Legal AF by MeidasTouch - New Trump INDICTMENT READY TO DROP At Any Moment

Episode Date: July 27, 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. The impending new federal indictment of Trump (and others) for election interference and voter fraud conspiracy by Special Counsel Jack Smith, including new evidence the prosecutor’s office has obtained through cooperating witnesses including former Trump lawyers and investigators; 2. Updates concerning the second week of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ criminal grand jury also seeking to indict Trump and others on State criminal and conspiracy crimes later this month or early next, and questions and questions as to whether Fani and Jack are working together; 3. Rudy Giuliani’s last minute decision to admit to a federal judge that he defamed Fulton County Georgia election workers Shay Moss and Ruby Freeman when he accused them on national TV of voter fraud and what it could mean for DA Willis’ and Special Counsel Smith’s cases; 4. A Trump-appointed federal judge refusing to accept Hunter Biden’s plea, negotiated with a Trump appointed US Attorney in Delaware, without further briefing to explain to her why she should, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! AG1: Athletic Greens is giving you a FREE 1 year supply of Vitamin D AND 5 free travel packs with your first purchase. Go to https://athleticgreens.com/LEGALAF. Miracle Made Sheets: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Nom Nom: Go Right Now for 50% off your no-risk two week trial at https://TryNom.com/LEGALAF BetterHelp: This is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://BetterHelp.com/LEGALAF today to get 10% off your first month and get on your way to being your best self! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop 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

Jack Smith has an indicted Donald Trump yet this week as we went to the air with our podcast recording, but he is on the 5mm line and ready to punch it through for a touchdown soon. What will that indictment for election interference, conspiracy, obstruction, and voter fraud look like? Who else will be added as an unindicted or indicted co-conspirator, and which others are the prosecutors still leaning on to cooperate with a threat of future indictment? And how will Jack Smith solve the critical, criminal, intent, or men's rei element of each of the crimes, for a Trump who has been feigning that he's in good faith believes that the election was stolen from him in every public statement and appearance.

We think there are maybe a dozen key facts that make it impossible for Trump to deny that he knew or should have known that he legitimately lost the election fair and square and we will discuss. Then it's on to Fulton County, Georgia to discuss Fawney, Fulstima head Willis, the DA there at her second full week of presenting her criminal rico and conspiracy case against Trump and others to her grand jury. Will she beat Jack Smith to the punch and indict first? And does that even matter if the two prosecutors are cooperating and putting witnesses and targets between a rock and a federal prosecutor place?

Then we'll talk about the missing link to solve the question of whether Jack and Fawney are cooperating, and that may be Rudy Giuliani of all people, who actually looks like the evolutionary missing link. That's a witness and bad conduct that both Jack and Fawney share. And we will discuss what Rudy's recent decision to stipulate to a judgment about defaming to Fulton County election workers for saying they committed voter fraud in favor of Joe Biden may mean about both criminal cases. Finally, Trump judges sometimes do as they please, especially with something near and dear

to the to President Biden is involved. And so it should come as no surprise that in court today, a Delaware federal judge rejected, at least for now, a plea deal with Hunter Biden to put that long national nightmare that is Hunter Biden, Tom planted firmly in cheek. To rest, this was a plea deal negotiated,

not by Merrick Garland in the Department of Justice, but by a Republican U.S. Attorney appointed by Donald Trump, kept in place by Merrick to handle the case. And yet, a federal judge wants full briefing on why she should accept the gun charge and other parts of the plea deal. Three roses and a lemon on the audience and sponsor supported midweek edition of Legal

I F only on the Midest Touch Network with your anchors, a slightly under the weather Michael Popak and an always high voltage Karen Friedman at Nifalo Karen. How are you? Sorry to hear you're under the weather, Popa. That's terrible. Having a whole cold. Yeah, I'm getting over one and I'm burning the candle at both ends. I I told salty are producer when I was doing some of the hot takes. I literally, what I shouldn't say is I literally was dripping sweat because I didn't feel

well. And I was hoping, I hope nobody sees this. Unless they think it's just an incredibly hot, hot take. I hope I'm getting sweaty. So if you see, believe occasionally and Karen, of course, takes over as my able co-anchor, that's, that's one of the reasons. But I got high energy right now. Let's take advantage of it. Why don't we dive right in to Jack Smith? You know, we said we thought this was the week. Today's already Wednesday, Wednesday night hasn't happened yet, but it could happen. And I want you to comment on what you've heard or what you believe is the date. But you know, this shows not just about crystal balling when we think the indictment is coming. Rest assured, a second indictment by Jack Smith is coming,

whether it's Tuesday, Thursday, next Wednesday, it doesn't matter, it's coming. And then there's some new developments that happened where we know it's coming and we sort of sense what he's focused on, which is what every prosecutor, and you'll be able to tell our audience about it, it keeps them up at night, which is being able to prove criminal intent, mens rea, for somebody that's acting criminally insane, basically, and saying that he knows that he didn't lose and it was fraud and all of that. And so, data points have been developed. For instance, we know that Richard Donaue, who was the acting deputy attorney general,

who worked under the acting attorney general, Jeff Rosen, who took over in the waning days of the Trump administration when Bill Barr resigned. So now we're talking December, January, you know, but they were, that's, that was their job. And they were there to advise the president. He has given testimony, just got revealed, but it was given about 90 days ago. And we sort of know what Richard Donaue said to Jack Smith because Richard Donaue testified to the Jan 6th Committee and appeared live at one of the hearings.

And so we know that one of the focuses that Jack is focused on, Jack Smith's prosecutors are focused on, is a meeting in February of 2020 in which Donald Trump upset with another part of his leadership team that had given a interview to Adam Schiff, who Donald Trump hates, in which he basically said that there was Russian interference in the prior election. Of course, Donald Trump hated that. So in a knee jerk reaction, he had an oval office meeting which we can presume Ken Kuchinelli, the Homeland Security Director was there. Christopher Ray, the FBI Director, Mark Meadows certainly was there.

And Jeff Rose and Acting Attorney General, and this Richard Donnie, in which Donald Trump was all excited and wanted the FBI and Homeland Security to do a press conference to announce that the upcoming election was gonna be the most secure and fraud-free in history. He was one of these Donald Trump's, it'll be the best, biggest, most not fraud election ever.

And so why is that important? Because where then did it go off the rails? Why six weeks later, did Donald Trump take to the airwaves to say that this was fraud, Italian satellites, were flipping votes, I'm not making that up. Venezuela's software was flipping votes. Millions of votes were deleted for Trump. Millions of votes were flipped from Trump to Biden.

How did he go from, this is the most secure in February to crazy talk later on against the overwhelming evidence presented to him by people in his cabinet and outside advisors and consultants that there was no fraud. And that goes of course to to men's rea. We also know that that Jack Smith is catching up and interviewing people like Georgia governor, uh, Kemp, Georgia secretary of state, Rafans, Perker, people that have already given testimony in Fony Willis's case, actual testimony to the special purpose grand jury sworn statements. And now Jack's playing catch up. And we'll talk about from your prosecutor perspective, that aspect of it.

And then we lastly, we've got Bernie Kerrick, the disgraced former top cop in New York, who for about a year was the police commissioner in New York until he went down on tax fraud charges, got clemency from Donald Trump, do you see a pattern here? And then signed up to be an investigator for Team Crazy Captain Rudy Giuliani in going out and filing all these lawsuits and trying to find fraud. And so Bernie, a carrot, never turned over his documents or his files to the Jan 6th committee. They never got them.

In fact, the only person now that will ever have seen them is Jack Smith, because we're going to talk about the Ruby Freeman defamation case with her mom, or the mother daughter team of Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, and that in that case, those documents are not only gonna be produced in that case, but they're going over to Jack Smith, and we'll talk about what the impact of all that is. But let me turn it over to you now, former Manhattan District Attorney, prosecutor,

tell me what you are sensing, like you're at your fingertips, about how close we are to the indictment, what that indictment could look like, and what these other things about trying to crack the code of mens rea indicates to you that Jack Smith's trying to do. Yeah, the mainstream media industrial complex as I like to call them. They all seem to be coalescing around tomorrow, which is Thursday, as the day that there will be an indictment. So, you know, there are, and there's trucks outside, the courthouse, and the reporters who are normally here in New York are sent down to Washington,

where they're doing their normal shows in Washington. So, they all think it's tomorrow. I think it could be tomorrow. It could be Friday or next week, as you said, but it's it's coming and I think it's coming ASAP. And let's talk a little bit about how that will happen. Jack Smith will ask the grand jury to vote on specific charges against specific people. We don't know if he's bringing charges against Trump, Trump, and others. We just don't know who he's bringing charges against. It could be one person, it could be many people. And we don't know which charges. It could be limited, it could be vast, it could be the three charges that were talked about in the target letter, it could be other charges. It's all happening in secret we don't know, and if they vote that, too, will be in secret.

