Legal AF by MeidasTouch - More MASSIVE LOSES for Trump in EVERY Court

Episode Date: August 31, 2023

The top-rated legal and political podcast Legal AF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this midweek’s edition, Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo, discuss: 1. Developments in the Trump Georgia Prosecution, with 2 co-defendants scheduled to go to trial in October, and the upcoming 1-day arraignment of the Gang of 19, while Trump and others fight to delay theirs; 2. Mark Meadows’ decision to take the stand to try to convince a federal judge to move his Georgia criminal trial from Fulton County state court over to federal court, the Fulton County DA putting on a mini-trial to keep it in state court, and the judge’s surprising decision before ruling; 3. the inevitable – Judge Chutkan presiding over the Special Counsel Jack Smith Trump election interference criminal case taking over as the “lead” trial judge, as she sets an early trial date and coordinates with other criminal judges, while upbraiding Trump’s attorneys in open court; 4. A federal judge sanctioning Rudy Giuliani by defaulting him in the defamation and punitive damages case finding him liable without a trial for the case brought against him by Fulton County election workers Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSOR! Visit https://HensonShaving.com/LEGALAF to pick the razor for you and use code LEGALAF for 2 years worth of free blades! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch 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 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 MAGA Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The lack of coordination and cooperation among the 18 other co-defendants of the Georgia criminal case, not named Trump, is staggering. It's spiraling out of control and Trump learns once again that he is not in charge of this process, judge McAfee, federal judge Jones, and Fulton County DA, Fawni, Full Steamhead, Willis R. The court has set in October 23rd, 2023, yes you heard me right, trial for two of Trump's lawyer-coconspirators. Fawni threatens to try everyone in October, as others like Mark Meadows try to squirm away and run to federal court.

The next chess moves, 15-minute deli counter take a number arrangements for all of the trumpers including Trump on one day. Oh, another 15 minutes bring the next one in and an epic tug of war over the trial date and location we discuss. Staying in Georgia, Mark Meadows in a desperate move that surprised most legal analysts, including this guy, took the stand and testified in federal court to try to argue that. As chief of staff for Donald Trump, he was just following orders and doing his job, where have we heard that before, and gets to try his case in federal court not state with the other

crazies. I mean, I'm paraphrasing here. What happened during the full day, mini trial put on by Faudi Willis's office? What did the other witnesses, including the Georgia Secretary of State, have to say about it? And what issue has hung up the federal judge before he even rules? Then we turn to the biggest, baddest, most dangerous case against Donald Trump, the DC Special Counsel Jack Smith election interference case with Judge Tanya Chukkin presiding and is she ever. As predicted, she has moved to take control of Trump in the criminal process, big footing the other federal and state judges, almost laughing at Trump lawyer Loro out of

court with his 2026 trial date request, and taking the March 4th, 2024 trial date from Fawri Willis all for herself. And she spent a fair amount of time upgrading Trump attorney John Loro to boot. Her subtle comments and digs and the early date she chose indicates that she knows exactly what Trump is doing on social media and the comments he has made attacking judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and jurors. And finally, a big loss for Rudy Giuliani, again, Shay Moss and Ruby Freeman, is a big win for justice today. Before airtime, judge Barrel Howell of the DC Circuit Court

has had enough with Rudy's failure to adhere to rules and orders and failure to produce key documents. And not happy that Rudy tried to phone in a stipulation and get his way out of sanctions. So she hid him hard today with the civil death penalty. He's been found liable without a trial as a sanction for defamation, intentional inflection of emotional distress, conspiracy, and get this punitive damages. And even though Rudy Giuliani can try to convince a jury sometime at the end of this year or the beginning of next, that they should write,

uh, that they shouldn't write a big check in damages to Shane Ruby. The judge isn't taking any chances. And as part of her order today has an instruction that she is going to give to the jury that will devastate Rudy's case. All that and stuff, Karen Friedman, AgniFalo and I haven't even thought about or rehearsed only on legal AF on the Midas Touch Network with your midweek host, Michael Popebeck and Karen Friedman AgniFalo. Hi, Karen. Hi.

How are you? I can't believe how much is going on this week. Whoo. And you know, we had to curate it as always because we could have done 20 stories. We could have gone into 30 motions. But look, at the end of the and some of the people in the chat are like, yeah, do it. But you know, we got a show to put on and we try to use our professional judgment to curate the show and to make it so that it's efficient for everybody. I mean, I think people come to the show one for the community. You can see

it in the chat tonight and in other nights, but they also come because they know we're not going to waste their time. And we're going to give them what they need to know so they can have the the debate that is so critical to justice and to democracy around their kitchen table in the public square and everywhere else that it matters. And so that's what we're doing. So let's do it. Let's go down to Georgia. Let's take the train to Georgia and talk about what's going on there. You and Ben have done some amazing hot takes, but we're going to give some new information here and some new analysis about that. Let's start with just a randomly select. Let's talk about the trial date. Ken Chesbro.

I guess that's how he says his name. Ken Chesbro and Sydney Powell, two lawyers for Donald Trump, who are basically saying with like a big t-shirt, I'm not with crazy and pointing the other way. They don't want to be with the other 17. They want their case severed. They want the indictment split up into different parts. They want their own table for two or in Ken Chesbro's view, table for one at the rings side of his own trial.

And like forget all the other co-conspirators in my civil recon and forget about all the overt acts, 161 of them that are in the indictment. Just try me, me, Ken Chesbro. Just try me for what I did. And funny Willis is gonna respond to that soon, but that's the motion that was filed. And then lastly, before I turn it to you to just frame it, we've got this tug of war, which funny Willis is winning

over the trial date. So Ken Chesbro came out and said, all right, there's a quirk in Georgia law. I don't know why I do these voices when I talk about these, I don't know if they sound like this at all, but in my mind they do. There's a quirk in Georgia law that you gotta get a speedy, if somebody wants speedy trial, they get it.

And they get it within 30 to 60 days based on terms of the court. And so the Fawney Willis was originally saying March, March 4th, the same date. We're going to talk about later the judge Chuckkin took for herself. But the judge McAfee said, no, I think October 23rd, which is, I mean, we're in, let's say for all intensive purposes, September 1 here. Okay. That is in October to try the civil

rico case and did funny willess shrink. Did she say judge, I'm busy that day or I'm not ready? No, she said ready. Not only am I ready, I got a better idea, judge. Let's do all 19 on October 23rd. That's how ready I am. Of course, we're going to talk about Donald Trump's reaction to that and everybody's scrambling to sever and remove and get away and delay. All right, that's where we are. We'll leave the removal issue for the next segment. But Karen, you've been a close commentator and an analyzer of all things, McAfee, Fony Willis, Chespro, Powell, and the rest. So break it down for us. Tell me what's going on there.

And from your perspective and your big experience, as a prosecutor, let's make a little bet. What do you think's going to happen with all these attempts under Severance Law? Yeah, well, it's very confusing and hard to keep track of it. All there's 19 defendants who Fony Willis brought one in indictment against. And, you know, normally what would happen is all 19 would proceed along the same path.

