Legal AF by MeidasTouch - NEW Trump INDICTMENTS Loom and NEW Trump Trial STARTS

Episode Date: April 23, 2023

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast Legal AF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this week’s edition, the anchors discuss: the resolution of the Manhattan DA’s NY Federal injunction suit and appeal against Jim Jordan and his congressional committees and the plans for former prosecutor Mark Pomerantz to testify in May; the appearance just 72 hours before trial of a new trial lawyer for Donald Trump to defend him in the NY Federal civil rape and defamation trial brought by E. Jean Carroll that picks a jury on Monday; Jack Smith and his team interviewing Trump’s lead attorney Boris Epshteyn who was a leader of the fake elector scheme and in the Trump “command center” on January 6th at the Willard Hotel; Fani Willis gearing up to present her criminal case against Trump, the Georgia Fake Electors, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani and others to the regular Fulton County Grand Jury in May, and the Supreme Court allowing, for now, women to have access to abortion pills in states that allow abortions, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! MIRACLE MADE: Head to https://TRYMIRACLE.COM/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF HENSON SHAVING: Visit https://HensonShaving.com/LEGALAF to pick the razor for you and use code LEGALAF for 2 years worth of free blades! AG1: Head to https://athleticgreens.com/LEGALAF to get a FREE 1 year supply of Vitamin D and 5 FREE Travel Packs with your first purchase! 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 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 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A federal district court order an appeal and a settlement in the Manhattan District Attorney's lawsuit against Magga Republican Jim Jordan and the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee over Jim Jordan's interference with the Manhattan District Attorney's criminal case against Donald Trump. All of this happened in one week. We will break down what took place. Special counsel, Jack Smith interviewed Trump's lawyer, Boris Epstein, for two days.

And Jack Smith himself was present for the interview on at least one of those days. This has more evidence emerges of Trump's direct role in having operatives breach local election offices to steal election data after the 2020 election. Down in Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney, Fawni Willis filed a motion to disqualify a lawyer representing 10 of the fake electors who could all be criminally indicted for their role in the 2020 election interference on behalf of Donald Trump.

But even more fascinating than the relief being sought in the motion itself is some of the new facts that we've seen in this motion as it highlights that Fonney Willis is getting some of these fake electors to flip on each other and things are heating up as the grand jury is set to be in paneled in May. Let's discuss what's going on there. E. Jean Carroll's civil trial against Donald Trump in a New York federal courthouse for rape and defamation is set to start next week on April 25. Donald Trump's lawyers are flailing the federal judge presiding over the case continues to reject the bizarre letter briefs and requests being made by Trump's lawyers. And a new lawyer has joined Donald Trump's legal team there

as Joe Takapina was clearly not ready for prime time. Will Donald Trump even show up for this trial? I don't think so, but I get your take on that, Popak, and a win for common sense and decency and the right of a woman to control their bodies. The Supreme Court stayed or paused the ruling by the Texas Trump appointed federal judge in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that could have banned the FDA approval of Mifapristone. This stay order by the United States Supreme Court will be in effect at least through the appeals process takes place in the fifth circuit court of appeals and potentially if the supreme court then hears argument on certiary

there after depending on how the fifth circuit court of appeals rules. But what the ruling means in the short term is that Mipapristone remains approved and accessible. Michael Popak, this is legal AF. How are you doing? I'm doing great, Ben. You know, I read all the papers. It's hard to believe. We just did a rundown. We're going to talk about on this podcast where two thirds of it is talking about substantial criminal liability and exposure for a former president at a civil rape case that starts picking a jury in federal

court on Monday. And the lead story in the New York Post, the Rupert Murdoch paper, was not the settlement Fox News ad with Dominion. It was that Joe Biden has given less press conferences than other presidents over the course of his tenure. That's what they've got. Okay. You got and and de Santis' numbers are going into the toilet because Donald Trump's going to be apparently the nominee for the Republican Party, despite all the things we're gonna talk about here on the show today. It's remarkable that there's the world that you and I

operate in and those of our followers and listeners and there's the Bizarre, I'll upside down world, that MAGA and Republicans reside in. Yeah, I like to live in the real world. And while of course the right wing extremist media likes to try to pull people into their propaganda-filled world of hate, and while large media networks like to both sides the issues and just act like,

hey, there's just a lot of complicated things going on here. And everybody's just a bit crazy. So whatever, that's not what we do here at the Midas Touch Network. It's not what we do here on legal AF. We focus on the facts. We focus on what is actually being said in the court rooms, in the court filings. We focus on the words. We focus on the intent, and we focus on the implications.

So let's get right into it with a lot of developments. A whole course, a whole life cycle of a case took place this past week in the Manhattan district attorney's lawsuit against Maga Republican, Jim Jordan, the Republican controlled judiciary committee, the most imminent issue that the Manhattan District Attorney had to deal with is that Jim Jordan and the Maga Republicans subpoenaed Mark Pomerance for testimony before the Judiciary Committee and set a return date where Pomerance had to show up

without any extensions on April 20th. And so that clearly created kind of an emergency situation just to even figure out the logistics there. Now of course, Jim Jordan has sought to pry into an interfere with the criminal investigation in other ways and will continue to try to do so in other ways as the case against Donald Trump proceeds. But in the short term, that was the key issue, right? Mark Pomerance was an especially assistant district attorney under side vans. Pomerance got very upset at the way Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg, when Bragg

took over the office, was pacing the investigations. Pomeranz wanted the financial fraud case to go before the falsification of business records case. Pomeranz thought that Donald Trump was even more guilty of these other crimes than what Bragg was focused on. And Bragg's view was, look, I'm focused on the corporation first, get those 17 felony convictions, move on to falsification of business records, charge Donald Trump there, let the New York attorney general have the civil case against Donald Trump for the financial

fraud, let let let let let the Tisha James take Donald Trump's deposition, the Manhattan District Attorney's office will then still investigate Donald Trump for those crimes, but then potentially look to him panel a grand jury later there. Mark Pomeranz, who's not the district attorney, felt very strongly, though the district attorney was pacing it the wrong way, resigned publicly, did a interview tour, wrote a whole book about it, which made him susceptible to this subpoena because the Maggary publicans can say, hey, if you wrote a book about it, you should be able to testify publicly over the objections of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which says, you're invading state sovereignty. You're invading grand jury secrecy.

And so on that basis, you have the Manhattan District Attorney file a lawsuit against Jim Jordan stating that there was no legitimate legislative purpose to all in Mark Pomerance. And unfortunately for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, they drew a judge appointed by Donald Trump in the Southern District of New York. Popoca, as I told you on the last episode, I said, look, the Trump appointed judge is going to find a legitimate legislative purpose and order Mark Pomeran's to testify. That's not what she should do, but that's what she's going to do.

And she did, and she found a spurious legitimate legislative purpose in an order compelling Mark Pomeran's to have to testify. And she said, look, Jim Jordan's just telling me that he may want to pass a law that past presidents can't be prosecuted. And no one is above the law. So therefore, Mark Pomeran has to be deposed by Jim Jordan. Wait a minute. The judge says, no one is above the law. Mark Pomeran's has to testify while saying the legitimate legislative purpose is Jim Jordan saying he wants to pass a Donald Trump is above the law federal law saying it passed president can't be prosecuted. So ultimately there was an appeal process, but I'll let you take it from there, Popok,

in what happened thereafter. You were right, and I was half right. It went to the second circuit. What did they say half right is wrong, but I'll let you say, yeah, I was, I was half right, but here's what happened to carry forward in what you just said without being repetitive. Alvin Bragg did the right thing to bring the case immediately and file for an injunction in federal court to try to stop the subpoena and challenge the investigative powers of Jim Jordan.

There is no doubt in my mind that that was the right move, it was an aggressive move, and it's one, and I did this in some reporting on one of my hot texts. It's one where he took a page out of his own book. He and the General Counsel for the Manhattan DA's office, Leslie Dubekek both worked together at the New York Attorney General's office people think Where do Alvin Brad come from? He didn't work in the Manhattan DA's office when he got elected the Manhattan DA, but he does have a long history of being a prosecutor and being on a On a side of the New York Attorney General So he worked in the in the office of Latisha James now occupies,

but he worked for a predecessor, a sort of disgrace to Attorney General name Eric Schneiderman. Eric Schneiderman started an investigation that Alvin Bragg was responsible for against Exxon Mobil, an oil investigation, and was moving down that path. When the GOP led Congress to help big oil try to pull Schneidermann in just the way they try to pull Alvin Bragg and Mark Pomerancin to a congressional hearing.

