Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF Full Episode - 12/17/2025

Episode Date: December 18, 2025

Jack Smith just called Trump a “criminal” beyond a “reasonable doubt” in new Congressional testimony MAGA doesn’t want you to hear. Trump’s Federal Communications Czar got his political rear end handed to him today by Senate Democrats, so bad they had to change the FCC website after he testified! Convicted child sex trafficker and Trump crony, Ghislaine Maxwell, gets fired by her own attorney, but adds “jail house lawyer” to her many titles with a new filing, And Judge Hannah Dugan fights for her life in a Milwaukee federal jury trial against the rogue DOJ. All that and musings about recent FBI departures and strange interviews given by Trump top officials, on the top rated Legal AF podcast. Tonight, Popok is joined by Meidas favorite Dina Doll, sitting in for KFA. Sundays for Dogs: Get 40% off your first order of Sundays. Go to https://sundaysfordogs.com/LEGALAF or use code LEGALAF at checkout. Jones Road Beauty: Use code LEGALAF at https://jonesroadbeauty.com to get a Free Cool Gloss with your first purchase! These sell out fast so get them while they last! #JonesRoadBeauty #ad Laundry Sauce: For 20% off your order head to https://LaundrySauce.com/LEGALAF20 and use code LEGALAF20 Cook Unity: Go to https://CookUnity.com/legalaffree for Free Premium Meals for Life! Learn more about the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe to Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Check out the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast Cult Conversations: The Influence Continuum with Dr. Steve Hassan: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey Ontario, come down to BetMGM Casino and see what our newest exclusive the Price is Right Fortune Pig has to offer. Don't miss out, play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show, only at BetMGM. Check out how we've reimagined three of the show's iconic games like Plinko, Clifhanger, and the Big Wheel into fun casino game features. Don't forget to download the BetMGM Casino app for exclusive access and excitement on the Price's Right Fortune Pick. Pull up a seat and experience the price is right fortune pick, only available at BetMGM Casino. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly, 19 plus to wager. Ontario only, please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

please contact ConX Ontario at 1866-531-260 to speak to an advisor, free of charge. BetMGEMO operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. The Eagle A.F, the podcast. Sorry, we're just a couple minutes late. We're just catching up on all the news for today, and I'm joined by one of the Midas favorites, Dina Dahl, sitting in for Karen Free McNiflo. I'm Michael Popak. You're on the Midas Touch Network. And, uh, Dina, oh, what a night we have in store for our loyal audience.

We're going to talk about Jack Smith calling Donald Trump a criminal on beyond a reasonable doubt. I have no other way to put it in bombshell. testimony that MAGA didn't want you to know about, but we're going to be talking about at length and remind you of some, we brought the receipts, remind you of some recent statements and statements made by Jack Smith about Donald Trump. He was called in by the oversight committee and the MAGA in the House. Jack Smith wanted to do it to the American public, and they were scared of him. I mean, another way to put it. And so they said, no, let's do it behind Mahogany closed doors and we'll sort it out that way. And, you know, he had an introductory statement. We have it. We know it.

And it's not great. If Donald Trump thought this was going to help him come, you know, if anything, it steps on tonight's state of the Trump event, you know, announcing all his great economic plans and maybe we're going to war with Venezuela. So that happened. Brendan are little-known tyrant, sycophant within the Trump administration, but runs a very important piece of real estate called the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC. You know, anything on broadcast television, cable, this or that, that needs a license of some sort, is regulated by the FCC.

He, how can I put this nicely? Did not do well. He crapped the bed. That's a legal term. During today's Oversight Committee, I heard Dean, laughing in the background. Learned that law school, Dina. Yeah, absolutely.

It was like the most important legal term. Grab the bed. Much like Pam Bondi did and Cash Patel and the rest. This is the first time he's been in an oversight committee hearing after, going after Jimmy Kimmel, going after ABC, doing Donald Trump's bidding, trying to help Donald Trump place media assets in the hands of his friends. Like, let's get CNN over to Larry Ellison of Oracle. Let's interfere with this and let's interfere with that.

Donald Trump uses either the Department of Justice Antitrust Division or the Federal Communications Commission and Brendan Carr had to meet his maker today in senators. And the Democratic senators' knives were out, I guess is the phrase to use and wait to you see what happened there. Hannah Dugan is fighting for her life as a state court judge in Milwaukee. She early on in the Trump administration decided to oppose. their ICE policies of using administrative warrants

to try to arrest criminals or defendants in criminal cases in state court. Federal ICE would show up during court hearings, burst through their doors of the courthouse, courtrooms, and try to pick up people. And people like Hada Duke and were like, that's probably not a good policy, putting people below ground

and making them afraid of coming to court or not coming to court based on our warrants because they're afraid of getting picked up. And so she did or didn't do something on one of her criminal defendants in front of her that the government turned around and indicted her, did a perp walk of her. This is a state court judge

in order to try to embarrass her, in order to try to name and shame her, as they like to say in Maga World. And her trial is here about whether she did or did not interfere with ISIS operation to arrest a certain, defendant in her, who is in her presence for a criminal strangulation. By the way, that guy has already been deported. Ice got their man, deported him after he admitted to being illegally

in the country. But yet, Hanadugan still remains on trial. The government has rested today, and we'll catch everybody up on a very important story about the rule of law in this country and an out-of-control Trump administration. And then finally, Galane Maxwell, Well, convicted child sex trafficker and crony friend of Donald Trump back in the news because she filed something today. She can add a new title to her many titles, convicted child sex trafficker, lover of Jeffrey Epstein, business partner of Jeffrey Epstein. And now you can add jailhouse lawyer because her lawyer fired her, apparently. And she just filed a, and I looked at it, Dina, a petition for rid of man, habeas corpus trying to get out of jail after all of her appeals have failed, that she did

herself, apparently. And it's sad ramblings of a mad woman who knows that she's not going to get out of jail unless Donald Trump takes her out of jail. But why did she do it so close to the deadline where the Epstein files are to be released, further tormenting the survivors? And is this just a guise for the Department of Justice to figure out a way through Donald Trump to give her Clemency. So we'll cover all of that and so much more with one of my best friends and colleagues on shows like unprecedented

about the United States Supreme Court that we do on the legal AF YouTube channel. Dina Dahl. Hi, Dina. Oh, what a great introduction. So excited to do this with you, too. It's like Tom Sawyer. It's like attending your own funeral. Sorry about it. We're comparing to that, huh?

It's a little bit better show than a funeral. You know, when Huck and Tom were in the back, and they ended up crying after hearing people talk about them thinking they were dead. And we're going to do something very unique tonight. Dina, we're going to take a moment. I got some staff ready to do it with me and you. We're going to grab some questions from tonight's live chat, and we are going to answer them the best way we can.

We're accumulating questions right now. Post your questions for us, and at our couple of intervals today, we will we will answer them so what at first how are you doing i'm doing great yeah yeah love being here are you uh you and your family getting ready for the are you in holidays or getting ready for holidays we're getting ready for holidays i can't believe it's next week i celebrate christmas some of it's some of us it's today exactly for you it's today not quite but yeah no it's it's it's it's it's it's It's a weird time for Trump to be doing all of his kind of evil things because it's supposed to be a time of family and friends and peace on earth. And it's not that.

