Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Legal Breakdown of HISTORIC Developments by TOP EXPERTS Meiselas & Popok

Episode Date: December 4, 2022

On this weekend’s Legal AF, top legal experts Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok discuss (1) The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals overruling Judge Aileen Cannon by finding she didn’t have jurisdiction in the Trump stolen document case, (2) Trump’s former top White House lawyers were compelled to testify before the DC Federal Criminal Jury again after Trump’s executive privilege claims were rejected by the court, (3) The Oath Keepers leaders were convicted of seditious conspiracy and all Oath Keepers were convicted of felony obstruction, and (4) The Supreme Court will hear the Biden administrations appeal of a lower courts ruling blocking the student debt cancellation program. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: AG1: https://athleticgreens.com/LegalAF AURA FRAMES: https://auraframes.com/LegalAF GET MEIDAS MERCH: https://store.meidastouch.com Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals over Rules, the corrupt Trump appointee Judge Eileen Cannon in the Department of Justice's expedited appeal following oral arguments which we discussed on a previous legal AM. The ruling Judge Eileen Cannon did not and should not have asserted equitable jurisdiction to do anything with the Department of Justice's valid execution of a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago where they found thousands of government records that Donald Trump had stolen. government records that Donald Trump had stolen. By, by Judge Cannon, you played yourself. And the former top White House lawyers, Pat Cipollone and Patrick Filben testified before a federal criminal grand jury in Washington, DC on Friday. Again, after a federal judge, Judge Barrel Howell ruled that Trump could not

block their testimony as he tried to do by asserting frivolously executive privilege. We have also learned that other top former Trump aides like Stephen Miller and Dan Scavino and William Russell and William Harrison also testified in the criminal grand jury in Washington DC. Michael Popak, it's getting hot in here, it's getting hot in here. The terrorist oath keepers don't make me dance. Their leaders, steward roads and Kelly Megs were found guilty of seditious conspiracy in federal court in Washington, D.C., a big win for the Department of Justice, as well as the fact that all five of the oath keepers who were on trial were found guilty of felony obstruction of justice. This spells big trouble for Donald

Trump. And the Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral argument on the Biden administration's expedited appeal of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals injunction blocking the student debt cancellation program. What we have is Republican Federalist Society lawyers and judges across the country doing everything they can to block the student debt cancellation program and the Biden administration doing everything they can to try to fight for student debt cancellation. This is a big week for justice. This was a

devastating week if your name is Donald Trump. And this is the birthday week if your name is Michael Popak. Happy birthday, Michael Popak. Thank you. Thank you to you, your brothers and all legal aifers and might as mighty out there for some very kind and unexpected birthday wishes. I do appreciate it. I love the rundown. I was thinking coming over here today for the podcast that reminds me I'm a Star Wars fan since I was a kid. It's like it's like democracy is the rebel is the Jedi rebel alliance. And we keep shooting missiles down that air shaft trying to blow up the Death Star and we're getting awful close We've had a lot you know the DOJ is on the march and we've had a lot of on target missile fire

That Death Star is gonna blow up any day now It would be funny if when I do that intro we it like the Star Wars and a galaxy far far away and the text kind of starts scrolling away. So I'll say, way it scrolls as I then do the reading. We should think about that. We'll see if it increases or decreases the audience, but I think at the end of the day, whether we do it or not, what the audience comes from is our objective analysis of what's going on.

And we've been talking about since Judge Eileen Cannon asserted equitable jurisdiction back on September 5th following the lawful execution of the valid search warrant where probable cause was found by a Magistrate Judge, Judge Ryanart, the search warrant was executed on August 8th, Trump then filed that motion for judicial oversight sometime in like August 22nd or 23rd. You and I Pope are like, this is like the most frivolous motion in the world. No judge is going to grant it. We were shocked and I and talk about talk about how far we've come. I actually, if people go back and watch the tape and listen to the audio, I actually defended

not knowing Judge Cannon, but having worked in the Southern District of Florida for over 20 years and having a lot of respect for the judges there. I didn't know I think, can't she had just gotten on the bench. I was like, you know what? This is not gonna prevail in the Southern District of Florida. It's either they're not gonna have this. And then we found Judge Cannon who went over backwards and twisted herself up into a pretzel

to find equitable jurisdiction to interfere with the Department of Justice's criminal investigation where there was none. And there was no precedent anywhere ever to do what Judge Eileen Cannon did. So I'd like to. She made up one. She made up one. She created a new one.

It will talk about on the 11th Circuit. She made up the former president gets the benefit of the doubt, equitable jurisdiction expansion. Doesn't exist. Because there's whole concept of equitable jurisdiction. The very idea is that the government in investigating whoever engaged in such a travesty of justice. They've gone so rogue, the way the law defines that, the terminology is a callous disregard for the rights of the person being investigated. So it's even more than just being unlawful.

Like unlawfuls at level eight, callous disregard is at level 10. It's like, can I give an example. Can I give an example to check it? I can see like yeah, we're breaking the law and we don't give a shit. All right I'm gonna give it and we're staying in the movie theme today. I don't know why they for me Do you ever see black Hawk down or or? A zero dark 30 about the search for Osama bin Laden? Yep, I said both. Okay, all right. So picture the scene when the Black Hawk helicopters land in that compound

in Fulugia, wherever it was, and they take out Osama bin Laden basically in his family, going level to level. If that was what the execution of a search warrant in the United States of America was against Trump or anybody else, you and I would love to say good news everybody. There's equitable jurisdiction because look at how that search war was executed. It was like Osama bin Laden was taken out in the middle of the night. But in every other 99.99% scenario, the target of a criminal investigation does not have the right to run into federal court and have a district judge interfere with another branch, which is the executive branches exercise of their investigative and prosecutorial power. and yelled it loud and clear once and for all for any trial judge out there that has the thought that they're going to pull a cannon in the future. Still pondering that zero dark 60 analogy there. We may want to refine that but I'm pondering it. I like the connections though,

but here there was an execution of a search warrant, right? That was done with probable cause. So inherently, it wasn't unlawful, and then inherently it didn't even go to the higher bar of a callous disregard of the rights of the person being investigated, in this case, Donald Trump, but it could be anyone, but in this case, it was Donald Trump it could be anyone, but in this case,

it was Donald Trump. And that's really what the 11th Circuit at Oral Argument was asking Trump's lawyer. Like, is there any other precedent where you've seen this take place? And Trump's lawyer, Jim trustee, was like, no, however, you know, and then he just kind of gave a bunch of word salad.

