Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal AF Full Episode - 9/27/2025

Episode Date: September 28, 2025

Support Our Sponsors: Liquid IV: Get 20% off when you go to https://Liquid-IV.com and use code LEGALAF at checkout! Everyday Dose: Visit https://everydaydose.com/LAFBOGO for more details CBD Distillery: Visit https://CBDistillery.com and use promo code: LEGALAF and save 25% off your entire purchase! Jones Road Beauty: Use code LEGALAF at https://jonesroadbeauty.com to get a Free Cool Gloss with your first purchase! Check Out The Popok Firm: ⁠https://thepopokfirm.com/⁠ Subscribe to the NEW 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 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

During the Volvo Fall Experience event, discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures. And see for yourself how Volvo's legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, lease a 2026 X-E-90 plug-in hybrid from $599 bi-weekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall Experience event. Condition supply, visit your local Volvo retailer

or go to explorevolvo.com. This episode is brought to you by Square. You're not just running a restaurant, you're building something big, and Square's there for all of it, giving your customers more ways to order, whether that's in-person with Square kiosk or online. Instant access to your sales, plus the funding you need to go even bigger.

And real-time insights so you know what's working, what's not, and what's next. Because when you're doing big things, your tools should to. Visit square.ca to get started. Ontario, the weight is over. The gold standard of online casinos has arrived. Golden Nugget Online Casino is live. Bringing Vegas-style excitement and a world-class gaming experience right to your fingertips.

Whether you're a seasoned player or just starting, signing up is fast and simple. And in just a few clicks, you can have access to our exclusive library of the best slots and top-tier table games. Make the most of your downtime with unbeatable promotions and jackpots that can turn any mundane moment into a gold. Golden Opportunity at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Take a spin on the slots, challenge yourself at the tables, or join a live dealer game to feel the thrill of real-time action, all from the comfort of your own devices. Why settle for less when you can go for the gold at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Gambling problem call Connects Ontario, 1866531-260, 19 and over, physically present in Ontario.

Eligibility restrictions apply. See Golden Nuggett Casino.com for details. Please play responsibly. Welcome to LegalAF meets the Katie Fang News Channel here on Saturday on the Midas Touch Network. So pleased to have a close friend of mine and one of your favorite on-air journalists and commentators. Katie Fang joining us sitting in for Ben Myceles. Don't worry about Ben. It's a good reason he's not here.

It's a family reason. He's not here. Katie was kind enough to step in. And we've been looking forward to this. Katie and I've been doing a lot of lives on. legal AF substack and on her substack. So I think we're ready to go, right, Katie? Yeah. In fact, next time we should probably just do it together, like in the same space. That's true. We both live in the same relative. What's our excuse? There's no excuse.

There's no excuse. That's right. We'll have to talk to the brass about that. So we want to kick it off today, right in our wheelhouse here at the intersection of law politics about what just went down against James Comey and why the more we learn about the grand jury process, the hearing that was conducted by the magistrate judge with Lindsay Allegan, the video clip of the testimony that may or may not relate to the indictment, the fact that Katie Fang and I have to try to figure out what the indictment relates to, since there's no quotes or There's no people mentioned, which is a problem, even though we're not the indicted person. It is a problem from the indictment standpoint.

And all, I like to call them the gifts, all the gifts that the Trump Department of Justice has handed to James Comey to crush this indictment, where it lives, where it stands, well before any trial in this case. I'm not sure it gets kicked before the arraignment, but there are so many infirmities on the face of this indictment and in the process, the irregular process that was used, that we're going to have a field day. you and I talking about that. So we're going to start off, of course, with Comey. As we came on the air, we've got some new reporting about some new Supreme Court rulings that have come out. Donald Trump is trying, once again, to rip the beating heart of birthright citizenship out of the Constitution now, formally asking the United States Supreme Court to give him

the power by executive order to take away birthright citizenship, a provision of the 14th Amendment that has been supported by 100 years of Supreme Court. precedent. He's also got a ruling in his favor, which may play into the shutdown of the government negotiations with the Supreme Court, allowing him, as we expected, to cut off billions of dollars of foreign aid that were allocated by Congress. So we have that to talk about. We have the Department of Justice continuing to go after Donald Trump's enemy list. We knew Fawney Willis would be coming up. Fawney Willis, who brought a successful indictment against Donald Trump in Georgia. She got kicked from being, after two years, being the prosecutor on a conflict of interest because

she was dating somebody in her office that was also on the file, so to speak, sounds like a major HR issue, not something that would undermine a prosecution. But here we have new reporting that the Department of Justice has issued a subpoena to go after her travel records again. I've got to learn about the boyfriend and her going through Napa Valley again. Like this had anything to do with the insurrection that Donald Trump led that he was indicted for. But, you know, this is where we are. Lisa Cook, we're waiting on pins and needles to see if the Supreme Court is going to allow Donald Trump to have a hostile takeover of the Federal Reserve and therefore get his

hands on our interest rates, meaning he's just going to blow out of a fire hose, $1,000 bills in order to paper over his failed economic policies, which will lead to hyperinflation as it always does. Go find a wheelbarrel because you're going to need it to put money in to go to the supermarket to go shopping for bread if he ever gets control of the Federal Reserve. And Lisa Cook is fighting tooth and nail to stay on. All the briefs are in. The final brief was filed yesterday and we're waiting for the results about whether Donald Trump's going to be able to fire Lisa Cook based on effectively phony and framed allegations of mortgage fraud. And then, of course, this is a great time with having Katie on talk about the First Amendment, the assault on the First Amendment in the wake under the false flag of the Charlie Kirk killing.

And what's happening there, the new executive orders that were issued this week against domestic terrorists, corporate media bending the need to take journalists off the air. Katie has a vested interest, of course, in talking about these particular issues. So we would be remiss if we didn't, we didn't bring her in for that commentary. Let's bring her in now, Katie. Hi. We've got a lot to talk about. It's a jazzy jazz. Never a dull day.

Never a dull day. So why don't, when did you kick it off? You know, for people who don't know you other than on television when you're on, on corporate media, and if they don't know you from the Katie News, the Katie Fang News channel that's over on YouTube, sort of our sister channel with legal AF and all the work you do on your subcommittee, stack. You also had a career as you have a career as a lawyer, practicing lawyer now. You were a prosecutor at one time. Why don't you take it from that angle then about what you spotted in the indictment? And then we can get to the new reporting about what happened with the magistrate and the lies

that Lindsay Halligan apparently made to the magistrate and how that helps the defense. It's pretty humiliating to consider the fact that what actually made the docket is two different iterations of the indictment, and it forced the magistrate judge to have to ask Lindsay Halligan. Literally, the mad judge says, I've never had this happen before my career while I have two filed documents, ostensibly charging documents against James Comey, but they're inconsistent with each other, and they both have your signature on them. This is the judge speaking to Lindsay Halligan, and the reason why these indictments are just horribly deficient is you have no idea. with any measure of specificity, what are the false statements that were made by James Comey?