But I am, it's, you know, it's a great, I'm having a good time. You have a president who just, and it came up today during the Brendan Carr FCC hearings who celebrated the stabbing death of a couple. icons, you know, definitely people that I've, you know, I've followed Rob Reiner since he was on all the family when I was a child. And sure, he was a moderate and a liberal and he had a foundation that was devoted to things like gay marriage and that type of thing, but that he deserved to be murdered by apparently his son. And is that what the commander in chief, the comforter in chief, the consular in chief takes time out of his busy day of crushing the hopes and dreams of the American people to throw dirt on the grave worse of Rob Reiner and his wife and say they were murdered

because of their own demented Trump derangement syndrome. What did you make of that? What is the, I asked this question last night on the intersection. What is the constituency that he's aiming for with these types of heartless, heartless social media post? What is it? What extra vote is he trying to to get? He's his constituency. He only ever does anything that benefits him or that he cares about. You know, this is what I thought when I thought. I mean, that was obviously so evil. I don't know how else to put it, you know, talking about the worst thing to have a child kill their parents like that in cold blood, really. And but that evil that he revealed, it was like a curtain that went down and it was so obvious across all political spectrums. It was so obvious.

that evil is behind everything, and we are all suffering. That is the evil that was behind the canceling of the U.S. aid and not caring how many people across the world have died. That's the evil that is having the ice people go out and masks and dragging people through the streets, right? That's the evil that is vulnerable people in our country are feeling the effects of all the time. But he couches it in a way that it's easy for people, or at least his supporters, to swallow, let's say, right? Oh, it's about this or it's about that. But it's really about that evil.

And I felt like that was one of the rare times where that curtain fell in such a way that he even couldn't hide how, frankly, evil his motivations are. Yeah. And, you know, such a weird run-up. to the holidays. Vanity Fair runs an article, profile of Susie Wiles, who really nobody ever hears about. She's just trying to hold on to that job as chief of staff, grew up in the rough and tumble politics of Florida, you know, sort of a major operator, never says anything out loud that can be interpreted as being negative or critical of Donald Trump and really doesn't speak unless Donald Trump gives her permission to speak. And she gave a series of interviews. It

wasn't just one with Vanity Fair. There was some in March. There were some a month ago. They sort of put this whole story together. And she came out like the just shiving all of these people in the administration. Obviously, at Donald Trump's behest, Susie Wiles doesn't wipe her backside without Donald Trump's permission. I mean, I know there's all, there's two schools of thought with all what I see with the media running with right now, which is Susie Wiles in a world of trouble. She'll be thrown under her butt. Forget all that. Susie Wiles, anything Susie Wiles, said about the opportunist J.D. Vance, the ketamine user in Elon Musk, the Maga-Zellet in Russ Vote, the Epstein files with Donald Trump's name in him. You know, Pam Bondi, swing and a

miss. Whatever she said, Donald Trump approves. This message is approved by Donald Trump. And he likes to destabilize those people around him, especially when they get too big for their britches and make them compete against each other and all that stuff what did you make of both the vanity fair article susie wiles comments including comparing don't trump to an alcoholic and the media reaction to it there's like two sides of this story there's what happened and then there's the split in the media like susy telling it like it is must be speaking for donald trump that's sort of my view and the others are like ooh susy what was where why was she so loose with Who approved the Vanity Fair article?

Well, I want to hear where you're out in that too. Well, I think her calling him an alcoholic is an insult to alcoholics. But, you know, I agree. I don't think that this was some sort of like catch her moment, a mistake, an accident. She's not the kind of person who is going to just tumble into something and say something by accident. I don't think it was a hit piece. I think she had a plan. There was a purpose behind it.

I don't know whether or not, because it's true. Her one bad comment about Trump about being an alcoholic, she couches it at as he's like that personality who thinks he can do anything, which Trump might see that as a compliment, right? So the rest of the comments were certainly worse, whether or not she did it 100% at his bidding or because she is also playing both sides. And I think Mac is really going down. I think that's a sentiment that's, to me, growing. and she started with Jeb Bush. She's a more establishment type person. She might be kind of playing both sides a little bit.

Maybe she went a little bit farther than he expected, but I agree. I don't think it was out on a limb that she just happened to say these bad things about everybody. Yeah, I agree with that. And thank you for everybody who joined us. We're going to hit about 4,000 people right now. That is a, we're counter-programming against Donald Trump's State of the Trump address,

whatever that's supposed to be you know he's on a tour right now to try to convince everybody he's the affordability president you know he's giving he's giving he's giving interviews all over the place and then the rally in a casino in pennsylvania nothing look his administration is coming up craps that's all i'm going to tell you so it's very appropriate jokes tonight i know i'm like a joker tonight i've been people are like why you wear the tides i had a hear like i was a lawyer today which I just stayed in character all the rest of the day so but I do want to thank everybody and for a number of reasons as Nina knows well because she's one of the closest friends and contributors that was there from day one we are the odometer is about to roll on legal

AF YouTube channel we're at 990,000 in just about a year subscribers free subscribers and we're going to roll that thing over with our audience's fervent support. I don't know about tonight, but really soon and hopefully before Christmas to get to the magic one million. It's not about like hardware I'm going to get from YouTube because I never got the one for 100,000, so I'm not expecting the million. But it is about sort of support and street credibility for what we're trying to do here. Because the bigger we get, the more I can bring on,

amazing contributors like Dina and the American Civil Liberties Union and democracy forward and get the interviews with the senators and the congresspeople and the attorneys general because it becomes a no-brainer for them oh legal a f the youtube channel absolutely let get me on there and then they're fighting to get it to get on with us as opposed to me having to run around and beg people in the beginning it was a little bit of a let's be frank a little bit of a leap of faith like well we know popock and there's this thing legal a after podcast yeah we'll come on we'll see what happens but now it's like a thing it's like a real and we want to we want we want it to be from the beginning one stop shopping for all things law and politics do 10 12 videos a day and we're doing it

so if you're not already a subscriber take a moment it'll it's in notes somewhere hopefully legal a have the YouTube channel hit the button it's all free no paywall no outside investors okay that's the plug i wanted to do for legal a f the YouTube channel at some point the next time i mention it. My editing team is going to actually put up a role to show what that YouTube channel looks like. But moving on, let's get to our first story today. Oh, there it is. Then I feel like early Letterman, like, you know, like in the 80s and 90s. Seriously, you know, and he used to like go back and forth with his team, you know, behind the scenes. Where's Biff? Let's bring out Biff. In any event, let's go to Jack Smith. That's actually more important and more on message for us here on Legal

A-F. Jack Smith has basically said a version of, you want me, come and get me. I'm ready, anytime, any place, anywhere, public. Public, you want to talk to me? I want the public to hear from me. And the oversight committee run by MAGA, we're like, no, we just want you at a closed-door meeting, you know, under oath for testimony. He's like, no. And his law, Lawyers, no, we want to be heard by the American people. But, you know, listen, we can't, Jack Smith and his lawyers can't control how the subpoena operates and whether they don't control the rules of the House and who's running the house. So, you know, they went down there.

They had their public statement ready. And I want to just read from a couple of things in the public statement. But I also want to remind people that Jack Smith has said things publicly about Donald Trump and about why he brought this other case and about the apolitical nature of his work and those on his team so that people would have confidence in the then Department of Justice or the special counsel's office and i found it remarkable and it may not i joked earlier today on a video i did for midas it may not be up there after my videos hit but earlier today still up on the website was actually a couple of minutes of jack smith introducing the indictment up on the doj yes

website. And of course, we have a clip. Let's roll it. Today, an indictment was unsealed, charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia, and it sets forth the crimes charged in detail. I encourage everyone to read it in full. The attack on our nation's capital on January 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.