But we finally got the order this week and pop up why don't you bring us through what the order of the eleven circuit set. I mean you and I could have written it you and I both did a version of hot takes trending takes on what we thought would happen after the oral argument during the oral argument and and we we anticipated really everything that the unsigned order, but obviously I think driven by Chief Judge prior on that panel, recall that we have three judge panel. It was two Trump appointees that had previously had ruled against Donald Trump on almost the exact

same issues and found no equitable jurisdiction for Judge Cannon to have established a special master for the 100 classified documents. That's Judge Brasher and Judge Grant. So when they showed up at oral argument or you find out about the five or six days before oral argument who your panel is, when Jim trusty opened the envelope, the electronic envelope, and saw Brasher and Grant sitting on the panel. He knew this was he's a lot of headwinds were coming his way to put it mildly. And everything that was addressed in the oral argument, which is usually an opportunity not to rehash every, every argument, legal argument you've raised in your briefs, but to answer questions

and head scratchers that the judges have, and for them to signal to each other and to the advocates what they're troubled by. And everything that Judge Primarily had said, which is, we're worried about the precedent of a future Judge canon as well, and them taking guidance from this now published ruling about the exercise of equitable jurisdiction. And when you see the recitation in the order, so the order, of course, as everybody would know by now, is they finally landed on what they were gonna do

to judge Ken and's order. It was pretty clear minutes into the oral argument that they were either going to vacate the order, meaning take it off the books as if it never happened because there was a lack of jurisdiction by the court in the first instance, or they were going to reverse her decision with instructions, and they landed on vacate, which is exactly what Judge prior in the opening minutes of the oral argument asked the judge, the advocate for the DOJ, what do you want?

You want vacate or you want reversal? Isn't it vacate? Because there's no jurisdiction. That was the back and forth between the advocate and the bench at that moment. And they settled on vacate with instructions to judge canon to throw out the case, to dismiss the case immediately and don't go any further, which is now the law of the case and new precedent in the 11th circuit and beyond subject to any appeal by Donald Trump in the future. But when you get into the minutia of the 21 page decision, you couldn't, it couldn't be, there's no other kind way to put this.

If you're working for Judge Cannon or you're reading it as Judge Cannon, this was a tremendous unsparingly, unsparing criticism and slapback at a trial judge that she did everything wrong and the 11th Circuit Panel pointed it out to her. It starts and ends with equitable jurisdiction. Just as it did in the earlier appellate case against Donald Trump on the 100 classified documents, the court reminded Judge Cannon and the rest of the trial bench that there's a jurisdiction of limited, limited invocation. It is only to be used during the pendency of a criminal investigation or prosecution sparingly, extraordinarily in the only the most limited of circumstances,

because the court sits as a court of limited jurisdiction and federal court. If they don't have jurisdiction, and that's the first searching inquiry that any trial court is supposed to make at the beginning, Canon wallpapered over it and said, okay, I got jurisdiction because he's a former president. Let's move on. Let's set up a special master. But in their brief, they pointed out a number of places where she conceded,

whether she realized that or not, Judge Cannon, that she had made a mistake. The first is she conceded that there was no callous disregard for the rights of Donald Trump, which at which under the Richie analysis, named after a case in the 11th Circuit and other places is the end of the inquiry. If there is no callous disregard, although there's some other factors that you're supposed to weigh as a trial judge, you're done. And she admitted in her writings that there was no callous disregard. Of course, there's no callous disregard, but he's the former president, and I'm going

to bend over backwards to establish a special master wrong, they said. They only went through the other three factors like they did in the earlier decision for for they said for completeness, you know, just to show her you were wrong and all the factors but it will walk you through all of that. And they went on to say, for instance, that the timeline, just the recitation of the timeline of the patience and good faith of the Department of Justice that the 11th Circuit put in its ruling Had a power to it even though there wasn't a lot of Language around it commentary around it by the appellate bench just the fact that they said the following very succinctly

this whole Issue around Donald Trump started a year and a half after he left the presidency six months after he first transferred documents three months after the subpoena was secured. All of that demonstrates good faith on the part of the Department of Justice that they didn't just with with high jack boots on a la zero dark 30 kick down doors middle of the night conductor raid tie and bind up people that they found on the site rightful through everything that's not what this was at all this was a properly executed search warrant that was issued through a special through a magistrate process with supporting affidavits and they even went as far

back to the tell judge cannon not only you wrong, you're even wrong with precedent that dates from 1943. They cited the case of Douglas versus the city of Generette in which they said, since 1943, courts do not get involved with criminal prosecutions, period only in the most extraordinary of circumstances. And the fact they went on to say in the opinion, Ben, that just because he's the former president does not provide a basis to expand equitable jurisdiction at all. It doesn't give the court license to interfere with an ongoing investigation period forever more because they want to not only address and slap, if you will, and throw

the book at Judge Cannon, they want to warn all the other future Judge Cannons, whether it's Mark Pittman in Texas or any of the other Trumper judges, the ones that aren't really just ideologically Republican and conservative. We're okay with that. It's the ones that are Trumppers that are political and judicial activists in their approach like Judge Cannon. This is a warning shot across the bow back the F up because this was completely improper and you should know it. And now we got a way to see what happens when he takes the inevitable appeal to the Supreme Court, which will pass

through first Chief Justice Roberts as the judge over, actually know it's 11 circuits, so it's going to go to Clarence Thomas again. And the same result will happen undoubtedly is what happened before when Donald Trump filed the emergency application to the United States Supreme Court to vacate with the 11 circuit previously did a few months back when it returned the 100 classified records when the Department of Justice made that very surgical motion relating just to the top secret records to return those. Donald Trump made that emergency motion, went to Clarence Thomas, he referred it to the court, and then the full Supreme Court rejected

Donald Trump in a unanimous decision. Popook, you mentioned a 1934 case that cited in the 11th Circuit's opinion. I'll one up you and talk about the 1794 case that was cited at the very end of the 11th Circuit's opinion here, where they say to create any special exception here for Donald Trump would defy our nations, foundational principle that our law applies, quote, to all without regard to numbers, wealth or rank, citing state of Georgia versus Brailsford, 1794. How about that? I love this. I love this panel. This, this, and I think

they're doing it because Judge prior, chief judge prior, who I said in one of my hot takes, don't confuse his gentile manner that he's not an exacting, hard-hitting jurist on issues. Everything that he was very concerned about in the oral argument, separation of powers, a court not interfering with the executive branch exercising what their obligations are, in our adversarial justice system of investigation and prosecution, not interfering with that. The separation of powers, the future precedent for other judge canons, the equitable jurisdiction being so limited, the lack of Calistist regard as a finding by judge can all of those things animate the ruling.