You have a date and you theoretically could guess to whom these statements were made, but you don't really have context. And that's the reason why myself and people that I think are smarter than me have been struggling to figure out the exact factual scenario that is the basis for these criminal charges. But you kind of don't have to be surprised, though, Michael, because Lindsay Halligan in and of herself had her first courtroom appearance yesterday when she went before the mag judge to have to explain these charges or two days ago. And what's kind of crazy about it is this woman is now the head prosecutor for all federal prosecutions in the Eastern District of Virginia, which is a jurisdiction that is known for not only its efficiency, but for the gravity and the seriousness of the cases that are heard. So when you consider the fact that Pamela Joe Bondi, at the direction of Donald Trump also thought that it was smart to put somebody like Lindsay Hall, in a position where she now has to go toe to toe with not only a lawyer himself, because

let me remind everybody, James Comey's a lawyer, but he's the former director of the FBI. I have been saying it for the last couple of days. You should not underestimate James Comey. That man may come across as mild-mannered and quiet and reserved, but I certainly would not underestimate his readiness for what has just happened to him. him. In fact, while on that point, why don't we hear from James Comey, who after talking about he's not going to operate from his knees and either should we, also effectively said, bring it when it comes to let's go to trial. Let's play the clip of James Comey. My family and I have known for years

that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn't either. Somebody that I love Deerly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant, and she's right, but I'm not afraid, and I hope you're not either. I hope instead you are engaged, you are paying attention, and you will vote like your beloved country depends upon it, which it does. My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I'm innocent. So let's have a trial

and keep the faith. I love the Batman voice, by the way. I love the, you know, or, what's the other one? They're like, Watchman, I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me. Mike, isn't he like the encyclopedic definition

of G-Man? Like when you say, you know, FBI guy, it's like the smart tie, the blue, you know, the Navy blue blazer, you know, the clean, haircut, haircut, haircut. I mean, say what you want to say. And I've said this too. Look, I read the comments, folks. I look at the social media comments and the replies. There's no love loss for James Comey, right? Mike, but here's the thing. It's like, you don't have to agree with what that guy did

back in 2016, but you should be upset about him being railroaded by Donald Trump. I mean, you can separate these two. Like, these things don't have to coexist in the same space. I'm not sure having now done the research around what the indictment is over. And we'll catch our audience up here on that. I'm not so sure now that I blame Comey. I may better understand why he did that press conference about an open investigation about emails in Hillary Clinton, the timing that he did. And it goes to the indictment. Let's first, let me map it out this way.

We get the indictment. The fact that Katie and I have to figure out who person one and person two is and person three is, Well, one is killing those, but it's like, what are the actual fake statements, though? Like, what's the actual false statements, right? That's what I'm trying to get to. So the fact that we have to go through all of that. Let me go through the vagaries or the infirmities. And then we'll talk about what I think it's over and what, but the fact that I have to piece it together means the defense has an argument to dismiss on its face the indictment because they shouldn't have to guess.

They are not there. They are entitled constitutionally to understand the charges that are against them. Sure, we were able to piece together that we think, you know, person number one is Hillary and person number two is Trump and person number three is Andy McCabe, but that's not how this is supposed to work. What were the statements? There's also a lot of problems here because in order to get perjury, lying under oath in this type of context, there's lots of things here that undermine their ability to get a jury to beyond a reasonable doubt to find that he perjured himself. First of all, you had the fact that there were communications problems. He sat in Virginia during COVID. They had trouble hearing each other during his four hours of testimony in September 30th of 2020.

There was many times when people were talking over each other, meaning you couldn't get a clear question, you couldn't get clear margins around a clear question and a clear answer, which is the very basis of perjury. He may not, he may be able to testify that he didn't even understand the question because there was an overlap between questions and answers. Then on the question that we think is the foundation of the indictment, which I'm going to play a clip from now, which is an exchange between Senator Cruz and him about whether he, Comey, was the source or authorized a leak to the Wall Street Journal about the Clinton Foundation. It wasn't even about Donald Trump. The irony that Donald

Trump is trying to exploit that something that Hillary Clinton had done against her, not against him is just ironies of all ironies. But even in that exchange, Cruz gets the fumbles the question, so it's not even framed right. He says the Clinton administration instead of the Clinton Foundation. So you have a lot of problems, a lot of potholes between the Q and the A, which have to be matched together perfectly in order for there to be perjury. In fact, let's show a clip of what we think is the exchange that is the basis of count two of the indictment. All right, let's shift to another topic on May 3, 2017.

this committee, Chairman Grassley asked you point blank, quote, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton investigation? You responded under oath, quote, never. He then asked you, quote, have you ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump investigation or the Clinton administration? You responded again under oath, no. Now, as you know, Mr. who works for you, has publicly and repeatedly stated that he leaked information to the Wall Street Journal and that you were directly aware of it and that you directly authorized it. Now, what Mr. McCabe is saying and what you testified to this committee cannot both be true,

one or the other is false. Who's telling the truth? I can only speak to my testimony. I stand by what the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017. So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak. And Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth. Is that correct? Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today. All right. So look, there's a problem, first of all, as you see, Cruz fumbled Clinton administration and Clinton Foundation, so you have a malformed question, which can't be the subject of perjury, or at least gives the defense. Now, look, there's a 2018 Office of Inspector General Department of Justice, full investigation of who was telling the truth between McCabe and Comey.

And the OIG, which is obviously something Lindsay Halligan was given but ignored, the OIG report says clearly that McCabe lied, that McCabe, on his own rogue, leaked to the Wall Street Journal. Why? because he didn't like the suggestion that he, McCabe, was biased, and he wanted to have a counter story run in the paper. So he leaked it. And when they investigated Comey, who they believed, and he gave under oath testimony of the OIG in the report, and I have the report, it's up on LegalAF Substack.

You can read it for yourself. It says clearly that Comey was adamant, and we believe him that he never and would never have authorized that leak, that that leak was terrible for the FBI and the Department of Justice. relationship. He never would have done it. And he and he asked McCabe, did you leak? And Comey said in the report to the testimony, and every indication McCabe gave me was he did not, he was not the leaker and I believed him. So this, so how do you get perjury out of that, Katie? Well, it's, it's a myriad problems, right? It's number one, to whom is the, to whom were these statements made, the context,

et cetera. You know, Michael, I want to, for a hot second, just divert for a second and talk about this. This reminds me of when you're trying to impeach someone, right? You and I have done this a lot as lawyers. Sometimes it is improper impeachment when you are trying to do a gotcha moment during a trial, for example, when you're cross-examining a witness. Because on a prior occasion, that person may have made a statement either during the course of a deposition or maybe in another situation. And you are thinking, I've got you, right? And you sit there and on cross-examination with a leading question, you sit there and you think that you're impeaching them because you're like, didn't you previously say X? But now you're saying why. Now, we all know as lawyers,

if you have inartfully teed up the question during the deposition, for example, and the witness answers the question, even if it was inartfully done, there's a lot of wiggle room for that witnesses answer. So to your initial point, if Cruz is going to screw up the way within which he is posing this question and create so many different permutations of not only kind of interpretation, but kind of allow somebody who's measured in the way that they respond like James Comey, where are the false statements in and of themselves, as in the structure of the answer by Comey? That's right. Then you get into the questions about substance, materiality here. And it also gets into timing, right?

Remember, the statute of limitations was on the eve of expiring by just days when Lindsay Halligan secured this indictment against Comey. The questioning by Cruz is in 2020 to statements and deconduct that was done in 2017, etc. Like, there are so many different ways. About a 2016 article. Like, it's just there's so many different ways of looking at the years, the timing, the materiality.

Now, remember, there's another guy who could possibly be the person and not mechanics. a guy named Daniel Richmond, a longtime friend of James Comey, who's a Columbia law professor, to whom James Comey gave certain memos. But this may not be the Richmond memos because Richmond is not identified in the indictment, but we do know Richmond was subpoenaed by the FBI and met with them. So again, this level of, well, could it be Andy McCabe, could be Daniel Richmond, could it be Cruz, could it be somebody else? I mean, this is the inherent defects and problems with the diamond. Now, let me be clear before people get too excited about it, though. You can file a motion for Bill of Particulars if you're the lawyers for Comey. You can get the clarity and the specificity that you need.

But doesn't this just go to show, though, how totally rigged up this was? You send in Lindsay Halligan, and she presents it to the grand jury, and we don't get to see what was presented because the grand jury proceedings are confidential and secret. But I don't want to. What she said. I don't want to gloss over this. Lindsay Halligan, who was an eight-year lawyer in insurance defense, never a federal prosecutor, never a federal law clerk, never had a federal practice.

Never did criminal law. Is not a member of the Eastern District of Virginia Bar. I looked it up. It's not a member of the Virginia Bar, not that she has to be for this particular position, is not the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. She's the acting interim U.S. attorney. She did not have a career prosecutor signed the information. because nobody wanted to sign this indictment.

She went on. Nobody from Maine Justice. Talk about throwing her to the wolves, although I have no sympathy for her. Nobody from Maine Justice, not Todd Blanche, not anybody, because they didn't want to make it look like Trump was pushing the buttons, but he was, went and sat with her. She goes in alone with a cookbook, I'm sorry, somebody prepared for her. Then she got screwed up because she had two different indictments, one that was a true bill that was returned by the grand jury. You have a form by the grand jury that shows they're confused by the process because garbage in, garbage out.