What will happen next is that Jack Smith will contact Donald Trump's lawyer and let him know that he's been indicted and request a surrender date. And he'll do that very quickly and probably have press conference the minute that Donald Trump tells everybody that he got that call so that he can set the record straight himself. That's how things normally happen. I think the reason Jack Smith will go to Trump and let him know right away is because although the grand jury is secret, there's a lot of people, there's 23 grand jurors, there's a court reporter, there's lawyers, I mean, they're, you know, inditing the former president, you know, there's a court

clerk, although it's secret, I think they wouldn't want anything to leak, you know, if a grand juror goes home and whispers to their husband or wife, you know, hey, guess what? And then who tells one person? And then next thing, you know, it's all over the place. So, so I think they would tell him right away. And I think we would know fairly quickly from Donald Trump that this has occurred. And, you know, the question will be, will there, what will the charges be? And, you know, there's a few things that, that Jack Smith is thinking about. So, you know, there's a few things that Jack Smith is thinking about. So, you know, on the one hand, he's going to want to treat this case like every other case, so that he is not accused of being political or politicizing anything. And, you know, so that,

and if you, you know, because you don't want to make this a political case, you want this to be just like any other case. And if to be just like any other case. And if it were just like any other case, you would bring the whole kit and caboodle. You know, that's what prosecutors do. They bring all the charges they can bring against all the people that they can bring them. You don't kind of typically, especially in a long-term investigation, you don't sort of do a little now and a little later. So that would be how he would do it if he treated it like any other case. I don't think, however, that is his only consideration. I think another consideration is getting this case to trial, just getting this case to trial period. Full stop because depending

on who wins the election, if it's Donald Trump, he could pardon himself or if he doesn't pardon himself, he could just tell that his department of justice to drop the case, drop the appeal, drop the investigation, whatever it is. So I think that is one concern about if he wins or another Republican wins. And so I think if I were Jack Smith, I'd want to get a case to trial one way or another before the election, partly because I think the American people are entitled to know an accusation. You're innocent until proven guilty. And an accusation like this is quite serious.

And I think it would be best for the American people for this to get resolved. And the best way for that to happen, I think, would have it be a limited scope indictment against Donald Trump only, or Donald Trump and maybe one or two other people who are necessary for any particular charge and have certain discrete charges. And the three charges that they've talked about in the target letter is number one, it's 18 USC United States Code, section 241, which is a conspiracy against rights. It makes it unlawful for two or more people to agree to injure threat and or intimidate a person in the United States and the free exercise or enjoyment of any

writer privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his or her having exercise such a right. This is typically brought in voting cases, and that is the charge that was in the target letter. It's a felony, unlike other conspiracy cases, usually a conspiracy case or charge, requires an addition to two people agreeing to commit a crime together. Usually it requires an overt act or some sort of act

to bring it forward, and this charge does not require any overt act. So this is a fairly serious charge and this would require the Jack Smith to have to prove that there's two or more people agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person, right? And so who did he threaten and intimidate? So I might say it was Mike Pence, right? Trying to pressure him to not certify the election, or it could be Brad Raffin's burger and the other states where he pressured people to find, you know, with Brad Raffin's burger, the Georgia Secretary of State, that

was the famous perfect phone call, find 11,780 votes. You know, that's pressure or intimidating or threatening a person in the free exercise of a privilege or a right secured by the Constitution. Now I don't think voting is actually in the Constitution, believe it or not, but I do think it is a right or privilege that is secured by the Constitution. So I think that's what he would have to prove there. And I think that fits very neatly in the facts that we know them to be. The second charge is conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 United States Code section 371. That's two or more people conspired to commit any offense against the United States or defraud the United States.

So this is a case where it would be very, I think this is where the fake electors come in, because this is where you would show that he was in a conspiracy or in an agreement with someone and it could be Johnny Smith, it could be Cheesebro, it could be you know anyone Rudy Giuliani, you know the people who were really instrumental in the fake electors and in creating this fake elector, you know they even called them the fake electors right, that's a great evidence to show their intent to defraud the United States. And so that's the case that I think that's the charge and the mens rea or the intent,

the mindset. Men's rea just means your criminal mindset. What do you have to have? Is it an intentional crime? Are you intended to do it? Is it a reckless crime? Or is it a negligent crime? There's different levels of your mindset

that goes to what you will be charged with, right? I mean, I always use the example of the difference between a homicide and an accident has to do with what's in your mindset, right? If a gun goes off, if a gun goes off and someone gets shot accidentally and you legally possess that gun, you know, that's an accident. But if you point that same gun at someone to try to kill them, and that's a homicide, right?

So that's what it means, that's what men's ray means. It's all about what's in the mindset. And then the third charge that people talk about is, it said tampering with the witness, I think, what's in the mindset. And then the third charge that people talk about is, it's said tampering with the witness, I think, in the target letter. But that's just the title of the section. It's Title 18 section.

I think it's 1512 that they're looking at. And that has to do with obstruction of an official proceeding, which is when they tried to stop the sort of the certifying of the electoral college on January 6. So I think that's where we are here with Jack Smith. I think that's what's going to be happening, whether it's these three charges, other charges,

whether the co-conspirators will be named in the indictment, or if they will just be called co-conspirator one, co-conspirator number two, witness number one, witness number two, kind of like they did in the Marlago indictment that we could clean who some of those people, most of those people are. So, we'll see what that indictment looks like, hopefully tomorrow, and what the charges are,

he'll surrender, and this is gonna be serious, though, this is gonna be by far the most serious indictment and charges that are levied against him because this goes to the very foundation of our democracy. You know this is this is all that this is a this is this is the case that really really matters and it's going to be brought in DC we'll see who the judge is you know And it's going to be brought in DC. We'll see who the judge is. You know, again, it's going to be a random assignment, you know, situation. We'll see who he gets for a judge. But if I were Jack Smith, this is the case of all the cases, Fannie Willis's case, Alvin Bragg's case, et cetera, that I would bring this case. And that's why it's taken him so long to gather all the evidence because it's not just about getting an indictment.

It's about getting a conviction. And if you know anything about Jack Smith and you've worked with him in the past and we know him from his past history, he's not just willing to get an indictment. You know, any prosecutor worth his salt to paraphrase, well, then one second, to paraphrase something that was put recently in filings by Donald Trump, a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. But we're talking about conviction. And if you're going to go after a president, former president, for all the bad acts that

Karen, you just described, you better be loaded for bear when you do it. And I think that's what we're watching with the other evidence. People might be scratching their head and saying why after nine months, which is a very short amount of time, by the way, since he's been in his chair as this special counsel, why are we still hearing about witnesses coming in and new witnesses and going back to old witnesses and making them, you know, re-corroborate or come up, you know, challenge their story and get new evidence. And why is he going after Bernie Kerrick at such a late date?

Because you got one shot at the indictment, and when you do it, I'm sure they're going to say, and we're ready for trial very, very quickly, and they want to be ready, like they were in Mar-a-Lago where they pulled up a dump truck and said, not only have we filed the indictment or unsealed the indictment, you're on her, and we're ready for the arrangement. But we have a tractor trailer outside that we're ready to dump on Donald Trump with all of the evidence that we've collected against him. That's Brady material where everybody likes it's delivered. And he's going to do the same thing here, and that's part of what is going on with his

team. You know, while while he's out signaling and messaging by going to subway, that this is a lunchpale guy that's just focused on one thing, which is the job at hand. He's got a team of people behind him. I mean, let's be frank, he spent $25 million, you know, a good portion of which was on security, but to prepare the case. I thought Kyle Cheney and Politico did a nice job today in organizing it along the lines of the Gen 6 committee, as opposed to like the three counts that we described here. It's important for everybody to understand the three counts.

And to clarify something as I see, there's some confusion in the chat. We're talking about the imminent indictment by Jack Smith. Fony Willis, which we'll pick up later in the show, that's earliest is July 31, more likely beginning of August. So, we're focused right now on Jack Smith. And the way that Kyle broke it down based on his reporting and all the evidence out there is you got about six different links in the chain, right?

You got the disinformation campaign that was led by Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell and Jenna Ellis, Ann Mark Meadows, including, you know, talk about life imitating art, right, at a succession, declaring victory on election day before all the votes have been counted. And so you have all of that. Then you've got the electoral fake certificates. So there you've got Eastman and Ellis and Giuliani,

Peter Navarro, Jeffrey Clark involved as well, because Jeff Clark, when he was trying to jump into the driver's seat and become the attorney general for like five days, one of the things he was going to do was to order, order states to recognize the fake electors on behalf of the Department of Justice. And then you've got that martial law, voting machine seizure aspects. Sometimes it's hard for me to put these words together in a coherent sentence that had actually almost happened in this country.

And that relates to the December 8th Oval Office meeting, involving Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell, Mike Flynn, and the Patrick Byrne, who's the founder of Overstock.com. To paraphrase Pat Cipollone, who burst into the room, what are you doing here? I like to call that company now Overthrow.com. You have the Marshall Law where they were actually promoting Trump Trump suspending the Constitution and habeas corpus and seizing voting machines until he was talked off the ledge by others.