They filed a similar case, Leslie Duback and Alvin Bragg in federal court, and eventually those subpoenas went away. It didn't get all the way up to a judge having to make a ruling, the GOP backed off and they framed it almost identically as a fight over state sovereignty, federalism and state sovereignty, right? The federal government and the oversight committee or the judiciary committee doesn't have a role, doesn't have the power to cross over and interfere with the sovereignty of New York and its municipal and home rule powers and its criminal justice powers. I bet what it's amounts to a local crime committed by Donald Trump with the prosecutor just

doing his job. So that's where they got the playbook from because now, you know, Alvin brought Leslie in to be the general counsel, Manhattan, DA. When they lost, because unfortunately, there are many, many very good judges in the Southern District of New York who are more democratic leaning, they didn't pull one in the random assignment. They got a judge who's more Republican leading. So, we followed it at the time.

We talked about it on Wednesday. It was a very hot bench, mainly for Alvin Bragg's lawyers. Who frankly, I didn't think did a tremendously great job of linking the field trip hearing that Jim Jordan gave this show, you know, gimmick that he did where all they talked about was local crime and murder rates and bail reform, which Congress has no role over whatsoever. I didn't think he did a great job. The judge jumped on the lawyers for Alvin Bragg, the outside council, right away, and they never recovered.

We've all been in situations where a hot bench jumps on you, and you have to figure out a way to survive. It's almost like a rodeo. You got to hang on for eight seconds during the hearing. I didn't think he was able to make all of his arguments, but the judge was predisposed. You'd already written her order. She issued it a little bit later. The appeal that was taken also great moved by Alvin Bragg and the Cross appeal by Jim Jordan. The second circuit, which is ultimately overseen by Justice Soda Mayor at the Supreme Court for the second

circuit, the second circuit entered in immediate state. Like, you're not, Pomeranc, you're not going in to give your testimony until we sort this out with briefing. That gave Alvin breathing room to negotiate what he was comfortable with and not have to see with the second circuit where the Supreme Court was ultimately going to do with it. The breathing room where both sides were like, hmm, maybe we'll lose at the second circuit, put them into a bargaining position. And so Alvin was able to obtain the following. Pomerance is going to go in on the 12th of May.

It's going to be closed door, but under oath, Leslie Dubek for the Manhattan DA's office is going to be there. The lawyer for Pomerance, he's got his own defense counsel, is going to be there. They're going to be able to object. He's going to be able to not answer questions, although the congressional Republicans will be able to pillory and attack him if he doesn't answer questions. But pomerance will be able to sort of pick through the minefielders, we like to say, dance through the raindrops without getting wet.

Because he said, oh, you're putting me in a bad position. I can either commit a crime by testifying or not. Now, look, this is what I think the focus is gonna be on. I know your, I saw your hot take. Yes, when he can, he's gonna dump on Donald Trump, mock primerance and say, I thought the case was even bigger. I thought the case is about criminal fraud and hyperinflating, all the stuff that's going on

in the New York Attorney Generals case. And I thought Stormy Daniels was a tale, and this was the bigger case, the dog. But they're going to use him to go after Michael Cohen, because there are parts of the book that he wrote, People vs Donald Trump, in which he attacks Michael Cohen's credibility, and he uses Alvin Bragg to say, I will never, this is the quote in the book, Alvin Bragg said apparently to Pomeran's, I will never try a case where Michael Cohen is the lead witness. Now of course, Alvin Bragg got right with Michael after meeting with him and all the

times that Michael went in and talked to Alvin Bragg about Stormy Daniels. But they're gonna, this is Jim Jordan running interference for his leader, Donald Trump, to try to attack Michael Cohen before Michael Cohen ultimately testifies in that courtroom. No way, no way shape around it. And he'll take the hit, right? Jordan will take the hit where where pomerance can and counter punches him. No, there's a bigger case against Donald Trump. That's the reason I quit. Yeah, he'll get that out, but they'll get out.

What was your thought about Michael Cohen? What was Alvin Bragg's thought about Michael Cohen? All this stuff you normally can't do in a criminal prosecution to find out about how a prosecutor once felt about a lead witness. Look, I think even Michael Cohen would say, if you asked him, he said, I don't view myself

as the lead witness. I believe the documents are the lead witness. I believe that there are many other witnesses there. What I can do is I can corroborate what the documents state and what I was doing at that time was on behalf of and in service of Donald Trump. So if you want to throw me under the bus, remember who it was that I was working for at that time. And you know, you don't just have to trust me. Everything that I say is backed up by the documents there. But I do also

think one of the areas that Jim Jordan may also be trying to pry into as well. You know, is was there bias before the investigation took place by Pomeran's? Did Pomeran's harbor feelings, like the rest of us that see Donald Trump engaged in open and obvious criminal conduct, and that Pomeran's went to the office with the goal to achieve the end of bringing Donald Trump to justice versus going to the office with the view that he's going to let the evidence lead wherever the evidence leads.

Now, the problem with framing it the way I think Jim Jordan wants to set it up is that all of us have eyes and ears, you know, and anybody who can be told or or or or through whatever communicative means learn anything about Donald Trump that you're able to utilize, you will uncover that Donald Trump engages in criminal conduct. He does it in open and obvious ways. So the fact that somebody would harbor a predisposition that the person bragging about their crimes is a criminal doesn't, doesn't bother me in any specific way there. Let me comment on that too as being a New Yorker who was there for both the campaigns of

Latisha James running for New York attorney general and for Alvin Bragg. They were different. Latisha James pardon me, Tish James ran on a platform that she was gonna go after Donald Trump. There's no, there's no two ways about it. She was very public about it. She said, I'm gonna bring him to justice. This was her campaign platform. When you see her in her speeches,

when you see her in her debate, this is what she said. That's Tish James. Alvin Bragg was not like that. Alvin Bragg, when you know him or know of him, he's a very sober person. He's not a political person. Yes, he ran as a Democrat in New York and got elected

as the Manhattan DA. That's an elected position. But the only time he ever really commented on the pending case with Donald Trump, because everybody needs to remember, Sy Vance, who decided to retire, who we've talked about at length on legal a F who who are co-anchored Karen Friedman Eknifalo served under was his number two when he decided to retire There was then a group of people there was up to eight people that ran for that office look between all of us

Karen thought about running for that office But she didn't and Alvin did and Alvin broke out of the pack and eventually became the leader in the polls, but he had a debate with the others. And Sivance had already gone after Donald Trump's tax returns. It was well known that there was a grand jury that had looked at certain aspects of Donald Trump and that the office was investigating him.

So it naturally came up in the discussions and in the reporter questions and in the moderator debate questions about everybody on the panel, you know that the office is looking at Donald Trump. What is your view about the continued investigation or prosecution of Donald Trump? Sure, they could have said, listen, we're not going to comment on something that's currently going on until we get the job, but each one of them felt like they had to say something. And Alvin was very sober and and

circumspect he said yeah The office is looking at it and if there's a crime to be investigated I'm gonna follow the facts where they lead and all if that's where it leads We will go after Donald Trump if I'm in charge of the office. That's it That is not a political vendetta Democrat going after Donald Trump or running on a campaign of political bias They're not if they're looking for what I'm trying to say is, if you're looking for political biases, the motivation for Alvin Bragg to bring the case against Donald Trump,

one that had been percolating for five years by his predecessor, they are not going to find it and they're not going to find it through Mark Pomerance. No doubt about it. What do we say that? Maga stands for here on legal AF. Make attorneys get attorney special counsel. Jack Smith interviewed Trump's lawyer, Boris Epstein this past week and then down in Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney, Fawni Willis,

filed a motion to disqualify a Maga lawyer Kimberly Burrow's DeBro for a unwaivable conflict of interest representing 10 fake electors all pointing the finger at each other. We'll talk about that in more right after this brief break. This podcast is sponsored by Miracle May Cheats, whether you want to get more fit, be a better parent, or get more done at work, there is one thing that will help, and that's better sleep.