They're using carrots, Katie, to indicate which count they did not indict on. She's then confusing. Handwritten in. The guy's name is handwritten in. Right? They pulled a form from, you know, that little inbox that's on the judge's desk at the back. So they pulled a form, started writing about the former director of the FBI. Okay, this is what happens when you do it with.

this way. Then the judge goes, I don't understand, there's two indictments that are signed. She says, what? She says, there's two indictments that are signed. No, I only sign. Halligan's like, what do you mean? I don't know. And the judge is like, your signature is on both of the documents, Ms. Halligan. We're going to put up on the screen, the actual signed document. You and I both used it in our own hot take. So let's go. There's, so stay right there. Let's leave it right there for a minute. Count one, we think involved an exchange between Lindsay Graham and Comey that had a lot of communications issues because they're again, Comey was sitting in his house in Virginia and the jury was the grand jury, even the grand jury

was like, no, we're not indicting on that back and forth where Lindsay Graham bangs the table and says, you, you're going to sit here and tell me you don't believe that you remember? I mean, that's not, I'm sorry, that that's like my foghorn leghorn. That sounds like Senator Kennedy. I'm like, why you're doing foghorn leghorn for all these guys? And then the second count, this is where Lindsay got screwed up. There's two count twos because she signs this one. Then there's another count two, which is news to her until the magistrate judge has to point it out to her.

We're laughing, but these are the irregular. This is what happens when you have an instant prosecutor just to add water. You throw her in after 72 hours. She's told by her career prosecutors, you cannot bring this indictment. It violates the Department of Justice Manual. It violates the principles of federal prosecution. There's no case here. She goes, but this is my artist rendering, but my boss told me I got to bring an indictment.

So I'm going to go bring an indictment. And she runs into court. And this is the result. So now you know why Comey is so confident with his Batman voice, with his watchman voice, I am not afraid. I'm going to trial. Well, look, listen. And Comey's not going to represent.

represent himself, although I do suspect he would have done a pretty skilled job, Mike, if he did. Comey has Pat Fitzgerald in his corner. And when, so I'll give it all some inside baseball, we knew Pat, a number of us knew Pat Fitzgerald was reping Comey, but it wasn't common knowledge, and then it was common knowledge. But when we saw this come back, we were like, okay, so Comey's got Pat Fitzgerald, and Pat Fitzgerald is a badass. Like, if you were in a heap of shit trouble, you want Pat Fitzgerald. Gerald in your corner. Fitzgerald is going to shred Lindsay Halligan. And here's the thing. And I'm glad that you've repeated this. Halligan went into this grand jury alone. And I've presented

to grand juries before. And you normally, you don't have to do it. A line prosecutor can do it. It's really not some huge finesse to act. So I don't want to, I don't want anybody to sit there and think and overestimate Halligan's abilities to be able to present into this grand jury. It really wasn't that difficult. Here's the other thing that we also know too, right? Mike, Andy McCabe was never presented to the grand jury, right? So we know, we know that Halligan flew solo for this and she messed it up. But the fact that she's going to be the one that's going to have to do this against somebody like Pat Fitzgerald, who was the longest serving United States attorney in Chicago and has secured convictions against some of the most

corrupt figures and politics. I would, if I'm Halligan, I'd be shit my pants. I know of Fitzgerald, because he and I both worked at Scaden, Arps. He kind of came in in 2012. Yeah, he just left Scadden in 2020. Right, right. I was there much earlier, but I knew I was in the white collar department, the same department he would have been in.

So you can verify what I'm saying, right? No, he's a badass. I said, I'm so glad he got him because you need somebody. I think what they're going to do is similar to what, to what Quinn Emmanuel did on behalf of Eric Adams in New York. They're going to come right out of a box with a motion to dismiss like any minute now. They're not going to wait around, you know, until they have plenty of time to bring the motion to dismiss the indictment, but they're not going to. I think they need to bring a motion to dismiss, and I think he will on the things that we've outlined here.

I think he also brings a quick motion for gag order to shut down the Trump administration and Patel and Bondi and Allegan and all the rest. Well, we just saw that happen in the Luigi Man. Mangeoni case. Absolutely. That a federal judge said the DOJ is violating extrajudicial statement rule. You're not supposed to be out there running your traps about these cases, right? And they have been in Mangione. And so I agree with you.

I want to also just add this little tidbit. Pat Fitzgerald has been repping James Comey in an unofficial slash official sense since Comey got canned back in 2017 by Trump. So Fitzgerald's been on this. He's up to speed. I was going to say, the dude does not need to be, there's not going to be a lot of catch up time for this guy. He's been on it, which just goes to show, though,

if you're Halligan, Bondi, Trump, or anybody, this level of an underestimation of your foe is a really big deal. But you know what? I hate that this has happened, but if it had to happen to somebody, it's Comey because somebody like that. going to kick their ass, right? So you kind of want that to be the test case. And I've been speaking to a lot of people that are very centrist about things. And even they are like, someone's going to get their

ass kicked. It's not going to be James Comey. But look at all of them. Letitia James. Well, she's got Abby. You know, Abby Lowell is a collier and Abby's been killing them. And, and, you know, Lisa Cook is represented by Abby Lowell as well. And he's been kicking their ass too, you know. And then you got Schiff, who's a prosecutor, a good lawyer in his own, right? Yeah. I mean, These are not, they're not picking the weak sisters here to go after, and I think that's going to backfire for them. When we come back from our first commercial break, we're going to talk about Fawney Willis now, of course, being the subject of new Department of Justice investigation. We're going to catch everybody up on Lisa Cook and the independence of the Federal Reserve. Some new developments at the Supreme Court, as long as we're there, including birthright citizenship, is back up.

Important. Important. And some funding decisions by the Supreme Court. Court that may impact the government shutdown and Donald Trump's approach to the government shutdown. Then I want to talk about the First Amendment under assault along with domestic terrorist groups, aka civil liberties groups, immigration rights groups, funders for the for democratic values like George Soros and what all that means. And you've got it from a great perspective in terms of somebody that you're representing. But let's start.

talk about our great pro-democracy sponsors that are here with legal AF. They are supportive for the last five years of everything that we do and say, and now more than ever, independent media, independent commentary, which is literally under attack. We don't have to say it as a way to like, hey, support our show and hit the subscribe button because we're under attack. We're under attack. And I know this community is important to the people. that are the fervent supporters of Legal A.F. And what we do on the Midashth Network, because frankly, I meet them as Katie does in the streets every day. I mean, there's not a day that goes by that I don't bump into somebody that stops

and talks to me about what they get out of being part of the Legal AF community. And it's so rewarding, but so important now more than ever, to support what we do. So there's numbers of ways to support Legal AF. The podcast, five years in the making, where, you know, top 50 because of you, it's not We're doing our part, but if you weren't here, we wouldn't be top 50 on Applepod. We wouldn't be top 50 on YouTube weekly rankings of all podcasts. But we want to stay there and continue to rise in the charts so that our content comes to you uninterrupted. The bigger we get, the bigger we are, the more your voice is heard.

So help us. Listen to us on audio, watch us on video, and vice versa. Then we've got Legal AF, the YouTube channel that I curate. I got over a dozen contributors. We have 820,000 subscribers, many of them, you and Legal IFers and Mightest Mighty, 270 million views of the work we're doing. Some amazing, amazing work is being done. Ten videos a day on LegalAF YouTube channel, become a subscriber there as well.

Then we've got the Substack world that Katie and I sometimes join forces on. We've got the substack for LegalAF. I do two lives a day. We've got written work by our contributors. We've got video clips of things we think you need to see. You're going to want to be on the LegalAF Substack. for that kind of immediacy. And now we've got a word from our sponsors.

Let's be honest. Most of us are tired, stressed, and dealing with some kind of pain. And what do we do? We power through because the last thing we want is another prescription. And let's face it, nothing in the medicine cabinet ever actually works.