And then you've got the weaponization of the Justice Department, which would be, you know, the witnesses would be Donnie, Richard Donnie and Rosen that we talked about, Cipalone, the White House Council and others, but then you've got Representative Scott Perry from Pennsylvania, who has been, a little bit of a puppet maker back there in a lot of these scenes, and I think you'll see him listed in the indictment. I don't know if he's gonna be indicted,

but he's gonna be listed, and then you've got Jeff Clark again. Then you've got what you talked about, Karen, the pressure on Pence that was being applied applied and you've got a whole bunch of witnesses Many that are cooperating with jack smith if not fawny willis including Mike Pence Ken cheeseburg Greg Jacobs and the like then you got the rally on the ellipse leading to the riot and the things after that This goes on and on I mean that when we get our hands on this indictment, it's going to be hundreds of counts and a summary version of what happened there that it's going to

take you, me, Ben, our entire team, days to unpack. I mean, we'll be doing hot takes for weeks as we find. Sorry. I was going to say the problem with that, Popok, is that case that you just described with hundreds of counts and dozens of defendants, which is the case, right? That is the case. If that's the case, that's brought, that case will not go to trial before the election. There's too many moving parts, too many issues, too many charges, too many counts, too many legal issues, too many defendants and defense attorneys who will make motions.

And so I wonder whether Jack Smith will do something much more streamlined and much more streamlined. Let me ask you something because now we've set up a you and I are a little bit of odds. Let's say he doesn't bring the broader case. So he leaves a lot of meat on the table, a lot of meat on the bone. And he does a more streamlined case in order for the purpose of getting a conviction before the election, which I think we're running at a time on that, given the calendar that we've already established with Mar-a-Lago, New York, the civil, get the civil cases, the criminal cases that are coming, I think we're really

running at a time to get this done before, but maybe, maybe you're right. Does that mean he tries that case because the Statue of Limitations hasn't run, he goes back at some time to chew the broader case? Because I hope we're not suggesting that he'll never do the broader case because he's just trying to get a path to a quicker conviction.

That's not your point, though. Is it? No, no. What I think is a possibility is he brings a few charges. One of them is conspiracy. And in the conspiracy, he tells this whole story. In other words, it's just a simple couple accounts with one, two, or three defendants, a limited number, the ones that are necessary for those couple accounts, but you tell the whole story and you're speaking indictment.

And so that way, at a certain point, you don't need every charge that could be brought. What is that? All that does is just give you more things you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, more elements to crimes, right? You don't need, you know, if these are charges that carry 20 years, 10 years, whatever it is, you don't need more than a couple of them. And so if I were doing this case just because

of where we are in this moment in time, I would probably keep it, I would keep it to a limited number. I wouldn't do the hundreds of charges that you could do because this man is a, you is a one man crime spree. And you could do that, but I would keep it limited and I would do it just like he did in Mar-a-Lago. There's a limited number. He didn't do a hundred. He didn't charge 101 classified documents. He picked 30, 30, something of them. I can't remember now. He didn't do all of the different people who were moving boxes. He picked 30, 30, something of them. I can't remember now. He didn't do all of the different people who were moving boxes and, you know, he could have had, he had co-conspirators in

there, etc. He just charged one person with him. It was a limited stream lined case with all the facts and the whole story was told. And so I think that's the way he, that's the way he did Mar-a-Lago, that's the way he could do this. And I think that would be the elegant solution to what's a real complicated. I mean, look at the select committee. I mean, we had hate-ate hearings, but that thousands of witnesses. I mean, the case is massive. And so if that were a trial with every possible charge and every possible defendant, just the trial alone could be years long. By the time you call all the witnesses, etc. So I don't think that's what will happen here. I think he'll do a couple of charges with a couple of defendants, maybe only Trump, telling the whole story in a speaking indictment. So it's there. And then I think he might bring a second indictment against everybody else,

because they did all the low level people already, the thousand people who've been, you know, the insurrectionists, et cetera. Those, they've been prosecuted. But they haven't done yet, are the mid levels and Trump. And so I think he's going to potentially do two separate indictments, the mid-levels, which are really the upper levels, but it's not Trump. It's go ahead. No, I was going to say, I like this approach because it solves the for the equation

of what do you do with all the facts so that for history sake and for justice is sake he's brought to justice but solves for the problem that you identified which is let's do this on a fast track and a streamlined process and not let's not have 22 defendants sitting in a courtroom they can't even do that most of these courtrooms can't hold more than seven or eight we saw that with the prep poison the oath keepers and and and we want Donald Trump's head on a pike I mean in a presumed innocent kind of way So I like that and I like the whole speaking indictment approach to it

And then we're gonna talk in the next segment about what we think is the obvious coordination between Fanny Willis and Jack Smith because he's not big footing what she's doing Fonny Willis and Jack Smith, because he's not big footing what she's doing. And he's allowing her to not only be ahead of him in the development of facts related to Georgia, but he's barely playing catch-up. She's got witnesses under oath, and he's just getting around to having discussions

with the governor. But we'll talk about why that's a good thing that they're working together in whipsawing Donald Trump when we return, but first, a word from our sponsor. Our next partner is HG1, the daily foundational nutrition supplement that supports whole body health. I drink it literally every day. I gave HG1 a try because I was tired of taking so many

supplements, and I wanted a single solution that supports my entire body and covers my nutritional basis every day. I want a better gut health, a boost in energy, immune system support, and want it a supplement that actually tastes great. I drink AG in the morning to start my day, it makes me feel unstoppable and ready to take on anything, and on top of it all, I'm doing something good for my body. I'm giving my body the nutrition it craves, and I'm covering my nutritional basis. I've tried a ton of different supplements

out there, but this is different. And the ingredients are super high quality. I got started with AG1 because I used to take all these different pills and gummies, who knows what, and frankly what I was taking was expensive, and I didn't even know if it was good for me. But with AG1, I know what I'm consuming has the best ingredients and also taste delicious. AG1 makes it easier for you to take the highest quality supplements, period. When I started my AG1 journey, very quickly I noticed that it helps me with improved digestion, energy, and overall I just feel great. It's just one scoop of powder mixed with water. Once a day, making it a seamless and easy daily habit to maintain. I'm asked all the time about

the one thing I do to take care of my health if I could only pick one. It be foundational nutrition, and AG1 is a top foundational nutrition product. Just one daily serving gives me the comprehensive foundational nutrition I need and supports energy, focus, strength, and clarity with 75 high quality vitamins, probiotics, and whole food source ingredients. I can't think of another daily routine that pays off as well as AG1, which is why I trust the product so much. If you're looking for a simpler, effective investment for your health, try AG1, and get

5 free AG1 travel packs and a free one-year supply of vitamin D with your first purchase. Go to drinkag1.com slash legalaf. That's drinkag1.com slash legalaf. Check it out. Did you know that your temperature at night can have one of the greatest impacts on your sleep quality? If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle

Maid's bed sheets. Inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid uses silver infused fabrics and makes temperature regulating bedding so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long. Using silver infused fabrics originally inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long. So you get better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with silver that prevent up to 99.7% of bacterial growth, leaving them to stay cleaner and fresher three times longer than other sheets.

No more gross odors. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands. And feel as nice if not nicer than bed sheets used by some five star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores, causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. Go to trymiracle.com. Slash legal AF to try Miracle Mate sheets today.

And whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today, you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo legal a f at checkout, you'll get three free towels and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product. It's back the 30 day money back guarantee. And if you're not 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle made. Go to try miracle.com slash legal AF and use the

code legal AF to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40%. Again, that's try miracle.com slash legal AF to treat yourself. Thank you, Miracle made for sponsoring this episode. And my that enthusiastic about bringing Trump to justice as I am by one of our sponsors? I think that was a great ad read. I was I was I was high on life on that one. See that. But I was in Miami at the time.

So let's let's since we teased it, let's get to it. Let's talk about Fawney Willis and what she's doing in her second week of running her regular grand jury. Just as a reminder, she gets the benefit of using her seven months of presentation of evidence, 75 witnesses testimony that's recorded in the transcripts and documents, partly in other evidence that she did in her special purpose grand jury. She gets to walk that into the regular grand jury and she can choose what she wants to have read out loud

from the prior testimony. She can bring in witnesses live, so she doesn't bore the grand jury to death because I've been in front of juries where we've had a re-testimony and it's a lot of flat line going on with the jury at that moment and you wanna keep them kind of, so you'll mix it up a little bit. But the reason that she's going to go so quickly here, and the reason people are even speculating

that by like the third week or sooner of her presentation, she's ready to go for the indictment, is because she's standing on the shoulders of her own work of seven months, and Donald Trump's efforts to stop her from doing that with his ridiculous attempt to cut out the entire appeal process and the Fulton County process and go right to the Georgia Supreme Court into the waiting arms of nine Republican Supreme Court justices that all said, no, nine zero. We're not taking this petition to have you to qualify Faudi Willis or to have us not use the special purpose grand jury material. And we're not in joining or stopping her new grand jury. And so you got something to say go do it lower, lower courts, and maybe we'll see another time.

And so she's just progressing by the time they get back up to the higher court on this, she's going to get her indictment. And one of the developments that was really fascinating and we're trying to read it. And you had a very good take on it. You're doing a hot take on it, actually, is about this kind of bombshell today that Rudy has thrown in the towel and wave the white flag in the defamation case in federal court that's sitting in front of Judge Barrel Howell brought by Shay Moss and Ruby Freeman, a mother daughter election worker team, who all they wanted to do for their country, was to sit in the Fulton County Auditorium and count votes and tabulate votes and get paid

like next to nothing for doing that. And what they got in return was that they became the poster child for the Republicans in MAGA and Rudy Giuliani and others that there was voter fraud going on. And they used a clip of them counting votes. All they were doing was taking votes that were spent, in other words, already counted and putting them in a locked case underneath their table, but for the crazies who thought also like Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows that there were Italian satellites. People might stop right now and go, pop up your make it stuff up now. I'm not.