As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government, the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying, the results of the presidential election. The men and women of law enforcement who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6th are heroes. They are patriots and they are the very best of us. They did not just defend a building or the people sheltering in it. They put their lives in the line to defend who we are as a country and as a people. They defended the very institutions and principles that define

the United States. Since the attack on our Capitol, the Department of Justice has remained committed to ensuring accountability for those criminally responsible for what happened that day. This case is brought consistent with that commitment, and our investigation of other individuals continues. Don't we sleep better at night knowing Jack Smith is out there? He's a little grayer now, obviously, but, you know, that is the tenor and the tone at a minute, Dina and I will read from some of the quotes from his opening statement today. But I wanted people, since we're not going to see it, until the shadow hearing start with the Democrats, we're not going to hear live from Jack Smith. I thought it was important.

I also thought it was, did you think it was fascinating that that's still up on the Department of Justice website, Tina? What did you think? Fascinating. Just like a tiny example of how dysfunctional and we've seen it in different filings. They're like, oh, we're like, oh, this is embarrassing. They're doing such a bad job and of course they're not even cleaning house and taking care of their public facing website it's a good detail yeah absolutely in fact we have another clip because jack smith knowing that he was going to be dragged probably behind a closed door but wanting to speak to the american people directly started doing some interviews you know he was pretty quiet um silent the quiet the tall dark

and handsome silent type during the investigations and the prosecutions we used to joke on midas that he was just like subway jack it was just like a subway sandwich under one arm a thermos in the other walk with a dark suit just walking chopping wood going to court you never heard from him remember the days when you never heard from a special prosecutor or an attorney general unless you really had to uh and so he gave an interview with a fellow prosecutor andrew weissman i think it was actually outside the country but we saw it we caught it we have a clip let's play that clip the idea that politics would play a role in big cases like this, it's absolutely ludicrous and it's totally contrary to my experience as a prosecutor.

These are team players who don't want anything but to do good in the world. They're not interested in politics and I get very concerned when I see how easy it is to demonize these people for political ends. I worked in the department for years, Republican, Democrat, Republican. I worked in the, I was the acting U.S. attorney in the first Trump administration in Tennessee. Nothing like what we see now has ever gone on. If there's rules in the department about how to bring a case, follow those rules. You can't say, I want this outcome.

Let me throw the rules out. The problem is not prosecuting high officials who did something wrong when you do it according to the processes of law in your country. It's the retaliation. That's the problem. Yeah, again, we're stitching together things I wanted people to remember that Jack Smith said. What did you pick up, Dina, from his statement, his opening statement. We now have sort of a copy of it. Why don't you give your overview of it?

And if you have a few quotes, you can read them. If not, I'll read them. I mean, just remembering. you know, what he was indicted for when he says the conspiracy to defraud the United States government, to disenfranchise American voters, and then to obstruct an official proceeding. I mean, those are the most important foundational, you know, underpinnings of our democracy. And he has, as he said, you know, more, you know, he had enough basically to convict. That's what he said today that he had beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's sad. It's sad because we needed this to go to trial. We needed there to be a consequence for Trump. So we're not living in this horrible reality that we're living now. Unfortunately, Merrick Garland just went too slowly. So, yeah, it's both sad and it just, you know, it just shows us dangerous to our democracy. This person is who's holding office right now. And we knew that for years, unfortunately. Yeah, here's what he said in his test. We don't have the actual testament. a transcript yet. But the opening statement, here's what he said, quoting. The decision to bring charges against President Trump was mine, but the basis for those charges rest entirely with President Trump and his actions, as alleged the indictments, returned by two grand juries in two different districts. Our investigation, this is Jack Smith today, developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power. Our investigation also developed powerful

evidence that showed President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January of 2021, storing them at his social club, Moralago, including in a bathroom and a ballroom where events and gatherings took place. Exploiting that violence, talking about Jan 6th, President Trump and his associates tried to call members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme. This was to address the MAGA House's position. Oh, my Lord, he got a copy of our telephone bills. He knows who we talked to on Jan 6 and Jan 7 or Jan 5 through Jan 7.

Oh, I feel violated. I don't know why I do. Foghorn, Leghorn from Warner Brothers cartoons, whenever I do a MAGA Congress people. And the response to that was, I didn't pick who the phone calls were going to be to. Donald Trump did. Or as Jack Smith put it, that the President Trump tried to call members of Congress in furtherance of the criminal scheme, urging them to further delay certification of the 2020

election. I didn't choose those members. President Trump did. And he also said, if asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat and then he talked about the decision that he made people have all come forward to defend him although Jack Smith doesn't need defending John Dowd who's been opposed to him

in cases when Jack Smith was a prosecutor represented Donald Trump at one point said that there's no finer the more ethical prosecutor that he's aware of than Jack Smith and all Jack Smith wants to do is talk to the American people and you saw him we saw him in the lips. Jamie Raskin, Representative Jamie Raskin, who's a friend of the podcast, I just had the honor of

introducing him at a rally slash fundraiser for Eileen Higgins, who won the mayoral race in the city of Miami. He flew in from Washington for it. He came out almost jocular. You know, he's on, he's the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, constitutional scholar and professor in his own right, and Jamie Raskin came out almost giddy about what he heard in there and then took time to troll the GOP, the Republicans, and saying, now I know why you didn't want to have Jack Smith tell his story to the American people in public. Dot, dot, dot, dot. I'm going to do it when I bring him in for a shadow hearing. Let's play the clip of Jamie Raskin today. I just want to say that Chairman Jordan made an excellent decision in not allowing Jack Smith to testify publicly

because had he done so, it would have been absolutely devastating to the president and all the president's men involved in the insurrectionary action. of January the 6th. So, you know, I can't get into any further particulars, but I'll just say that Jack Smith has just spent several hours schooling the Judiciary Committee on the professional responsibilities of a prosecutor and the ethical duties of a prosecutor,

and he's a sensational and honorable public servant, and we are lucky to have him in the bar in the United States of America. Can you describe at least what his message, his message was generally to the community? Again, you know, he was, he's being answered, he's been asked and he's answering questions. So he didn't come with any particular message, but I'll just say that he's answered every single question to the satisfaction of any reasonable-minded person in that room.

Any people who remained in reach at the end of his investigation that he disclosed with the committee on the deposition? Well, his report speaks for itself in terms of January the 6th and the indictments that were handed down. And the other report should be public. I mean, that's just absolutely aberrational that it's not public. Just like his testimony should be public. Every other special counsel has been able to come here and testify. Robert Mueller's been able to testify. Robert Hur's been able to testify all the special counsels and independent councils have come in.

and his second report on the retention of classified documents and what crimes may have been committed should also be released. I think I'm wearing the Jamie Raskin collection today with my loose tie. And to remind people, volume two, which is the second volume of Jack Smith's report, a couple hundred pages, which was delivered to Merrick Garland, is now stuck in alien cannon's chambers and motion practice there about getting it released to the American people.

Pam Bondi has buried volume two, just like she buried the Epstein files. It should have already been released to the American people. But of course, she's under orders by her boss, Donald Trump, not to do that. That's what Jamie Ruskin was referring to there at the end. Dina, why don't we take a few questions? Why don't I give you the first one?