That's why I'm so glad I found CB distillery. Their CBD products are helping so many people, myself included, sleep better, feel more relaxed, and ease everyday pain. The best part, it's all made with premium, natural ingredients. They've got a full range of solutions for stress, sleep, pain after exercise, and even CBD for pets. Their soothing relief bomb is a huge customer favorite, and so are their sleep products. My favorite is the 1,000 milligram CBD relief and relaxation tincture. It's been a real

game changer for me. So if you're tired of being tired and stressed or just want to feel better in your body, check out CBD from CB Distillery. And right now you can save 25% off your entire purchase. it's cbdistillery.com and use promo code legal a.F. That's cbdistillery.com promo code legal a.f. Cbdistillery.com. Specific product availability depends on individual state regulations. Do you hate heavy, kicked on makeup the way it feels and the way it looks? I know I do. That's why I'm so excited about this new sponsor, Jones Road. Jones Road has this amazing new product that is healthy for your skin. It doesn't clog your pores. It's easy to use. And it comes in this nice little pack that's easy to take with you when you travel. So it gives you a natural look. It

doesn't give you that caked-on look and it doesn't feel bad on your skin. You can use it as a as a lip tint, as a blush, as a bronzer, a highlighter. I of course use all of the above. And it just fits into my lifestyle and gives me that natural look that I like to have. All of Jones Road formulas are clean and high performing without any of the bad ingredients that you don't want in your makeup. And clean beauty is obviously a no-brainer. And they don't just have their famous miracle bomb. They've built a full line of effortless skin first staples, like they're just enough tinted moisturizer, a lightweight non-comedogenic formula that smooths an even skin's tone with a soft touch and coverage. It hides redness. It looks natural and feels like nothing on your skin. So it's

packed with skin-friendly ingredients to keep skin moisturized without clogging your pores. That's one of my favorite parts as well. So it looks great, it feels great, and your pores don't get clogged. What more could you ask for? This is a modern day makeup that's clean, strategic, and multifunctional for effortless routines. And so for a limited time offer, our listeners are getting a free cool glass on their first purchase when they use code legal AF at checkout. That's a free cool gloss. So head to Jones Road Beauty.com and use code LegalAF at checkout. And after you purchase, I'll ask you where you heard about them.

And please support our show. Thank you, Jones Road. Welcome back. And thank you to our sponsors that help keep hope alive and keep the show on the air. I really appreciate all of them. Katie Fang, we got our crossover episode here of LegalAF today as Katie sits in for Ben Myceles. Popok. Phopok.

Po hang. Wait, what's the last one? Po hang. Poang. Oh, hang. I was thinking K-pop. Oh, K-Pok. No, it's got to be K-Pok.

Well, why can't be K-P-P-P? I think there is a K-P. Oh, that's right. P-O-P. Yeah, we could do K-Pop. Oh, I like that. That's a good one. And I'm Korean.

That's what I mean. Gosh, you're so smart. That stays in the pod. I don't mean soda pop. All right. Let's pick up with Lisa Cook and we'll stay in the Supreme Court. Sure. Sort of laying.

for some. Well, let me touch base, but let me back up one second. As part of the attacks on Trump's enemies, which he says he's not done with, we also have the Fawney Willis news. So Fawny Willis, Fulton County, Georgia, prosecutor, who successfully brings an indictment against Donald Trump.

And then, you know, starts, dating the special prosecutor in the office that she picked for the job of prosecuting Donald Trump. I mean, like, if all people, she had a date, that was the one, which normally wouldn't matter. It sounds like it's an HR issue, but it became like a big issue for MAGA, and they used it as an excuse to try to disqualify her. It led to an embarrassing hearing. I'm not sure a, I'm not, I'm going to be frank. I'm not sure a white guy would have been subjected to this. I'm not sure a white female prosecutor would have been subjected to what.

but she was subjected to. But she eventually gets bounced. Trump gets elected. The case gets put on ice. Now it's going to be assigned to a new prosecutor. And now it looks like, Katie, what are you hearing about the subpoena to try to find her travel records again?

So you and I have to hear about her going to Sonoma or wherever and sip and wine with her boyfriend. So wait, let me be very clear. And let me clarify, right? So a couple of things. I was literally living in Fulton County last year for this case. And I will tell you this, there are no guarantees that a new prosecuting attorney's office in Georgia that picks up this case after it's reassigned, there are no guarantees that they're going to continue to run with the case. They may wholesale drop all of the charges, some of the defendants, some of the charges, who the hell knows.

But then remember, too, this is still operating in the context of the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States. So that's a whole other, that's a whole other K-pop episode. By the way, I'm surprised we didn't run into each other. I at one point, because my late mother lived in near Fulton County and I was there, I propped up my laptop on one of those mailboxes. I was doing my own live reporting, like for Midas out in front of the courthouse at one point. I was surprised you and I didn't know. And then here's the second thing, though. They want travel records for election time last year. So in and around November of 2024, it's not going to

include, it's not going to include the now former boyfriend, former employee, right? It's not going to include him, Nathan. So I don't know why they're so curious to know in and about her travel around that time of election. No, there was one rumor at the time that, just sort of popped into my brain that they thought she was coordinating with the Biden White House and Department of Justice about her prosecution. Now, we never thought there was any substance of that, that that was all smoke and no fire. Well, that was to get to the point to secure the indictment, though, against Trump and others, right? So that would have been prior to November of 2024. So that's why, but you know what, though, Mike, this is what we really need to think about

this, like, to not get too far in the weeds. This Department of Justice is a collaboration. loss a waste of time and money, right? And I've said this, too. You can't release the Epstein files, but you can indict James Comey. You can do travel records for Fonnie Willis. I mean, you can do all Amelia Earhart records can be released. Like, I mean, I don't think that's DOJ related, but this DOJ can't release the Epstein file. Are we still looking for Amelia Earhart? Okay. Well, Trump is apparently releasing the records because he can do it. Well, because as you and I have said, this is as part of Trump's, um, distraction methods, he brings major indictments or starts new investigations or drops new files

to distract from the things that the American people care about. As soon as he has a bad news cycle, that's when Comey gets indicted. He, you know, things are going terrible with him with some new revelations. And the chemical stuff. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. It's obvious. And, you know, look, Jamie Raskin said it aloud. He said, the James Comey thing, this is just a cover up for Epstein. This is just another layer of cover-up on Epstein. And now, of course, there's new Docton 8,000. From the Epstein estate. Exactly. The timing is impeccable, right? Yeah, exactly. Let's talk about Lisa Cook now.

Sure. So, I'll frame it. Lisa Cook, one of seven on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. In order to get control of the board, he needs another vote. If Trump gets control of the board, he gets ultimate control over who is one of the Federal Reserve regional bank presidents. Why does that matter? Because if he gets rid of Lisa Cook, he actually picks up six additional votes, which will give him nine votes about interest rates. So one gets him nine effectively. Right now, he's only controlling three votes out of 12 to set interest rates on the Federal Open Markets Committee. He gets rid of her, they fire the 12 regional

presidents, from which five get selected for the committee. So he gets five new votes plus the four, five and four is nine nine to three he sets interest rates that's what this is all about but he got his interest rate cut though and he got his interest rate cut because his economy sucks well but my point is for all of his bitching and moaning and going after jerome powell he still secured his interest rate cut even with lisa cook on the board which is kind of undercutting any theory that he has at lisa cook would be some huge impediment for him to be able to know in maga world they think see that was good because then he pressured them and no in maga world it's because she's black And she's female.

It is nothing to do with her policies. It's nothing to do with her mentalities when it comes to interest rates. It's they just want to get rid of her because she's black and female. I agree with that. There was a 12-0 vote to cut rates. The only disagreement was how deep to cut them. And the person that voted for the deeper cut is Donald Trump's White House economic advisor who's privy to their own economic data that shows the Trump economy is failing.

He put his hand up and said, we need a bigger boat. We got to cut these rates. I know more than you do over at the White House. And so I'm voting for deeper. But that's it. Right. Again, Trump gets its cuts. And here's the thing.

People need to be reminded. This is a 12-year term for these people, 12 or 14? 14. 14-year term. And it was intentionally set up to have a measure of independence so you wouldn't have to have interference and meddling from people like Donald Trump. And this attack on independence is the same thing with the Comey thing, right? Think about it, right? You rig indictments, you are taking away the independence of thoughtful, ethical prosecutors.