That there are Italian satellites that flipped votes from Biden, from Trump to Biden. If you think that, you also think that the suitcase, suitcase underneath the table of an election worker could be a batch of Biden illegal votes created in China that were shoved into the voting machines to win Fulton County for Biden. I got news for them. Fulton County is so rock solid blue in Atlanta that it would have been an upset

if Trump even came close within 10 points to Joe Biden. So why they picked on Fountain County? I don't know. But Rudy Giuliani, for instance, in a phone call that's now infamous in the hands of Jack Smith and Fony Willis, because it was recorded, called up and started screaming at Brad Raffins purger, the Secretary of State and other election officials, and used Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss' name 18 times claiming they committed fraud. There is a video. Let me show you the video.

You have to overturn the election. And they went on television. It's at the exact same thing, including Cindy Powell and Rudy Giuliani. So in the defamation case that they brought because they're just average citizens that just got called fraudsters. They got docks by Republicans. They had to move out of their house. Their emotional wrecks from it and their lives are in tatters because Republican Maga Party doesn't care. So lawyers representing them sued and they got assigned barrel howl who used to be the chief judge of the DC circuit court responsible for all grand juries. So she knew the chance six Situation very very well. And Rudy has done nothing but step in the bucket and wrap himself around his own axle since he's been sued. So he got

$100,000 for discovery abuse not not preserving documents that he should have, not producing documents that he should have. And he was facing, he was looking down the barrel of another major sanction related to his deposition at all. When suddenly today, he stipulated to a judgment against him. He didn't say the damage amount, and that will be set, I guess, by the judge or trial. But he's agreed in a stipulated set of facts that he says without admitting that it's true, he's not going to contest that he defame them,

that those words would be defamatory, that they were untrue about Ruby free minute, Shay Moss, and so on and so on. And you have a theory, I'm going to read from it in a minute, but you have a theory, Karen, which I think is really enlightening about what the fact that he rolled over and said, I'm going to not fight this case anymore, and I'm basically gonna admit in artfully crafted word smithing,

but I'm good to admit that this was defamatory, these statements, and they were untrue. You have a theory about how that fits back with the prosecutions. You want to share it? Sure. Yeah. I mean, it's potentially, it could mean he's cooperating with Jack Smith. And the reason I, you know, it could also just mean, by the way, he's just bankrupt and he's run out of money and doesn't want to fight this anymore because he knows he knows he's going

to lose. But it could also mean he's cooperating. The reason I think that is because if you're going to cooperate with the government in a case, if you're a target, if you're going to be a defendant, you're a punitive defendant, to cooperate, which is totally different than if you're just like an a defendant and you're a punitive defendant, to cooperate, which is totally different than if you're just like an eyewitness to a crime and you go and you testify and you give testimony, you don't have to take the fifth because you might incriminate yourself.

No one has to get into any agreement with a prosecutor. You just go and give testimony because you're just a witness. But if you're a defendant or a future defendant because you have committed crimes along with the people who will be charged or you know of those crimes, then what happens is you enter into a cooperation agreement with the government and it's typically in writing and in the cooperation agreement, it lays out,

it's like a contract between a defendant and the government. And it's pursuant to, it's called a 5K, which means you will get in there if you do all the things that you're supposed to do in your contract, you'll get what's called a 5K letter. And that's basically a letter to the judge saying, you materially cooperated truthfully and you are helpful. And so please give this person a break.

And usually the break is good enough, significant enough that it encourages people to cooperate, which is why so many people do cooperate with the government because it's a big difference between what you'll get if you go to trial and lose versus cooperation. And for you to cooperate and enter into that agreement, there's a couple of caveats. Number one, you have to be 100% truthful, and they'll test you, the government. They'll cross examine you, they'll test you,

they'll try to corroborate the things that you're saying. If you say that I moved money from my bank account to someone else's bank account, they'll go look at those records. If you said, I got an email from somebody that said, go do X, Y and Z, they'll get your email. They corroborate everything you say. And if it holds up, and they believe that you're truthful, and the next thing you have to do is you have to admit to every single crime you've ever committed.

Not just this crime, not just what you know, what you want to say, what you want to agree to, you have to admit to everything. And you have to plead guilty. And you plead guilty to these crimes. And so if he has pled guilty to the crime of whatever it is, right, it could be any of the crimes that they're looking at for Trump. It could be, you know, the election interference, it could be trying to, you know, the civil rights violation, it could be, you know, defrauding the United States, whatever it is that they're looking at it,

clearly one of, part of that scheme to defraud the United States, involved things like making accusations, these terrible accusations against the people like Shemos and Ruby Freeman and accusing them of, you know, basically election fraud, of getting rid of votes, dealing votes, all the things he was saying, called them drug dealers, you know, because, you know, they're black women, so, you know, in Rudy's mind, they must be drug dealers because, you know because they're all racist, racist horrible people.

But anyway, that would absolutely have to be part of his plea, because that's a crime what he did there. In addition to it being the famed Tory, it's part of this bigger scheme to steal the election. And so he would have to plead guilty for that. Now, like to remember, the difference between a civil case and a criminal case, among other things. A criminal case is where you have to prove.

The prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the highest standard of proof there is in our United States court system. It's beyond any reasonable doubt, a doubt for which you can affix a reason. It's not beyond all doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a very high bar. A very low bar is the civil bar, which I love civil cases. I love doing civil cases, preponderance of the evidence. It's the feather on the scale, right? You have equal scale and you just put a feather on and it goes a little bit more.

That's it. It's more likely than not. That's beautiful. That's a beautiful easy standard. So if you've already played guilty to something beyond a reasonable doubt, you for sure are guilty or liable or accountable, whatever the word is in, in a defamation case, responsible. And so I think what's the point of fighting it?

If you've already pled guilty to it under a cooperation agreement criminally, what's the point in spending all the money in fighting it civilly when it's, you've already admitted to it, like, just get to the damages phase, right? That's what I think it is, but then his spokesperson not even his lawyer the spokesperson Came out and denied that he said that you know that he admitted anything He just said oh just legal. I did what I had to do. He did what he had to do legally You know, he didn't you know, he has he still has preserved his constitutional rights because why Mary Giuliani did not acknowledge

that the statements were false, but did contest it in order to move on to the portion of the case that will permit a motion to dismiss. This is a legal issue, not a factual one. Those out to smear the mayor are ignoring the fact that this stipulation is designed to get him to the legal issues in the case. That's, I hate to say it, that's bullshit.

She's my language, okay. Rudy Giuliani actually stipulated his words, right? Were that he, you know, there are actual words in there that he's... Well, let me read it, I can't read it. You want me to read it? I would love for you to read it, because I'm looking for my computer.

Well, you have them up, so you read it. All right, do you have it? No, go ahead. You're doing me a favor. OK, it says, it is hereby stipulated. We talked about the stipulation. One, defendant Giuliani conceded solely for purposes of this litigation, which

is magic language. That means nothing in a criminal case, as Karen just laid out. Before this court, and on appeal, that defendant Giuliani made the statements of and concerning plaintiffs, which include all of the statements detailed in their amended complaint.

And he does not dispute for purposes of this litigation that the statements carry meaning that is to Famitory per se, to Famitory in and of itself. Two, that defendant Giuliani for the purposes of this litigation only published those statements to the family in and of itself. Two, that the Fennett Giuliani for the purposes of this litigation only published those statements to the third parties. That's the second element.

So the first two elements of defamation are now established by stipulation. The third stipulated fact is that the Fennett Giuliani does not contest that to the extent the statements were statements of fact and otherwise actionable. Such actionable factual statements were false. Let me repeat that. To the extent the statements were statements of fact they were false. That is a stipulation. This stipulation does not affect Giuliani's ability to seek set off, offset, or settlement

credit. That means when he has to pay a judgment, or his argument that his statements are constitutionally protected, or opinions, or any applicable statute of limitations. So it looks like he's not going to contest the elements of defamation, but he's going to somehow preserve at the same time aspects of his defense. But he goes on to say that he does not contest the number four, the factual elements of liability regarding plaintiffs claim for intentional inflection of emotional

distress. He does not dispute that either. So look, and then he ends with at the end here, yeah, that covers it. So look, I've been involved with civil cases where the other side throws in the white towel and says, let's just go to damages. I don't wanna fight liability anymore. I think I can win on damages.

I don't think you were damaged. But, you don't do it quite that way. And to your point, you don't do it that way when your head is in not one, but two multi-dimensional vices. You've got the Jack Smith vice that's crushing his head because he's already given two interviews with Jack Smith, but only so far been able to extract limited immunity,

meaning he hasn't gotten the full, get out of jail, free card. And it's the other vice going the other way, is Fannie Willis. He has an internet and he discussions with her at all. He testified before the special purpose grand jury, but he hasn't been seen hide nor hair in Fulton County, Georgia to discuss with her any kind of immunity deal. And so Jack could give

him some sort of limited immunity, but Fawni has assigned on to that deal. And he was on the phone making phone calls to try to, you know, we just said one related to Shay Moss and Ruby Freeman. But he made dozens and dozens and dozens of other calls to elected officials and election officials holding phony hearings, you know, where his hair dye was running down his face, you know, acting like they were the true state legislature meeting and in convening when it was like five mega GOP people filing lawsuits to try to interfere with the election. I mean, he has got big problems in Georgia among other places. So you've got this double thing.