And the judge would give certain dates for motion practice and other dates for responses to motions and other dates for hearings, etc. And they would sort of go on their path. And perhaps certain people would plead guilty or cooperate, and the case would get whittled down naturally is what normally happens. And Fani Willis has tried cases with a dozen or more defendants in Rico cases in Georgia. So, she's not far off here with the 19. Judge might split it in half if it's too big, just because the courtroom's probably not big enough

for all those defendants and lawyers and all of that. But the judges aren't going to necessarily break it up into 19 trials and make witnesses and everybody do everything 19 times. But here, this case is highly unusual because what's happening is, as you said, people are saying, I don't want to be with stupid, you know, it's, it's their point in the finger at each other and they're moving to sever from one another. And so far, what's, what, where we've gone is, can she's

bro and Sydney Powell, two lawyers, okay, one is team crazy. Sydney Powell is Team Crazy lawyer and Ken Chesbro was a respected lawyer back in the day and he's worked with and trained under some of the most respected lawyers that there are, went to Ivy League school, etc. He's lost his mind, but he's at least was a respected lawyer. He demanded a speedy trial in Georgia and a speedy trial in Georgia the way it works. It's much faster than any speedy trial, rocket docket that I am aware of in this country. You have to have a jury sworn, which means a full jury 12 jurors and alternate swornorn, seated and sworn ready to go, qualified jurors is the language they use, either in the term, the grand jury term slash court term that the case was brought or the subsequent term.

And so what that where that leaves Bonnie Willis, she has to have a jury sworn and testimony started by November and so she said, okay, Ken cheesebro, you want your speedy trial? He asked for November. She calculated in her mind, you know, that's not gonna be enough time to get a jury because a jury here you the defendant and the people the prosecution they're entitled to fair and impartial jurors and jury and so It's going to take a while you're they're going to have hundreds ofial jurors and jury. And so it's going to take a while. They're going to have hundreds of people come in. Some people are going to say, I'm a Trump supporter.

Some people are going to say, I know matter what, I could never be fair and look at anything Trump. I can't stand them. So anyone associated with them is guilty. All those people will be knocked off for cause because they can't be fair and impartial, which means look at the evidence for how it is and just only the evidence and leave your biases and prejudices and all of that behind.

So she asked for October 23rd, you know, I think Ken Chesbro was banking on the fact that she wouldn't be ready. She said, not only am I ready, I'm ready for all 19, let's go. Sydney Powell then raised her hand and said, you know what, me too. I want to go too. You know, and I want to associate myself with the real lawyers since I'm the crazy lawyer. And there's been rumblings that Johnny Eastman also a lawyer is going to argue the same thing. And that looks like a lawyers are trying to separate themselves out from the pack. And they want to go with the, you know, we're lawyers giving legal advice. We're not people breaking into the Republican committee and stealing voter data.

We're not yelling at the Secretary of State Brad Rapinsberger telling him to find votes. We're not calling Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, you know, heroin addicts and whatever. All the other terrible things that are alleged in this indictment, they want to be, they want to move away from the really bad facts and just say, oh, you know, I'm just a lawyer giving advice. Maybe I was wrong, maybe I was a little aggressive, but I was giving legal advice. Well, what's happened this week is you've got John Eastman, or I'm sorry, Ken Chesbro saying, you know what? I don't want to be with Team Crazy. I want to be severed from her. I want to go on my own. You got Fanny Willis saying, by the way, keep them together because I don't want to try to, first of all, I can't do two cases at once and meet the speedy trial obligation if you

separate them. I need them to go at the same time because I only have this term and next term to do this in and I can't be at two places at once. So I need you to keep them together. And you've got Sidney Powell shockingly, surprisingly, saying, I don't want to be with Ken Chesbro. That surprised me because I thought she'd want to try to make herself more legitimate and be next to what is somewhat legitimate lawyer. But you know, look, Ken Chesbro is the architect of this entire, this entire coup in search of a legal theory, as it's been called by a federal judge.

So I think that she wants to be away from him. She said, look, I was never his law, Trump's lawyer. And she's really trying to distance herself from this whole thing, including the lawyer that she thinks is the one who was instrumental in doing all of this. So that's what you got going on there. You've got this, who's going to go ahead? Do you think they're going to be successful? Do you think from prosecutor's standpoint,

do you think, I listen, Georgia has a little bit different severance law than some other places and there has to be certain standards that are met for due process and for the administration of justice and fair trial. But do you think that that based on what you've read and I've you've and I've both read the motions that either Chespro or Powell are going to be able to sever the cases a different story. But drop and leave behind the other 17 co-conspirators and stop Fony Willis from putting on her big narrative about 161 over at acts that's

sub into predicate acts at least that support the criminal Rico case that they're all indicted under. I mean I get that they're going first, but they're going first as part of a giant Rico. How is she prevented from putting on all her facts about this? Right. And that's he wants that, right? Chessbro in a while. Well, they want that, but they also want to be able, even if she, you know, she charged this giant Riko, which means it all comes in. And because they're all charged with all of it.

And so it all comes in. The reason what they're going to say though is, first, they're going to argue that it shouldn't come in as you said, because I'm not, you know, look, I'm not charged with those other 150 over-dacks or predicate acts of the RICO case. So I don't want those coming in. They will come in. That's black, letter, law. But what they'll do once it does come in is they'll say, see, I didn't do that. I didn't do that. I didn't, you know, they're going to, they're going to, if I were the defense attorney there, I would say, yeah, you've got 161 over at acts

and predicate acts. I'm only charged, I think, can chest bros only charge with a handful of them. Same with Sydney Powell. And so every time she would put on the evidence, every time she'd put on evidence of, let's say, what I think is the most damning, compelling evidence will be when she and Ruby,

when she, Moss and Ruby Freeman testifies they really put a face to how terrible all this is. If I was there, Ken Chesbro's lawyer or Sydney Powell's lawyer, I would stand up and say, you know, was my client there? No. Have you ever seen my client before? No. Did he have anything to do with the terrible things that happened to you? No. So sorry for all the horrible things that happened to you,

but my client had nothing to do with that, right? Right? And sit down. That's it. Right. Well, but you're going to be able to distance himself from all of those bad facts, right? But isn't then now look at me, I'm playing the prosecutor. Now we're doing role reversal, but isn't the prosecutor going to go for some sort of instruction where the jury is instructed that the reason that this is being put on is because it's part of the narrative and the overt acts and the end of the... Yeah. ... and it doesn't matter whether he's personally responsible in a conspiracy, as I keep saying,

you're in for a penny, you're in for a pound, and you're ultimately responsible for those things. At least as it relates to the charge, I mean, I was struck, for instance, Karen, by the kept saying in his filing, in Chesbro's filing, that he's only indicted for seven out of the 34. I'm like, yeah, but the one you're indicted for is the criminal Rico with 1918 other people of which 161 over at acts. So I don't think that you cover yourself in glory numerically because, hey, I meant, you know, you to use an inappropriate comparison. You know, if you only have one capital offense, you know, that's enough to put you to death

penalty in a certain state. You don't have to have 28 other counts. So I don't really get where that helps him, except in the court of public opinion, which is what they keep trying to do. So the bottom line for you is they're, they're, these two are going to go alone. Or do you think ultimately Macapy is going to say, all right, you guys are ready? The other ones who know justice, October, let's put as many on as we can in October miss miss will miss you don't think so I don't think so I think he's gonna because look the others are gonna say I'm not demanding a speedy trial I want I want to make yeah