And in this instance, you try to boot Lisa Cook. You're trying to attack the independence of this agency, right? And this board, but here's the thing. A lot of people were worried because the Supreme Court allowed somebody like Rebecca slaughter on the FTA. to be out of commission, out of her job, right? The Supreme Court allowed that to continue. But in this instance, Lisa Cook is differently situated than Rebecca Slaughter. I, in the interest of full disclosure, you know, I work with Norm Eisen at Democracy Defenders,

and Norm is co-counsel, Democracy Defenders is co-counsel with Abby Lowell representing Lisa Cook. And so I know all about the Supreme Court filing that was just done. Here's the thing. The Supreme Court has the opportunity now to, to, be able to say that this is a specific carve out in this particular, you know, board that is going to not allow meddling from the executive branch. But I'm not holding my breath for this SCOTUS. Well, here's where we are. The last brief is in. Three days ago, Lisa Cook argued that her due process rights were violated because she was never given an opportunity to defend

herself against the alleged mortgage fraud allegations. There is no mortgage fraud here. Reuters is already outed. This is a phony set of charges. She has a home in Ann Arbor, Michigan. She has a condo in Atlanta. She declares the Michigan home on her property taxes to be her primary residence. She declares, she's told the lender that the condo is her second home. Yeah. And they gave her a rate whatever. So nobody, in order for there to be fraud, somebody has to be defrauded. Yeah, who got duped? No one. No one got duped. So that's, and she gets to put that on in a due process hearing.

Otherwise, what is for cause protection? Because the Supreme Court has said as recently as May that for the Federal Reserve, for cause means you can't fire at will a person on the Federal Reserve, at least the chairperson, but I think it applies to all of them. Donald Trump says, okay, I got a cost. I think she committed mortgage fraud. No, that's the equivalent of firing somebody without. any proof. And that's not the firewall that the Supreme Court has said rings the Federal Reserve

Board of Governors. She should have the chance to have to prove that this doesn't happen, which by the way is horrific too, right, to have to prove you didn't commit a crime or do whatever. But she hasn't even had the chance to do that. And that's the argument that her lawyers are making, as you know, but I'm telling the audience, which is to send this back to Judge Cobb at the trial court level and let her develop the facts on due process, find that she has a due process right. whether under equal protection of the 14th or the Fifth Amendment right to property, property can't be taken away from you without due process, send it back. Donald Trump's final brief from yesterday was John Sauer saying in response to every living

Fed chair from Greenspan, Bernanke and Yellen saying you cannot fire Lisa Cook. It will wreck havoc with the financial markets. You can't destroy the independence. She has a due process, right? Their response was, the financial markets don't really care about Lisa Cook, and that I love this comment. Wait, it gets better. Then they said that the reason, one of the reasons that he should be allowed to fire her is that nobody cut off her building pass. I'm like, sorry, it sounds like another HR issue.

She, because we're all like, she's at work. She went to the Federal Open Markets Committee meeting two weeks ago. She voted. There's another one coming up on October. They said, well, she, it's because nobody cut off her building pass. She's insubordinate. Nobody respected Trump's firing. Like nobody respected Trump's firing?

That's your new defense. Listen, and everybody needs to remember this John Sauer guy. Remember, he's the one who argued that SEAL Team 6 can be dispatched by a sitting president of the United States in the capacity of his role as president and that it'd be okay to go and execute a political opponent. Well, it's, wait a kid. That's the same lawyer. How about how about the candidate for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals two weeks ago, who's a constitutional law professor when they asked her about that? Well, the Supreme Court hasn't really clearly ruled whether that's possible or not.

Will you just say that Sealed Team 6 can't kill Biden on behalf of Trump? We just say it out loud. It's a case of first impression. But what's your impression? Well, think about what Trump's just done right now, though, right? You know, he's indicting political enemies, a la James Comey right now. So he's one step away from taking it to the final solution, right? So what they should do is find that she has a due process, Lisa Cook has a due process right,

that she gets to be heard on this issue and ultimately let Judge Cobb decide whether even for cause was properly made out under, you know, because there has been little guidance from the Supreme Court on this. Is it, is it inefficiency, neglect of duty, and malfeasance, or is it something else? But it can't be, hey, here's the cause. I don't like you. There's the door. That can't be because it's this constant pursuit of the expansion of executive powers. That is the goal.

And that really does fit actually with the Sauer argument about SEAL Team 6. Remember the whole idea even in that immunity case was this idea that the president should have unchecked powers as the executive to be able to do these things. It's the same argument. Sauer has literally said to the Supreme Court. that the president should never have to account for decisions he makes in his capacity as the executive. It makes me laugh, but it's galling to think that somebody can make that argument as an attorney with a straight face. And yet he does, and he did. This idea that Trump should never have to explain or meet otherwise applicable legal standards like firing somebody for cause.

We all know this from just logical day-to-day life. You cannot just walk into her and be like, you know what, I don't like you. right? Even in at-will employment states like Florida, you still can't do that shit. So this idea that the president can do that for somebody who sits in an independent agency like the Federal Reserve, but you know what, Mike, as I've gotten to this point, if the Supreme Court says it's fine and green lights this and the economy tanks even further down into the abyss of hell, whose fault is that? Donald Trump. Go dust off your willbarrel because even as Donald Trump's own counsel of

Economic Advisors have said, every country, including the United States, where a president or a dictator has effectively taken over the central bank has led to hyperinflation and crushing, crushing. In other countries. Right. Right. That's what I'm saying. And in this country, there's been times when, you know, Nixon was able to kind of get control of the Federal Reserve for a little bit while.

Nixon's a good comparison there. So while we're at the Supreme Court, Katie, why don't you talk about birthright citizenship? Some people might be thinking, didn't we do this already? There was a birthright citizenship thing about nationwide injunctions, but why don't you catch everybody up about sort of what happened with birthright citizenship several months ago, I think back in April. When was that? When was that, by the way? It feels like it was 10 years ago. And then why this?

What is this new appeal on the substance and the merits of birthright citizenship at Donald Trump's time? So I had to double check. It was June 27th, by the way. It was decision that it does feel like it was 10 years ago. Okay. So 14th Amendment birthright citizenship, we all know what it means. You're born here on U.S. soil, regardless of who your parents are. If you're born here on U.S. soil, you are a United States citizen.

Donald Trump issued an executive order when he, one of the first things he did when he got back into the Oval Office, basically saying, if you were born, I think the date of the executive order was like in February. Like, if you were born after this date, to hell with the idea that you're going to have any type of U.S. citizenship. and you had to be born under certain conditions to not have the citizenship afforded to you. So obviously, groups sued appropriately, and the Supreme Court back in June actually said, we're not touching the substantive issue of the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment

when it comes to birthright citizenship. We're just saying that it's not appropriate in all cases to issue nationwide injunctions blocking executive orders, for example, like the one that was being attacked, that was done by Donald Trump. So the actual what we call merits, the actual merits case, the actual substance of the constitutionality of that 14th Amendment, that is now being asked by the Trump administration,

courtesy of John Sauer, late on Friday, at least two petitions for writs of certiority. Remember, with the Supreme Court people, the Supreme Court doesn't have to take those appeals. The Supreme Court can exercise it. its discretion and grant cert to be able to take certain cases, we reasonably anticipate they're going to take this one. They've already ruled on this issue of nationwide injunctions. But late Friday, the Trump administration said take up at least two decisions from two different

courts in this country that have sustained the argument that, yes, the 14th Amendment does apply to all people that are born on U.S. soil. But what's weird about it, Mike, is that the Trump administration doesn't say expedite this, as in rule on this like very quickly, but they made it clear they wanted it to be heard at least in this 2025, 2026 term. Yeah, that's where we are. So we're finally going to get this briefing, assuming that this, which they will, the Supreme Court is going to grant it. This is not on the emergency docket. This is on the writ of certiorari. Three briefs, a lot of friends of the court briefs are going to be filed here. And for For those that wonder, just a teachable moment here for a minute,

these amicus briefs, friends of the court, very important. We're very important. We're not from the parties, but they're from, you know, stakeholders in America that want to be heard. It depends on the issue. You know, it could be immigration rights people here for birthright citizenship.