That's why I think Judge Prior wrote it even though they all joined it. It's on side. It's as you have referred to in the past, a percurium decision of the 11th Circuit. And I think this is, I'll leave a my commentary on this note. It is a tremendous case study for our legal A-Effers out there of watching, because many of them listen to our commentary, but you posted the 11th Circuit oral argument, the audio, and listen to it. And then watch in real time that end up in a week later in a 21-page decision. I mean, that usually you got to wait a long time and you kind of forget the oral argument. This was like in real time.

And it is a model of the way our justice system is supposed to work. And as you've said, and I've said in the past, the, um, we are not the justice system is not the enemy of the people. It is the exact opposite. This is the 1984 or a well-invote capillary that Trump and the other Republicans and Maga Republicans have adopted. Enemy of the people, the judges, enemy of the people, the media, it's the exact opposite. It is the last firewall of democracy without which you and I would be doing an entirely different show potentially behind bars. No, not potentially, dude.

We would be definitely doing it behind bars if that would be the best case scenario for us. You'd be my cellmate, though. I'd want you as my salmato. I can deal. Okay, so what happens next is the special master process would come to an end as well because the special master's authority,

Judge Raymond Deere emanates from the unlawful assertion of jurisdiction, so that's going to be shut down. So no more special master, but Judge Raymond Deere did a very admirable job. By law, it takes seven days for a mandate to issue from a circuit court of appeals ruling. And so what that just basically means, it becomes effective in seven days and why seven days to give the individual who lost an opportunity to request a re-hearing or to file an emergency application with the United States Supreme Court.

Trump has done neither yet. I assume he's going to do that. The Department of Justice had filed, you know, through Jack Smith, a request with Judge Cannon to extend all of the deadlines because she lost and she's not going to have jurisdiction. And there are some other case deadlines like a frivolous motion that Trump filed for her to unseal the remaining portions of the affidavit in connection with the search warrant that remains redacted.

A lot of it has been unredacted, but the sources and methods remain redacted. And the other parts were unredacted by the magistrate judge who said, some of this is in the public interest, but I'm not revealing any sources of methods. And the Department of Justice like, let's push all those motions and anything else pending before you, Judge Eileen Cannon, until like, let's let the mandate issue, because you're gone. Donald Trump's response was to object to that and say no

Gileen can and we want you to rule even though the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rule that you don't have jurisdiction And even though we're just waiting for the seven days, we still want you to make a rule I mean, that's so that's frivolous by itself look if this judge even during the seven-day period that you just identified Where she's supposed to sort of stand still if if she didn't stand still, and she said, yeah, I know I just had my equitable jurisdiction ripped away from me by the 11th Circuit, but I'm going to go forward in all the proceedings. She would, you think this was a slapping by the 11th Circuit? And I've seen judges not at the 11th Circuit, but in other places.

I've seen trial judges who get their dander up and they start fighting with the, with the appellate court that supervises them and they start doing other crazy things Believe me. They are ways for the appellate court to enforce their orders and if they see a judge who's gone off the rails here and And takes the invitation of Donald Trump to try to act in this next one week period and and find a way to to her. And then on your other point, I want to hear your thought on this, he could ask for what's called an on-bunk decision of all 11 members of the 11th Circuit.

But he's already got, there were three here that ruled against him. And on the prior one, he had another one that did an overlap. So he's got four out of 11 that he knows is totally against him. You don't think he seeks on-bunk review, do you? I think he's going to do all the idiot things that he normally does. So I think he'll seek on-bunk review. I think he'll file in it. He's going to do everything he's going to lose.

Um, but these tactics are only digging the whole deeper. And justice moves slower than we'd like, but it's definitely moving in the right direction. I mean, he's tried to assert executive privilege in the criminal grand juries, just switching gears now to the criminal grand juries assembled in Washington, DC, where the Department of Justice has been calling in his former top aides to question him because they're engaged in a criminal investigation into his crimes related to the January 6th insurrection and election interference.

And these grand juries have been a panel now for over a year. And you know, Donald Trump's been asserting executive privilege to try to block these witnesses. We previously talked about here on the Midas Touch Network that the presiding judge who oversees all of the criminal grand juries in Washington, D.C., Judge Barrel Howell had ruled against Trump's assertion of executive privilege as it relates to former Vice President

Pences, former top staffers, Mark Short, his former chief of staff, and Greg Jacobs, his former general counsel, and they testified first in the summer. They asserted executive privilege on the questions about your direct communications with Donald Trump and what you heard Trump say. They wanted to testify on those things. Same thing with Cipollone and Filman, but unfortunately the privilege holder when they make a privilege a lawyer or people being advised by lawyers will feel constrained or in testifying while a privilege holder, even if it's a frivolous privilege claim, is asserting the privilege.

And so what you have to do, even though they didn't want to do, it is basically say to the Department of Justice. So it marks short, likely said, and this is what Greg Jacobs said and likely what Pat Zipolonian Filaments had looked. I'll tell you about all my communications with Donald Trump. We want to be cooperative because we've laid him out in front of the January 6th committee.

But even the January 6th committee wasn't able to get the direct communications with Trump because of the executive privilege claim. They're just like, look, go get an order that says that we can testify and we'll be right here to do it. You know how they, you know how I know they really wanted to do it? Because like literally one day after like the order, they're like right in court testifying on it.