Okay, ready? Okay, here we go. Let me go through my questions here. Yeah, that's true. Okay, we'll go to the Epstein files. That'll help segue us when we come back from a break about Delane Maxwell from JJ Hastings. With the Epstein files released deadline imminent, what legal risks, including potential court challenges or claims of noncompliance arise from reported internal disputes than the FBI and DOJ leadership? And how might a high-profile resignation like Bongino's, intersect with those risks. That's pretty good. So Dan Bonjino, deputy director of the FBI, resigned. No surprise. He's hated that job from day one. So why don't you take it? Epstein file release imminent. What if they don't get released? What happens? What about this FBI DOJ? A firefight? Is that going to somehow impact and pack up on the now congressional law that the FD files must be released? Well, that's the key word, that this is now a law. It's not a letter. It's not a statement that they have to comply with. We have been concerned that the DOJ is going to point to the fact that they have an active investigation and withhold it in that respect. So you could have a situation where, because there is a carve out in that law for being able to redact it for certain investigations.

It's hard for her to have said that there's a new investigation when she already said a few months ago that there was nothing. there for an investigation. So let's say that happens, right? I know there's so many different scenarios. So in some ways, it's a little bit hard to answer the question. But that very specific scenario, if that were to happen, you would have like a fight in court, basically, of whether or not there was an active investigation and whether or not they blocked the release of appropriate amount of documents. It's interesting that we have not telegraphed anything. And we are two days away at this point. So that's interesting. And that was a good interesting question about Dan Van Gioni because are they trying to make him the fall guy? Probably not, but that timing is

interesting about that. Absolutely. And let me take one and then we'll take a break. This is from Dorothy Bernardo. Where are all the people who were held in the detention center in the Florida Everglades, which they like to call the alligator alcatraz? Also, what's the status? the men in prison in El Salvador and how will known be held accountable for ordering the planes to El Salvador after the court ordered them back. All right, let me see what I can do. This is going to be like a speed, speed round. Unfortunately, and I'm in Florida, the Alligator Alcatraz is still operational. It's supposed to have been wound down because of violation of environmental policy. The Seminole tribe is very upset about Alligator, Alcatraz,

operating in their historic lands, if you will, ancestral lands. And so they're working hard to try to shut that down as well. I said the Seminoles, I think it's the Miccosukees, another Indian, Native American group here in Florida. What's the status of the men imprisoned in El Salvador? They were all traded already. Well, if you're talking about the 250 Venezuelans who were sent to El Salvador, including Brago-Garcia, Braga Garcia is back in the United States and being held under supervision of Judge Zinnis in Maryland.

The other 250 that were the subject of Chief Judge Bozberg's grounding order in March were already traded by the Trump administration back to Venezuela in a prisoner exchange. So they're not even in El Salvador any longer. The ACLU continues to represent them, but they're doing it by, they're now in Venezuela. Venezuela. I thought Venezuela, we were at war with Venezuela. Why are we sending enemy combatants back to Venezuela in exchange for who knows what? But that's happened. They are not in Seacot. There are other people in Seacot. And other people that shouldn't be in Seacot and Seacot in El Salvador, but not those 250. And how will known be held accountable for ordering the planes? I mean, right now we've got a two to one Trumper-led panel in the District of Columbia that's blocking Judge Bozberg's continued, attempt proceedings for criminal contempt and against Christy Noem for allowing those planes to fly when the judge ordered them not to.

But that same or similar composition of that panel has been overturned before by the full 20 or so judges of what we call the en banc panel of the circuit court. So, I mean, we'll have to see. Right now he's being blocked. I assume the ACLU is going to go for an en banc panel. We're going to get the ACLU. I think I might have mentioned that the ACLU is now going to be regular contributors on legal AF with their own playlist, sometimes in interviews with me or in other contributors like Dina, talking about their cases, the lawyers that are in the courtrooms. I just did League Alert, who is the head of the immigration unit for the ACLU, who's involved in this case.

I interviewed him about a week or so ago, but great question. Really glad you're doing that. If you like this type of back and forth in interactivity, where we take your questions and answer them, put it down in comments my team will take a look and if maybe we'll throw up a poll when we have a moment to see if people want us to do it and we'll do a lot more of it because dean and i enjoy it karen and i enjoy it and all that good stuff many ways to support the legal a f universe you can help us with the podcast which is regularly on audio in the top 75 50 whatever it is go over to apple and spotify all the places you get your podcast from leave a five-star review and comments we read those comments like we do tonight watch the show on youtube send tell your friends

about them bring them here that's what put us in the top 50 or so of the top 100 podcast on youtube uh it's that kind of audience support and then we've got the legal a f youtube channel which i talked about at the top of the show and we've been flashing that one million that salty our editor created last september or october for a long I've been staring at that million incentive for a long time. But we're at about 990, could be 991,000 tonight. If we can get another handful tonight from this audience. And we're going to have a couple hundred thousand people going to watch and listen to this show tonight.

If we could just get 2%, 3% of that group to go over and go down below and hit the subscribe button, come over to Legal AF YouTube channel, hit the subscribe button. We'd be done. I only half joke, Dina, that with our 400 million, views since last year overall for all the videos, if we just got one percent, we be on the might as touches heels. You know, it's hard to get it's, I don't know why it's hard to get the conversion into subscriber thing. It's really just a button. And it, and it's a way to vote. It's early voting. You like independent journalism. You like independent commentary. You like these

kind of shows. This is what, this is all you got to do. And it is free. And then, of course, the other way is to support our legal AF substack. Data doll contributes there as well. Got a substack there for people. We've got some amazing content even for our paid subscribers, which is about $6 or $7 a month. And then we've got these fantastic sponsors, some of which have been with,

pardon me, with legal AF like for four and a half to five years. Amazing. And some are more recent. And it keeps that's on the air. I got an editor or two with us right now. I got a team that's looking at the chat. You know, we've got to pay the bills. I, you know, there's always, we don't just have all volunteers.

I mean, people, keeps the lights on. And that's the way to support it. So I'm really proud to have our first set of sponsors, and here they are. Every holiday season, I try to make my famous mashed potatoes. Emphasis is on dry. Let's just say last year, they could have doubled as drywall paste. So this year, I'm letting the pros handle it, no matter what you're craving. Small batch meals from Cook Unity's award-winning chefs always hit the.

spot. I tried chef Dan Churchill's roasted turkey sausage dinner and it tasted just like something from a five-star restaurant. Perfectly seasoned, comforting, and ready in minutes. Get comfort and nutrition delivered in every bite thanks to award-winning chefs at Cook Unity. Go to cookunity.com slash legal a.f free or enter code legal AF free before check out to get free premium meals for life. That's free premium meals for life by using code legal a.F free or going to cookunity.com slash legal a.f free. Are you like me and you hate the heavy cake doll look of makeup or do you hate that it takes too long to apply your makeup every morning because you have to use so many different products with all the holiday events coming up, getting ready always felt stressful

and too many products, too many steps, not enough time. So I love this. new product by Jones Road. They sent this miracle bomb palette when I ordered it. And it's got three beautiful shades in there, all in one that I can use every single day. And it really goes on light. It feels good on my skin. I love the colors, the various colors that it comes on. And starting November 6, Jones Road is launching their most giftable and exclusive holiday collection yet. All five limited edition kits in the collection are trios that include new holiday shades and they're great for any occasion and you can wear it, you can give it as a gift. It's really, really handy if fits right in your purse too so that you can carry it along with you if you need a little touch

up. Their products look and feel natural, not like you're wearing makeup at all. It creates that effortless natural no makeup look that I personally like. The best seller is the miracle bomb, the ultimate makeup skin care hybrid product that gives a natural flow. It's a true multitasker. It can be used as a tint, a blush, a bronzer, a highlight, or you can use it on your lips, too. It'll replace almost all the products in your makeup bag. It's a perfect go-to when you're rushing from work or to a holiday dinner or anywhere else you are going. So this holiday season, simplify your routine with makeup that's clean, strategic, multifunctional, and just easy to carry around with you. Don't miss out on their limited edition holiday.

