of like, are we polite to each other? But if we can't even like connect with each other and some, some basic decency, like, to your point, that video where he was dropping feces on the crowd, like, you can articulate how much you don't like these No Kings protests, which frankly, I think,

is demolition of the White House. The very next day was him doing that as well. But that the feces thing, like it was just like the lack of common decency of just human to human, you know, if you don't, if we lose that, you know, then do you really have a country? do you really have a democracy? And so I am glad that here on Legal AFMITES Touch, you know, we do, I think, always try to talk in ways that are, frankly, just about the issues and not make it personal because they're really not.

Because it's, you know, it's not, there's always somebody with that point of view. It's not really about the person. Of course, I agree. I agree completely. Let's talk about Lindsay Halligan and the Tish James, the Attorney General of New York, her prosecution. And so just back to the, just to again briefly tell everybody

where we are, Letitia James is the New York Attorney General, and she brought a civil fraud case against Donald Trump and won. And the case is on appeal. She won a huge verdict against him. And so Trump didn't like that. And so she's one of his enemies, and he basically, again, had Lindsay Halligan appoint, he pointed Lindsay Halligan to prosecute Letitia James. And so there's an indictment claiming that her second home that she bought in Virginia

is that she lied about it on the mortgage application. And by lying about it, she got a favorable result and has, has benefited to the tune of $18,000. That's the entirety of the claim here, the criminal prosecution, which is just ridiculous because she didn't lie. And she didn't, it was her second home. And she let a family member live there. And that letting a family member live in your home

is actually what homes are for. Homes are for family. That's not investment property. That's not rental income. Like that's what makes a home a home is when you have family live with you. And you know, I've had many. sisters and nieces and nephews all live with me throughout the years at various points in their

life, you know, going to college or, you know, after college, whatever. I mean, that's just what we do, right? Like, that's called a home. Anyway, but so she's being prosecuted for letting her family live there. And so there's a reporter, Anna Bauer, who writes for lawfare. And she was basically, I think she was retweeting some New York Times articles and making comments on them, basically talking about how that the James family did live there and that this is important exculpatory evidence because the indictment accuses her of seeking a second home mortgage when in reality she intended to use it as an investment home. And I guess Haligan, Lindsay Halligan, this invalidly appointed Eastern District of Virginia,

a prosecutor who's also going after Comey, I guess she reached out in this like rookie move, reached out to Anna Bauer and started texting with her. And at first Anna Bauer was like, who is this? And are you sure, you know, making sure it's her? So she tested her and said, where did we first meet? because they met once, I guess, years ago, in a restaurant in Florida with when, shoot, when Halligan was with Jim Trustee, one of Trump's,

somebody who, an advisor or lawyer who worked for Trump. And so she says, where did we first meet? And Halligan says, Florida with trustee. And so she knew it was her. And she also verified the phone number was also her. And came back to her on WhatsApp, the same, the same app that the signal gate, right? The Pete Heggseth, where they added the Atlantic reporter

to the classified information, you know, they're doing it on signal somehow thinking this is secure. But she's texting with her and talking to her about the James thing and saying, you got it wrong. And like, it's so bizarre. And I think Anna Bauer thought it was bizarre. Like, why are you saying these things? She's like, OK, if I got it wrong, tell me what I got wrong.

She was trying to, I guess, court her. And then when, Bauer talked publicly about it, Halligan was upset and said that was off the record. She's like, you never said it was off the record and you're supposed to, you're not allowed to say that after the fact. Yeah. Such a weird, a weird exchange, but you know, she's potentially leaking grand jury information by her. Yeah, I mean, that is stunning. I mean, maybe a rookie move or, you know, I think also the Trump Circle thing can do anything and get away with it. I mean, I was a journalism, a major before I went to law school. And yeah, I mean, obviously,

Obviously, talking to a reporter, you're just going to assume everything is on the record. The whole point is they are gathering the news. Reporters are gathering the news. But frankly, even if it wasn't a reporter, she's talking to an individual. And these days, you can't assume anyone is going to be confidential with the information. So, you know, but again, I don't know how much of this is just, they are in their own little bubble, and they think they can control the world. shocks them because she did practice some law, and I would think she would have had a little

bit more know-how not to talk to the reporter. But anyway, it's embarrassing for her. It's embarrassing that she talked to a reporter and then try to have a retroactive confidentiality around it, which is a non-starter. Yeah. Yeah, she's certainly not the caliber United States attorney that the Eastern District of Virginia deserves. You know, it's, it's one of the first U.S. Attorney's Office in the country, certainly one of the most respected. They handle extremely serious cases because it's where the Pentagon is located and I think the CIA and, you know, it's adjacent to Washington, D.C. And there are many government offices there. And so the office has always been one to prosecute really important, sensitive, high-level cases. And they have this thing

called the rocket docket that other jurisdictions don't have, where they make things go much faster. And so it's always been, it's like one of the most respected U.S. Attorney's offices. And she's just not up to the caliber of what they do there. And I think, you're right, it's embarrassing, but this is typical. She also had a typo on the James indictment, right? She said she lived in Brooklyn, New Jersey, you know, Brooklyn's in New York. And she also, I think, submitted in Comey's, I think she submitted two indictments. One, you know, with different charges because the grand jury didn't vote on one of the charges.

They elected not to bring one charge. And like, she's just, it's just all these like sloppy rookie mistakes. And you're not supposed to do that, especially in big cases. But she's just really in over her head, I think, and illegally and unlawfully appointed. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, she might have been a good enough insurance attorney. I don't know. But to your point, to be head of one of the most important, you know, top lawyer, one of the most important DOJ districts in the country, she's way in overhead for sure.

Yeah. Really. She really, really, really is. So, well, we have reached the end of another midweek edition of Legal AF. Dina, it's so, so great to see you. And it's so great to have so many people here tonight and listening with us and joining us tonight. Michael Popock will be back on Legal AF on Saturday with Ben Micellis and next Wednesday with me. And of course, every day on the LegalAF YouTube channel and on the Midas Touch Network. So please stay informed and please keep listening and hit subscribe and listen to us on audio and listen to us in YouTube and all the places you get your podcasts, subscribe to the Legal AF channel and to the Legal AF Substack, which is this unbelievable thing that Popok has created that has these live streams that he does.

He's been doing incredible interviews lately with various people, including Attorneys General of States and just live streaming court appearances and putting court records and filings up on his substack. So it's just a great resource for everybody to go to, to learn more. more. And to have these, if you don't want to listen to a full podcast, because it's a long time, we have these smaller podcasts that we all do, that you can listen to it issue by issue. So thank you so much, everybody, for supporting us, the legal AFers and the Mightest Mighty and Dina, thank you as always for being here. It's such a pleasure to be here with you on Wednesday night. And shout out to everybody. And thank you so much for listening.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.