With miracle-made sheets, you can tap into the power of self-cooling temperature regulation, which has been shown to improve deep sleep quality by over 20%. Using silver-infused fabrics originally inspired by NASA, Miracle made 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 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, clean sheets mean less bacteria to clog your pores and fewer breakouts and other skin problems. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal af to try Miracle made sheets today. And with mothers and fathers day right around the corner, this is the perfect way to give someone you love

the gift of better and more luxurious sleep. Save over 40% and be sure to use our promo code legal AF. Check out to save even more and get three free towels. Miracle is so confident in their product. They backed it with a 30-day money back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with MiracleMade, go to trymiracle.com, slash legal AF, and use the code legal AF to claim your free three-piece towel set, and save over 40% off. Again, that's try miracle.com slash legal AF to treat yourself. Thanks again, a miracle made for sponsoring this episode. Welcome back to legal AF and my sellers joined by Michael Popak, where we last left off,

we said, MAGA. What is it stand for? Make attorneys, attorneys and by this time all of these Trump lawyers, these Maga lawyers know that and for whatever reason they don't know the law of halls, they keep on digging and digging and digging. And here are some of the newest exhibits, are some of the newest exhibits exhibit 10,534 special counsel jack Smith interviewed Trump lawyer Boris Epstein. Two days Jack Smith showed up himself to be there. You know, Jack Smith's got a big team. So he's not always there. But Jack Smith wanted to specifically be there for this interview.

Popak, I'll let you break it down. But before doing that, I do want to mention this about Boris Epstein. He went to Georgetown law where I graduated from. He graduated before I got there just before I got there. And I didn't know him. I'm glad I didn't know him. But it just goes to show you that we both probably took the same con law classes. We both probably took the same criminal law classes. We probably both took the same overall kind of class

structure. Yet you see, we took different lessons from it. You see, I view that we have to follow the Constitution. I believe that our democracy matters. Boris Epstein, not so much, not so much Popeye. What what happened here? Yeah. As the difference is, you thought con law and new con law stood for constitutional law and Boris Epstein thought it meant con law. And that's the big problem there. Yes. I mean, listen, I was going to, I was going to review a little bit and I we talked about it in the pre game

preemptive you I know I saw that coming, but I'll I'll preempt me My one of my most famous alarm of Duke of Duke law was was Richard Nixon Okay, and so I got Nixon at least you got Boris Epstein who hopefully history will be at the trash bin of history when this is all done But let me let me just tell everybody because we've talked about Boris Epstein for a long time on legal AF But he's becoming a bigger bigger character and he's really been involved with so many things He's like the criminal Zelle he shows up in so many different rooms and so many different Places where he's pulling the strings for Donald Trump. Who is he first? Let's start there. Then we'll talk about him. He's on the far right.

It's hard to believe that Ben and him are within three years of each other. He's the ball-ding guy with a three-piece suit. He looks like, actually, he looks like Ben's dad, but he doesn't. He looks worse than he's older. But that's Boris Epstein. Boris Epstein is a self-president. He looks like a Wario version of me. That's good. That's a very good super Mario Wario. So Boris Epstein is a self-proclaimed investment banker, lawyer. That's why he's sitting at council table because he went to Georgetown, a long graduated and became a member of the bar.

He's the person who invented the F Joe Biden, the FJB crypto. That's now worth nothing. So just to show you how much he's drank the Kool-Aid for Donald Trump, he was in the Willard hotel on Jan 6th with people like Eastman and Giuliani and Banan planning the overthrow of the government. That's for sure. That has been established. He's one of the architects and implementers of the fake

electors scheme. He worked with Giuliani and filing the cases. I don't know if his name was on the cases, but he was certainly in the background in all the cases that were filed all the fake electors the phone calls made to And we'll talk about some of them in Georgia when we get to Fony Willis Made to state legislators to try to get them to not certify the election in their home state to pressure Mike Pence for a Epstein was involved with that It's amazing. He once worked at a legitimate law firm in New York. When I go on and tell you the more things he was involved with, your eyes will pop out of your head.

He had his phone picked up in September of 2022 under a subpoena by the Department of Justice. And they've been looking at his phone, I'm sure, related to the fake electors and the related to the fake electors and the willard hotel involvement. He, um, he's also a main lawyer, consulieri for Donald Trump. That's why he's sitting at council table. He's the one that brought in the new lawyer over Joe Takapina, oversooza necklace for the 34 count felony indictment of Donald Trump. They've got a new lawyer, a new trial lawyer.

We're going to talk a lot about new trial lawyers today. Trial lawyers that are in trouble and trial lawyers that are now coming in to jump into the frying pan for Donald Trump. And to Boris Epstein brought that lawyer in. That's how much Donald Trump trusts Boris Epstein's thought process. He also was in charge of Jewish outreach for the White House.

He was a communications director. It's amazing the list of things. He once was the chief operating officer, chief legal officer for a company that got barred by the federal regulators for securities fraud. And yet he's in the inner inner inner sanctum of Donald Trump. And so he just got through with two, not one, but two full days of giving testimony to the grand jury about all the things that I just talked about. And I believe, Ben, you tell me,

tell me if you think, is that one of the lawyers that got stripped of attorney client and executive privilege and are testifying without privilege? I don't believe he specifically listed in that order by the chief judge of the in the DC court over that, but that ruling could have set a precedent that would have compelled his kind of informal interview the way he was to basically know he's going to lose that argument anyway. And there's my self-interview.

I said, grand jury, he went in for an informal interview with Jack Smith's prosecutors, right? Correct, it was an informal interview, not grand jury yet, which has left many to speculate that he could be cooperating as well. So the fact that he is there voluntarily for this interview, you know, I think is, you know, kind of demonstrates though that the past orders reached by Judge Barrel Howell saying that attorney Klein privilege didn't apply to people like Evan Corcoran, you could probably

take that ruling in Epstein, saying, I'm going to lose this argument. Why drag this out and get another order that basically says that I'm a co-conspirator in a crime. Yeah, I got him confused with Steven Miller, who went in and testified to the grand jury off the rulings by a combination of Jeb Boowsberg, the chief judge, and the former chief judge, um, Barrel Howell. But you're right. And it's, it's not a great thing for when, you know, just to show you how this, this stuff is working. You know, one day he's sitting at council table on the arrangement of his client for 34 counts of felony indictment. Another day he's sitting in the willard hotel, hope, you know, planning the overthrow of the government and the next and getting his phone picked up. And then

he's giving an informal interview, not for one day, but for two full days with Jack Smith's prosecutors. I mean, I don't know how Donald Trump sleeps at all, let alone well at night knowing what these things are happening, especially with his lawyers who he thought was going to be the firewall to protect him with attorney client privilege and otherwise from any of these problems. But this is back to your point Ben, you'd like to talk about the law of halls,

but you also have done a good job of talking about and me with you, no prosecution before its time. And if they have brought all these things a year ago, you don't have Boris Epstein testifying. You don't have Stephen Miller testifying. You don't have Evan Corcoran testifying. The case wasn't ready. It's getting ready now. And I think we're moving very quickly towards charging decisions by Jack Smith. Does he beat Fawney Willis in May? We'll talk about her next. And when she goes to a regular grand jury, probably not. But the, but the moral logo is probably about done.

And he's got to make a charging decision and then a recommend and then tell, just remind everybody he has to tell Merrick Garland, I'm going to seek the indictment of the president, the former president of the United States on these counts. And then Merrick Garland can say, yeah, your name, if he rejects it, don't think he will, but who knows? Then it goes to the House Judiciary Committee led by Jim Jordan for an explanation by the Attorney General as to why he's rejected the recommendations of Jack Smith. I think, what do you think, Ben?

You think it's more like a June, July thing for Jack Smith on his cases? Yeah. And so when you mentioned Mar-a-Lago, you're talking about the theft of thousands of government records that Donald Trump stole, concealed in Mara Lago, he's being criminally investigated for crimes into the espionage act, concealment and mutilation and obstruction of justice. That investigation seems to have basically has reached its end by special counsel, Jack Smith, some dotting of eyes

and crossing tees. You know, I've always said here that I thought that was a summer indictment, June, July, I still feel that that's probably what's going to take place. You know, if there's some additional grand jury proceedings that are taking place, perhaps that gets kicked to the fall, but I think you're looking still probably the summer for that one. And then for these various election interference crimes by Donald Trump, you still may be, that may be pushed back a little bit later in terms of sequencing.