I want to I want to make motions right I have motion practice I want to do and and Fanny will is originally suggested next March. And so that's I want something further out so I can make motions. I don't want this very fast speedy trial. And the other wrinkle in all this though, Popoq is don't forget this whole thing could go to federal court. That's the other pro law. A lot of it could. A lot of the a lot of the people could. Well, you know, it's right. I mean a lot of people they all could. The judge could say, you know, judge Jones, you know, Mark Meadows is making a removal motion in front of judge Jones, as you know, and testified. And I know we're going to talk about this in a little bit. But, you know, that, that, that, if he finds that this is, you know, largely

should be in federal court, he could pull the whole case up. So that's good. Well, but wait, hold on. You think that the purely Georgia people, like coffee, letting in, I mean, like Latham, and coffee, sorry, I almost did coffee in Latham County. Kathy Latham and Misty Hampton, who are just so Georgia, because why? Because they took instructions from the president's lawyers. That makes them a federal officer.

Yeah, the law says you're either a federal officer working at the direction of the federal officer. But the other thing too is civil cases, the civil law removal, if one goes the whole case goes, criminal, it's less clear. But the judge could say, you know, the judge in his discretion could find, again, you know, just trying to keep it for judicial economy reasons could say, you know, this is largely a federal case. The whole thing should come up. I don't think any of it's going to go up, by the way. I agree. Well, the federal court's not a bad place for phony willis either with this kind of judge. The jury pool changes ever so slightly from federal to state in Atlanta.

We're not talking about Florida where Trump gets a benefit because it's federal because he picks up some counties that are a little bit more red than blue. And you know what? Federal courts and the Hanna Tribe cases, see the proud boys, see the oath keepers and knows how to try big cases. And Fawny comes along for the ride and so does Georgia law. All right. We're there. We're in Georgia. and knows how to try big cases. And Fawni comes along for the ride and so does Georgia law. All right, we're there.

We're in Georgia, so let's do removal. So I know you and Ben did it, so let's do it here for our audience. We've got Judge Jones, who sets an evidentiary hearing on Monday, a lot of things happen on Monday, right? Judge Chuckkin is setting her trial date and Judge Jones here, the Obama pointy, but just a couple of blocks over from the Fulton County Court House, all right, let's go.

We'll do an evidentiary hearing. You got witnesses. Let's put them on. So Fawni Willis or whatever lead prosecutors were very experienced, puts on the case for against the removal. And in a move that you and I will need to talk about, about whether it's a waiver of his Fifth Amendment privilege because he's decided to testify.

I'm not sure you can testify when you feel like testifying and not testify later. Mark Meadows took the stand. I was, I would abet money that his lawyers would not have allowed him to go on the stand just to try to convince Judge Jones State versus Federal because he opened the door there to all sorts of testimony. A, he said, everything I did was at the at Trump's behest, and it was all within my duties as chief of staff. I was just following orders. But at other times in the testimony, he said, I can't remember that. Well, my memory is not that great, and which is not great for him. But and then of course, Fawri Willis puts on the Secretary of State for Georgia

who talks about and they play in the courtroom for Judge Jones, the now infamous phone call by Mark Meadows and Donald Trump about can't we just find 11,780 votes and throw them out and give me the state. And and Raffensburger, Perger, testified to Judge Jones. He saw that as a purely political phone call. He didn't see that. He saw it as a campaign phone call. So at least the person on

the other end of the receiving line testified to that. What do you think about Meadows testifying will save for the end with Judge Jones where his thoughts are because he's asked for briefing on a certain issue before he renders his ruling. What do you think about Meadows testifying you? What do you think it means for his Fifth Amendment assertion down the road in the actual substantive criminal case? Yeah, look, to me, this was a big Hail Mary move for Meadows. He's just looking at this as, look, all the evidence is pretty much out there,

whether it's in the Jan 6th report, the emails, recorded calls, text messages, you know, his defense is what it is. There's not much he can do about what his defense is, and so much of it is recorded and out there. And so I guess he took the calculated risk to himself as I'm getting out there now. I'm putting it all out there now. And might as well try to convince the court to get me, to remove me to federal court, because if he gets removed to federal court, that's step one towards getting the ultimate

what he's looking for, which is immunity or dismissal because of the supremacy clause. It doesn't get you all the way there, but it gets you part of the way there. And so that's what his ultimate goal is here. And so he's just putting it all out there in this Hail Mary move. And I would have said to you 100% that everything he said

under oath can be used against him at trial in his criminal case. And I thought that was the law clearly. But I was talking to somebody the other day who was telling me that because this was a civil hearing, even though it's in the context of a criminal case, it was a civil removal hearing, that his statements may not be able to be used against him, but that again, the law is unclear and it needs more research. But I, normally what I've seen is when somebody testifies under oath in court about the matter

that you are being prosecuted for, those statements can come in against you, but I guess he's not concerned with it because normally a defendant would want to wait and see what the evidence is and want to see what let Fanny will his or Kesson and see what the evidence is and then make the decision whether or not to testify, but this is his putting all his eggs in one basket, hoping to get his case dismissed, and I would have said no way this is happening, no way removal, but there's two things. Number one, I still don't understand what's going on with Jack Smith. Is he cooperating with Jack Smith?

If not, why isn't he an unindicted co-conspirator? Because he clearly was in the mix and involved as much as any of those other unindicted co-conspirators. Does that mean that Jack Smith has already decided that there's an executive privilege to all of this, and that maybe it would be a Hatchack prosecution, but you can't be prosecuted for these crimes because of executive privilege, and therefore it would be supremacy clause.

I mean, if you game this out, there's some game, there's some version of gaming this out that we haven't figured out yet, that we have to figure out because otherwise it makes no sense. I don't mean to interrupt you. Go ahead. No, no, I'm just going to say he knows whatever this is and whatever this, this, this game is. And so that's why he's doing this. But I don't think it's going to be removed because I think that number one, everything he was doing was for candidate Trump, not president Trump. So I don't think

there's going to be enough. However, however, I think that this judge is going to think long and hard about whether Trump will then appeal that, I'm sorry, Meadows will then appeal that all the way up to the Supreme Court, who obviously is very heavily magged. And I'm sure he's not going to want to a get reversed, but more importantly, be not let this get delayed, which is all that does. So anyway, go ahead. Yeah, I was going to say, let me unpack a few of those things because we threw a lot in there.