It could be people. Yeah, it would be a lot of that. And other people that are opposing it, you know, the Chamber of Commerce, it'll be some hump side that will take the opposite. side and file. And a lot of times, a very compelling amicus with great research or data will find its way into a majority opinion or a concurrence or a dissent. Sometimes we saw it last term. Out of the blue, the Supreme Court will say, we want to hear from one of the amicus brief sponsors

and they're arguing at oral argument, even though they're not parties to the case. So we'll have to see who they allow to file advocacy briefs. Usually it'll be a pile of them. And then they'll be after full briefing and maybe some additional briefing that the Supreme Court asked for. It depends how they frame the issue. And that's very important because we usually know where their heads are at in terms of the votes based on the question that's being asked, the issue presented by the court is framed. Then they'll want to know, like we just saw recently, they just framed an issue.

And one of the issues they want to have, does a federal judge have the ability to reinstate someone who's been fired from a federal officer job. I'm like, oh, here we go. Now they're going to say the federal judges don't have the power to reinstate the Lisa Cooks of the world or others, even though in every other context, employment context, of course, they would. But here it's, oh, second, you know, Article 2 powers are being, oh, God forbid we impede articles.

They don't give a crap, the Supreme Court, about the Congress being treated like a doormat by the president, willingly, complicitly. I'm talking about the mag. They don't care about that. They don't care about the judges having their rights trampled on and not being supported and being abused by Donald Trump. But God forbid we step on the toes of Article 2 power of the president, right? Yeah, and you know, I wanted to just really kind of quickly on the birthright citizenship thing. I just wanted to share with our viewers kind of, we all know it's grounded in racism and white Christian nationalism.

that's the whole animus, right, towards people that are just, quote, others, because that's really kind of the framework within which these executive orders are being done. But, you know, Mike, I wanted to say this at Sauer in his petitions. And he says the following, which really bothers me. He says, the government has a compelling interest in ensuring that American citizenship, the privilege that allows us to choose our political leaders, is granted only to those who are lawfully entitled to it. the lower court's decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration

in a manner that undermines our border security, end quote. So let's unpack that for just a second. Number one, the president and his administration, it's not really his administration, right? It's ours. Is this supposed to be somebody who's supposed to be representing the country, not just a select group of people? And the fact that Sauer is framing it in a voting context, we should just dispense with the falsities and the lies that you have people that are not U.S. citizens that are voting. We know that those allegations of voter fraud, that there are very, very, very tiny, tiny examples of that happening. One, and two, the fact that they also are framing this in the context of border security, it's once again feeding into this bigger picture mission statement of immigration.

for this Trump term 2.0. And so when he writes this, it just makes my skin crawl because it's a total declaration of racism. It's this idea that you don't deserve to be here. And for somebody like Sauer, Trump, and others that clearly are children of immigrants making this statement just fucking bothers me.

But sorry about that. I had to die for a hot second, Mike. I'm sorry. Listen, there's maybe because of where your people and my people came from. Yes. Maybe because my people came over. My great-grandfather came over through Ellis Island on a boat.

And instead of being sent into a concentration or detention camp, he came through a naturalization center where he came out the other side with a green card and then U.S. citizenship and was a proud American. My grandfather is an eight-year-old with his uncles came over without his mother on a boat from Europe and went through a naturalization process. and was a proud American, my father was born here, my mother was born here. I don't know, your family background, your parents were born abroad, right? They were born in Korea in South Korea, and I was born here in the United States, you know,

and we want to have people that come from different places to be able to be here. That's what makes it so great, and so for this to be the pursuit of the, just to ethnically cleanse, this country to only be of a certain ilk or a certain type of color or whatever. It's just so disgusting to me. Listen, you see it today. We just had reporting that they picked up

the superintendent of, is it Spokane, Washington who's been in this country for like 20 years. He's the superintendent of schools. They picked him up because they said he stayed over on a student visa and now they took him away in chains, a black man. You and I know the former superintendent, of Miami who's out in LA who's very public he's so good he's very public that he came here

illegally yeah originally now I don't know what his current status is I don't mean to out of here but no no no but he speaks very publicly about it but you're to your point though these are people that and by the way I'm not all superintendents because that Oklahoma superintendent guy that crazy guy no no no no mr I need a turning point chapter at every in every classroom mr I was you know showing porn in a board of education meeting yeah that guy but no which of school superintendents that are investing in our children's futures and there's some menace to society, it's just a lot of it is just, again, if people will speak bluntly with friends and family and colleagues and others about what is really going on here, it's an inescapable truth. And

people try to whitewash it, no pun intended, or maybe pun intended, but you got to speak bluntly about this story. I mean, look, I still have, you know, the Supreme Court is so whack, and the MAGA 6 are so whacked. I just don't think they're going to allow by executive order Donald Trump to change the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment as interpreted by a 19-0-whatever it is, 1901 case. I just don't see them allowing, if the states want to change this, if we want to do a constitutional amendment to change it, to change the 14th Amendment, so be it. But Donald Trump, with an executive order to change the interpretation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment, even with this Supreme Court, I think that's a bridge too far.

And they don't have to take it. That's the thing. This court doesn't have to take it. And if it doesn't take this case, the Supreme Court doesn't take this case, then those existing orders. Three blocks. That's right. It's okay. Meaning the 14th Amendment stands.

So we got to see what happened. So glad to have you here sitting in for Ben, myself, for those joining in late or coming in late. We're coming in late or in progress. Katie Fang of the Katie Fang News Channel. You can catch her work on a sister channel to Legal A.F. Katie Fang News, also on the Midas Touch Network and all her great work. What's your substack? Katie Fang, right?

At Katie Fang. Yeah. I mean, it does have another kind of quasi-title law and disorder. But, yeah, you just really add Katie Fang. Yeah. And then Katie and I do a lot of work together. Once a week, we do a legal AF substack live and a live on her channel to kind of catch everybody up at the moment

and that kind of immediacy that we like to do. And Substack has turned out to be a tremendous platform for people that want to support what you and I both do in independent media. Come over to Legal AF Substack. We were up to about 85,000 subscribers in a relatively short amount of time. And it's all because of you.

I'm making sure we curate some great content there, including two lives that I do a day and other work and other writings and things and analysis. But it's all because, of you. That's a way to support. If you can swing a paid membership, all the better in this trying times against independent media. Now is the time we need your support. Legal AF, the podcast, which you're on right now, of course, exists in two places. Legal AF, the YouTube version, which you're on right now with us, on Midas Touch, of course. But some people don't realize we're on

audio. So pick us up on audio podcast platforms of your choice, including on Apple and Spotify. leave a five-star review and comments. We grow the audience organically. It's what keeps us at the top of the ratings. And as I joke, the bigger that we are, the more your particular voices are heard. And so these are all the different ways. Like I joke, if you want to become a card-carrying member,

full member of the legal AF community, it's legal AF the podcast, legal AF the YouTube channel, and legal AF the substack. And of course, we've got some amazing pro-democracy sponsors. Some of them have been with us almost from the very, very beginning, curated by the brothers by Jordy in particular.

We like these products. We use these products. And let me just make this clear because today, I think you have to say it out loud. They do not influence any content that is on legal AF or the Midas Dutch Network at all. And if they ever did, and if they ever told us, hey, can you tone it down about the this or the that, that would be the last day that sponsor would be on the air with us. And we have dropped a sponsor. You can go back in time and figure out which one that is. We just, you know, they have to align with our values.

Go back and look at 3,000 videos. You'll be able to tell. But here's a break. Now a word from our sponsors. You know that feeling after your morning coffee, bloated, jittery, and then the inevitable crash a few hours later. That used to be me every single day. But then I found everyday dose and everything changed.