And just for everybody who has their kind of Jack Smith scorecard here of the various criminal investigations that Jack Smith is engaged in. Let me kind of give you the list right now. So special counsel, Jack Smith, as I just mentioned, there's a grand jury for the criminal investigation into Donald Trump's theft of documents. As it relates though to the 2020 election interference, we know that on the day of January 6th, there's a criminal investigation into Donald Trump's conduct, the hang Mike Pence, causing the mob of violent Trump supporters to attack police officers and invade the

Capitol building, right? So that's one, two, you've got the fake electors scheme whereby Donald Trump had these Trump supporters who were Trump electors submit their names on fake certificates and send those to the archives and eventually to be counted by former vice president Pence on January 6th, a false certification of fake electors as opposed to the real electors who were supposed to be counted, because president Biden won those specific states. And for example, that's what took place in Georgia where there were 16 fake electors who said Trump won when the

true elector slate was 16 for Biden, and that took place in other states as well. So the fake elector scheme, then you have Donald Trump's threats to state and local election officials, like when he threatened Brad Raffensberger, the Secretary of State of Georgia, find me the votes or else. And he engaged in that pattern of conduct throughout the country, though, in other states as well, specifically targeting Republican state officials who he thought he could harass and intimidate to find him votes and literally, you know, change the votes from Biden to Trump, because it's all projection when it comes to Donald Trump.

Another area of criminal inquiry by special counsel, Jack Smith, are campaign finance violations by Donald Trump, and specifically wire fraud charges. And here, where Donald Trump's political action groups claim they had election defense funds, which didn't even exist, and where they raised hundreds of millions of dollars, which was utilized by Trump, for things other than election defense because that didn't exist. And Trump made these false claims in these emails to his supporters about where the money was going, when it wasn't going there.

And then there's this final issue, which has become more prominent this week in reporting of these Trump operatives going into these state election offices, for example, in coffee county, in Georgia, in Antrim County, in Michigan, because after Trump via Giuliani and Sidney Powell couldn't seize the voting machines, right? They wanted to seize voting machines, they went to the Department of Defense, they went to the Department of Homeland Security, all the way to the top, they said seize the voting machines. Why would they want to seize the voting machines after the 2020 election was over? Because what they wanted to do was steal the data, weaponize the data, and put

that data in their filings, and say that the votes were different than what the true votes were, but manipulate and tamper with the data. That's why they wanted to seize the voting machines. Well, when they couldn't seize the voting machines, they did the next best thing, which is they sent operatives, particularly in Republican leaning areas,

where they would have a mole in the election offices of coffee county and Antrim County. And the Trump operatives would literally steal, they would download the election offices of coffee county and Antrim county, and the Trump operatives would literally steal, they would download the election data, that's private, that they shouldn't have had access to, they would breach the election data, then they would upload it to Giuliani and Sydney Powell and the whole team there,

and they would try to weaponize that and use this data, manipulate the data though, in their court filings to try to overturn the that and use this data, manipulate the data though, in their court filings to try to overturn the results of the election. That's another area of inquiry. So those are the various criminal investigations that Jack Smith is focused on. And I want people to pay very close attention

to the breaching of the election data though, because that actually seems to be kind of very clear cut. It's not being talked about as much, but I think that's going to play a prominent role in a future indictment. So there you have it. That's your score card with special counsel, Jack Smith. So going from special counsel, Jack Smith to Fawney Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, Popak things

are heating up again there, right? Where we last left off, I feel like it's a movie and this is kind of part two. Where we last left off in our series, there was a special purpose grand jury that was impeanneled, which met for close to two years receiving evidence and prepared a report and recommendations about people who the special purpose grand jury believe should be criminally indicted for 2020 election interference, but specifically as it related in Fulton County, Georgia.

Now in Georgia, if you go through the special purpose grand jury process, it is a two step process. You don't have to go through a special purpose grand jury, but if you do there, it's a two step, right? Whereas in Manhattan, for example, we talked earlier about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Berg, he presents the evidence to a grand jury and then the grand jury votes to indict. The special purpose grand jury that Fony Willis presented the evidence to does not have the power to indict. They make the recommendations.

You can then take those recommendations and you bring them to a grand jury. And ultimately the grand jury makes the decisions over indictments. And the grand jury can take those recommendations directly, they can take other witnesses, but that process by the grand jury will be starting in May when the grand jury is set to be empaneled there. So the grand jury will be empaneled in May, they'll get those recommendations, but what's been happening over the past few months since the special purpose grand jury will be in paneled in May, they'll get those recommendations. But what's been happening over the past few months since the special purpose grand jury has made these recommendations,

by the way, who they recommended to be indicted, that's still under seal at this moment. That remains under seal and it's confidential. And Fony Willis requested it be confidential. But between the special purpose grand jury and the grand jury, Fony Willis has been going to people who are targets of the criminal indictment. And she's been saying to them, okay, really, you know, we're going to, you know what we're about to do in May, you know, we're going to present to the grand jury. You're sure, you're sure you want to go, why don't you come into the office and we could have a chat. And they have and she's been learning a lot of things. And this has been put in her recent motion. So Popeye, what's this motion? Why is it such a bombshell motion? What's going on?

It was the first time we've heard from Farni Willis since January when she now did the now infamous, almost meme-like, that decisions on indictments are imminent. That was in January, everybody was all excited, it's going to happen any day now. Problem with that is it's not like you can just take the Special Purpose Grand Jury report. It's add water to it and puff, you've got a charging document or you're ready for the grand jury. It's a whole nother thing. It's not even a dress rehearsal for the real grand jury that in Georgia intites.

It gave Fannie Willis the recommendations that advice have exorted through all the evidence in the seven months that the special purpose grand jury met. Well, the witnesses and their recommendations as to who should or shouldn't be entitled. It doesn't bind her. It's an advisory grand jury. She can indict whoever she likes. She can seek to bring other claims or counts that she wants to bring. And if, as we believe on this show, she is trying to put together a very complicated,

civil, rico, racketeering influence and corrupt organization act, organized crime act, conspiracy to bring in Giuliani, Meadows, Trump at the center, maybe Lindsey Graham, the fake electors, you can put them all on a bicycle wheel, a spoken wheel of a conspiracy. That takes some time to develop. She obviously, in January,

when she told Judge McBerney, who supervises her, and supervises this case ultimately, that the charging decisions were imminent about indictments, she wasn't ready for the next time the regular grand jury was open in Georgia, in Fulton County, which was in March. So, March came and went. The next time is May. So we all believe, based on this current activity, that she is trying to get everything

together so she can present her case in May. Now, unlike some states in Georgia, she is able to bring in hearsay testimony. She doesn't have to bring in all of the same witnesses. You know, they had like 70 witnesses that came in to the special purpose grand jury. Just don't have to bring all 70 in. She can bring in their transcripts and have their testimony read to the jury.

She can show them exhibits and video and audio tapes that she developed in her investigation to this new regular grand jury. Although I think she'll bring in a few real live witnesses, including maybe new witnesses that they've developed since the end of the Special Purpose Grand Jury, which brings us now to the first time since January. We've heard of Fawney Willis officially. She filed a motion to disqualify. Now that on its face is like, hmm, that's interesting, but what's really interesting is who she's going after and who the clients are and what we learned by reading on the motion to disqualify what happened. So there's

a lawyer that represents 10 out of the 16 fake electors, including some leading people in the Georgia Republican Party. And she, her name is Kim DeBrow. Kim DeBrow, by the way, if you look at her, her body of work, her resume, she used to work in the Fulton County DA's office as a special DA at some point. I don't think she overlapped with Faudi Willis, but she does have that background. And she's a known commodity in the criminal world. She's also being paid by the Georgia Republican Party. She had a co-counsel Holly Pearson, who at one time represented more of the fake electors. And there was already a hearing in front of the judge about six months ago about whether Kim Debrou and Holly Pearson could represent all of the fake electors or the 11th at 11

at the time, all being paid by the Georgia Republican Party. And Judge McBurney looked at them and said, you can represent, I think, 10 out of the 11, but you can't represent the former head of the GOP because in Georgia, because his criminal liability exposure looks different and greater than the shape of these other 10. So for now, even though it's an ethical dilemma and quagmire and a little bit messy, I'll let you keep the 10, but you got to cut David Schaeffer, the former GOP Republican or current GOP Republican leader, eluce, and so he had to get his own lawyer. That's the first time we ever heard about Kim DeBrow

and Holly Pearson. Then, before the end of 2022, at the later part of 2022, the judge authorized Fulton County DA's office to offer blanket immunity, criminally immunity in return for cooperation to all of Pearson and to browse clients, all 10 of their fake electric clients.