The main argument that Mark Meadows is going to make, regardless of which court, is whether he has immunity under the supremacy clause, not to be confused with executive privilege, and that because he's a federal officer under the separation of powers, provision of the supremacy clause, he can't be sued for doing his job federally. Problem with that is a sort of an upside down argument. The reason for supremacy immunity is to prevent states and state prosecutors from interfering with federal functions. Here it went the other way. A federal officer is alleged to have interfered with state election law and state election

process. So, it turns it, you know, the public policy behind the supremacy clause, it sort of turned on its head. It's not that the feds need protection from Georgia. It's that Georgia needed protection from the feds in the hands of Donald Trump. So he's got a big problem with that argument, although he's making that argument, the others will try to make it too. He'd rather make that argument, Mark Meadows, in federal court, that in state court. One, because McAfee, the judge in Georgia, is like 34 years old, he just got on the bench,

doesn't really have federal experience. And like, they don't want to like try a rookie. At least they figure if it's not Judge Jones on the federal side, at least the 11 circuit, which is the federal court that sits over him and Judge Cannon, because George and Florida are in the same appellate district. And then the US Supreme Court fast track,

they'd rather be over there in that lane than in the Georgia lane. And so where you have all that going on. And so they're desperate, as you pointed out, Karen, to try to make that happen, including taking the risk that Mark Meadows weren't testimony in the removal here. We could be used against them by Fonnie Willis

in the other case. Now, I'm not sure he said that much. That would ultimate doesn't mean he has, does not mean he has to take the stand in the criminal case, but she could, I think, read aloud certain of the statements that he made in the Q&A cross examination by her, by her prosecutor, by her team against them. But that will leave that academic argument for another day. But that is the fight. And then we've got the bigger fight, which is how many, and then I want to get to the question

Judge Jones asked, how many of the other 17 or 18, including now Donald Trump, which I think there's a good argument, he waived his right to go because he's also at the same time seeking relief from the state court. There might be a waiver argument, he can no longer seek federal removal. But Seidau, his new lawyer has indicated that he's gonna be filing a, he's kind of watching, he wants two bites to the apple,

let's see what happens with meadows. If I get a good ruling with Jones, we're gonna file a motion for removal. We're gonna go to federal court too, even though it's a, I know people don't like on the chat, be saying this, it's an Obama appointee who's sitting on the bench. Now, having said all that, judge Jones is struggling with something. And this is where we'll wrap up this particular segment. Judge Jones is struggling with, I think he's concluded based on a question he's asked.

He's given the lawyers a homework assignment after they're hearing. It was a full day hearing. The homework assignment is to brief meaning to put into writing with research and send to him the competing analysis as to whether to all of the overt acts that are alleged against Mark Meadows. Now, I said there were 161 listed for the conspiracy, but not all of them relate to Mark Meadows. There's like six or eight of the 161 where Mark Meadows name is mentioned. And the judge is struggling with, I think he's concluded that some of them, a lot of them are political, meaning outside the color of his federal job as chief of staff, his scope of, scope of duty is his job description. But he's struggling that a couple are borderline

or may fall into the category of being part of his job as, therefore, a federal color of his office and therefore giving him the right to remove. So he's asking the parties to brief if I find that some but not all of the acts that are alleged in the indictment are federal office work, color of his office. Does that, do I have to do a removal or not?

And look, I think the answer to that, I think the answer to that is under the case law, the heart of the case, the heart of the allegations have to be either in one bucket or another. Political campaign in nature, chief of staff, regular stuff in nature. And if you have a hybrid, I think that goes to non-removable. They talk about it as the gravamen, the gravamen of the action. Is it, what is the nature of it? What is the essence of it? Is it all things political when you look at it on balance or is the nature of it? What is the essence of it? Is it all things political when you look at on balance?

Or is it, you know, or is the hybrid mixed so mixed that you can't tell? I don't think so. I think it leans the grove of in leans towards the political. That's why she put on, for any else put on Raffinsberger. That's sort of the case law But what did you think, what did you make Karen of Jones's question? What do you think that indicates about where his head is at? And what do you think once he gets an answer, assuming both parties brief this issue? What do you think he's ultimately going to do? Yeah, so look, it's interesting because, you know, there's over-dacks and there's predicate acts. And it's, if you're confused already, you're not wrong to be confused already. What's

the difference and what are they? So there's RICO and then there's conspiracy. RICO requires predicate acts, which means the acts have to be crimes, right? You have to commit at least two of the crimes that are listed under the RICO statute in order to be part of a RICO enterprise in addition to the other elements. But those are criminal acts that you have to commit.

Over at acts are the things that you do in a conspiracy that are steps towards completing or doing the conspiracy. And they don't have to be criminals. So for example, Popeyes Unigra and a rob a bank, we talk about robbing a bank, our conspiracy, we agree to rob a bank, we identify the bank, we talk about how we are going to rob a bank. We talk about robbing a bank, our conspiracy. We agree to rob a bank. We identify the bank. We talk about how we're going to do it.

And then I Google rental cars and I rent a car for the day. Just give a credit card because that's going to be our getaway car. That is an overt act in the conspiracy. It's a step towards completing the conspiracy. Obviously renting a car with a credit card is not criminal in and of itself. That's what an overt act is. You're not committing a crime, you're just committing a step. And so Judge Jones, so in the 161 count or the axe, I would say, within the Rico count, it's a mixture of predicate axe and overt axe

and they're mixed together and some are both. You know, she gave it, but she identifies in there. Count 23 is both a predicate act and an overt act and Count 24 is just an overt act, you know, like I'm making those numbers up, but she identifies what's what in there and what judge Jones asks is And different people are charged with different ones by the way and what judge Jones has asked for is a briefing just on this one question Whereas if the RICO

Count has over at acts meaning these non-criminal things in there would a finding finding that at least one, but not all of the overt acts charged, occurred under the color of Meadows Office be sufficient for federal removal of a criminal prosecution. So that's really an interesting question. And I think that because it need not be criminal, and for the reasons you just said, I think that the answer is no, it does not require criminal. And for the reasons you just said, I think that the answer is, no, it does not require removal. Also, conspiracy in Georgia doesn't even require overt acts. So by the way, Fannie Willis can just excise any acts from her conspiracy slash Rico count

one that happened to fall in that category that would make them removed. And so I think that because she can do that and it's not necessary for a conviction against anybody in order for this case to succeed, I don't think it's required. And in addition to that, there's some people who work for this organization called Just Security and they're very smart lawyers and I know most of them. One of the things they do, if you go onto their website and you look at what the work they're doing, one of the things that they do is they, in real time, try to research these issues

and they put them out there. For everybody to see, including including lawyers litigators, prosecutors, you know, to be a helpful resource and for judges and for us, you know, so that we can all talk about these issues and and get it out there. So everybody is armed with information and what what they have said is no it would not require removal for the reasons you just said Popok about how it's not the grovement or the heart of the crime. And so I think you're right with the law, and I think that that's where they will ultimately

land potentially. I still think at the end of the day, the, you know, in the back of his mind, the judge's mind is he's thinking, magas Supreme Court, magas Supreme Court, magas Supreme Court. That's the only risk I think here that he's not going to want. He's making that calculation in my opinion about whether or not, you know, because you can, you can make a finding either way. You could say, most of these things are clearly for candidate Trump, therefore not within the job's description of federal officers, right?