So Mark Short and Greg Jacobs previously testified over the summer, then again in October. And now Trump's former top White House lawyers, Pat Cipollone, who was literally the White House counsel, and Patrick Filman, who is Cipollone's top deputy, they first testified in September. They had to assert the privilege they didn't want to, but they said Trump's asserting the privilege, so we're letting you know about the privilege. And then the Department of Justice filed a motion to compel and then

Judge Barrow Howell, the judge overseeing the criminal grand juries, um, compelled their testimony and said there is a compelling need, a compelling need overrides and executive privilege claim, even if one existed, there's probably isn't even an executive privilege claim of a former president. But even if you assume there was, it's not an absolute privilege, it's limited. If there's a compelling need here, there's clearly a compelling need because they're investigating the January 6th, in correction and attempt to make coup

to overthrow our democracy and simple onion film and testify on Friday. This adds to Stephen Miller testified earlier in the week, and other Trump top staffers, former staffers, Skaveno, Russell, Harrison, all testified as well. So things are moving very quick with Jack Smith here, Popoff, what's your take? Yeah, continuing our podcast long use of the wheels analogy,

you said earlier that the wheels are moving slowly, but they're moving in the right direction. If said earlier that the wheels are moving slowly, but they're moving in the right direction. If you're trapped under the wheel, it's not moving fast enough. Right now, Trump has been dragged rightly so under the wheel of justice. And Jack Smith is sitting in the wheelhouse grinding away, even though he's still sitting apparently at the hay because of that broken leg. Trust me, there's no, to continue to mix metaphors, there's no grass growing under Jack Smith's feet.

And Pat Sippel, you're exactly right about Pat Sippel, and Phil Ben. They've been waiting. They invited the Department of Justice to strip away the executive privilege, defense and barrier that they've been putting up. And this is one example, and I talked about it on one of my hot takes about that there is a turf board going on. Unfortunately, and it's unfortunate to democracy and justice between the Department of Justice and the Jan 6th Committee.

The Jan 6th Committee just is not turning over a thousand plus witness statements and evidence fast enough to the Department of Justice as the Jan 6th Committee, unfortunately, is going through a going out of business sale. They should be turning these things over faster, and it's requiring the Department of Justice to recreate bodies of evidence and investigative leads and witness statements when they really shouldn't have to. And so they're taking a lot of flak.

It's been four to half months, and five months of continued haggling between DOJ and J 6th Committee, chairman to get the material. Here's one example where the Department of Justice has a leg up on what the Jan 6th can do. Jan 6th Committee can't compel a witness to drop a privilege that's rightly asserted. They can go seek contempt if they're not going to testify.

We also all that with that in, with meadows and that kind of thing. But they can't say, oh, we don't like the fact that you've asserted the gen, you've asserted the attorney client privilege or the executive privilege. And there's no process. There's no judge barrel how court secret court set up for the, um, exact, for the judiciary, uh, for the judicial, uh, uh, assertion in the legislative branch. So as we've said over and over again, DOJ trots themselves into judge barrel Howell's secret because she's supervising all of the confidential secretive grand jury process. And one by one methodically strips away executive privilege and attorney client privilege from lawyers and West Wing people for Donald Trump one at a time.

Some, as you said, been rightly so. It's not that hard to strip away because the other side isn't really fighting it if that's the way the decision is. But, you know, in their negotiations and all of this, all of this final testimony, it starts as a contact between the Department of Justice and the witness, in this case, let's use Pat Cipalone. Cipalone, and there's a negotiation. Where are the limits of what you're gonna tell us as a witness?

And Pat Cipalone was very candid. These are the areas of inquiry. I don't feel like an answer without asserting executive privilege. So, Department of Justice, with that in hand, goes to Barrel Howell, the judge, chief judge in DC circuit and says, this is the reason executive privilege should fail, or attorney client privilege. I find it very interesting, we're beyond attorney client privilege, which usually is the

most sacri-sync. It's very difficult to rip away attorney-client privilege. That's apparently gone, either under the crime fraud exception to stripping it away or otherwise. And now we're just down to lawyers asserting not their normal privilege of attorney-client but the executive privilege because they're in the executive branch with the president.

And now that's been stripped away. And as you said, it immediately led to six hours of testimony by Pat Sipalone and four and a half hours by Philbin moments after Barrel Howell ruled. What we don't know, we can only speculate, as to is what grand jury they were testifying it. Because we assume from reporting, from watching the door open and close and the front

door of the courthouse open and close that they are testified before one grand jury, but we don't know sitting here now whether it's the Mar-a-Lago documents grand jury because Cipala was involved with that as was Philbin or it's the fake electors grand jury or it's the Jan 6th failure to transfer power grand jury. One of those three. We don't know. January 6th, the January 6th, I mean, it's not the blackemic grand jury. I mean, it can't be any of the others.

It's the election interference January 6th. Why is it in Mar-a-Laga? Well because that, I mean, previously all of the reporting was that it didn't have to deal with the stolen records because that was after the After he was in office, so the executive privilege part Related all of the fight was over the testimony of what Donald Trump was actually saying I'm January 60. Well, we'll have to see you about that. I'm not sure it's that clear with good news is it's one of the grand cherries You may be right or they might be

listen, Jack Smith is also in charge of Mar-a-Lago. It could be ripping away any of the executive privilege document issue once and for all, but you're right. If it's six hours and 10 hours and 12 for the two of them, it probably isn't over the documents. I'll give you that. That is very good. So, look, we're going to have to see. Jack Smith, I want everybody to rest the short. I know there's been some trolling that's mainly being perpetrated by the Republicans that want to get Democrats and Progressives upset that Jack Smith is still in the Netherlands as of this reporting with his with his mending broken leg. Don't worry about any of that.

Who cares? We live in a work from home, Zoom, secure environment. Jack Smith, yes, he probably liked to be in the same room with his prosecutors, but the line prosecutors are doing their job and they're reporting up to Jack Smith. Whether he's sitting in the Netherlands on a time change, zone change, difference, who cares?