Everyday dose offers coffee that does more. Coffee Plus features 100% Arabica coffee enhanced with functional ingredients, for smooth energy, calm focus, gut health and skin support, no crash, no jitters, the all-in-one coffee that makes you feel as good as it tastes. What I love is that it still has that classic coffee flavor I crave, but with added benefits like collagen for skin, hair, nails, and joints, and Lthian in for focus and calm. Plus it takes just 30 seconds to make, and I get my coffee plus vitamins, minerals, and amino acids in every cup. Coffee Plus comes in two varieties, a mild roast with 45 milligrams of caffeine, and a medium roast with 90 milligrams.

with caffeine. Both feature 100% Arabica coffee, enhanced with functional ingredients, and every ingredient undergoes third-party testing to ensure purity and potency, free from mold, rich, and active compounds. Here's the exciting part. You can now find everyday dose in Target stores across the country. Celebrate with a buy one, get one deal. Just buy any two everyday dose products at a target store near you, and they'll pay you back for one. Visit Everydaydose.com slash L-A-F-B-O-G-O for more details. That's Everydaydose.com slash L-A-F-B-O-G-O for more details. This show is sponsored by Liquid Ivy.

You know, shifting from summer fun to fall focus always hits me like a wall. Suddenly, it's back-to-school schedules, deadlines, trying to re-establish routines, and that post-summer sluggishness is real. That's why I've been reaching for new Liquid-I-Vs energy multiplier, sugar-free, hydrating, energy. It's scientifically formulated to support physical energy, hydration, focus, mood, and even social stamina. For me, it's a way to stay sharp without the jitters or crash you get from typical energy drinks. Just one stick in 16 ounces of water hydrates better than water alone. Thanks to liquid IV hydroscience, an optimized ratio of electrolytes, vitamins, and clinically tested

nutrients. Plus, it's always non-GMO, vegan, gluten-free, dairy-free, and soy-free. I can't keep a couple of packets in my bag, whether it's a workday, heading to the gym, or just powering through the afternoon slump. And the flavors? Sugar-free energy strawberry kiwi and sugar-free energy blackberry lemonade, both are seriously refreshing. Get focused, ditch the glitch with zero sugar and zero crash from Liquid IV. Tear, pour, live more. Go to Liquidiv.com and get 20% off your first order with code legal AF at check. out. That's 20% off your first order with code legal a.f at liquidiv.com. Welcome back. You're on Legal A.F. And I'm joined with Katie Fang sitting in for Ben Myceles, who's, for a good reason,

is doing something amazing with his family today. Katie was, was kind enough to step in. Katie and I like working. But when it's me, it's K-pop, right? But with Ben, what do you guys do? Can't be nothing. He calls me Popok. And I call him Ben. We like K-pop. And K-pop appears on Substack Lives. And for those that don't know, Katie and I have got almost a 20-year friendship, have nothing to do with the media. We were both just practicing lawyers.

I met Katie at a fundraiser for a judge. We stayed friends. We coached each other through respective things in our careers. And then when Katie went off first into media, I was very, very proud and supportive and stayed in touch. And then she ended up on MSNBC, as everybody knows, with the Katie Fang show, which I'm very supportive of. Whenever I saw a billboard in New York, when I was living there,

I would take photos of there, Katie, you're on a bus. Then that happened. And then I founded a legal layout along with Ben five years ago. We put the show together. So I sort of got into this world of the media. And then worlds collided. And Katie came over to Midas Touch, which I was by. We both live in Miami.

And so we're going to try to do some things together. We're going to be hosting. Actually, we can plug it now. Oh, yeah. November, we're going to be co-hosting, and we're going to do a live feed of a fundraiser for the Miami Democrats at the improv. November 16th. Sunday, November 16th, yes.

At the improv with comedians, sort of in the wake of Jimmy Kimmel. I don't know if we're going to get Jimmy, but I don't know, Katie. Never know. We never know. But we're going to do a fundraiser for the Democrat because there is a way to turn. in this sort of sea of red, there are some seats that could be turned blue. And we're going to work hard to try to do that.

So we're going to be on stage and hosting that. And you guys will be able to see that because we're going to do a live feed, which will be a lot of fun. Amazing. All right. Let's talk about First Amendment on that transition. That was pretty good.

That was pretty good. That was pretty skillful, my friend. Where that came from. So First Amendment, you know, we have, Donald Trump always wanted to crush the First Amendment expression of those who oppose. opposed him. He just didn't have the storyline and the narrative that he needed and the false flag that he needed until Charlie Kirk's untimely death, okay, period. That's, and that has now

been used, all the executive orders to go after Antifa, to go after domestic terrorist organizations, look at his smile on his face, domestic terrorist organizations, which is a code word for a democratic institution, civil liberties group, immigration rights group, the George Soros is of the world. The George Soros bogeyman is back. The fact that George Soros takes billions of dollars from his foundation and has been funding progressive

causes for the last 30 years. Oh no, he's giving money to this and they're terrorists and that and they're terrorists. That's all based on a report of somebody who wrote it for a conservative think tank supported by the Heritage Foundation. Just to be

clear, who he himself, the person who wrote the report that they're basing the executive orders on, is on the Southern Poverty Clinic's watch list as being a member of hate groups because he's anti-Muslim and has made films that are virulently anti-Muslim. So this is the source code for Donald Trump's executive orders, folks, going back to the Heritage Foundation and people who are racist. No surprise there. So First Amendment under attack.

Now, my opinion, and I want to hear especially from you given your background, is that if there is a pendulum anymore with Donald Trump, he swung it way too far. He ended up, instead of martyering Charlie Kirk, he martyred Jimmy Kimmel. Right? Because Jimmy Kimmel is no longer just Jimmy Kimmel. Not only is he now linked forever in history

with the death of Charlie Kirk, but he becomes a symbol and a lightning rod to gather together all of the civil liberties, First Amendment and progressive groups who say hashtag me too or not me to and then we saw what happened when the public responds, right? We saw what happens when ABC found out

that people could cut their Hulu and Hollywood actors and producers and agents may not want to work with ABC and Disney anymore. Suddenly like, oh, Jimmy's back on the air. Okay, so talk about it from your perspective having been off the air and then you also have a vibrant practice that represents journalists who have been crushed by corporate media,

so you can sort of tie all that together. Yeah, so, you know, it's interesting because, obviously, my departure from MSNBC, mainstream media, traditional legacy media, however you want to frame it, I mean, it was not, clearly it wasn't linked to the Charlie Kirk stuff because I left MS as of May 1st. But it was linked to this idea of having corporate oligarchs and corporate overlords that were overly concerned about,

your tone and about your content. And it really was a direct result of after Trump taking office, the FCC chair, Brendan Carr, as y'all will remember, he was sending threatening letters to NBC, ABC, ABC, CBS, the parent companies, Comcast, Paramount, etc., Disney, saying, look, you know, I need to know all of the details about your DEI policies. I need to know everything about your woke policies and programs. I mean, he made it very clear that he was going to do stuff like he just did in that CBS Paramount settlement, where not only was it, you know, the $15, 16 million, but if you'll recall for that merger between Skydance and Paramount, now there's a ombudsman, a monitor that looks at the programming to make sure that it's, quote, fair. And we all know what that means, right?

And now we're also hearing word in media in that space that Barry Weiss, Barry Weiss. might be coming in to run CBS's new stuff, right, which is outrageous, right? So for me to be able to be in independent media like we are here, and it kind of deals with what we talked about a few minutes ago, which is we have to speak unabashedly and frame things in the truth. And part of that is saying the hard things out loud, talking about these executive orders in, and saying that it is in the pursuit of cleansing this country of minorities. I could not have gotten away with saying that if I was on mainstream media, Mike. I would have gotten in a lot of trouble.

I was already getting into trouble with some of the stuff I was saying about convicted felon Donald Trump. And so this idea that Charlie Kirk's death became this lightning rod wherein it's not cancel culture because it's not even a fair characterization. They wanted to martyr the death of Charlie Kirk and reverse. veer him for his pursuit of, quote, free speech. And yet when people express their, their ideas and opinions and thoughts about it, they were fired.