they won't be here for long, and once they're gone, they're gone. Also, as a treat for our listeners, you'll get a free, cool gloss on your first purchase when you use code legal A.F at checkout, just head to jonesroadbeautcom and use code legal AF at checkout. After you purchase, tell them about our show, and thank you for supporting us. You know, while I was listening to our ads, we started the show with the depravity of of Donald Trump and attacking the Reiner mourning family and the rest of America. And then I got to read about this walkway of presidential photos and presidential portraits

that Donald Trump not only put up, you know, all of them, but now has put brass plaques underneath with his personal vendetta under each president like Barack Obama and Joe Biden. It's another example of wasteful taxpayer dollars, because when the next president comes in who's going to be, who's going to be a Democrat, we're going to spend all of this money to rip down all

of this sophomoric middle school bullshit, change back the names of the Peace Institute, change the if he tries to change the name of the Reagan International Airport, you know, if he puts his name on this or that, we're just going to have to

eff and change it back. So here's what he wrote under these descriptions for Barack. Here's what he wrote for Barack Obama. Ready? This is in the White House. Oh, gosh. Barack Hussein Obama was the first black president, a community organizer, a one-term senator from Illinois, and one of the most divisive political figures in American history.

Wow. He talks about the highly ineffective, unaffordable care act and the one-sided Paris Accords. Okay. In for Bill Clinton, he also, in the plaque about Bill Clinton, he points out Hillary Clinton's 26 lost, 2016 lost to Trump. In 2016, President Clinton's wife, Hillary, lost the presidency to President Donald J. Trump with an exclamation mark. About Joe Biden, he wrote, Sleepy Joe, this is on a brass plaque. Wow. Sleepy Joe Biden was by far. the worst president in American history taking office as a result of the most corrupt election ever seen in the United States. Biden oversaw a series of unprecedented disasters that brought our nation to the brink of destruction. But despite it all, President Trump would get reelected in a landslide and save America about Joe Biden.

Oh, my gosh. I mean, when, I'm sorry, who voted for this? And when is this person's time up and get him out, tear down the ballroom. that he'll never live to use. If a guy doesn't like dinners, Melania abdicated her responsibilities as a first lady. Ivanka hasn't been seen at the White House. Who's going to host these state dinners in this ridiculous ballroom?

Anyway, I felt like we had to talk about it. No, I mean, that's stunning. I mean, it's like satire, but it's not. He's the biggest sore loser there is. Like, you won the election. He's still so petty and so upset about Obama will always, being more popular than him and that he did lose to Joe Biden and he's just a sore loser and it like I said it would be not that bad if that didn't permeate into every little thing I mean

I don't want to take too much away but I kind of think that's why he's letting the health care subsidies expire because Obama's name is on it and he's going to want to come up with his own version that's not going to be as good for the American people and put Trump care on it I mean I think it's as simple as that like he's just a very bad but yet simple person. And about that ballroom, I think whatever is built, if it's built, hopefully that lawsuit can actually stop it from being built, which should be torn down and the East Wing should be built

exactly how it used to be. Yeah, yeah. I mean, you know, a Judge Leon is not going to stop the construction as of yet, but the vertical construction of the ballroom hasn't happened yet. It won't happen until April or so. He's going to revisit the issue. And if it doesn't get approved and it doesn't go through the appropriate plans, and planning approvals and doesn't get approved by Congress or something else gets approved

and gets and he builds this monstrosity anyway, I think we're going to look at a tear down order or red tag by Judge Leon. Let's talk about, let's switch gears and talk about the Federal Communications Commission and Brendan Carr. Brendan Carr was a low-level staffer for the Federal Communications Commission 20 years ago, rose the level of general counsel, then he got on the commission in the first Trump term and then he tried out for was auditioning for to be the chairperson in Trump too and he did it by writing an entire chapter about the role of the federal communications commission in wait for it put it in comments project 2025 the thing that Donald Trump said he didn't know what it was except half of his administration is tied to it you know

Russ Vote, Office of Management and Budget, and here, Brendan Carr. And so Brandon Carr's position on how to wield power as the FCC chairperson came under fire today. And this is his first appearance in an oversight committee hearing after he infamously went after Jimmy Kimmel, like a mafioso. You know, you like that? You know, an ABC, oh, you like that license to be terrible if something happened to it, you know, kind of threats. and also got wrapped around as Axel today, trying to remember whether the EFCC was an independent agency or not, which it is. They had to scrub the website while he was testifying because, you know, he's so wrapped up because the Trump administration's position is that Donald Trump can fire all of these agencies and, you know, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission. And I'm not so sure about that when it comes to the FCC.

But he, you know, he was doing the bidding. You know, he'd been prepped, obviously, within an inch of his life. And here's how it played out each one worse for him and the administration than the next. Let's lead off with Senator Amy Klobuchar. Chairman Carr in 2022, you tweeted, political satire is one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech. It challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people into the discussion. That's why people in influential positions have always targeted it for censorship. Yes or no, do you still agree that political satire should be protected speech?

Yes, Senator. And whenever that satire or any other programming is over the public airways for broadcasters, there's a public interest standard, and there's a news distortion rule, a broadcast hoax rule, a political... You answered it, yes, and I'm just... I'm going to go on. That particular instance, too, had to do with speech on social media where Biden administrations were trying to shut down political speech. Again, an area where there is no license. There's no public interest standard.

We'll get to that in a minute. You know, I believe, too, that there is no place in chilling political satire. But after Jimmy Kimmel's monologue, you went on a podcast and suggested that ABC should take Kimmel off the air saying, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Those were your words. Do you think it is appropriate to your position to threaten companies that broadcast political satire? I think any licensee that operates on the public airways has a responsibility to comply with the public interest standard. And that's been the case for decades. I asked if you think it's appropriate for you to use your position to threaten companies.

And this incident with Kimmel wasn't an isolated event. You've launched investigations into every major broadcast network except Fox. Is that correct? I don't know if that's true or not. We do have investigations going on NPR and PBS. We have a number of investigations that are ongoing. I think if you step back over the years, I think the FCC has walked away from enforcing the public interest standard, and I don't think that's a good thing. And he's a liar because here his Brendan Carr attacking and threatening Jimmy Kimmel and ABC with a right-wing podcaster. First of all, why is Brendan Carr, a member of the administration, on a right-wing podcaster giving his opinions?

I mean, look, we had J.D. Vance and Stephen Miller do a right-wing podcast from the White House, but let's play the clip of Carr threatening Kimmel that he now denies in response to Senator Klobuchar's questions. But frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC. Again, there's actions that we can take on licensed broadcasters. And frankly, I think that it's really sort of past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney and say, listen, we are going to

preempt. We're not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out because we, we licensed broadcaster are running the possibility of fines or license revocation from the FCC if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of news distortion so the commentary by jimmy kimmel after the death of charlie kirk is news distortion so you see he's a he's a liar and a guy went downhill from there and then he got tongue tied about whether the FCC which reflects on its own website until he started of giving his testimony and now have been scrubbed, that they are an independent regulatory body that serves the public interest.