He's getting the documents, everything's electronically filed. There's not a thing that's important that at his level that he wouldn't have to sign off on that He's that he's not involved with that we don't care about the hours of the day So everybody relaxed doesn't matter. There hasn't been the need for a court appearance He wouldn't have argued the 11th Circuit appeal. That's for others to do He would he will make an appearance in court when it matters You know, it's almost like diplomacy you don't drop the president out for the lower level negotiations of diplomacy

between between ministers and secretaries of state. You wait to bring him in at the end when there's something really, really valuable so that his credibility and his reservoir of goodwill is not wasted. Same thing for Jack Smith. You don't bring him out to like every hearing. You bring him out for the things that matter. A trial of Donald Trump, the announcement that Trump is going to be prosecuted, I assure you, he will be standing at the podium when that happens. I agree with you and look, Donald Trump is terrified right now. I mean, because it's not just Sepilone and Philbin. It also is Stephen Miller, who was his speech writer. And remember, Stephen Miller

had removed references on the speech at the ellipse on January 6th. That talked about that going to the capital and going after pens and all of those things and Trump added all of that stuff back in. So Stephen Miller, I think Kelly Ann, Kelly Ann's worst for him. Potentially. Kelly Ann testified though before the January 6th committee. I don't believe she testified before the federal grand jury. I'm sure she will testify before the federal grand jury. But she spoke before the January 6th committee.

Scavino spoke before the federal grand jury.avino spoke before the federal grand jury. William Russell spoke before the federal grand jury. William Harrison spoke with the, William Russell and Will Harrison are the people who are around Trump who would like always like hold his files and hold his boxes and things like that. And so Jack Smith though is moving as aggressively as you possibly can right now.

Here is a statement that Trump put out this morning, uh, calling for the termination of the United States Constitution. I'm not making this up. I mean, he's the most treasonous maniac in the world. So with the revelations of massive widespread fraud and deception and working closely with big tech companies, the DNC and the Democrat Party, do you throw the presidential election results of 2020 out and declare the rightful winner,

or do you have a new election? A massive fraud of this type and magnitude, allow for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great founders did not want and would not condone false and fraudulent elections. I mean he's really a deranged maniac trader treasonous. I could keep using all of those words. And he does need to look. I want him to not

just be indicted now. I want him to be indicted yesterday. But as we've talked about here on the Midas Touch Network, you only get one shot at it and you better do it right, you better dot your eyes and cross your teeth. And the very fact though, that the Department of Justice has been seeking these witnesses to testify now for about a over a year. Like it's not like they just like, all right, Jack Smith, now you go do something for me, Jack Smith,

it reminds me of the Drake song, right, like 21, do something for me, Jack Smith, will you do something for me? No. The Department of Justice has been hard at work. Unfortunately, you know, our system just moves slower than we like in situations where you're potentially prosecuting a former president. A grand jury only meets on certain days of the month. You have to then schedule a witness, the witness asserts an objection. You file a motion to compel. It goes before a judge who has a hearing who gives the other time time to respond. They hear the thing, they rule again, strump, and you have to do that each time.

The Department of Justice has been steadfast, they've been hard at work, and now the walls are definitely closing in more, and that's why we're seeing statements like that from Trump a lot more to talk about here, on legal AF, we got to talk about the terrorist, oath keepers, being found guilty of seditious conspiracy, their leaders, Ali, Stuart Rhodes, and Kelly Megs,

and we got to talk about what's going on in the student loan litigation where all the federalist society, right wingers are trying to block the student debt cancellation program. And they've been successful in blocking Biden student debt cancellation program. But before going there, I want to talk to you about athletic greens. Today's program is brought to you by athletic greens, the health and wellness company that makes comprehensive daily nutrition really, really simple. With so many stressors in life, it's difficult to maintain effective nutritional habits and give our bodies the nutrients it needs to thrive, busy schedules, poor sleep, exercise, the environment, work stress, or simply not eating enough of the right foods can leave us deficient in key nutritional areas.

AG1 by Athletic Greens, the category leading superfood product, brings comprehensive and convenient daily nutrition to everybody, keeping up with the research, knowing what to do, and taking a bunch of pills and capsules. It's hard on the stomach and hard to keep up with. So to help each of us be our best athletic green simplifies the path to better nutrition by giving you the one thing with all the best things. Before taking athletic greens, I would take a bunch of gummies and pills and it was not doing the trick at all. Then I found this athletic greens product in AG1. I really, really like it. It tastes good.

It's easy. You scoop the powder. You put it in a cup. You put water in. You shake it up. That's all you need. And one tasty scoop of AG1 contains 75 vitamins, minerals, and whole food sourced ingredients, including multivitamin, multimineral,

probiotic, green, superfood blend, and more, and one convenient daily serving. It's a special blend of high quality, bioavailable ingredients in a scoop of AG1 that works together to fill all of those nutritional gaps in your diet. It will support your energy and support your focus and aid with gut health and digestion and support a healthy immune system effectively replacing multiple products or pills with one healthy and delicious drink. It's lifestyle friendly, whether you eat keto, paleo, vegan, dairy-free or gluten-free. It contains less than one gram of sugar, no GMOs, no nasty chemicals, and it is cheaper than your cold brew habit.

So join the movement of legal aeifers today and get your athletic greens right now and to make it easy, athletic greens is going to give you an immune supporting free one year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. If you visit athleticgreens.com slash legal a f today, again, simply visit athleticgreens.com slash legal a f and take control of your health and give a G one a try and pop up. You know, I love my athletic greens. In addition to loving my athletic greens, I love aura frames. I have two of them. I believe you've got three of them because I don't know about you, but I take millions of photos and before aura frames, I let them sit in my phone. They'd get lost in my files.

I loved growing up where I could actually look at my photos. So what if you could put all of your photos from random cabaret old pics to that high res wedding album onto one gorgeous frame? Or if you're me too, if you're Popoq 3, you can with Aura Frames. Name the best digital picture frame by Wirecutter, the strategist, and more. Aura is nothing like the digital frames from a decade ago. Every aura frame is

thoughtfully designed to fit any decor style with a stunning HD display, unlimited storage, super easy setup, and no fees. What you do is you simply connect your aura frame to Wi-Fi and use the free, let me say that again, free or app to add endless picks and videos from anywhere in the world. Invite friends and family on the app and have them comment, heart and send new photos to your frame. It's like a real life social network

that brings you and your loved ones joy every single day and brings it on your or frame into your house. And or frames makes it easy. And it is a meaningful holiday gift, especially for the hard to shop for folks in your life. Just preload your favorite photos, even a personalized video message. And no need to wrap because every box is ready to gift. And it feels it is just incredibly personal. I know I'm buying a lot of or frames as gift for my friends and colleagues right now listeners of legal a f can take advantage of