And the report back from Holly Pearson at that time to the judge, because he ordered her to do something, was sorry, Judge, none of the 10 want to take an immunity deal on the table, which is really weird. I mean, I've done a certain amount of why call a criminal defense. It's weird that none of the 10,

because they all have different levels of culpability and exposure and a different appetite for being tried, they've been told they're the targets of a criminal investigation. You'd think one would jump out of the barrel and say, yeah, I'll take the deal, but none of them did. And that's what Pearson reported. Now, somewhere along the way, there was a split between Pearson and Debrouh.

So now only Debrouh was representing these 10. And at least two of her clients wanted to cooperate or were willing to come in last week to meet with the Fulton County DA's investigative team, which means they're probably cooperating. We call it in the business a proffer. They're making a proffer. They have their lawyer, Kim DeBrow, sitting next to them, and they're talking to the investigators. Now, at some point, because it all came out in the papers, this motion to dismiss, sorry, motion to disqualify,

followed by the office, it came out, two major things came out. One is the investigators asked these two witnesses. Did you know that we offered a blanket immunity deal that you could have taken an immunity deal with us? And both of those witnesses in front of their lawyer, Kim Debrow, said they had no idea that there was an immunity deal on the table. Well, if that's true, then Holly Pearson and Kim Debrow are in big trouble with McBernie, because McBernie told them to make the offer, which, and the report back was, nobody wanted it, not that nobody knew about it. So now you got problems, right? You got lawyers who may have lied or done unethical things to the judge and he'll take care of that

in his own way. That could be sanctions, that could be contempt, that could be a referral to the Georgia bar if all of that's true. And that'll be made out in an evidentiary hearing, like a little mini trial that you and I will get to cover. The other major thing that came out of the meeting is that two of them are pointing fingers criminally at others, other clients of Kim DeBrow saying they violated Georgia election law. We didn't, but they did.

So you can't as a lawyer in any state represent a group of, of multiple clients. If they, if they're interests or not perfectly aligned, if they start finger pointing, he committed the crime, I didn't. He drove the getaway car. I didn't. Then you can't represent them and you really should move to, to get out of the case yourself and move to recuse yourself. If you're not going to do that, it looked like Kim DeBrow wasn't going to do that. That gave the perfect opportunity for the prosecutor to move to disqualify her doubt for the second time. Tell the judge in the filing, we got a problem with the immunity deal because it looks like

two of them never heard about it from their lawyers, even though they represented to you judge that they did. That's a problem. And secondly, it revealed to you and me so we could talk about it with our listeners and followers that two of the fake electors are cooperating with the prosecutor's office against the others claiming that they committed crimes. And so this is a perfect lead-in.

If she's trying to get her ducks to the full county DA for a May presentation to the May regular grand jury, this is the kind of motion that you would file. And I think Fony Willis also realizes that probably more of the fake collectors will flip on each other if you remove this lawyer who's if you follow the allegations being made in this motion is essentially coordinating amongst these witnesses to try to say the same things here. You mentioned this issue where there's this conflict of interest, right? And there are many circumstances in the law where you could represent clients who

potentially have a conflict. And in those types of circumstances, what you would get is a conflict waiver where the clients will knowingly and intelligibly wave their conflicts of interest and you could represent clients with conflicting interests. The issue becomes where in the same proceeding, there is an adverse relationship between the clients, the law calls that an unwaivable conflict of interest that even if you had the client sign, a conflict waiver saying that they are okay with the relationship, the law says the lawyer is not allowed to represent the clients in that situation. The lawyer must withdraw and if the lawyer doesn't withdraw, then you can have situations where someone

like the Fulton County District Attorney brings it to the attention of the court and the court will force the disqualification to take place. Remember what I said before about coffee, county in Georgia and Antrim County in Michigan? Popuck, you mentioned the Rico or kind of racketeering charges that are being considered by Fulton County District Attorney, Foni Willis here. Let me just give you a quick example of how this could play out in Georgia, for example. So when we think about racketeering charges, think about mafia style cases, right? And think about it, you know, in the most basic example

where there is a hitman who works for a specific mob family who kills somebody, right? But it's very hard to connect that all the way up to the mob boss for ordering the hit. And what you can do in a racketeering, if you show that everyone was basically involved in the same crime family, if they were all involved in the common cause and conspiracy, you could basically charge that murder all the way up to the top mob boss on a rico and racketeering charge. So how does this apply to Donald Trump in this situation with the example I gave in coffee county? Well, if you had these operatives who are linked to the Trump campaign, who basically stole election data in coffee county that they weren't allowed to access,

that was then funneled to the next tier of the mob in Mafia, if you will, with the Giuliani's and the Sydney Powells, and ultimately all the way up to Donald Trump and that stolen election data was weaponized for a common cause and purpose of overturning the election in 2020, you can then basically charge Donald Trump with the theft of the election data by his operatives who broke into coffee counties. As long as you have a tacit agreement among all those people. Correct. And the tacit agreement would be the demonstration of the common cause and purpose. They weren't just out there stealing it because they love stealing

election data. It's not like a hobby of theirs. That they go, oh, honey, let's go and steal election data today, right? They're doing it ultimately to weaponize it for a purpose. And the tacit agreement is to try to overturn the results of the 2020 election there. So that's what's going on in Fulton County, Georgia. Pay attention there, because I know that like the media, they're not focused there as much, right? And all of a sudden, it's gonna come a, the grand jury's gonna be in-paneled,

and everyone's gonna be like, oh my gosh, we're so surprised. How is all of this happening? Well, it's in legal filings that are taking place right now. That's how we were able to predict what was happening in the Manhattan district, Attorneys case. And that's what we're going to do here in Fulton County, Georgia as well. And that's what we've been doing in E. Jean Carroll's civil trial against Donald Trump for rape and defamation. That trial is said to start next week on April 25th. A lot is going on there.

I want to talk about it with you, Michael Bobach, but first let's take a quick break. Oh hey, I didn't see you there. Look, everyone knows how annoying cheap razors are. The cuts, the irritation, the frustration. And don't get me started with subscription razor services. The headaches that those can cause. That's why you got to are the cuts, the irritation, the frustration, and don't get me started with subscription razor services, the headaches that those can cause. That's why you gotta meet Henson shaving. Henson shaving is a family-owned aerospace parts manufacturer that has made parts for the ISS.

That's the International Space Station, and Mars Rover, and now they're bringing precision engineering to your shaving experience. Razer blades, they're like diving boards. The longer the board, the more wobble, the more wobble the more nicks, cuts and scrapes. A bad shave, it isn't a blade problem, it's an extension problem. By using aerospace grade CNC machines, Henson makes metal razors that extend just 0.0013 inches, which is less than the thickness of human hair. That means a secure and stable blade with a vibration-free shave.

It gets better. The razor has built-in channels to evacuate hair and cream, which makes clogging virtually impossible. Seriously, Henson shaving wants the best razor. Not the best razor business. That means no plastic, no subscriptions, no proprietary blades, and no planned obsolescence. The Henson razor works with standard dual edge blades to give you that old-school shave with the benefits of new school tech.

Once you own a Henson razor, it's only about $3-5 per year to replace the blades. My first shave with the Henson Razor was incredibly refreshing. The design is sleek and the durability is top-notch. The Henson Razor is truly so much better than your run-of-the-mill quote-unquote traditional Razor brand. And the affordability factor is absolutely game-changing. No more wasting your money on expensive blades. With Henson shaving, you can get a year of blades

for just $5. Okay, so this is what you have to do. It's time to say no to subscriptions and yes to a razor that'll last you a lifetime. Visit hensonshaving.com slash legalaif. To pick up the razor for you and use our code legal AF, and you'll get two years worth of blades free with your razor. Just make sure to add them to your cart.

That's 100 free blades when you head to h-e-n-s-o-n-s-h-a-v-i-n-g. .com slash legal AF and use code legal AF. Our next partner is AG1 by Athletic Greens. Now I take AG1 by Athletic Greens literally every day. I give AG1 a try because I want to better gut health, boosted energy, immune system support, and I hate it taking pills and vitamins and wanted a supplement that actually tastes great.

I take AG1 in the morning before working out and it makes me feel incredible and just ready to take on my day. When I take A.G.1, I know I'm doing something good for my body, like giving my body the nutrition that it craves and covering my nutritional bases. 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 A.G AG1 because I used to take all these different pills and gummies and frankly what I was taking was expensive and I didn't even know if it was good for me. But with AG1 biothletic greens, I know that 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 overall digestion, my energy levels were up and just overall, I was feeling great. It's just one scoop of powder mixed with water once a day and it's a seamless and easy daily habit to maintain.