Watch this Q&A with a senator and Mr. Carr, a commissioner of Carr, about whether his organization, his entity is independent or not. Chairman Carr, yes or no, and please, yes or no, is the FCC an independent agency? Senator, thanks for that question. Yes or no is all we need, sir. Yes or no, is it any.

Independent? Well, there's a test for this in the law, in the key portion of that test. Yes or no, Brendan? The key portion of that test is. Okay, I'm going to go to Commissioner Trustee. So just so you know, Brendan, on your website, it just simply says, man, the FCC is independent. This isn't a trick question. Okay, the FCC is not, is not, is not an website wrong? Is your website line? Possibly. The FCC is not an independent agency. Okay, can I read this to you? The FCC's mission on the home page of the FCC, man. An independent U.S. government agency. overseen by Congress? Is that factual or is that a lie? The F.C. is not formally an independent agency. Is this true or is this a lie? I can, I'm happy answer your question. Chairman, I have a little bit of a time. I'll get back to you. The FD is not an independent agency formally speaking. Appreciate you saying that and being honest with the American people. Commissioner Trustee. Thank you for the question. The president is the chief executive vested with all executive power in our government.

And FCC commissioners are not. We do not have four cause removal protections, which means that we aren't independent. So is your website line? I can't speak to the website. I've not seen that. You all are the commissioners in charge of this place, right? So this stuff has to be approved by one of you. If this is lying, then you should just fix it. Let me just say that. That wasn't even my gotcha question.

I'm surprised that I've burned up three minutes talking about this damn thing. Commissioner Gomez? Yes, and we should be. I appreciate that. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could just submit the printout of the home page of the FCC into the record, man, it says it's an independent agency. And if it's not true, then... change it without objection and they went and changed it during that um right or just following that

testimony this is all today by the way now let's go to senator markey the room's decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official not targeted by them by government officials do you stand by that statement this was a letter written by senate that's right House Democrats to cable companies pressuring them to drop Fox News, O-A-N, and Newsmax, simply because those Democrats thought they were right-win. Do you stand by your statement? Yes, I do. I think it's inappropriate what the Democrats did there.

I just want to get your own views out here on the record for people to hear. So in February, under your leadership, the Federal Communications Commission opened an investigation into a San Francisco radio station over its coverage of a federal immigration race. FCC investigation is a big deal for a local station. In a worst case scenario, the FCC could shut down the station by revoking its license. In fact, you have repeatedly suggested over the past year that the FCC could revoke station licenses. Yet this investigation was based solely on the news content of the radio station's coverage of an immigration raid. I have the entire news statement that they put out that day. This happens every day, everywhere across the country for broadcast journalists.

This investigation was based solely on this very brief statement that is an everyday coverage. And I have that transcripts. And the anchor was literally reporting on the information that was released by the mayor, by the local city council member, and a community group. So you're telling me that reporting, on statements from public officials and a community group is grounds for an FCC investigation? So the concern there in the report was that there may have been interference with lawful ICE operations. And so we were asking questions about what happened.

There's a period of time. Remember, when ICE agents were being attacked, their locations undercover locations were being disclosed. There is nothing in here that discloses anything. There's no risk to anyone except the risk. And they can provide that to us. No, no. The risk that it's posed to you, to the broadcast journalist coverage. That's what really happened. The news journalists were just covering an important news story. And some conservatives were upset by the coverage. So you use your power as FCC chair to hang a sort of Damocles over a local radio station's head.

And that's precisely what you warned about in 2022, the government targeting a newsroom's editorial decision. Well, guess what happened? The station demoted the anchor who first read that news report over the year and pulled back on his political coverage. You got what you wanted. One former journalist at the station said, chilling effect does not begin to describe the neutering of our. And there was Senator Markey. So, Dina, what did you make of, now that we put all the receipts on the table, what did you make of Brendan Carr's performance today? And there's now calls, especially by the Democrats, to have him removed as the FCC chair.

What did you make of it? I mean, he should be removed. It's an obvious abuse of power, both what he said about Jimmy Kimmel. And then the story that Senator Markley talked about with the investigation basically shutting down local news. I mean, here's the thing. There is not a question that it is an independent agency under the current law. It is true that Trump just, you know, you and I on unprecedented just talked about the Supreme Court hearing last. week or they are trying to change that. That may happen. But as of today, it is clearly an independent

agency. And maybe the theme is their incompetence in their websites here. They're trying to do illegal things so quickly. They can't even catch up with their website. But the Congress created the FCC and created an act specifically. He talks about public interest standard a lot. And I just want to mention that really quickly because this is, so when Congress established the Communications Act of 1934, they said that the FCC would regulate, approve licenses, approve mergers, all to make sure that our airwaves are in the public interest. And that public interest standard is not defined in that act. But for the entire time it has been made to be, it's been interpreted as making sure that people have access to airwaves.

If there's competition in the airwaves, never. anything like this where a certain viewpoint is put out on the airwaves and we're going to come in and use our power to take that down, really to limit free speech, which is what Brennan Carr is trying to do. But you see what Project 2025, MAGA, and all of them are trying to use that public interest standard, which is just a matter of making sure we all really have fair access to our airwaves. And of course, they're trying to interpret it as saying, really, the public interest is just hearing our viewpoint. Yeah, and then pass an anti-distortion law.

Distorting how. I mean, Amy Klobuchar had the most devastating cross-examination that was buried in her question, which was you've started dozens of investigations against media outlets except Fox. Yeah. And then he admitted it. He goes, yeah, we're going after PBS and NPR.

Oh, my God, PBS? I know. Are we going after Big Bird again? I mean, what is going on here again? Here's my new tagline. Who voted for this? But you voted for us and to be together with us here on a pre-holiday. And it shows why, you know, you've been talking all about almost getting to a million for your legal AF,

but it shows why it's so important because, you know, we do have a few years love for Trump. And the Supreme Court hasn't come, saved us that many times. And they may shut down a lot of what we need to hear on our public airwaves. And it does make this new media so, so incredibly critical right now. And thanks to our audience, because I did check and we rolled the odometer one more time while we're here. I feel like the old Jerry Lewis Telethon. We're up to 991,000 during the show. And I made it easy.

I had them adjust the notes while we've been on the air. Go down to the notes. There should be a link there. Take your right to the legal AF YouTube channel. If not, you'll have to bounce out to the legal AF YouTube channel and then come back and hit the subscribe button. but either way that's the way to help support what we do we love you being a part of the legal a f community some of you have been here for all the more than five years since ben and i founded it um oh so long ago and have helped us stay at the top top top top tippy top of the charts

that's all because of you and we appreciate each and every one of you and um we're just humbled by the success that we've had on the minus touch network and on legal a half in particular and then of course the other way to support us is we talked about the legal f youtube channel legally have substack come a part of that community that's a vibrant community with over 120 130,000 people on it already and paid membership gets you access to all sorts of interesting nuggets in the law and politics intersection and then we've got our sponsors and now is the holidays and so our sponsors are all geared up to help you with your holiday purchases these are items and products that have been screened and cultivated curated by the brothers

Jordy in particular, then the podcasters use them and we like them and then, you know, we're not trying to put our hand in your pocket, but if you have some disposable income and you think these things are interesting, we did, then support them. They support us. It is one of the levers that keeps our independent commentary and journalism and honest reporting on the air. And so, you know, so that the FCC does decide one day, why don't we regulate YouTube? And YouTube by Google, you know, Anyway, we'll leave it at that. Let's go to a word from our sponsors. When it comes to dog food, it seems like you have to make a choice.