auras cyber monday sale still take advantage of it and get up to fifty50 off their best selling Carver Matt frames. Just go to raframes.com slash legal AF. You spell that a you are a fram.js.com slash legal AF, ledG al AF. These are auras lowest prices ever. So get yours now before they sell out. And if you miss this sale, don't worry, there will still be great deals through the end of the year, terms and conditions apply. Popo, take us through this seditious conspiracy trial. Yeah. Love the results and it's going to have a major impact on the two remaining trials that will be happening over the next three weeks because to remind everybody the Oathkeeper's trial had so many people involved in these federal charges and conspiracy that Judge Meda had to split it

because the courtroom just couldn't hold all of them. And split the Oathkeepers into two groups. Proud Boys, another seditious conspiracy group with different set of facts will be tried over the next three weeks as well. And why does it matter? Because the Department of Justice swung for the fences in prosecuting Stuart Rhodes, Kelly Megs, to the head of the Florida chapter of the Oathkeepers, and really decided to go and,

as I said, swing for the fences and go for a high risk, high reward set of charges in seditious conspiracy, which is very rarely used. I think it's only been used one or two times in the past by the federal government at all. It has the highest penalty of 20 years plus. And it captures in its web, in its grip. Many, many people can be part of a conspiracy to stop the free exercise of the electoral process and the transfer of power.

And there's been reporting that Merrick Arland initially was against it, he was against bringing this addition's conspiracy almost like why bother? Just dial it back a notch, go with some lesser, but very important felonies. And let's just do that. Why are we going for citizenship conspiracy? But after the presentations were made by the line prosecutors about the evidence that they had against Stuart Rhodes and Kelly Megz and the others, Merrick Garland again, an example of changing tactics. You can't teach an old attorney general, new tricks. He said, yeah, you have my permission. Go for it.

Go for a sedition conspiracy. And let's see how it plays out in Judge Mators courtroom. And it played out well. It's a little bit of a mixed bag. It is the first time since the Department of Justice that started prosecuting that they actually got, they lost a couple of counts against some defendants. All of the defendants that were in the courtroom with Stuart Rhodes got convicted of something. They all got convicted of a felony that I'll put them away for between 10 and 20 years,

depending upon the sentencing guidelines and the future sentencing process. But there were three of the defendants under Rhodes and Megs that were not leaders, if you will. At least the jury didn't believe that they were, that did not get convicted and got actually acquitted of seditious conspiracy. So it shows you the high risk, high reward. The government was able to pin the the the Kelly Meg on Kelly Megs and on Stewart Rhodes as leaders that they were guilty of stichess conspiracy. But at the lower level, they were not able to, they were not able to pin stichess conspiracy on the lower level people.

So there were acquittals, a little bit of a mixed bag when Merrick Garland did his press conference, when Merrick Garland did his press conference. When Merrick Garland did his press conference on this, he sort of glossed it over and said, everybody got convicted of a felony of some sort, all true. All true. The other advantage to this in terms of the wind at the back of the Department of Justice for future future prosecutions is that they were able to prove seditious conspiracy against two people that never stormed the Capitol. They did lots of other things, obviously, to promote the conspiracy, to lead the conspiracy, but didn't actually like lead the charge and pick up a flagpole and start bashing Capitol

police on the head, at least not Meg's and Stuart Rhodes. What they advantaged to this is, is they've now been able, the Department of Justice knows how to change their tactics in the next round of prosecutions against the remaining oath keepers, because that evidence is basically identical. They'll make some alterations. They've learned something. It's like an artificial intelligence, but it's real intelligence. They've learned something the prosecutors have in the courtroom. You always do, whether you do a moot court

or a mock trial or a real trial for the next one, about, oh, I made an error in my opening. I should have been harder in my cross. The jury didn't seem to buy this piece of evidence or this witness, and they will recalibrate. And when they try the case over again, they will try to get a no acquittals and all cherry, cherry, cherry all convictions against the remaining oath keepers, even though they're a little bit lower level. But on the other side of this, because we're fair and balanced here in our reporting, the defense has definitely has now picked up some tactics and techniques that they'll try to use in the second trial,

with like, oh, this is how you get acquitted? Okay, because it seems to be that if they're not a leader, they're not a leader, then you might have a possibility of getting out this vicious conspiracy charge. For those around Trump, this was a terrible result, great for justice, because there are so many people around continuing our wheel metaphor and analogy. There are so many people around the hub, the spokes around the hub of the

conspiracy, which is now at center, Stuart Rose and Kelly Megs. You've got Roger Stone. You've got Giuliani. You've got Powell. You've got Michael Flynn, you've got maybe a dotted line to Donald Trump. And I say dotted line because there wasn't evidence per se of a connection where Trump blew the whistle or gave the go command for Stuart Rhodes, although Stuart Rhodes testified he was looking for it. And there was this conference call that came out in evidence that may have been with a person once removed from Donald Trump in the Trump campaign, but there wasn't that fingerprints that we want, at least not

presented in this trial, that would tie Trump directly to this particular conspiracy count. But kudos to the Department of Justice for going for the gusto and getting the highest charge pinned on two people. But I want to manage expectations. It will have an impact one way or the other on the trial in two weeks and for the other four oath keepers.

And then the proud boys is like a whole different thing because the proud boys, you know, were armed and dangerous, were bodyguards, were on site. So their case will be completely different in terms of the presentation. It looks like the jury. I'll leave it on my commentary on site. So their case will be completely different in terms of the presentation. It looks like the jury, I'll leave it on my commentary on this, it looks like the jury was most concerned about, and this led to directly to the conspiracy conviction of a cash of weapons that Stewart Rhodes developed and had his right hand person store in Virginia just across the border ready to bring in to make all of these people to accept that they weren't already armed and dangerous to arm this insurrection at the time.