And then you got the civil case where barrel howl for by the way, for all we know barrel howl will be the judge who's assigned the trump case. Oh, wouldn't that be a special delight if barrel howl with all of her experience in stripping away Donald Trump's attorney client privilege in ruling in the past that he it is more likely than not that Donald Trump committed a crime or fraud related to Mar-a-Lago in the documents. There's no reason she can't get the case. As you said, the wheel will spin. Then there's only a couple of slots on there that's Crap's for democracy.

One of them is Trevor McFatten, who recently called the Department of Justice out and interrupted their grand jury presentation down the hall because he was tap at his foot because he wanted to finish a trial of a Jan 6th person. And there was a lawyer, Stan Woodward, who's the lawyer for Walt Walton Outer, who goes out of his way to stick it to the DOJ anyway, and got the DOJ in trouble and they had to

run down the hallway and go talk to the judge. So other than Trevor McFadden, I can think of like one more. Everybody else would be great for this case and ultimately a jury in DC will be great for this case. So, so your position, let me make sure I understand it before we leave. Your position, as you think, Rudy Giuliani, is cooperating at high levels with Jack Smith, but not with Fawney Willis, and this indicates that he's doing that

to be consistent with what he's telling Jack Smith undersworn testimony, is that right? Yeah, so I think ultimately he will cooperate with Fannie Willis potentially, but he's much more worried about Jack Smith. He's much more worried about a federal prosecution and he'll sort out the Fannie Willis, you know, with her as well, but that's why I think he's doing what he's doing and at the same time, like he's sorting out the thing with with Shae Moss and Ruby Freeman, right?

He's about to get sanctioned, he'd have to pay his lawyers to engage in discovery and all of the civil litigation. He's just, you know, he's playing whack-a-mole right now with all the things that he's dealing with. So I think he's worried about Jack Smith first, become material for Jack Smith's case, become a cooperator, and then that will happen. Then he will absolutely also probably, you know, he'll deal with the Fanny Willis thing as well. I just want to say really quick, there are multiple people in the chat who are saying that there are

problems with the chat, and some people are seeing some, and some people aren't seeing some, there's like technical issues, but I'm seeing them all, and so I just want everyone to know, and I wanna thank everyone for being so active and for chatting, but I can see them, and sometimes when I'm talking, I'm not paying attention to them, but I do look at them and glance at them,

and I'm sorry that we're having a technical issue, but we love, love, love how active everybody is. So thank you for doing it. We see you, we see you, And we're going to see more of you when we wrap up talking about Faudi Willis and some of the computer hacking crimes that she may be looking at as she moves towards her indictment at the end of the month. And then we just have to talk about Hunter Biden. We can't be the only show on the network on any of the major networks that doesn't talk about under Biden what happened today.

So we will, but we'll do it in our own inimitable way. And we think, well, you'll better understand why I think it went awry today for, and I blame both the U.S. Attorney's Office and the private lawyers representing Hunter Biden, who look like both of them were not on the same page, did not understand what they were presenting to the federal judge. And there's one thing you never want to do to a really smart, I'm going to tell you more about this judge because I do know her, a really smart federal judge, whoever appointed her. You don't want to come in looking like you don't know what you're talking about

when it comes to liberty, immunity, and things like that in criminal law. And when you do, the judges will pump the brakes and say, it sounds like you guys aren't ready. Why don't you come back? We'll talk more about that, but first, our last sponsor. Your pets, a member of the family, my lily certainly is. Don't feed them like they're in the doghouse. Give them no, no, no, no, no, no delivers fresh dog food with every portion personalized to your dog's needs, so you can bring out their best. Noem-noem is made with real-haul food you can see and recognize, without any additives or fillers that contribute to bloating and low energy.

That's because no-noem uses the latest science and insights to make real good food for your dogs. Their nutrient pack recipes are crafted by boards certified veterinary nutritionists, made fresh and shipped free to your door. Nome Nomes already delivered over 40 million meals to good dogs like yours, inspiring millions of clean bowls and tailwags.

I love my dogs so much and feel better giving her better nutrition. And my dog loves the food and other benefits they've seen. Plus, no mnome comes with a money back guarantee. If your dog's tail isn't wagging within 30 days, no mnome will refund your first order. No fillers, no nonsense, just no mnome. Go right now for 50% off your no-risk two-week trial at try-nome.com slash legal AF, spell try n o m dot com slash legal AF for 50% off, trynome.com slash legal AF. Look, life brings its challenges. And there have been

points in my life where I was uncertain about the future. And frankly, there are times that I still get that feeling. Sometimes in life, we're faced with tough choices, and the path forward isn't always clear. Recently, for example, I decided to join the Midas Touch Network as an everyday contributor and podcast host because of how deeply I care about bringing you the latest updates and long politics, but in doing so I had to make a big sacrifice, especially in my personal life. Whether you're dealing with decisions around career, relationships, or anything else, therapy helps you stay connected to what you really want, while you navigate life, so you can move forward with confidence and excitement.

Trusting yourself to make decisions that align with your values is like anything. The more you practice it, the easier it gets. I've personally benefited from therapy because it allows me to discuss my feelings of uneasiness or stress factors and find ways to cope in a healthy and productive way. I've truly been able to become the best version of myself, thanks to therapy. And by the way, therapy is for everyone. Not just those who have experienced major traumas, what you're going through matters. If you're thinking of starting therapy, give better help a try.

It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist, and switch therapists any time for no additional charge. Let therapy be your map with better help. Visit betterhelp.com slash legal AF today to get 10% off your first month. That's better help help.com slash legal AF. And I'm not sure if I pronounced no, no, I'm right, but that's the way I'm going to go with it.

I just said somebody that jets a boopuck. You're not pronouncing that right. You know what? The sponsor has a complaint. I'm going with it. So let's talk about another name that it's taking me a year to pronounce properly, which is Fannie Willis, down in Fulton County, Georgia.

We're right near my mom and sister live in Atlanta in that area. What I want to do is sort of wrap up Fawney a little bit, and then we can talk about what happened today in Delaware, federal court, in front of a judge, and Hunter Biden, and a little bit of the Keystone cops there, involving both the US attorney for Delaware and the lawyer for Hunter Biden.

So Fawney Welles, it's interesting. One of the things that came out of some recent, well, it's it's interesting. One of the things that came out of some recent, oh, let's just call them strategic leaking by the prosecutor. She's a little more leaky than Jack Smith, as although Jack Smith does it too, let's be frank, he put pressure on witnesses and uncooperative witnesses. You learn about target letters that have gone out to people like maintenance workers and different things, not because the maintenance worker is holding a press conference, because Jack Smith and his team think it's a good idea that the world knows that he's leaning and putting the screws on these kind of people. And Fani does it too. Fani does it also. So she let it be known, it's out there, that one of the things that they're looking on is something that we reported here on the Midestouch

Network and on Legal IFA a year ago, which is that in coffee county, a small little county where Donald Trump got 70% of the vote, by the way, wasn't like he had to like get more votes in coffee county. This is how ridiculous this scheme was, how silly this scheme was and how without merit and good faith, this fraudulent attempt to overthrow the will of the people was. Because they were going to places that were like, Joe Biden, either won by so much, it never would have mattered how many votes you thought got flipped, or Trump won by so much. So, coffee county is a perfect example. So red, it's just mega red. Yet, the mega Republican chairperson there decided to get into bed with Sydney Powell

and let our Sydney Powell cyber ninjas of all people based in Florida who went to Arizona to do that ridiculous audit, the fraudet, where when they were done after spending the GOP Republicans money in Arizona, one of the reasons they're broken Arizona spending the GOP Republicans money in Arizona, one of the reasons they're broken Arizona at the GOP level, is that they found more votes for Joe Biden when they did the tally, then for Donald Trump, like it went up the vote total for Biden. So they're really good at their job. They never did a vote count before or an audit, but they got led in by the chairman of the Republican Party down in coffee county. They opened the doors, got into the server room after the election and downloaded an image, all the hard drives of

all the confidential voter information and voter data for everyone in coffee county, Republican, Democrat, and dependent, and the like, everybody should be up in arms about that. And then they set up a database to give access to lawyers around the country to use in their lawsuits. You know those lawsuits that Donald Trump lost zero, he went zero for 70. This was a database. And Cindy Palpat, I don't know, $22,000

to some forensic firm to help image all this stuff and download all this information. And that's a hacking crime. And that's an election fraud crime. And so one of the counts that she's looking at, Fahni Willis, is that as part of that far-reaching conspiracy. We know it's gonna be another speaking indictment the way Karen, you described earlier for Jack Smith,

where she's gonna list everything that happened and everybody that's involved. But then, like you said, may come down to a slimmer version of the final indictment for conspiracy as she tries to get her indictment. And she has one advantage. She has one superpower that Jack Smith doesn't have, and which is why I think they're cooperating. I don't want to hear your view, which is she can get a conviction that isn't subject to a presidential pardon. And Jack Smith knows that. And Jack Smith is, I think, using to put somebody between a rock

and a funny place, if you will, or the other way around. And he's using that, and she's using that because for all the indictments and convictions that Jack Smith gets and he will get a number of them. I don't know if he's going to get all three or four, but he's going to get a fair share. He's going to get a lion share of convictions against Donald Trump. But Donald Trump wins. It's all for naught. Now, we all people know my opinion about his ability to win.