But if you wanted to say, look, this is a federal election and it's murky, he's the president and, you know, he does both things at the same time. If you wanted to find a way to hook to get it into federal court, he could, if he's worried about the Supreme Court about the Maga Supreme Court. That's what I think. That's the only caveat. Otherwise, if we weren't worried about the Supreme Court, I would agree 100% this is not getting removed. I think you're on mute. Popok. Oh, it's too bad. I did a great segue there. We take Popok. Popok comes back from, from

something else. Take two. We're going to talk more about. I was like, are you having a niche McConnell moment? I mean, I know that's terrible. No, but I thought I was like, oh my God, I can't. No, because I was like, oh my God, I can't hear. You do me a favor. You do me a favor. If I'm still doing this 30 years from now, at some point, I just

purse my lips and stare off into the distance. Will you cut to commercial? No, I don't mean to laugh, but I in my head, I was like, oh my God, is that me? Is something happening? You know, I'm not hearing. I thought my hearing went, Ben, Ben, the last Saturday did like all, like all five minutes.

Right, before he looked up and realized that he was on mute and then said, oh shit. Okay, so we're gonna get to Donald Trump and his problems in DC with Judge Chuck. And we're going to talk about Rudy Giuliani, holy, shmugoli, and his problems with Shay Moss and and Ruby Freeman, because he's just lost the case before he's even stepped out in front of the jury. And we'll talk about that. And we're going to do all of that. But first, you know, where I'm going, a word from our sponsor.

Oh, hey, I didn't see you there. Look, everyone knows how annoying cheap razors are, the cuts, the irritation, the frustration, and don't get me started with subscription razor services, the headaches that those can cause. That's why you got to meet Hansen shaving. Hansen shaving is a family-owned aerospace parts manufacturer that has made parts for the ISS. That's the International Space Station and Mars Rover, and now their brain precision engineering to your shaving experience. Razer blades, they're like diving boards. The longer the board, the more wobble, the more wobble, the more nicks, cuts, and scrapes. A bad shave, it isn't a blade problem, it's an extension problem.

By using aerospace grade CNC machines, Henson makes metal razors that extend just 0.0013 inches, which is less than the thickness of human hair. That means a secure and stable blade with a vibration-free shave. It gets better. The razor has built-in channels to evacuate hair and cream, which makes clogging virtually impossible. Seriously, Henson shaving wants the best razor.

Not the best razor business. That means no plastic, no subscriptions, no proprietary blades, and no planned obsolescence. The Henson razor works works with standard dual edge blades to give you that old school shave with the benefits of new school tech. Once you own a Henson Razor, it's only about three to five dollars per year to replace the blades.

My first shave with the Henson Razor was incredibly refreshing. The design is sleek and the durability is top notch. The Henson Razor is truly so much better than your run of the mill quote-unquote traditional Razer brand. And the affordability factor is absolutely game changing. No more wasting your money on expensive blades. With Henson shaving, you can get a year of blades for just $5. Okay, so this is what you have to do. It's time to say no to subscriptions and yes to a razor that will last you a lifetime. Visit hensonshaving.com slash legal AF. To pick up the razor for you and use our code legal AF and you'll get two years worth of blades free with your razor. Just make sure to add them to your cart. That's 100 free blades when

you head to h-e-n-s-o-n-s-h-a-v-i-n-g.com slash legal a f and use code legal a f. And now back to the video. There's nobody that's more enthusiastic in doing ads than Jordy Myceles. I will give him that every time. Are you, am I right about that? I was thinking during the commercial break about Mitch McConnell, I don't know why. I did have a moment when I watched it

because I saw it on the clip before we started. I was thinking it looked like a scene from Westworld. I was waiting for two guys in White Lab Cotes to take him away to reprogram him. We're not, I mean, all getting aside, we're not going to have Mitch McConnell to kick around much longer. He looks like he's circling the drain and we'll just leave it at that. I feel bad for him even though I think he's...

Yeah, I don't wish anybody deaf. No, I don't. I can't help but feel bad for it. It's terrible. He has to step down. He has to. Yeah. Yeah. And he should take, to be fair fair because we don't blow smokers sunshine. He should take a dying finestein with him. I mean, they should both. It's time. It's time. Yeah. It's embarrassing

to watch for democracy. Both sides should take should should corner them and say, sort of time to go and she's got nothing to worry about. She's got a California governor that will make the appointment. And he has nothing to worry about. She's got a California governor that'll make the appointment. And he has nothing to worry about. He's got a Republican governor to make the appointment to something that's right for Justice B. State's people and step aside. All right. That little commercial break brought to you by Karen and Michael.

Let's move on to my favorite judge of all the judges that we talk about. Has been for a long time. Judge Tanya Chutkin. I saw this coming, not that you didn't care and bend it. You got you, we all did, that she would eventually bigfoot the other judges and tell the world that she is in charge even first among equal, even among the other judges. I said three weeks ago that there was a little discussed provision of the code, the canon of judicial ethics. Yes, judges below Supreme Court justices have to abide by a code of ethics. And in there, it allows judges for the administration of justice to talk to each other and call each other. And I said, I bet you she's going to start calling the other judges and tell them that to clear out,

she's taken the date that she wants. And now in your favorite place, we, she may have called other judges, but we know from the New York court system because a very helpful spokesperson for the New York court system came online and said that they spoke that judge, Chuck, and chambers called judge, Mershan, and that they had a conversation that they would not reveal. We know the conversation. The conversation was, hey, Juan, it's Tanya. I, you got a trial at the end of March about Stormy Daniels. I really want to take March for the big fat election interference case against the same defendant. What do you think about Stepet Asad?

You okay with that? And he said, yes. So we know that phone call happened. Do you think, and that's how she got, and I think she actually took it away from Fonney Willis, too. Fonney Willis was hoping for that March date, and then her judge took that away and said, what about October?

And then while she had her back turned, this is my, this is my artist rendering. While Fonney Willis had her back turned, Tony Chuck instead to her staff, what's left? What's Fannie doing? Fannie's doing October, maybe. She's giving up the March. I'm taking March.

Go call Mashaun, line up that call for me. I want to get March. I want March because I'm not given 2025 or 2026. I want something it is important for justice and democracy to have this trial, particularly against one defendant and four counts, Donald Trump, a four of the primaries and the election. And I want to take that day, go make it happen.

Do you think her step, we know she called Michelle because it was reported that she did. Do you think she called McAfee and or judge cannons chambers down in Florida? No way. You don't think so? No, like this is absolutely not. or judge cannons chambers down in Florida? No way. You don't think so. No, look, this is no, absolutely not. What I think is this, look, regardless of what you think of any of these cases,

just from a pure, there's one defendant, four charges, simple case, fairly straightforward case, right? That's her case. And that it's a federal case, it's Jansix, it's by far I think the most serious case of all. So I think that that and she knows it, right? And the same thing with the Stormy case is that went first and that's an election interference case as well. It's also, you know, fairly straightforward, but it's not as serious. No one can really argue with a straight face that it's as serious as the Jacksmith January 6 case. I mean, in some ways, that's a generation defining case.

That's, I've been a prosecutor for been a prosecutor for my entire professional life, and it's the single most important case I've seen in my lifetime. I can't think of any other prosecution that is as important as significant and as momentous as that. And I think she knows that. And Mar-a-Lago has some complicated issues, right? It's all about classified documents.