The other great thing about the trial is it completely debunks the theory and you see it on Fox News and another MAGA right wing podcast and things that this was some sort of spontaneous hooliganism that tipped over and got out of hand. It was just good patriots. I heard you know I heard Marjorie Taylor Green say on one of her podcasts I think with Banan that Melania and Donald Trump are really upset about all the Janssicks insurrectionists sitting in prison. If they're really upset, then they should, they're haven't watched any of the video of

the siege on the Capitol and that Michael Phenone's testimony in particular. But here, this totally dispels that this was just a random event that got out of hand, some patriots that got out of control. This was a seditious conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power that was armed and dangerous, led at this juncture by Kelly Megs and Stuart Rhodes. We'll see what happens in the next two trials that you and I will have to follow closely. Within a day or two after this verdict, Donald Trump spoke at an event that was held by the family members of January 6th insurrectionist defendants, many who have been convicted, for example, Albuquerque

Head, who dragged Officer Fennone, the Capitol Police Officer, the Metropolitan Police Officer rather, out into the field with a bunch of other insurrectionists who tased him and beat him and caused him to have a heart attack. Albuquerque's family was there, a number of other insurrectionist families were there. And Trump was like the keynote speaker and called them political prisoners and said that what the government's done to you

is so horrible and showed solidarity with them. So Trump did that with an end, by the way, one of the oath keepers who was convicted at this trial, his family was at that event. So it's not a coincidence. This is part of the further plan that is existing, the seditious conspiracy that exists right now by Donald Trump to overthrow our government. And it's evidence that the quote I gave earlier, literally saying that we need to terminate our constitution in Popak when you say Trump being linked to this specific seditious conspiracy. It doesn't mean he wouldn't be linked to the overall seditious conspiracy of what took place on

January 6th and all the efforts leading to the insurrection. The issue that arose in the Oathkeeper trial was in the quick reactionary forces what they were calling it, where the Oathkeepers had all of these weapons. They were looking for Trump to invoke the insurrection act as they were told he was going to do so they could start opening fire on the Capitol building and they never got that go order specifically.

But then they nonetheless had other oath keepers, not the ones who were on trial, still storm the capital with the other insurrectionists as well. One of the other things to point out also is you mentioned some of the strategy of the defendants, like the defendants were not all unified in their defense here and say, we're all, we all did this. They were pointing fingers at each other too. And so they pointed the fingers at the leaders who were the most culpable. And then the defense of the others was that this was the defense actually a lot of them tried to make, but it

was more believable from the others. Look, those were the leaders. We're just a bunch of morons. We're idiots. That's what the lawyers were arguing. These are a bunch of idiots who say a bunch of dumb shit and they go on their websites and they've been completely brainwashed. Don't hold them accountable for what steward roads and Kelly megs and the leadership did. They may be guilty of this, But they're not guilty of that and so as we approach these other

Potential prosecutions or these other prosecutions that are that are taking place my my belief is that the I think the department of justice We'll try to enter into plea agreements with the remaining four or five because they likely see well We're gonna lose on the obstruction charge. We're going to get to 20 years. So maybe we try to take seven or 10 years. And I think the Department of Justice is going to try to cut deals with them. We'll see if they'll take those deals. And then I think also with the Proud Boys trial, the terrorist group, the Proud Boys with

Enrique and Tario, kind of in the shoes there of a steward roads. I think the other crowdboys, the Department of Justice is going to try to get plea agreements. They've already got one plea agreement with one of those crowdboys, and then I think they'll focus mainly on Tario and the leadership. But if you're in Rika, Tario right now, who by the way was hanging out at the White House before the insurrection, he was literally taking selfies right before Christmas of 2020. You're thinking, I may be going to jail for the rest

of my life there, but very good recap, Popeyes on the Oathkeeper Seditious Conspiracy trial there. And now let's just turn to something we've been very focused on here because it's going to impact 40 million Americans. It's a lot of Americans, and we need to be focused on what the issues are. I'm talking about student debt cancellation, and we got to understand that there are two sides to the issue, and there's not both sides to the issue, but there's two sides to the issue.

One side are Maga Republican Federalist Society members who want to block student debt cancellation. They are okay with taking PPP loans. They're okay with big bank bailouts. They're okay with billionaires getting as much tax cuts as possible. They're okay with billionaires getting as much subsidies as possible.

They're okay with anything that helps billionaires and really, really wealthy people and them. But when it comes to something like very surgical student debt cancellation, impacting primarily people who are less than 75,000 technically, it's for people who are less than $125,000 or as a household $250,000. And we're talking about $10,000 of government loans or 20,000 if it's a Pell grant loan, but we've got a flood of lawsuits across the country.

We've got a flood of lawsuits across the country from all these federalist society people going in front of federalist society judges to try to block the student debt cancellation program. They've lost mostly everywhere, but they found two receptive audiences, one in the Northern District of Texas before Judge Mark Pittman, a Trump appointee there, and they found another receptive audience before the eighth circuit court of appeals, which oversees the Eastern District of Missouri where a George W. Bush judge ruled against the Federalist Society attempt to block student debt cancellation there and found there was no standing there. But you got in

Texas, Judge Pittman made the ruling at a nationwide level to rule that the student debt cancellation program was unconstitutional. And they ruled that it was unconstitutional because of the fact that the executive branch was engaged in this, what they argued, and overreach of the constitutional authority that they were entitled to under the 2003 Heroes Act, which was the enabling statute used by the Department of Education to implement the student debt cancellation. And then the eighth circuit court of appeals didn't even really get to the merits of the issue at all. They just basically said, you know what?

This is just, it's a big issue, like this is important. And because it raises a big question, the case before it involved these various states that were suinging and these Republican, they're all Republican-led states. And the Republican-led states said that they're going to lose tax income if they can't collect student debt. I'm oversimplifying it, but they're going to lose tax income, and that's their standard. And the eight-circuit court of appeals, the district court said, that's not good enough for standing. That's not an injury because if that was an injury,

then states would have standing on everything. It's speculative. It's not, it doesn't establish an injury to walk into court. We're not even going to get to the merits. So the Republican states appeal to the eight-circuit of appeals, the district court's order. And the eight-circuit of appeals was like, well, the states may be injured,

but look, it's a really big question. So while this is on appeal, we're just gonna block it. Like, it's completely, like, without, like, there's no merit to that. Like, if you're going, how do they do that? It's kind of reminiscent of Judge Eileen Cannon except their right wing federalist society, circuit court judges, court of appeal judges.