The Midas might ask me all the time, Jordy, how do you have so much energy to do these adoreads? Well, if I could only pick one thing, it's H.E.1 by Athletic Reigns. Just one daily serving covers my day's nutritional basis, and supports my long-term gut health with 75 high-quality vitamins, minerals, and whole-food source ingredients. I can't think of another daily routine that pays off as well as H.E.1, which is why I trust the product so much. If you're looking for a simpler, cost-effective supplement routine,

Athletic Greens is giving you a free one-year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. Just go to Athletic Greens.com slash Legal AF. That's Athletic Greens.com slash Legal AF. Check it out. And now back to the video. Welcome back to legal a f Ben micelle us here joined by my co host Michael Popeaux. So E gene carol got to give her

a lot of credit for the fortitude of sticking to this case. Donald Trump and his lawyers have thrown the kitchen sink at her. You got to give a lot of credit to E gene carols. Lawyers led by Roberta Kaplan and Roberta Kaplan's team who have continued to outmatch, outsmart Donald Trump's lawyers here. And the case is set for trial. So this is E gene carol too. If you want to kind of create a delineation between the various cases that are set for trial.

But E. Jean Carroll, too, involves Donald Trump's defamatory statements made in October of 2022 on his social media platform, where he basically says that she's a liar about accusing him of rape and also says a bunch of horrific things about her that she's not his type, just really putrid and vile things. And this is also a case for the underlying rape that E. Jean Carroll alleged is took place in 1995 in 1996. New York passed what's called the Adult Survivors Act, which allowed victims of sexual assault

to have a one year lookback period to file within one year, even if their statute of limitations expired. EGIN carol statute of limitations for bringing a rape case expired because it would have expired in about 1998, if the incident happened in 1996 or so, about a two-year statute of limitations. But under the New York, the new law, the adult survivor's act, she was able to bring that

case. Those were combined into this case, that set for trial. There's another case, E. Jean Carroll, one, which is based on Donald Trump's defamatory statements made about her, where he says the same things about her that he put in the social media posts, but he said those things while he was in office. So he made all these arguments about immunities and bill bars substituted the United States government in place of Donald Trump and the trial court judge, the federal judge says, you know, rejected the attempt to do that.

It went to the second circuit court of appeals, the second circuit court of appeals referred that to the DC court of appeals, the highest court within the district of Columbia to certify a question of what constitutes course and scope of employment and whether or not Trump made these defamatory statements while acting in his capacity as a commander in chief, which is its own inquiry, which the Court of Appeals said, is a fact-intensive inquiry that we're not gonna deal with. They sent that back to the trial court judge, E. Jean Carroll won the first defamation case

is gonna go back to judge, Louis Kaplan for proceedings, but don't worry about that one right now. Let's focus on what the trial is about and the trial is about the defamatory statements from October of 2022 and the underlying rape case and there's been a lot of developments, including Donald Trump's lawyers, basically filing letter briefs almost like everyday, rape case and there's been a lot of developments, including Donald Trump's lawyers, basically

filing letter briefs almost like every day like judge, please can we have this? Judge, can you please tell the jury this? Judge, can you please do this? And Judge Lewis Kaplan, no relation to Roberta Kaplan, E. Jean-Carrie was lawyer, but Judge Lewis Kaplan, the federal court's other district of New York, whether it's taken place, would just be like, can you stop writing these letter briefs? Basically, like, I have local rules. I've said what I'm gonna do.

You need to listen to what I say, Joe Takapina, and I'm not going along with these gimmicky silly things that you want me to do. I'm not instructing the jury that Donald Trump wants to do the jury in New York a favor by not showing up to the trial. He can show up or not show up. He can do what he wants to do.

It's a civil case. He's not required to be here. If he doesn't want to be here, but we have trial set. Let's be normal and let's bring the show on the road. But Popoak, tell us all of the developments this week as what's been going down as we had to trial. Yeah. The Carol one case is in, I'm still leading with that one. If Robbie Kaplan ever needs an expert about the Carol one case, which is on ice now, because the judge wasn't going to wait, the judge Kaplan wasn't going to

wait around to see what the federal courts were finally going to get around to do. And he put a pin in it and said, let's just do carol one another time, if at all. Let's do carol two. Let's do the defamation after he was president and the civil rape and the rape and the dressing room case. And we'll leave the other case for another day. But Joe Takapina, we've done a hot tick on this. When Joe Takapina before, he was the lawyer for the president

when he was just a commentator. He gave an interview with Newsweek Magazine in which he said that Donald Trump should not be immune from suit because against E. Jean Carroll when he was president, because being president doesn't allow you to be what Joe Tachapina called the defammer in chief against E. Jean Carroll.

So if they ever get around E. Jean Carroll one, they should use Joe Tacapena The lawyer for Trump as an expert about about defamation because he made that comment not knowing that one day He would be the lawyer for Donald Trump or not because we have a new development that happened just 72 hours before a jury is picked on Monday morning in Southern District of New York in Manhattan We have a new lawyer who's appeared. We have Perry Brandt. Perry Brandt, who for 35 years practiced at a decent law firm in not that one, a decent law firm in the Midwest called Brian Cave, where he, where if I know the rules there, he probably had a retire. They have a retirement age of about 70 in firms like that.

He went off to another firm that we just showed a graphic for, but he was only there since February and he's no longer at San Bernard Phoenix. Because when he filed his notice of appearance just on Friday to come into the case in some capacity, he filed it with a signature block that says he has a Perry brand with a PO box, supposed office box, and a Gmail address with no law firm listed at all. So it looks like he's no longer, when you go to the website that were putting up now for San Bernard Phoenix, whereas they made a big show in February of announcing that they had gotten this big trial lawyer, he's nowhere to be found.

So he's either got pushed out of that law firm or he left that law firm in order to take on the Donald Trump representation. But the question is, what is his role going to be? Now, I agree with you, Ben. Totally. You and I have both done hot takes on about that Takapina and Habba seem to be way over their skis in federal court in the front of Judge Kaplan. Let's remind everybody that Takaka Pina was brought in six months ago, kind of late in a two-year trial, two-year case, because Haba was doing terrible in front of Judge Kaplan, and Taka Pina was supposed to be the adult to kind of change the relationship

and start winning again in court on behalf of Donald Trump. And all they've done is collectively lose almost on every issue possible from the DNA issue they lost. From the anonymous jury, we don't want an anonymous jury or we want an anonymous jury, but we want to know who they are in there. And before they're even picked, they lost. We want to use a jury questionnaire.

The judge says, I told you I'm not using a jury questionnaire. They lost. We want a 30 day extension. Judge said, you're not getting it. We want another 30 day extension for another reason. Judge says, you're not getting another 30 day extension. Now they filed late to try to bring in some sort of sex attack on E. Jean Carroll.

By the way, she's publicly reported that she has not had sexual relations with another man or anybody since she was attacked in the dressing room in 1995 or 1996. But they want to use somehow her past sexual history against her, which they cannot do under New York law or evidentiary rules, and they're late anyway.

So there's just a little bit of Repopuck, right? They talk about it. They put, so right before trial, each of the sides designate portions of their deposition transcript that they're going to play for the jury on video. And so evidently, what happened is during E. Jean Carroll's deposition, Donald Trump's lawyers asked E. Jean Carroll a lot of questions about her past sexual behavior, who she's had sex with before, and questions like that. And they designated that those were the portions that they want to play for the jury.

So Roberta Kaplan filed a motion to the court and said under federal rule of evidence for 12, and specifically, I think for 12 12, C, the time for introducing evidence like that has passed. Donald Trump's lawyers would have had to file an under seal motion, designating those portions a long time ago, and then we could have had an evidentiary hearing on their potential relevance in this case. And if it met the narrow circumscribed circumstance where potentially a past sexual behavior could be used

adversely against a victim of sexual assault, we would at least have an underseale hearing. So as to not publicly humiliate a victim of sexual assault, that's why you have evidence rule of evidence for 12c. And basically, Roberta Kaplan said Trump's lawyers missed the deadline judge so on that basis alone they can't bring it in. So they're 0 and 7 and all their underhanded attacks on E. Jean Carroll have failed and just as Alina Habas screwed up on her deadline for the DNA issue on the

Coat Dress that that E. Jean Carroll was wearing which we showed in a earlier graphic on the cover of New York magazine. She was wearing that very coat dress. They just keep losing. There's a picture of what she claimed she was wearing the day that she was violently sexually attacked by Donald Trump. So, for whatever reason, and I can't for the life of me find it, and I've done a decent job of sleuthing on it, I can't find the relationship between Perry Brant, the new lawyer and Donald Trump or Boris Epstein or Joe Takapina or Alina Habba or even Robbie Kaplan on the other side.