They lost their shows. They were punished in some way. And that's why for years, I was friends and I'm friends with a woman named Karen Atia. And she's one of the most talented people. Y'all may remember her because she was lifted up in ways by the Washington Post for the work. been doing there until she was just wrongfully terminated two weeks ago when she spoke out about Jamal Khashoggi's murder and people were who was a Washington Post reporter exactly it was chopped up in little pieces it was chopped up in little pieces by the crown prince

of of Saudi Arabia yeah you know Jared Kushner Donald Trump's besties right oh yeah live golf right I mean, so when Karen spoke out about these things, because Jamal was one of her very close friends, you know, the Washington Post elevated her profile. And just two weeks ago, literally right after Charlie Kirk died, she expressed her opinion as an opinion writer for the post saying a few things. One, let's not ignore the facts and the statistics and the evidence that shows that it's white male shooting. far-right male shooters, white, that are the predominant ones that are doing all of the killing and the harm. And she also said, why do I have to do performative grief if I don't agree with the martyering that you are doing of somebody like Charlie Clark? Well, isn't that the point? What I said, and I think I got it right, but this is my own commentary.

It's one thing to give a safe space to those in our society, not you and me, not our audience generally, that see Charlie Kirk as a fallen hero and let them grieve. It's another to oppose his martyrdom. And not to say I oppose it, like you get fired for opposing it, right? Exactly. And that's the point. I don't, I am not, you can have your grief, but I am not going to allow you. to venerate and create a martyr out of somebody that when you look at his body of work does not register as a saint, is what I'm trying to say.

And that's what Karen said. Karen posted on blue sky. She's like, do I need to rend? Do I need to rip my clothes? Like in the Bible, right? Rend my clothes and smear ashes on my face to grieve for a man who was not only one of the most polarizing figures in our American society, but also trafficked in hate. Why would I have to do that, right?

Now, I'm just paraphrasing what she said. In fact, I added more than what she actually said. There was zero drama with the Post, and then literally a few hours later, she gets an email from the Washington Post stating, your fire. Was it on Jeff Bezos letterhead? From the yacht of Jeff Bezos? Washington Post. So, Karen, you know, I'm so proud to represent her.

I do it with Democracy Defenders, Norm Eisen, who, by the way, also we, democracy defenders normizing, we're working on behalf of Barbara, who's one of those birthright citizenship cases that they're trying to get up in front of the Supreme Court. But anyway, you know, representing Karen Attia against the Washington Post is one of the most proud moments that I have had as a lawyer and also post-leaving, right, leaving mainstream media because it's this idea of protecting the independence of our fourth estate, especially, especially because remember she was the last black female opinion writer full-time at the Washington Post. They don't have any more, Mike.

They're all... Can I mean, I'll say it since you're not going to. Everybody that got canned from MSNBC was a person of color. There are some coincidences, aren't there? Why is it only the Asian and black people that ended up being shown the door? I just don't, I just don't, I mean, I said it at the time. Listen, I'll say this. it's almost like it's well they're all kind of intertwined right inescapably intertwined here's the thing

you know we we have i have allies like you and others right that are not people of color but i will say this communities of color people of color traditionally and historically have had to fight so much harder and so for us there is something so valuable about having not only a seat at that proverbial table, but being able to speak in our own truths based upon our lived experiences. And so for a lot of us, when we see what Trump was doing, when we see what this administration was doing, when we saw what was coming down the pipeline, it just made sense to ring the alarm in a way that was also coming, again, from where we have had our lived experiences from our own specific communities. I think it's more about tone, about attitude,

about forcefulness, urgency, exigency of messaging. And that really coincided, I guess. And again, that was the coincidence of who we were, you know, our backgrounds, our races, et cetera. But anyway, at this point, I just want to say that the assailing of our First Amendment is not just limited to people in the press.

It's obviously comedians like Jimmy Kimmel, private citizens that have been, you know, outed and doxed because they just dare to say something about the death of Charlie Kirk. in a way that didn't sit well with conservatives. And I agree with you, when you've got Ben Shapiro, Megan Kelly, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz speaking out about this and warning Republicans, Brendan Carr, et cetera,

that you do this now, you better watch out because you're going to be on the receiving end of this counseling later on. Absolutely. I mean, in some ways, just to sort of wrap it up here, in some ways, the Democrats, I just saw an article in the Times about, or another thing that I read, about Democrats trying to change their tone and it's not your grandfather's Democratic Party anymore. And we're getting coarser. And I'm like, okay, stop. I think, yes, we have to work on our messaging. I think we have to be more pugilistic. I think we have to be more aggressive in both the expression of our thoughts and in our participation in the marketplace of ideas. So that, so that we can, let's be frank, so that we can ultimately win on the First Amendment, sorry, on the First Amendment expression that we're talking about or the representation, and thank you for doing that and representing people like that.

We have to stop rending our clothes and wringing our hands about, oh, we lost again at the Supreme Court. Oh, it's another case where there's not going to be a bipartisan, nonpartisan regulatory body anymore. Well, then F it. then take the gift, then take those rules and those new precedents. And when we inevitably get the presidency back in 2028 and starting at the midterms, then we fire every Republican on site in every regulatory body. I mean, that's just, that's the cards we've been dealt.

Stop throwing the cards back, take the cards, play the hand you've been dealt. And, I mean, would I like to have all nonpartisan regulatory bodies out there? regulating the Securities and Exchange Commission. Yes, but that has been destroyed by the Supreme Court. Now run with it. That's what we got to start doing as Democrats, which is stop wringing our hands and crying over it and say, you know what?

There's a gift here. We just have to do it. I know people are, no, we're above that. We got to go high when they go low. Forget high and low. Rubber meets the road, okay? It's in the middle. And we got to just, that's it.

What do you think about that? It's time to play hardball. It's time to play hardball. We know this as litigators, right? There is a progression, at least in my cases, as a trial lawyer, as a litigator, where at first, right, we get along. I don't need to be, you know, adverse and adversarial with you, even though, you know, we're on other sides.

But there does come a point in time when you got to play a hardball when I'm looking for something or I'm advocating on behalf of a client or a party like the Democrats. And if you're not going to, like, what is his hand-wringing? Oh, he won't meet with us. He won't, the fuck you need to meet with this guy then. Shut the damn government down next week. Like, these are the things that I don't understand. And I feel like it's-cover your ears, he's joined legal a-off.

Sorry, I'm sorry. But you know what, though? I will say this. I am comfortable in the authenticity of who I am. And I said this when I did an Instagram real the other day about the Comey indictment. You may not like my language, but you better appreciate my. message. Because that's what we have to do. We have to get the authenticity of our people, what they're doing for us in places like D.C. But when it comes to this, why are we always in

good faith trying to negotiate with the other side? When they're showing they don't know what bad faith, they don't know what good faith is. Their default is bad faith. So in my mind, okay, to your point, this is what we have to deal with. This is what we do as trial lawyers. This is what we do as litigators. We have to pivot on the spot based upon a bad rule. from a judge, judge is going to strike that. That doesn't come in. You think we're going to sit there and wring our hands? Be like, Judge, I got to take a moment.

No, you poker face it and you pivot. I'm not understanding why this is so hard to do for that. Well, you'll appreciate that when I was training my lawyers as trial lawyers and I was in-house counsel, I told them, look, this is very simple. This is our mantra. We are not going to be the first side to bring this case or this matter into the gutter. but if we get dragged into the gutter, by God, we're going to brass knuckle our way out. Do you understand?

Damn straight. Ethically. Yes, ethically. We're not going to Lindsay Halligan our way out of it. That was our messing. Not, you know, oh, you always have to. No, no. But I'm glad.

Listen, I really appreciate what you bring both to the Midas Such Network through your own channel, through your appearances here, through the work that you and I do together. And, you know, I appreciate you. a human being, one of my favorite human beings that as a person and all of that. Katie Fang has joined the legal A.F. for Saturday, at least sitting in for Ben Mycelis. We've reached the end of

another episode. So many ways, as you know, to support us podcast. Download us on Apple and Spotify. Leave reviews. Watch us. Go back and forth between the two. Support everything that you can find that Katie Fang is involved with. And our side,

Legal AF, the YouTube, Legal AF, the substack. These are all ways. People are saying, how can I make sure that you guys, you know, you're so important to me. What can I do to help? That's how you help. To be frank. And then we'll do our part, which we do 24-7 as far as we can see. But Katie, so great to have here. And I can't wait to do more work with you. So grateful to you and to all of you that are tuning in. Thank you for accepting me and thank you for the community. I appreciate it. Absolutely. Shout out to the Midas Mighty and Illegal A-Fers.

Thank you.