And so they have to navigate the SEAPA, the Classified Information Procedures Act, the staff. They have to sanitize some of the documents so that they can use it at trial. They have to get top secret clearance to the lawyers. You've got three defendants, instead of one, that are going to make motions, et cetera. I mean, that case is just by its very nature more complicated than her four defendant, I'm sorry, one defendant for count case, right? Mar-a-Lago has 30

something counts and three defendants. So I think just looking at it from a cold, like, what can be done before the election. And then Fanny Willis is a huge sweeping, yeah, it's important, it's big, but it's 19 defendants. You've got three trying to get a speedy trial. You got two, you know, one guy's trying to get removed to the federal court. You've got, I mean, it's just, that case is just a monster of a case with, you know, 100 page indictment. That, that case is not going to be completed before the election, but her case is. And so she knows that she recognizes that. And so she needed to call Judge Mershahn because that's the only other person who really, she was bumping up against and said, Hey, do you

mind if I take your spot? And of course he's going to defer to her. I mean, judges do that. And it's a federal judge. And that's what happened. I don't think she needed to defer to her. I mean, judges do that and it's a federal judge and that's what happened. I don't think she needed to call the others. I also don't know that she can trust the others. I don't know that she can really trust. You don't want to be seen as big footing anybody either. So I don't think she needed to call the others. So no, I suspect.

Wait, I'm following up. That you, I wanna, you don't think she can trust canon is what you're trying to say. Yeah. I don't. Right. That's a stinging indictment of a federal judge. I'm not one that I don't disagree with it. I'm just saying it's a stinging indictment. Yeah. Yeah. That can I wouldn't put it on the record and say, I just want to know that I got a call that said she would totally put it on the record and say, I just want you to know that I got a call that said, she would totally put it on the record. I wish she would. So, yeah.

And you're not supposed to do it in a way, and so you, to your point and under the ethical cannons, she's not supposed to do it. If she's going to pick up that phone, somebody got admitted in the chat that I think the judge Chuckkin would have been much classier than Pope Box impression over. I'm like, oh, I don't even know. I've heard her speak, but I'm not doing impressions. This is legal AF. This is an impersonation AF. But under the rules, under the ethics rules, she can't make those phone calls. If she thinks it will give or a nerve to the benefit of a

defendant or the prosecution. If she's putting her her thumb on the scale and tipping it in one direction or the other, as opposed to it being an equipoise, she can't do that. She can't make that phone call. And you're right. Maybe that is the third rail. And she gets, you know, and stays away from Canada. Just like you said, just a need her. Her date is in May anyway. I'm taking March. My case will be over by the time her case starts. And she was very clear. I want to now want to get to the actual hearing with Laura and what she did to Laura, which was, I mean, she basically ripped out his heart

and showed it to him, you know, the beating heart in her hand. Like, I am not, you know, all the things you're saying, Mr. Laura, I see your mouth hole opening and closing, but all the things you're saying, I don't understand and I'm not by. Let's start with the beginning. You say that, and you and I talked about this, Karen, you say that if you piled all the discovery, all the documents that were provided to you by the government, and stack it end

to end, it would be as tall as the, as the Washington monument, or we'd have to read war and peace every day from now until trial. You're acting like your client is,-say or doesn't have money. Your client has money. Your client can hire a team of lawyers, not just the four that are representing him right now. Go hire a bunch of, this happens in cases all the time. Law firms go out and hire temporary lawyers, temporary paralegals.

Sometimes they go to other countries and pick up Indian lawyers who work around the clock at night doing doing this kind of paralegal work to go review documents and put it on a plat. This is how we do it. In Electronic Discovery, you're not looking at pages. You're up on a platform, an electronic platform, and the documents are loaded there. And then you click, click, click, and you you're able to then put the document into certain buckets, all online, all on a platform, in this case, or a database. Usually it's what we call relativity, which is a brand. And you go privileged, or you go hot doc, or you go, this is between Trump and somebody

else, or between this witness. And you give a team of, you know, locklerks, the job to do it. So she said, one, I don't want to hear about, like, you can't afford to look, it's just you two guys, you can't afford to defend this case. Secondly, I don't want to hear about 2026. Don't even say those words in my courtroom. This is not going in 2026. Justice, this is her words, demands.

And speedy trial is not just between the court system and the lawyers on the other side, the public has a role and a right and a seat at the table to speedy trial. And it's in their best interest. And she didn't have to say it, but it was obvious, the government said it for her that was in the room, that she is very troubled and concerned about the things that Donald Trump continues to do and say on social media. And her solution for that, her panacea for that, is to put this trial as quickly as possible.

The quicker he goes to trial, just in terms of sheer volume, the less misconduct he'll be able to do. Give him a year. Oh my God, Lord knows what will happen. And she is sensitive to this historical moment will happen. And she is sensitive to this historical moment that she has to get this tried before people vote in the primaries and for at least in the general election. Primaries probably don't matter because it looks like he could do anything and will get nominated. How subject to when we'll talk next week about the 14th Amendment and disqualification, but having said that, she knows that she's, she's, you know, idiot. Her staff has seen the polls that say 63% of all Americans want the trial one way or the other before they have to vote so they can make their decision.

They're relying on the court system to help them understand what happened and whether this man is guilty or not. They're not going to rely on social media and what, you know, what his proxies or his synchofants say on different talk shows at all hours the day or podcasts. Sorry, sorry podcasts. It's going to be a court of law with evidence and with a jury. And she's taking this very seriously. So she, so she, well, she didn't agree with the government. She thought that January is a little too quick. As we predicted last week or two weeks ago, she was certainly on their side of the total war about, you know, she's three months off from where the government wanted, but

she's 15 months off from where Donald Trump wanted it. So I thought that was great. And also she's just taking such a firm control of her courtroom and to watch her masterfully, Judge Chutkin, masterfully operate under the rules, under the procedure with a command, a maturity in a command is breathtaking to watch, and for those that are tuning in on our live chat tonight and pick us up later from around the world, this should be

the face and the poster child for American justice because she's doing everything right. Yeah, she really is. She's fantastic. And she had to get Laurel into into get him under control because he lost his temper a few times and she told him to take the temperature down. And I guess he clearly was trying to bully her and put on a show for his client who likes bullies and likes the grandstanding. And for also the court of public opinion. And there's a lot of people who are asking, Trump, in fact, said, I'm gonna appeal this date. This is a ridiculous date. And John Loro said, we can't possibly be ready.

And Trump is gonna be denied effective assistance of council, which basically saying, because we're not gonna be able to be ready in time. And so, Trump says, I'm going to appeal this. And of course, you can't appeal a court date. It's very discretionary. But he'll find something to appeal. He'll either bring a writ of mandamus

to the appellate court basically saying, my due process rights are being violated, or he'll come up with some other legal argument that maybe he'll go straight to the Supreme Court and say, look, you have original jurisdiction over me because I'm the former president and they're prosecuting the former president. He's gonna find some way to make some argument

that will have the effect of delaying things past that day. Yeah, Hill, I agree with you on the delay, but he's in the wrong court for that because the DC Circuit court of appeals is predominantly Democratic precedent appointed although occasionally, you know the the slot machine pulls up to a Trump or and a busher and a and an Obama or a Biden but generally He's there's that's not going to be a good environment for him on appeal.