You can either have, well, fresh and healthy, or you can have easy to store and serve, but never both. But you don't have to choose anymore, thanks to Sundays. Sundays was founded by a veterinarian and mom, Dr. Torrey Waxman, who got tired of seeing so-called premium dog food full of fillers and synthetics. So she designed Sundays, air-dried real food made in a human-grade kitchen using the same ingredients and care you'd use to cook for yourself and your family. Every bite of Sundays is made from real meat, fruits, and veggies, no kibble, no fillers, and no weird ingredients.

Compared to other brands, Sundays invest 50 times more in its ingredients because dogs deserve food made with care, not shortcuts. And the best part is how easy it is. I use it with my dog Lily. Just scoop and serve. No freezer, no thawing, no prep, no mess. Make the switch to Sundays. Go right now to SundaysforDogs.com slash legal a.f and get 40% off your first order. Or you can use code legal a.f at checkout.

That's 40% off your first order at Sundaysforogs.com slash legal a.f. Sundays for dogs.com slash legal a.f. Or use code legal a.f at checkout. All right. a secret to tell you. I'm obsessed. With laundry sauce, I've been using it nonstop, and I swear, the second you pull clothes out of the dryer, the scent hits you, but in the best possible way, Himalayan cashmere is my current favorite. It's their first ever hypoallergenic fragrance, and it's soft, cozy, clean, all wrapped together like slipping into the perfect cashmere sweater

by the fire. And yes, people have actually been complimenting how good my clothes smell. Their signature and essentials packages are everything pods scent boosters dryer sheets the whole setup the pre-measured pods take all the guesswork out the scent lasts forever and honestly laundry has become kind of fun and with their subscription i never run out it just shows up when i need it laundry sauce isn't just about smelling amazing these pods perform they fight stains revive fabrics and make clothes feel brand new and if you don't get better smelling, cleaner laundry, they offer a full money-back guarantee. This holiday season, turn your routine into a ritual with laundry sauce.

During their Black Friday, Cyber Monday, signature sale, you'll save up to 40%. Get $75 in free gifts and free shipping at Laundrysauce.com slash legal AF20. It's the perfect time to treat yourself or gift the world's most luxurious detergent to someone you love. And seriously, if you want to support the show, make sure you use our link, LaundrySauce.com slash legal AF20 during the Black Friday, Cyber Monday signature sale, you'll save up to 40%. Get $75 in free gifts and free shipping at LaundrySauce.com.

And LaundrySau said, even though he said Cyber Monday and Black Friday, it still applies. Those that are wondering, is that an old day? No, I just did it recently. All right. Let's move on to our last couple of topics today. Hadda Dugan, Judge Dugan, and Maxwell. You want to take Judge Dugan? And what's going on? Sure. Sure. Prosecutors having rested today. Yeah. So I think people kind of remember you set it up in the beginning. The actions she took around the person who was in the courtroom in front of her during her hearing, whether or not it was criminal. The prosecutor is trying to say that she told the ICE agents to leave out of a side door.

and she did that in order to evade the ice basically detaining him and this was an obstruction. You know, I here's for me the crux of this and why this is so important and why we're paying attention to it is because the action she took, she took while she was on the bench in the middle of her day, let's say. She was in an official capacity. Her action was an official capacity. And yes, I'm saying using those words specifically because the idea is, that judges have immunity for, they have civil immunity for their official actions. Prior to the Trump decision, the Trump immunity decision, the president had civil immunity for their official conduct. There was a similarity there. There is much, there is a lot of

deference to judges when they are in their official capacity. When they, she has, the judge is a king of their courtroom. And she has quite a bit of say of how to manage her courtroom. And that is really what her defense is arguing is that she didn't try, she wasn't intentionally trying to help him evade, you know, capture that this was her managing her courtroom. And as such, she has deference. This is an official capacity. I think this is interesting. If she does get a conviction here, does she take this to the Supreme Court? And does she argue that this is a co-equal branch of government and that judges should have criminal immunity when they are acting in their official capacity, just as the president. Yeah, I mean, right now, you know, there was about a dozen

witnesses that testified on behalf of the prosecution, including a chief judge and a number of other judges. There was some testimony also by a court reporter who worked often with the judge. And the question is whether she diverted a defendant and a lawyer. to a separate stairway in order for them to evade ice that was in the hallway ready to make an arrest, yes or no. And there's conflicting testimony about whether she did or didn't do that or whether she was directing the people to go out into the public hallway and not trying to get them into the staircase.

And there was enough conflicting testimony about that particular issue that I think that that should have created reasonable doubt, certainly one that the defense team will harp on when they when the case turns to them and they start either recalling some of these witnesses or new witnesses i don't know if if judge dougan is going to take the stand it would be quite a spectacle that have a sitting she's on she's suspended with pay but or she's on leave with pay uh from her court position but um you know her position as we've heard before from her lawyers is that like you said she is the guardian of her courtroom she did not want um her courtroom to be the scene of federal ICE warrant,

not even judge-issued warrants, administrative warrants, to be used to pick up people because she didn't want criminal defendants to go underground. But, you know, this guy was indicted for, you know, strangling his girlfriend or the woman in his life. And, you know, if the message gets out, don't go to court, you know, hide because you're going to go, you're going to get deported on top of it. That's not good for the criminal justice system in Milwaukee. And so there's that whole battle going on. And why can't you pick him up outside?

They eventually arrested him. I mean, just wait out if you knew he was, if ICE knew, which they did, this guy was going to be in a hearing, eight o'clock in the morning in front of Judge Dugan, let him go in, go through a metal detector. So now you know he doesn't have any weapons. And we'll let him walk out with his lawyer, arm and arm,

and then arrest him outside. And that's the point. Why does it have to be done with a spectacle in the hallway or in a courtroom, while everything else is going on and exploiting those resources. And, you know, I think there's going to be a lot of that in the defense as well when they start cross-examining the ICE agents, which hasn't happened yet. That'll really happen in earnest when the cases now turns tomorrow to the defense.

And will the judge take the stand? I'm not sure. Normally I would say no, because she doesn't have an obligation to. But she might. I mean, I think she has a really strong argument. judges have very strong interest to have managed their courtroom as they want. You know, we don't have a free speech right to go in there and just scream and say whatever we want. I mean, you and I have been in courtrooms plenty of times, and they govern it like an iron fist. And there is, there is

precedent for the idea of a judge creating rules in a courtroom or to court room or what's allowed and not allowed. And here they were going to create a spectacle and interfere with her case management, whether or not it was that case or the case after. I mean, some, I don't know how many cases she had, but I know a judge who has like 3,000 cases to manage, right? There is this idea that we give deference to judges or other officials to do their jobs. And so I think that's a strong defense on her part. I'm definitely keeping an eye on it because if she is convicted, I think that she should argue to the Supreme Court that she deserves the same type of immunity as the president. Yeah, agreed. Adam Classfeld, who's with us on on with All Rise News on legal AF. I think he and I are going to do a live report because he's in Milwaukee in the courtroom. He's been doing some great social media posting about it. But I'm going to get him on the air. We were going to do it early tomorrow morning before he steps into the courtroom. But I wanted it. I really wanted him to get another, a first day of the defense. Yeah. And then get the flavor of that and then report to our audience. So tomorrow, it will probably

get it up. It'll be end of his day. So we'll get it up on Friday for people to understand what's happening in that in the Dugan case. And let's now turn finally to Galane Maxwell. I'll set it, I'll tee it up and I'll turn it over to you. Dina, we got convicted child sex trafficker and friend of Donald Trump, Galane Maxwell, who's been lobbying for a pardon ever since she got sentenced to 20 years in jail for five-count felony conviction 12-0 in front of a federal jury in New York and sentenced by Judge Nathan