I think I have a better chance. I think Lily, the dog, has a better chance of winning. However his ability to win. I think I have a better chance. I think Lily, the dog, has a better chance of winning. However, he could win. There's only two people that are going to be up for election that day. I mean, a couple of independent parties out there, but something could happen. So anyway, if you were to win, that pardons everything. Georgia, people might say, well, you know, Georgia's got to usually has a Republican governor. He could pardon. And that's not the case because Georgia's had so many corrupt governors in their history that they took away the power of the governor to actually pardon.

And somebody has to serve the first five years of their sentence before they could even apply for a pardon. And then it goes to a state board, which is sort of equally split between the parties. So she's got that superpower that Jackson Smith, I think, is using in his own negotiations. So talk to me from your perspective briefly, Karen, about what you see as the interplay between the two of them and how they may be working together to whipsaw a Donald Trump and others

as they kind of color within their own lines respectfully, but also bring justice to bear. You know, I think I come down differently on this than you. I don't think they're cooperating with each other and communicating with each other at all. I think there might be defense attorneys who are trying to make cut deals for their client with both sides, but I'd be shocked if Jack Smith is talking to Fannie Will's for several reasons. First of all, I've been involved in many of these situations where there are multiple, you know, whether it's federal and state or different jurisdictions who are looking at similar things.

And sometimes they work together in a joint investigation, but most of the time you don't. Most of the time you do your own thing for many, many, many reasons. Number one, you don't want any leaking. And I think Jack Smith has been run a pretty tight ship. And what is he going to do? Is he going to go to all seven of the counties

where there were fake electors? Is he going to work with all of those attorneys general? No way. So I don't, I think what's happening is this. I think the Department of Justice, you know, and hopefully one day will, the history, will, the history books will tell us why it is this happened. I think the Department of Justice really didn't do their work in investigating January 6 until the Congressional Select

Committee kicked them in the pants, frankly, and really showed the country and the world what it was. And then they opened up an investigation. And they waited so long that it allowed Donald Trump to declare. And then because he declared, now he's a candidate, Jack Smith had to be appointed. And so I think that Fannie Willis, among other people, were just sick of waiting for the Department of Justice.

And so she started her investigation a long time ago because she knew like everybody knew that the Department of justice wasn't doing anything And so she started her investigation. She did all these witness interviews She did the seven-month-long special grand jury She put a lot of work in and Jack's men is playing catch up He can't tell her to stand down really given where she is versus where he is But she what she did and it was smart, she signaled, out loud, hey, world, I'm bringing an indictment at this time, and she didn't need to do that.

You don't need to tell law enforcement or anyone else that. She did that. That was a message to Jack Smith, which is Jack Smith, I'm doing this. I'm in, I'm in Diting Donald Trump. I'm in Diting others. It's going to encompass everything that you're probably doing, and this is in I'm in dining Donald Trump, I'm in dining others, it's going to encompass everything that you're probably doing. And this is what I'm doing. So if you want to go first, and so that the Department of Justice kind of it's called

the Pettit policy or some people call it the petite policy, depending on where you are, it's a policy of not to do a case that's also being prosecuted by a state. It's just a policy. It doesn't have to, you know, it can be ignored or it can be overridden. But, you know, but it's typically they don't like to do it if there's a case. And that was her way of saying, this is when I'm going, you go first. And that way, he can go, he can go first. I'm sure there are defensive attorneys, like maybe Rudy Giuliani's attorney, is probably both trying to cooperate with Jack Smith and trying to cut a deal with Fannie Willis that's

similar. And I, that, to me, is the coordination through the defensive attorneys. But I don't think there's any communication between Jack Smith and anyone outside his tiny little circle. It is a need to know. And there, I haven't seen any leaks come out of Jack Smith. This is why you and I disagree sometimes. Because there is reporting that there is coordination. I did a nice hot take on it. I know that, but I don't think that I don't think it's happening. I've seen that reporting and I saw your hot take. I don't think it's happening.

But you can't say that there's no leaks coming out, Jack Smith. I mean, every time we hear about somebody, you know, three months ago went in. It's not because O'Donnelly, O'Donnelly, Richard O'Donnelly decided 90 days later to have a press conference. It's because it was leaked. We've heard, you know, when I'm able to do a hot take, or you're able to do a hot take on something,

it's because we've learned through intrepid reporting and journalism and leaks and people that are telling information about. Yeah, but I don't think it's kind of a fact. It's okay. No, no, but I agree. It's got to become from somebody. Who's it coming from?

Of course. Of course. But look, again, because I've been in these tight, tight, tight cases, you don't leak, and it's surprising. And how does it come out? It comes out because maybe somebody tells their wife who tells their coworker who then it tells a reporter

who then when they call, they admit it and say, yes, I did. Or maybe it's a defense attorney or maybe it's a witness. I'd be shocked that Jack Smith would risk. The, you know, there's the stakes are too high here and I'd be shocked. And I also know how he is. He's a real buttoned up guy. He is not a political animal.

He is not someone who's gonna play the media game. And, you know, seasoned prosecutors all know if you try to play the media game, you will lose 100% of the time. Someone said to me once, you know, it seasoned prosecutors all know if you try to play the media game, you will lose 100% of the time. Someone said to me once, you know, as a prosecutor, you know, they said to me, you know, dealing with the press and I'm going to get a lot of shit for this. But dealing with the press is like, it's like wrestling with a pig and shit.

The only difference is the press likes it. You know, and that's, that's what, that's what you think. Well, good night everybody. What it is, it's you don't play that game as a prosecutor. You prosecute without fear or favor and you don't play politics and you don't play the game of trying to do that. Well, I appreciate your, I certainly appreciate your position and you have the prosecutor's standpoint. I've been at defense attorney my entire life. However, I do think that there was a period of time that we didn't get, we didn't hear boo from Jack Smith. And as he's gotten closer and had to prove more points

and had to contend with more uncooperative witnesses, we seem to be getting information that is not to the advantage of the uncooperating witness. The lowly maintenance, well, he was a good example. The lowly maintenance worker, who I can't remember his name right now, who's got a target letter because he helped move the boxes at Mar-a-Lago. I assure you, one of his attorneys is not leaking that, but we know it, you know what I've talked about it. So, and I think the reporting about the cooperation is because

sometimes like, you can't, when you're trying to figure out the tides and how the ocean moves, you know, it took our primitive people in the past a long time to figure out it was the thing that was unseen that was moving them, it was the moon. And so when we're watching this sort of little dance that's going on, why is Fondi Willis? Why does she have as part of her fake electors? Why does she have so many people under oath at her special purpose grand jury and Jack is not ignoring it?

But he's sort of touching on it. Let's talk to Kemp. Kemp was Was in a grand jury a year ago Raffinsberger was in a grand jury with Fondie Willis a ago. And Jack's just getting around now. If he's doing his fake electors in seven battleground states and Georgia is one of them, then he's doing sort of a feigning job at holding up his end of the bargain. I think you're right. He respects. Yeah. No, he doesn't need, okay, like just, for example, he doesn't need to talk to Brad Raffinsberger until the very end. I'll tell you why. He knows exactly what he's going to say. He's not somebody he have to worry about flipping and changing sides or lying. He's a public servant, right?

How do you know what he's going to say if you don't have access to Farnie Willis' grand jury testimony? Because first of all, you don't necessarily need his grand jury testimony to have access to what he's going to say, right? You can, and you know what the, you know what the evidence is that you're going to use in your grand jury. Don't forget a grand jury presentation is not all the facts. It's a bear, it's, it's still a very limited amount of facts. You don't present everything to the grand jury because you really just need them to vote on an indictment. So, they basically, we all basically know what the people, the Brad Raffinsburgers of the

world will say. We have the tape. We heard exactly what it is. That's enough for Jack Smith. He doesn't need that early on. He doesn't need to put him in the grand jury to lock him in, so he doesn't flip. What he's going to do is he's going to wait until, you know, he's getting all the tricky witnesses, the difficult witnesses, the ones he has to lock in, so he doesn't flip. What he's gonna do is he's going to wait until, you know, he's getting all the tricky witnesses,

the difficult witnesses, the ones he has to lock in, the ones that are hard to get, those are the ones he's wrestling to the ground. The ones that he has in his back pocket, that he knows are gonna pick up the phone and just talk to him and tell him what he needs to tell him. And then that FBI agent can go summarize it in the grand jury because you don't need to put him under of.