And on the Supremes, I mean, look, as much as we worry about the Maga right wing, by and large, they have ruled against Donald Trump time and time again when he's kind of gone out, colored outside the lines of the guardrails of democracy. They, they, they did not side with him on presidential papers. They did not side with him on any papers. They did not side with him on any attempt to stop the Jansik's committee. They did not side with him on anything related to Mar-a-Lago and the search warrant. And, you know, they sat passively by even when he tried to appeal off the 11th Circuit. So, on former president Trump's stuff, I think it's not clear.

And I would probably, if I were a betting man, I would bet on him losing that. He could try what he wants. But former presidents are just that. They're citizens at best, citizen Trump. And they don't get special privileges. And Chuckins made that clear. She said Delora, one point of view caught this,

because there's a lot of information. She said Delora, one time, Mr. Lora, I'm gonna treat your client exactly the way She said to Laura one time, Mr. Laura, I'm going to treat your client exactly the way you said you wanted him to be treated. You said you wanted him to be treated like any other criminal defendant, and that's how I am going to treat him. And he's just going to have to clear his calendar and clear his schedule and be ready for trial on the date that I've selected selected because that's what every criminal defendant has to do.

And I don't care, frankly, about his other civil or criminal matters, March for my courtroom. I love that. Love it to bring it. So yeah, but there'll be attempts along the way. And I think he goes to Trump, March 4th there. And I think motions to dismiss the indictment and and motions on this and that, and sovereign immunity, and all this other stuff with Judge Jutkin, no way. You have somebody that's got, you know,

a two years of experience on Jan 6th matter. She's had dozens of Jan 6 cases in front of her. She sentenced dozens of Jan 6 people. She's made comments about who, you know, indicating what she believes was the instigator for the entire Jan 6th insurrection. She's got well about who, you know, indicating what she believes was the instigator for the entire Gen 6 insurrection. She's got well-formed opinions, yes. She's not biased.

That doesn't mean she's biased or prejudged the matter. But she has a brain and she doesn't have to do a memory dump when she walks in against Donald Trump and act like she has judicial amnesia. She's got a body of law that she herself has developed and that exists in the DC Circuit Court, including the former chief judge, look at this segue, get ready, we're gonna get Wip Blash,

including the former chief judge, Barrel Howell, who's also the judge presiding over the Rudy Giuliani civil case and defamation brought by Chey Moss and Ruby Freeman. I'm gonna set it up, then I'm gonna turn it over to let and let Karen Friedman at Kniflow knock it down. Here's the setup.

I'm usually like bowling analogies now. What is happening on this show? It's sheer chaos, dogs and cats are sleeping together. All right, here we go. So. I caught you off guard. You're like punchy tonight. It's been a long work day for me.

It's been a long work day. I love this. I love this. Okay. Now, Shay Moss and Ruby Freeman were two. I used to call them volunteer. They made a guy paid minimum wage. Election workers volunteering for a democracy.

Let's put it that way. Because that's a thankless job to be an election worker on election day. I've been a poll watcher and I've worked shoulder to shoulder with election workers. It is a thankless job. All right. And so they were working, counting votes in of all places, Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia, in the arena because you know, a lot of votes, a lot of precincts come into Fulton County. And they were doing their job as the videos demonstrated because there's video cameras

everywhere. And they were counting votes. And when they were done with the ballots, they were locking them in black cases underneath the table. And then they were mother daughters. So they were passing each other an occasional refreshment and a mint and a this and a that. They're an occasional refreshment and a mint and a this and a that but to Rudy Giuliani and Donald Trump they were election

of forgers who were shoving ballots for Joe Biden that were dropped off from China I'm not making this up and shoved them into the machine and taking ballots from under the table because they were rolling the the video backwards They were taking Balance from under the table and putting them into the machine and they were all for Joe Biden. And this is how, this is why Donald Trump lost the Georgia election.

And they were passing to each other a thumb drive, get this, a thumb drive and that got inserted into one of the machines with the smart, mad, software and the dominion hardware. And that converted votes from that were supposed to be for Trump. By the way, there weren't a lot of Trump votes in Atlanta, Georgia. But let's leave that aside for a minute. That magical thinking that he was going to win Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia.

Okay. Set that aside for a minute. And that's what they were doing. All right. Now, here's the reality. It's the way I described it. They were doing proper counting under the supervision of the county supervisor of elections and they have bosses that are there. They were counting votes and putting discarded and

already counted votes under the table in lock cases as is their protocol and at one point they were passing a breath mint between them which to Rudy Giuliani was a thumb drive. He then went on shows 181 times and said that Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss by name, circling them on a video, had committed voter fraud, and that led to them being, they he basically doxed them, and they got mercilessly attacked on social media, death threats, the N word, people showing

up at their house, the local officials told them they had a move because they couldn't protect them where they lived. And so they turned around and sued a group of people led by Rudy Giuliani for doing this to them because they're just citizens. They're not even public figures. They're just ordinary Americans doing their civil duty that we should celebrate and not attack. Okay. So having said that, they sue OAN, which is a right wing media thing, and they sue Rudy Giuliani. They did not sue Donald Trump for those that were wondering.

I don't know why. In retrospect, they probably should have, but they sued Rudy. And Rudy has done everything wrong in front of Barrel Howell since he's been sued. You would think this guy had never practiced law a day in his life, had never been inside of a federal courthouse, nor handled a federal civil matter ever, by the way he operated, which is basically as his own lawyer, and having seen a series of violations of court orders, contempt being found, failure to produce documents, refusal to produce documents. He was facing, he was looking down the barrel of emotion for sanctions for default, meaning you've gone so far, you don't even get to try a case anymore.

Me, judge, sanction you with finding of liability. That's what he's been, that's been hanging over his head for the last three or four months, but it finally came to fruition today. Karen, take it away. Well, this is, it was kind of a very big day today because he got bench slapped as they say. He got sanctioned, big time sanctioned, where the judge basically said to him, I am finding that you are a liable for all the counts in the complaint that are brought to by Ruby Freeman and Sheamus against you, Rudy Giuliani, without a trial.

And things like for defamation, for intentional inflection of emotional distress, for conspiracy, for all the other charges in there. The only thing left is going to be damages, including punitive damages. And he found him as a matter of law. He sanctioned him, found him liable without the need for trial. And this is because he's punishing him, because Rudy refused to provide documents in discovery

that he's required to prove in his federal case. He made all sorts of excuses. You know, the dog ate my homework. I lost them. The federal government picked up my devices. All my stuff is on a platform. Like you were talking about relativity, in a legal platform, but it's cost $20,000 a month.

I don't have the money to do that anymore. You know, all this stuff, just excuses. And the money to do that anymore. All this stuff just excuses. The judge gave him three months ago, the judge says, you must do this. I'm giving you more time, even though you didn't do it. He once again refused to turn over those documents, especially those regarding his finances. That's the thing that I think really the judge honed in on, which is, you know, look, the Rudy, I think that's why in July, when we saw him trying to file this weird stipulation,

where he sort of admitted to liability, but also refused to admit to liability for the purposes of the stipulation. It made no sense whatsoever, because obviously you either, you know, are going to admit it or not, but then he gave this weird interview where he talks about himself in the third person where he says he didn't admit to anything.