I can't find a link at all. He's not that acclaimed. There's not a lot of cases that he's reported. And like, what do you do when you're not doing well at a New York courtroom and you're ready to pick a Manhattan-based jury? You're bringing somebody from Kansas City, Missouri, who's never really tried a case in the Southern District that this doesn't smell right. And then you're going to take this older gentleman over the weekend and teach him everything

about the case so that he's going to be the lead trial lawyer and replace Joe Takapina and Alina Habba, who if nothing else have lived and breathed the case for the last three years, or at least Alina Haba has, that doesn't make a lot of sense. And if you're not going to have them do the opening, then I don't know what role he's going to have. So I have a speculation. I want to run it by you and I talked about it before. Donald Trump was close to Rupert Murdoch. I'm going to connect this to the Fox dominion settlement on Tuesday. Regardless of what the Rupert Murdoch is doing to him now in, not on Fox News, but in the New York Post and other in Wall Street Journal and other media outlets that he owns, they have

been close in the past. Donald Trump, just as we talked about human beings, have five senses and eyes and ears, Donald Trump just saw a huge settlement on Tuesday. Now the reason that case settled on Tuesday. One of the reasons I believe it settled on Tuesday is because there was a change in lawyers by Dominion about six months ago because Dominion was getting their ass handed to them on discovery matters. That's how you and I and the audience learned about those text messages and emails is because Fox Fox got a terrible set of rulings with their old lawyers.

They fired those lawyers brought in Dan Webb, another Midwestern lawyer at Winston and Straun, a federal former federal prosecutor who has a history of settling defamation cases. He settled a huge case on behalf of ABC news when ABC news defamed the beef industry and beef manufacturers in a 2020 documentary and that went for 150 million. So you got a guy who comes in later from the Midwest to help settle a case. Perry Brandt from the Midwest comes in. Now maybe he's the guy, he's the closer, he's the reliever from the bullpen because Takapena and Habba have so blown it with E. Jean Carol's lawyer Robbie Kaplan That I don't even think they have the credibility to pick up the phone call even on bend at knee and open up a settlement dialogue But maybe somehow this sort of all shucks midwestern guy semi retired

Maybe he's the guy to pick up the phone and try to get a settlement. And settlements can happen just so everybody knows. At any time, I've settled cases even when the jury has reported that they have reached a verdict, and they're about to deliver the note to the judge as to what it is. And we've settled the case because both sides were like, we want to take it away from that jury. So it could happen. It could happen on jury selection, on opening statements after close of evidence anytime. Maybe he's that role. It will go on Monday or an opening statement start, what role he has, but what do you

think about my theory? I think that Donald Trump is a less rational actor than Rupert Murdoch number one, I think that there is no way that this case settles. I think this case goes to jury verdict and yeah, so I think Donald Trump is too cheap to write the check. I think Donald Trump is too irrational to write the check. I think E.INE Carroll has pursued this for justice and not money, whereas I think Dominion achieved the result of justice and transparency, but they are a corporation with shareholders and are ultimately driven by money as a corporation. So when the price is right, it makes sense to them. I think E. Jean Carroll has done this purely for vindication, for holding Donald Trump accountable. Can I tell you why there's another issue?

There's another issue here. She's also a human being who apparently, based on her own admissions, lives a solitary life at a log cabin at a cabin in upstate New York. She got fired from her job at L. magazine where she was a gossip columnist for like 30 years. I don't know what her source of income is. I don't know. I mean, at one point when she was, she's a very interesting person. People that should go online and read about E. Jean Carroll. Successful journalist, successful gossip columnist, she was a writer for Saturday Night Live in what an Emmy. I mean, she is a fascinating person. She was a regular at a Lane's restaurant, a very famous restaurant in Watering Hall in

New York with a lot of celebrity. She married a very famous local newscaster that I knew when I was growing up in New York at ABC News. So she's a fascinating person, I don't know how she's making a living. And if they put like $50 million or $25 million in front of her, we want the case. We want her, we want her to try this case for justice. But at the end of the day, she's a person. And she's a person that got damaged terribly. She has a damage expert that's going to testify about how her entire career was dashed, not only from the rape, but from even as recently as 2017 when she was fired because of going after

Donald Trump. And I mean, she's got bills to pay. I think if there's a dollar amount on the table, Robbie Capon's hard press not to tell her to take that settlement, whether she can get an apology or a retraction and a mission of guilt, who knows? But as I said, by way, let me just finish the point and you can do what you like. But as I've always said, and I've been involved in this,

nothing concentrates the mind like a pile of money on the table and a jury sitting in a box and a judge tapping his foot and patiently. So we're gonna have to see what happens. Now you're right, he may be too cheap, he may not have the right dollar amount in mind and they may really want to hold out for an apology or recognition

of what she said of knowing, and she said, he said originally, I don't know her, that we know that's a lie. The not my type part, that's ridiculous, and we know that's not even a defense, that's ridiculous and disgusting. But there's ways to fashion, I'm thinking of a future press release.

There's ways to fashion something that gets her justice, money, and a statement and gets him out of a New York jury finding him. Now one last thing, because I've been asked this in tweets and the federal rules require unanimous jury. So when they pick this jury, it's going to have to be unanimous for the end for the ultimate result. Could there be what this is why people settle cases, even as stronger cases, I think Robbie Kaplan has, if she had the DNA evidence, it'd be even stronger, but she doesn't. They could have

one person who holds out, who is just doesn't buy the case, doesn't buy eging carol, is a Trumper and doesn't vote for them. And they walk away with nothing. And that's why parties enter into settlement negotiations. The Fox Dominion thing, as strong of a case, who had a stronger case than Dominion, but already they had jury problems. It was reported that one juror fell asleep during an actual selected juror during Tuesday's proceedings before they settled. And another juror had a meltdown over being told that she was going to have to stay for

six weeks and they had it dismiss her. So there's lots of things that go on in a room, even if you think you have a great case, that you got to worry about bringing it forward and having a jury return of verdict to your favor. I'm just saying this, though, I don't think it's going to settle. I don't think E. Jean Carroll is looking at this case as an issue of money nor do I think her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan took this case for money. So I'll put that out at the front. But I do want to say in general, that is the purpose of a civil case. Like when you go to

civil court, it's not criminal court, it's civil court, You ask the jury for money. So at the end of the day You don't ask the jury in your closing argument. Hey, we want you to award justice You don't that's that's not what the civil form is you can say you want justice do the right thing here Justice needs to be served but ultimately there is going to be a monetary value that is quantified by an expert about eging carols damages. And you're going to have eging carols lawyer tell the jury, please award us X millions of dollars. And then the jury is going to say, we the jury find in favor of, and if they find

in favor of E. Jean Carroll, we find in favor of E. Jean Carroll and award E. Jean Carroll money. They're not saying at the end of it, we award E. Jean Carroll justice. They say there's a dollar amount for emotional distress damages. That's going to be written on a piece of paper. They don't say in their verdict, we find that Donald Trump should have been arrested. They're not allowed to do that. That's not what they find. So it is important though to your point, Popeyes, what people know.

Civil case is money court. Civil cases where people go to ask for money for their injuries and damages. One other point I want to make about this trial though, as well, as I alluded to earlier, Donald Trump's lawyer wanted the judge to read an instruction to the jury that if Donald Trump doesn't show up, it's because he wants to do a favor for New York City and not create

a lot of traffic and not burden the court. The court responded, that's ridiculous. We're perfectly capable here in this courthouse of handling high profile cases. Also I looked at Donald Trump's campaign schedule. Looks like he's going to be in New Hampshire next week during this trial. If he could be in New Hampshire, he can be here. Not only Joe Takapina, am I not going to read that instruction. Now you, Takapina, thanks for bringing that up because maybe if you didn't bring this

up, you could have told the jury that. But you know what? You can't even tell the jury right now that Donald Trump is not going to be here because he's trying to do the city a favor there. This is a civil case. In a civil case, unlike a criminal case, the parties don't have to show up. But if you're a member of the jury and you see that Donald Trump's not showing up for

a case where he's accused of rape, you're going to be thinking he might not be taking this case very seriously at all. Why is it? And if they don't think it, Robbie Kaplan's going to bang away at the empty chair, which she now is able to do and say it's so unimportant to him in the opening, he's not even here. And every time, and every time he's not there, she's going to find a way to point it out through a witness. You mean Donald Trump?