because she committed a crime of depravity, of immorality, illegality, and participated in the rape of girls. I mean, I know the way to sugarcoat this. This is what she did. I know if I didn't know what she did, I would know what she did last week when Judge Engelmeyer, who supervises her case in New York,

wrote almost exactly that in his decision to release the grand jury transcripts based on the Epstein law that just got passed because he wanted to remind the world of what a heinous criminal she is that's been lobbying to get out of jail now we knew that she was going to we we suspected she had gotten fired from her by her client by her lawyer that her lawyer fired her and David Oscar Marcus, who was all puffed up when he thought, you know, he could get her a pardon or get her clemency. And I think the air came out of the balloon when he figured out that she probably didn't tell the truth to the Department of Justice and hit her in her interview when she was vouching for Donald Trump's character as a child sex trafficker. And then when subsequent

emails and other thousands of pages of documents came out of the Epstein estate, including her emails that put a lie to most of her testimony, I think David Oscar Marcus was like, I'm out. So she wants, she filed today a jailhouse version, because she did it herself or with help inside the jail, without a lawyer, a writ of habeas corpus. And that is to argue, finally, last gasp, that she has some sort of right, even though she's been denied her, she lost her appeal, she lost her appeal to the United States Supreme Court. She never, and let me just make this clear. She had competent counsel all along the way.

She never, she didn't represent herself in the trials. And in those cases, when they were done, she filed an appeal. She did not argue that there was juror misconduct. She did not argue that there was judge misconduct. She did not argue that a witness went on that shouldn't have went on, or a witness didn't go on that should have gone on, or vice versa, or that evidence came in that shouldn't have. or evidence didn't come in, that she made no arguments about her trial.

And you're entitled to a fair trial in America under the Sixth Amendment. You are not entitled, nor has there ever been such a thing as a perfect trial. But you have to have what's called reversible error, things that the judge has done wrong that would lead to the reversal of your conviction. She never argued any of that at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. And she never argued that at the United States Supreme Court. She argued not that she wasn't guilty. She argued that she was the beneficiary of a non-prosecution agreement

that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and his lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law Professor, who handled his case, and the then U.S. attorney for Miami, Alex Acosta. And that even though she didn't sign that agreement, she wasn't mentioned in that agreement, she says, oh, it says, Epstein and maybe others, no. And so she only argued that she had an immunity, almost like Trump, argument, a non-prosecution agreement. Well, Second Circuit didn't buy it.

And neither did the United States Supreme Court. So now she's left with writing these writs of habeas corpus. By the way, I think she filed it in the wrong court. I think she has to file it in Texas, where she is, not in New York. It was Judge Engelmeyer handled her case. I don't know if you had a chance to see this ramblings of a mad woman. Did you see her writ? Yeah, why don't you tell your audience what you made of it?

Yeah, so this is, you really teed it up, but this is post-conviction. Technically, a criminal conviction at the trial court level, whether or not by jury or judge, isn't considered final until they have exhausted all their appeals. She did that, as you said, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to reverse it. So this is considered a post-conviction. It is that last gasp. The standard is so incredibly high to get your conviction, returned at this point. It's like, is there a manifest miscarriage of justice extremely high?

The irony, I did take a look at it. The one thing that you always argue in a habeas corpus petition is ineffective assistance of counsel because your argument is my lawyer didn't appeal the fact that they allowed in a witness to lie and he never objected or whatever. All those things that maybe you didn't get a chance to appeal or you didn't think of appealing. You're going to argue in your habeas corpus, but you have to say you had ineffective assistance counsel. You have to say that your lawyer was so bad. They didn't even appeal these issues with my conviction,

not only were they bad at trial, but then I wasn't able to get my proper appeal. And so this is a miscarriage of justice so extreme that we need to step in. So she fails to bring in the most important crucial point of it is that there is an effective assistance of counsel. These kind of petitions are Hail Mary's, no matter what. Here she had a really well-known lawyer, month-long trial, jury conviction. She didn't argue appeal of the evidence because the evidence was extremely strong.

We're seeing it, as you said, with a jury testimony. I mean, I've read about it with Julie Virginia Juffray's book. I mean, she was a co-conspirator in every sense of the world and really disgusting the what she herself did, not just Epstein. So it's a long shot to begin with. It's an extra long shot because she failed to even argue an effective assistance of counsel. And she did have a fair trial at the end of the day.

So whether or not this is a matter of, I guess her just doing her last hell Mary, her trying to gain Trump's attention for a pardon, you know, we'll see. But I think we can be very confident that she will get this denied. Oh, yeah. I think Judge Engelmeyer,

will deny it. My only, I'll leave it on this. My only fear is that it'll be an opening for the Department of Justice run by Donald Trump to somehow help her with her petition, not oppose it, or are we watching a, you know, kabuki theater choreographed orchestrated? I don't think so, but I don't know. And, you know, you can just hear Donald Trump up at a podium, although, you know, I don't want to ever hear him to do this, but you can just hear them say, well, you know, there's good people on both sides of a child sex trafficking ring and she's a victim too, I guess. And there is a writ of habeas corpus that's, you know, I've been told may have some merit.

So I'm going to, you know, I'm going to let her out. Look at all the people. He's let out. You know, every financial fraudster, he can get his hands on. He lets out of jail. You know, the ex-Hondorian president that's responsible for the most major. cocaine drunk trafficking in America serving 45 years in jail, just walked out of prison.

So does anybody shock us that Donald Trump, after we just read all those plaques he just wrote about presidents, would take the political heat and let her out of jail? I mean, we'll have to see. But anyway, the question is, will it benefit him? I mean, he's a simple person. At the end of the day, is very simple. Will it benefit him or not?

And that we don't know because we don't know what she knows, that we don't know. But if he thinks it's going to benefit her, he'll do it. And as you said, and this can tee him up to saying, oh, it's an advocate, an activist judge who dismissed her appeal or whatever. He doesn't need an excuse. He does what he wants to do. But for the sake of the victims, let's hope this gets denied and she stays in jail.

And frankly, gets back up to the level of the jail system that she should be in. Absolutely. We're glad you're all here. We've reached the end of Legal AF, Dina Dahl, with me today on our midweek edition. Saturday, it'll be Ben Myceles and me. We do hot takes at the intersection of law and politics about every hour either on the Midas Touch Network or

where, wait for it. Legal A.F., the YouTube channel. We picked up another thousand while we were on the air, which is fantastic. I think this group alone will put us over the threshold, and we can pop the cork on one million subscribers before Christmas kicks in, and

we'd all be thrilled if that were to happen. Legal AF Substack, the other way, of course, to support what we do. It's another kind of group. It's where I can also do live reporting that I can't do on LegalAF YouTube channel. Something like comes up right after I did a video, boom, there's a development. I get everybody together in a live and we do everything there. So if you don't know about Substack or you don't know about LegalAF Substack, please come over there. Otherwise, everybody get either in their holidays, day four of Hanukkah and our hearts and prayers go out to the Bondi Beach.

mass of your victims and of course to what happened in Brown University with the students and the student body there in the middle of a holy week for many people in America and otherwise but we're gearing as we're into that holiday season we do are we are grateful for our audience and their fervent support and I'm grateful to have you Tina Doll is a close friend of mine and we're glad you're all here so until our next show shout out to the Mightest Mighty and the Legal A-Effers.