It was just one of the most bizarre. I'm not cooperating because Donald Trump is innocent. Donald Trump did nothing wrong. I didn't admit I lied because I didn't lie. But I was just good. I didn't contest the lawsuit because, you know, he called it admission argue window. It happens all the time.

Everyone does it. I'm misunderstood. I didn't lie. It's just this weird third party. But he didn't say, ah, he said Giuliani didn't do this. Giuliani, you know, he told, he referred to himself in the third person, which I think is just very bizarre. But anyway, the judge said, I can't make heads or tails

of this weird stipulation, that's not a stipulation. And so he sanctioned him and said that his stipulation was not accepted. And rather than fix it or provide these documents, he didn't do either. He didn't fix the stipulation or provide the discovery that he had to. So the judge basically gave this very scathing order where he said,

I'm ordering a default judgment plus attorneys fees plus costs. And, you know, we're going to go straight to damages. And by September 20th, I'm requiring you both sides to meet and confer and propose a date for us to go to trial on the damages. It has to be between Thanksgiving and February of 2024. And this was the second time that he awarded attorneys fees to Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss, about $90,000 give or take.

And he also said, did you learn, you better turn over your finances this time. Because look, you have this podcasting empire, you have put out videos, I wanna know your viewership, I wanna know the revenues, the distribution, the contracts, all of your bank statements, everything that you do on social media, I wanna know the reach of your podcast, how many page visits there are, you know all of the details Because why because he knows this is simple math, right? He's gonna say he's gonna look at they're gonna find every time Rudy Giuliani mentioned Ruby Freeman or she must and

And multiply that like say you have a hundred million views or a million views or whatever on one of these say you have a hundred million views or a million views or whatever on one of these, multiply each one of those to come up with his millions of dollars worth of damages and punitive damages and he'll have to reimburse all the return attorneys fees as well. He said, however, which I thought was the most interesting part of this whole thing, the thing that had the most kind of, you know, eff you, Giuliani. She said, it's a she. You're right. Sorry, just a barrel howl is a she. You know, I knew that actually. I knew that. You're thinking of Mr. Howl from Gilligan's. I don't know. I know that barrel howl is a

she. I apologize. Her honor, Judge Howl. The thing that the judge said that I thought was the most powerful and that I love the most is the jury instruction. She said that the jury, if you don't give us this information, I am going to instruct the jury that when you are determining the punitive damages, what is punitive damages? Punitive means punishment. So the damages that are going to be solely calculated to punish you, Rudy Giuliani, I am going to instruct them that you, Rudy Giuliani, are intentionally trying to hide the relevant discovery about your finances for the purpose of artificially diminishing and deflating your net worth. You have until September 20th, because if you don't, I'm giving this instruction. I might still give this instruction, even if you do give me this information, but I'm definitely giving it if you don't.

By the way, I love that we're ending this podcast the same way we started it, which is all about intentionally inflating or deflating assets, right? That's exactly what we talked about in the beginning. You're on mute again, Popok. I'm going to tie it all together and your head's going to explode. We have a recording. We're going to end it on this talking about inflation. The New York Attorney General, Etisha James, has filed a motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment in her New York case under 63-12 or executive law, 63-12, which gives her tremendous powers to go out after continuing fraud. She has probably the most powerful set of civil remedies of any attorney general in the country,

not criminal, but civil. And she's now said to the judge, we don't even need a trial. Donald Trump has so lied and it's so easy to prove on an undisputed factual records. Just look at the numbers about at least six or eight of his properties, including his triplex, which is Trump Tower, 40 Wall Street, which is somewhere near where Karen walks by a lot. Mar-a-Lago, right? The Trump Tower is another building at Trump Towers, a property he has with Vornado Group, uh, a developer. That is so obvious that he's inflated by over two billion with a B dollars that we don't even need a trial on that issue.

We usually just find as a matter of law that he's, that Donald Trump has inflated in this case his assets. We'll follow it more on hot takes. So be care in me or better, all of us or or two of us will do something on hot takes. But we've reached the end of another episode of legal a f really on a high note. You got the civil side doing its part for justice. You got Rudy Giuliani get the civil death penalty related to death to faming to pure innocent Americans doing their job.

You got Judge Chuckkin, who's exerting her influence and taking a trial date on the calendar, the day before Super Tuesday, a criminal case. You got what's going on in Georgia, where Fani and Judge McAfee is trying to keep everybody honest and given them early trial dates, even earlier than March if necessary. And we didn't even have to talk about any shenanigans and judge candidates chambers this week.

Maybe we'll do it on the weekend edition. But we've reached the end of this. We are on the Midas Touch Network. You know that. You're watching us here. You can listen to us on audio podcast platforms wherever you get your audio podcast from. And if you really want to help,

every way I'm going to describe now to help us, to help the network, to help the content and the programming is all free. Door we have merchandise, salty. Let's put up store.mitus.com. We've got the new legal AF T shirts designed by a friend of Karen Friedman, Ignituelos is a famous sports logo guy. Look at these logos and I will tell you they are flying off the shelf.

I saw the numbers. They are flying off the shelf. You should get one. That's the only thing you got to buy. Everything else is free free. Subscribe to the Midas Touch YouTube channel. We're pushing towards two million. Help us get the two million free subscribers on that listen to this rate us here the ratings are helpful give us a thumbs up leave a note go and review us on audio give us a five star review. That helps. All of that helps. Audio video. Go to the new website for MidasTouch. MidasTouch.com. They spent the brothers spent a lot of time on that. They've got a new editor-in-chief. They've

got a newsroom. We write for it. When I say we, I mean Karen, we combine the writer. You all know the video, all in one play, you can literally live on the Midas Touch Network all day long on the website and just and have everything there or you can do the same thing on the YouTube channel. That's it. That's how you can support what we're doing. We know the people that are watching enjoy what we're doing. It keeps us motivated to do it, but this is the way that you can support us as we're talking

to you through our microphones and our screens. Karen, I love giving you, sometimes you don't like getting it, but I love giving you the last word on the Wednesday pockets. That's where Karen free did it. It's a blue moon tonight, right? Everyone's talking about this blue moon and people are going crazy and all of all of that stuff. Is it a blue moon? Yeah. It's, well, it's not actually blue. The reason it Is it a blue moon? All right. Yeah. Well, it's not actually blue. The reason it's called the blue moon is it's two full moons in one calendar month. And that's what makes it a blue moon.

But anyway, I want to, yeah. So I want to send my last thing I want to say is I'm just sending my thoughts and prayers if you will to all the people who are in the hurricane path and who are dealing with all of that right now. And I don't think we ever did it to the people that are suffering in Hawaii. You know, and often you think of suffering in Hawaii, but 400 people or so are missing and or dead.

And we never really talked about it too much. It just came up and made so much content, but we should be human beings. And I'm glad you mentioned that. So until Wednesday, a Saturday with Ben, my Salis and me, next Wednesday, right back here, same place, same station, same channel with Karen Friedman, Igniflo, Michael Popak,

shout out to the Midas Mighty and to the Legal Aeifers. Cheers.