Those are the witnesses you save for later. So I guess, I don't know, I guess I just see it slightly differently than some of the people who are saying, oh, this must mean, you know, this or that must mean that. But we'll see, right? We're just reading tealies. Like we just don't know exactly. It's gonna be a memoir. I read all of the OJ child books after they were after the trial was over Jeffrey Tuban's book. There's gonna be a memoir. I read all of the OJ trial books after they were, after the trial was over. Jeffrey Tuban's book, there's gonna be books written. And Fawney is very good at making sure

that she gets reelected. She'll do a memoir and it'll be very interesting. And then you'll either owe me dinner or I'll owe you dinner, which is fine. I'd love to pay it off. Let's I think we've wrestled that pig in the mud long enough. Why don't we move on? You do like my whole analogy, by the way. Yeah, so I'm gonna use it offline, but not on the pot.

Let's move on. Did I blush again? It's my cult. If people see me, if they have a blushing or sweating, yes, sometimes Karen does that with me, but I really haven't called. Let's talk about Hunter Biden and what happened from a prosecutor standpoint. Let me lay it out and then you can talk about what happened. And first let me talk about the judge. I'll do it in two parts. So Hunter Biden has been under a criminal investigation

led by the Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office, little tiny state between New Jersey and everywhere else. And the Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office, a little tiny state between New Jersey and everywhere else. And the Delaware, US Attorney's Office, not just the Department of Justice, led by a Trump appointed US Attorney, Mr. Weiss, who took over for a friend of mine, Colin Connelly, who's now a federal judge, sits next to this current judge, and I went to law school together. That was the former US attorney, this is the new US attorney, when Colin became a federal judge.

When Biden took over and Merrick Arlen took over, they decided not to appoint a special counsel because they didn't see the need for it, not for citizen Hunter Biden. He's not a candidate for office. He's just the son of a president and formerly vice president and senator and all that. So they said, let's just keep Mr. Weiss in place as Trump's appointed guy started the investigation.

It looks politically terrible to take him off the case, stay on the case and the Department of Justice won't interfere. You do your thing. You want to indict him, you would die. You want to do a plea bargain with him. You do a plea bargain with them. You don't have to clear with Merrick Garland You don't have to clear it with Joe Biden. Just do your own thing and after two years of investigation They got it down to putting aside all of the laptop and the

And the revenge porn led by Marjorie Taylor Green That's on the internet and the bar Perisma thing, the US attorney, and pardon me, and the FBI, narrowed it down to some unpaid taxes for a couple of years when Hunter hit it big, it paid a million and a million and a half and didn't pay any taxes, which is bad. And a crime. The fact that he had a drug conviction in the past and he had a firearm, which he's not supposed to have, so he had a gun charge. And then they also were looking into whether he was an unregistered foreign lobbyist. He should have registered for Ukraine or not.

You know, sort of the same thing they looked at Rudy Giuliani for and found that he had violated that. So, the US attorney finally announced a couple of weeks ago much to the chagrin of the entire MAGA GOP that they were going to enter into a plea deal with Hunter Biden, not for all of his crimes and the investigation, pardon me, would still be ongoing, but they had a defined set of crimes, tax charges, and they were gonna do a non-prossecution agreement

on his gun violation while they continued investigating. Sounded pretty easy. We thought today was gonna be the day, you know, the plea deal was gonna be accepted by the judge, he plead guilty. And the judge, Mary Ellen Norrica, who's a very well respected, I wouldn't consider her MAGA at all.

I know she was appointed by Trump, but a lot of conservative Republican people, you know, Delaware's tiny. She so well respected that Joe Biden had, let me just repeat this, Joe Biden had considered elevating her to the federal circuit, a pellet court, which is the gateway to the Supreme Court. Okay.

Joe Biden knows her from being from Delaware. Mary Allen, Noreka spent 25 years at at one of the most preeminent Delaware law firms dealing with business and patent law. She has a degree in organic in biology. And she's spent 25 years at Morris Nichols, which is one of the top five firms in Delaware. And you know, the way it works in Delaware is that these major firms, and I can name a bunch of them, Young Conaway, Morris, Nichols, Gaden Arps, they basically have their senior partners get bounced out to federal court and Delaware Chance Record when there's openings. It just happens. In fact, they joke about, well, this is the Young Conaway seat, and this is the Morris Nichols seat. Well, the Morris Nichols seat came up with a retirement.

Mary Ellen Norrica, a patent lawyer and corporate lawyer for 25 years in one firm was nominated and confirmed along with a friend of mine, column Connolly. They both took the bench at the same time. She got assigned the case. They came in today and they could not answer fundamental questions for this federal judge. What is the scope of the immunity that you're giving to Mr. Biden? What are the crimes that he's being charged with or that he's admitting guilt to?

And what is the status or what could he be charged with if anything into the future? Because I got the defendant has to be able to acknowledge those things and understand those things before I'll let him both plea and for me to accept the immunity deal. So go ahead, I'm all ears and what happened next, Karen. So this was supposed to just be a plea of guilty, right? This is a very standard thing that happens every single day. You know, everybody, you have an agreement

to what you're going to plead to, you go into court, and the judge says, you know, Mr. Biden, my understanding is that you want to withdraw your previously entered plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty, is that correct? And the defendant would say, yes, that is correct. Okay, and you know, it's like this standard thing that, you know, everybody's eyes glaze over because you think it's just going to be And you know, it's like this standard thing that, you know, everybody's eyes glaze over because you think it's just going to be, you know, he answers a few questions. The judge allocates him, which means the judge asks him, you know, are you, have you taken any medication? Is there anything clouding your judgment? Is anyone forced you or threatened

you to take this plea? Are you pleading guilty of your own free will? You know, they ask you a series of those types of questions and then they ask you, is it true that on or about this date you've committed this crime and they say yes and do you agree that this is what the sentence is going to be et cetera. But this is all, it's like a ballet that is all scripted out ahead of time. And there's an agreement between everybody about what's going to happen and it goes forward. But that is not what happened here.

Usually this would have been a 20 minute hearing or court appearance. And what ended up happening is it completely fell apart because the judge. And by the way, I saw what some of the conservative media outlets were saying about this. And they said, oh, you see, even the judge thought this was a sweetheart deal and she wouldn't accept it. That is actually not true. And if you read the transcripts and you look at what happened, it's the opposite of that. It had nothing to do with her thinking it's a sweetheart deal. It was that she thought that there were two issues with this particular plea. During the plea allocation, she said, basically she went through there, are you waving all your rights? Yes, you know, you're right to a trial, etc. Are you acknowledging, you know,

you might not be able to vote or possess a firearm, etc., etc. And then they started discussing the scope of what this covers, because what they're saying, what they said in this plea agreement is this covers all tax crimes, all drug crimes, and all gun crimes that might come up. And the judge said, okay, but what, you know, because this was, don't forget, this was a long investigation. I think it was like five years or something, right? And so there was, there, there's a lot that they could have looked at. And the judge started asking questions, does this cover everything? And the prosecutor said no. And that's when it kind of went off the rails.

Because, you know, and then that's when Hunter's lawyers said something like, fine, we'll, you know, we'll rip up our, you know, we'll rip up the agreement because, you know, he wanted full immunity for everything. And the prosecutor was saying, no, this is basically, it's not immunity, by the way. He's being held accountable. This is to cover all of the conduct involving that gun that they talked about, that his

brother's ex-wife, his slash girlfriends, found that was his and his gym bag. It's to cover all the drugs that he took at the time. It's to cover all the tax, potential tax things. So, he's not given any immunity. It covers that conduct. But what it doesn't cover is other types of conduct. And there's been a lot of speculation about what that could be. And the judge talked about a little bit, for example,

when that he didn't register as a foreign agent when he was working for Burisma. And that could be an issue. Will that be an issue? I don't think so, but it's not covered. I think the prosecutor was just saying, no, we're not covering other things. We're just covering that. It doesn't necessarily mean there are active investigations into these other things,

but they just want to keep their options open in case something comes up potentially. So that kind of went off the rails. So the defense attorney said, hold on. Can we have a brief recess and talk this over? And then they go out and they, you know, I think you called it hallway justice or whatever they go out in the hall. And, you know, they talk about, okay, you know, they, whatever. And they come back, you know, 20 minutes later and say, okay, judge, we agree, this is okay. And everyone thought, please back on, okay? We're okay with the fact that it only covers these three categories of crimes.

It's back on, and then they get to the part about the gun. And the gun is, it's a pre-endipement diversion sentence. Now, that's something we did all the time in the state where you sent in someone to diversion. It's like, it's like, go do a program, our community service, or whatever it is, and stay at a trouble. And if you do all the things you're supposed to do, and then you come back later, you can be resentanced. It's like a repleter.

And that's what the agreement is here. What was weird about this particular one was the prosecutor without talking to the court ahead of time. And this is really, I think, where the process where they misstepped is, you know, again, this is supposed to be a perfectly choreographed dance. If you're going to do something unusual, you should go to the court ahead of time and get agreement from the court or the clerk and just make sure they're on board with what you're trying to do.

But the prosecutor wanted to do, normally it's like a contract between the prosecutor and the defense and says, okay, go do these things and if you do them, I'll give you the benefit of what we've agreed to. And so what happened was what happened was here, instead of doing it that way, they wanted the judge to be the arbiter of whether or not he complies with his requirements, not the prosecutor, and the judge said, wait a minute, I think there's a constitutional issue here, separation of powers issue. I don't think that that's in, you know, there's nothing as a judge there's nothing in you know my article three you know

duties that would permit me potentially to do this and so You know, I don't want to be put in that position You know, so that this really should be between the prosecutor and the defense attorney. And so she adjourned it so that they can brief this issue. I think what's going to happen is they're going to figure out a way to do this, talk to the judge together, everyone come to an agreement, and then come to open court and make it happen. That's what I think. But what do you think, Popok? Yeah, I think you're right about that.