So that's how they're blocking it it but they had no real basis to you know to do that at least in the texas case judge pitman at least gave an analysis on the merits i think the standing argument before judge pitman is completely an utterly frivolous there in that case it was students but their proxies for the right wing federalist society groups who find like these straw people are straw men Students to sue and one student had commercial loans so they weren't getting their student at canceled Another student was getting 10,000 canceled, but didn't have a pell grant And so they said I'm only getting 10,000. I want 20,000

So because I'm only getting 10,000 and I want 20,000 so because I'm only getting 10,000 and I want 20,000 Their justification is well, I'm going to file a lawsuit that blocks 40 million people from getting a benefit Because I could only have a piece of the pie and not the full pie, which is the most absurd claim of standing that there is That would be like me saying you know what I want to sue for Any time the Republicans give a billionaire any benefit I have, I want to sue for any time the Republicans give a billionaire or any benefit, I have standing. I want to sue. I didn't get the tax credits.

I didn't get the benefits. I didn't get the bailout. And so the Department of Justice, which represents the Biden administration through the Solicitor General's office has been filing appeals across the country now to these rulings in the 8th Circuit M in the District Court in Texas, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal, which oversees the Texas ruling, ruled that they weren't going to block the ruling that was by Judge Pitman, but that they were going to expedite oral argument in the appeal there regarding Judge Pitman.

So there will be sometime in the next few months oral argument before the fifth circuit on federal Judge Mark Pitman's horrible ruling. But then the United States Supreme Court agreed that they would grant certiary or grant full oral argument. This isn't the shadow docket we've been talking about. This is like a full briefing, full oral argument, but they'll grant it on an expedited basis to hear it. They're not granting any relief. They're not saying which side one, but they're saying we will

add this to our normal February calendar term and treat this as though it's a case that we would be hearing in our normal course of oral argument and we'll hear it in February. So on February you will hear the Department of Justice's appeal to the United States Supreme Court of what the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals is going to do. Popok, anything you want to add there, what you think the outcome is going to be? Yeah, briefly. So, the Supreme Court could have stayed to Eighth Circuit ruling, but did not.

Chose not to. Biden administration seemed to be okay with that. Late on Friday, the Biden administration also filed through their solicitor general, Liz Proleger, a request, and we haven't gotten the ruling yet on it, but a request to the Supreme Court that they stay the fifth circuit decision, which has allowed Judge Pithman's ruling to move forward. I doubt the Supreme Court is going to do that. They refuse to stay the eighth circuit. I doubt they will stay the fifth circuit.

But this new tactic that the Biden administration is using through its solicitor general is interesting. They're giving the Supreme Court basically two options. It's like one from Colomé or one from Colomé. Colomé is, will you stay the orders of the appellate courts beneath you and the answer to that has just been no. And Colomé is, can you put us on an expedited track?

And as you said, then, it will be on the February full briefing oral argument document, which is definitely expedited, even though people say, oh, it's February. That is true. However, we'll talk about what the Biden administration has done to ameliorate some of the harm to the 26 million people that have already applied for debt student debt relief in terms of the program. I'll talk about that to end the segment in a second. But they said to the Supreme Court at least on Friday,

well, at least put the fifth circuit and the eighth circuit decision together so that we are getting to the bottom once and for all at the Supreme Court level of the issue of whether the heroes act from 2003 gives the power to the Secretary of Education to relieve student loan debt at this level. We think it does of course the other side thinks it doesn't But let's get to the bottom of it and put the fifth of the eighth together. So they're on the same track

I think they'll do that. I think the Supreme Court will consolidate the fifth and the eighth circuit to have that whole substantive issue heard in February, which we will cover. In the interim, the Biden administration has extended the payment moratorium so the students don't have to make payments, back payments on that until 60 days after the appeal issue is resolved or no later than an outside deadline of September of 2023. So at least for now, people are not going to have to pay their student loans while that are covered by the program, while the appellate process plays itself out with an outer deadline of September 2023. So by

administration, again, fighting for working Americans, fighting for Americans who took out student loans while it's single handedly making its way through this judicial process. Yeah, and I think, look, it's clear where the sides are on this. And as I frame the issue, I mean, you have, you know, Maggery Publicans who are perfectly okay with PPP loan program debt forgiveness or perfectly okay with bailouts for billionaires, but when it comes to something surgical and limited and that I think would go a very long way in helping our economy by breaking kind of the bottleneck that exists for people who are saddled with student debt. And this would go a long way to help a lot of people

become active participants in the economy and fuel the economy. But we will keep you posted there on what's going on. I want to give a special happy birthday to Michael Popak. I'll just leave it at that, Michael Popak. I was gonna say, I wasn't gonna give your birthday age, but I'm gonna say that you are probably the most incredible youngest looking person in the world. That's it. That, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, part of the Midas family and part of the Midas media network and doing what we're doing side-by-side, shoulder-to-shoulder with you and your three brothers and producers like Salty and other content contributors like Texas Paul and all, you know, and all the other people that we really

enjoy. We're proud, just proud to be with you. And the Midas family includes all of you watching this on YouTube, all of you listening to this wherever you get your podcast. Make sure you hit the subscribe button right now, whether that's on audio or YouTube, if you're an audio listener, subscribe to the Midas Touch channel on YouTube, if you're a YouTube watcher, subscribe to the audio channel wherever you can get

your podcast. In addition, go check out our Patreon site, go to patreon.com slash minus touch, p-a-t-r-e-o-n.com slash minus touch. Consider becoming a patron. That means you would become a member of the minus touch Patreon community. We have lots of exclusive content that you could only get at patreon.com slash might as touch, but most importantly, we are not funded by any outside investors at all. So you'll be able to help grow this independent media platform by going to patreon.com slash might as touch again PAT our E O N dot com slash might as touch special shout out to our

sponsors or frames and athletic greens go check out both and make sure you use those codes legal AF there to get the discounts over there and maybe check out our new podcast over on the might as touch network it's called American Sia it's a true crime thriller focused on the life of the son of General West Clark, the presidential candidate and commander of NATO as he's targeted by psychological operations and mercenary groups and cults and tries to figure out fact from fiction. You're going to love this top podcast. It's one of the top 10 podcasts of all of Apple right now

on True Crime and top 20 on the charts of all podcasts generally in the nation. It's called American Sia PSY OP American Sia. Thanks so much for listening to this weekend's episode of Legal AF. We'll see you same time, same place next week talking about the most consequential legal news of our time. I'm Ben Mycelas.

Join by Michael Popak. Shout out to the Midas Mighty. you