I think the right wing maga is using it for political fodder and talking points. It makes absolutely no sense. I don't know a lot in life, but I know that this particular judge is not maga. I know that the reason it went off the rails today was not her fault. It was the fault of the lawyer that was hired by Hunter Biden and in a way the prosecutor because they should have had, there is no, and I've done defense law, defense lawyering long enough. I know exactly what the deal is that's going to be announced on the record in front of

the judge before I get in there. It's all mapped out. It's written. It's signed off on. I know what I'm gonna be, you know what the client's gonna be prosecuted for in the future of anything, if I'm not able to negotiate better,

and what this deal is, and that fundamental thing, they were unable to answer. It's gonna go back in front of her. Hunter is gonna take the deal, even if he can't get them to drop the continued investigation of him for other things, for which the United States and Delaware has a jurisdictional hook, which I don't think include Burisma, by the way. But he's going to take the deal, because he needs to close a chapter, a dark chapter in his life and move on. And tongue and cheek

again, we got to put this long national nightmare that is Hunter Biden to bed. Okay, I was a kid when Billy Carter urinated on a runway coming off a plane because he was so drunk. Okay, but this didn't preoccupy the Republican party who were trying tooth and nail to get back into power because they think they've got a talking point. So much so that the House Ways and Means Committee submitted an advocate's brief along with the Heritage Foundation, right wing Maga Federalist Society group,

to send to the judge to implore her not to approve the plea deal. I don't know much, I don't think that impacted the judge not a wit in making her decision today. And if they had come properly prepared in front of her and mind their peas and queues, she would have signed off on this plea deal if they could answer the most fundamental and basic questions.

But, you know, this is great talking points. They can then, the Houseways and Means Committee Representative Smith and the Heritage Foundation can go post it on their website and see, we're trying to make sure that Hunter Biden is held accountable. Hunter Biden's personal foibles and the dark chapter where he went on as one of our colleagues once said,

a three year bender has not improved or undermined one American's life ever. Okay. And I and here's what I'll say to wrap up my part of the segment. If the Republicans have proof that Joe Biden, the big guy took improper money or bribes, bring it, and if you don't have it, then stop talking about it. If you have it, and it's real, and it shows corruption, the Democrats will be the first ones to lead Joe Biden by the hand out of the White House. I assure you. But that's just magical thinking

because they don't have the evidence, they never will because it doesn't exist. And so the next best thing is to go after his elder, I'm not even sure he's the elder sport, to go after his son, who's got, listen, I'm not defending Hunter Biden for his personal problems. I just don't think it is a national security or national issue that needs to be discussed and debated and time wasted.

Every second that the Republicans in Congress are wasting on hearings about Hunter Biden, they're not helping Americans. There's not one bridge that's being improved. There's not one factory that's being, you know, built. There's not one job that's being created, not one person covered with healthcare, not one person covered with medical care, not one, every moment that they waste time talking. This is what they want to do for their two years in office that they waste time talking, this is what they wanna do for their two years in office to meet a dead end in the Senate, okay?

Now led by a minority leader that doesn't know his name at this moment, that's what they wanna do. Just keep passing bills and try to impeach and impeach and impeach his payback of retaliation. Okay, that's a great waste attack. Forget about the $25 million that they think Jack Smith is wasted and they want to defund. What about all the money that's spent on their salaries and their staves and everything else to fund them at this rate?

All right, I'm done with my rant, sorry. No, as my kids would say, preach, pop-up, preach. I love it. I think it's about the cold is the fever is breaking. I think it's gonna have the cold is the fever's breaking. I think that's what's happening. But I'll give you the last word on 100. Anything else at 100 Biden we need to say from a post prosecutor's standpoint?

Do you think, I guess the end, the back to my original point, do you think Hunter Biden's deal is he's gonna take it and the judge has never stepped it over that? 100%. Right. It's just. With a 30 day briefing schedule first.

So it's gonna be an August event. You and I'll talk about it at the August midweek, right? Totally. All right. I'm so glad to see you again. It's it's really the highlight of my week and you raised the dead because I really was not. I was like, I may not be able to do this today.

But I went to the drug store today to pick something up. And while I was there, I overheard the pharmacist say, you know, to somebody else, did you get your flu shot? And I was like, the flu shots are out already. It's July. And so I got a flu shot today. And my arm is hurt. It hurts a little bit.

And, you know, I'm feeling a little bit weird too. But anyway, so I only say that because everybody get your flu shots, it's very important to get a flu shot. I get them every year and that's my... I used to get them. This is a summer cold. Not long ago, as we've now gone off the rails here about personal issues. I'm pretty sure it's my normal summer cold. I used to get a flu shot until during COVID, the stack got revealed that flu shots are only effective 40% of the time.

I'm like, plus. Yeah, but if you cannot, so. I know. I got one. I used to not get flu shots or be not religious about it until I got the real flu. I know I did so.

Once you get the real flu, the flu is no joke. There is nothing, there's no comparison. Like the flu and the cold are there's no comparison between the two. They aren't even in the same family. And when I had the flu once, I never, I've actually had it twice. I never, ever want flu again, ever, ever again. So if I can only have it 40% less, that's all take it. Our producers making me laugh because he's suggesting that I'm coming up with some crazy RFK junior theories about flu and COVID I'm like I'm a flu vaccine denier. I'm not. I got the flu one six days on a couch. It didn't get better any particular day until one day.

It just disappeared. And that and that and that six days straight on a couch, right? Exactly. That's terrible speaking speaking of RFK junior I I put this on Twitter He reminds me of Colin from succession The guy that gets one percent that way exactly the family member who has the name But he's you know know, kind of the,

the idiot. My favorite is Greg's response to him when he was saying he needed another hundred million dollars because he could lose his 1% and Greg the egg said, wait, there's, there's a, you can go down from one. There's less. What do you mean? You can go down from one, there's less. What do you mean? Right? When she say RFK juniors, that's RFK juniors. Yes. He's got the name, he's got the family.

But he's, and then it comes out. I walked by Tony Denapoli's today when I was in Manhattan, which is the site of that flatulence-based meeting from last week where it devolved into 60 and 70-year-olds passing gas in order to make their point. And that's the place where he said Jews don't get COVID because it was engineered that way, which everybody on the anti-Semitic far right love. They finally, somebody's acknowledged that the Jews created COVID. So, you know, which was good because he was floating around a 20% for a while and Joe Biden does

not need a third party candidate because unless it takes votes from Donald Trump, we don't need a third party candidate. And for, I'll just say this, for people that have their issues with Joe Biden, I don't know what they are, you're all excited for Bernie when he was the same age, hold your nose because voting for a third party candidate is the same thing. The reason we didn't have president Gore is because Ralph Nader ran and pulled 12 or 14% of the vote. And that was enough. The reason we had president Clinton is because Ross Perot ran and pulled enough votes from George, from the first George Bush.

So be careful. Two party system for a reason. And you got to pick a, you got to pick a lane. Well, we've reached the end of whatever this is here at the end of LegalAF midweek. I mean, you get to Splatulence, you know, like, we were like punch drunk at this point. Pigs, pigs rolling around, manure, Splatulence. All right, of LegalAF with your host Karen Friedman at DefuGo and Michael Popeok, we do it here only on the mightest touch network Give us a thumbs up. It helps with the algorithms. You can follow us on all things social media

Including me and MS Popeok Karen. What's your social media handle? KFA at KFA legal and let me ask something I'm K. I'm at Karen Agnifalo on threads. Let me have salty something before I push it. Can I push the new t-shirts yet? In the store, I'm waiting for a response from our producer. He says, I don't know. He said, I don't know.

Oh my God. All right. I know. I see what he just said. We've designed, well, more, let me be more, give more credit. We're credit is to Karen has designed some amazing logos that I'm going to tease here for legal AF. It's almost going to be a mix and match thing when you're going to have two or three new legal AF logos on different designs and different color shirts, including female

cut shirts, you know, the ones that are obviously not unisex. And we're gonna be rolling them out. I thought today, maybe it's next week. And so just get ready, but you can go to the mitestord.com and you can find whatever's there that has legal AFs. Name on it to help the show. And this is all for free.

Free subscribe to the YouTube channel for mitestouch. We do our own contributor channels on hot takes under a playlist. Scroll down, you'll see Karen, you'll see me, you'll see Ben. Then go over to the audio, because even if you're a YouTuber, audio just like hit subscribe and listen to it for a second, that helps us too. And you go back and forth between the two. And that, all these things help keeps us on the air that along with your audience participation and support and our sponsors is what keeps this big blue marble rolling.

I'm gonna see you Saturday with Ben Micellis. Karen's doing hot takes this week. I'm doing hot takes and so is Ben. And you'll see Karen and me next Wednesday may be reporting on the indictment of Donald Trump the second time by Jack Smith. See you next week.