The person is not sitting in that chair right now. And the other error then, which we didn't cover, so many errors by Takapina and Habba, they'll be talking about it in law schools, Georgetown included about trial practice. They also screwed up their expert. There's one expert that's gonna be in front of the jury, and it's E. Jean Carroll's on her damages

for defamation and intentional inflection, the emotional distress, because Donald Trump's lawyer got stricken, got banned by the judge because he's not really an expert in the area of damages. He's just a guy that had a calculator and tried to attack her damages. And the judge says, this isn't a proper expert.

There's gonna be one expert in this case. So the jury, when they get to damages, usually it's like lawyers like you and me putting up a big number on a board, but you have to, usually if it's an economic case or you want to have an expert testified of the jury and then you want, on the other side, you want a rebuttal expert or somebody say those numbers are full of you, know what? There's no, there's no rebuttal expert. They're all in number.

They're going to hear. Yeah. So, yeah, so, so Trump, they, they, they, Trump, they failed to designate the appropriate expert. I mean, come on. That's like, that's like, one-o-one, one-o-one. That's like, one-o-one. Some of the most basic stuff right there.

You know, you never know what your expert's actually gonna say until they say it, but at least designate the expert appropriately and follow the rules there. You know, one of the other interesting things about the trial strategy by E. Jean Carroll that was mentioned in the judges' order, which I hadn't really picked up on though, is that Roberta Kaplan's not going to call Donald Trump as a witness.

It's a very interesting strategy and a smart one and you may go, so E. Jean Carroll's not calling Trump. Why would they do that? Well, they've got Donald Trump's seven hour deposition and Donald Trump performed horribly during that deposition and you can play a party deposition for any reason. So what E. Jean Carroll's lawyers are gonna do, they're gonna play Trump's deposition,

they're going to get testimony in court from the other victims that Donald Trump sexually assaulted who are allowed to testify, they're gonna play the access Hollywood tapes where Donald Trump brags about sexually assaulting women. They're gonna call E. Jean Carroll, and it may be in that order or a different order. And then other witnesses, wait, wait,

other witnesses that she has in 95 and 96 that she told contemporaneously about what happened to her in the dressing room. She has those witnesses. And then they're going to rest. That's going to be their case. And then the burden's going to shift. Donald Trump's lawyers will file what's called a motion for non-suit to try to get it dismissed. They're not going to win that motion.

And then they're going to have to call witnesses. Well, they don't have an expert, so they can call it an expert on damages. So really, the only witness that they would have to call is Donald Trump. And so if they don't call Donald Trump, then Eugene Carroll's lawyers are going to say, they had the opportunity to call their own client. Their own client did not show up to defend himself, which may occur. And then if Donald Trump does show up, well, then you get to cross examine him and imagine a direct examination of Donald Trump, whether it's the new lawyer or Takapina or Alina Haba. I'm not even sure that Takapina and Alina Haba can

do a direct examination. You know, doing a direct examination, there is a skill to it. You have to build a foundation. You can't lead the witness. And Donald Trump has to be responsive to the question. That's being asked. He can't ramble on. If he starts rambling, Roberta Kaplan can say,

judge, motion to strike non-responsive to the question. And you will see in that format in a direct exam setting aside the cross exam. Donald Trump is going to struggle because he doesn't, he's not able to answer questions. So he'll be asked a question like, well, Mr. Trump, what's your profession? And he'll go, rush, rush, rush, you great, you great, you great, you great, does anybody want to eat the pizza out of my mouth? I just ate pizza, do you want to eat the pizza? I mean the guys are freaking maniac and so he will become unglued in a direct exam and then you do the cross-exam and if he doesn't show up just say he doesn't show up so you may be saying wow her call her not calling him is a mistake make him show up no it's actually a brilliant strategy and

it's why good lawyers matter in cases like this. And speaking about good lawyers matter, though, Popeye, I want to go to this one point, though. The DOJ had some very good lawyers and under very tough circumstances, argued to this Supreme Court and this emergency motion to stay what was going on in the fifth circuit, which is a right wing control court of appeals, lots of trumpers, and also to stay then what the Trump appointed judge, Judge Kazmerich, from the Northern District of Texas. We've obviously been talking about it here on the Midas Touch Network. This Trump appointed judge judge

Cosmetic found that the FDA's approval of Mifapriston from 2000 from 2000 was invalid and banned and and banned the use of Mifapriston the abortion drug just banned it and then the fifth circuit court of appeals after the DOJ Took an appeal the 5th Circuit was like Okay, you're doing the 2000 ban The 2000 FDA approval is fine We're gonna stay judge cosmetics ruling

Prohibiting the FDA's approval from 2000, but you know, there are extensions and expansions of the use of Mifipristone as its efficacy is further demonstrated. And so, and its access has been made more available in 2016 and 2021. And thereafter, but then the fifth circuit said, we'll allow the 2000 approval, but all of the approvals after, we're gonna stop that. We're gonna stay that pending the full appeals process. So Popeyes, what happened though in the United States Supreme Court,

and how does it impact every all these other decisions? Judge Kazmarik's a bad judge, sitting in Amarillo, Texas. I now call him the first Liberty Institute division of Texas, because that's where he was the general counsel. He's anti-abortion. He's always been, that's why they this plaintiffs group, but moved and actually opened shop in Amarillo just for the sole purpose of filing this lawsuit. And, and, Kaz Marik's opinion that the fifth and now the Supreme Court have commented on was so ridiculously reversed engineered that he actually used blogs and unaccredited

comments on the internet to support his theories that somehow these two pills and chemical abortions that have been successfully successfully and safely used by women around the world for over 20 years. It has one of the safest rates. It has a supremely almost non-existent rate of mortality. Live childbirth is more dangerous. Viagra is more dangerous. The use of Tylenol is more dangerous than the two drugs that are used in chemical abortions. And so even the fifth circuit that you just identified, which is on a two to one vote, which is supremely right wing, they were like, even Cosmere went too far here. But like you said, the two aspects of it that most women use, the fifth was okay with the his his opinion, which were male getting them by male and having healthcare providers that aren't medical doctors be able to provide them like at the pharmacy.

So they took that away. So we have the appeal. But the same time we've got just to keep an eye on in Washington state, three hours after Cazmeric ruled in his little Abilene, Texas courthouse, a Obama appointed judge, Judge Rice in Washington, which is in the ninth circuit, ruled exactly the opposite. He said that he issued a mandatory injunction requiring the FDA to continue to supply the drugs in 17 states. So ultimately, if it goes up to the ninth to match the fifth, you'd have a split in

the circuits, which circuits which goes directly to the Supreme Court. But what did we have? We had an emergency appeal by the Department of Justice and a manufacturer of the drugs to the Supreme Court, but it has to first stop on an emergency appeal. And we've talked about this a lot on legal AF as a reminder, is the Supreme Court judge assigned to that circuit to determine emergency applications.

And look, Roberts is in charge of assigning who's responsible for which circuit. And he generally puts the most conservative right wing, maga people in charge of states and districts that are conservative and right wing. So the democratic states are headed by the more democratic appointed justices and the other ones are appointed by or assigned to people like Alito. So Alito, the writer, the author of Dobs, the Dobs decision, taking away the federal constitutional right for a woman to have a bodily autonomy and take away the right to an abortion under the federal constitution.

He happens to be no surprise. That's why it's filed in Abilene to end up with Alito. Now, Alito, back in the old days, would have just under the shadow docket, just denied the appeal right there and then let it run its normal course, which could be a year, a year and a half, two years through the appellate process to see if it ever ends up back at the Supreme Court. He could have killed it right there, but because of so much spotlight that's been put on the shadow docket by networks

like the Minestouch Network, they basically, especially in the areas of Borscht and have stopped doing that. So Alito granted an emergency stay for the purposes of letting the full nine member Supreme Court evaluate whether there should be an emergency stay of Casmarix order or the fifth circuit's order at all. And they needed an extra day and an expired last night. And finally, we got the ruling. It's amazing, then, that on a such an incredibly important issue to women in this country, that the decision to for now stay the order, not enforce

Kasmarax order, and allow the two pill, a chemical abortion to be available in states that allow abortion. That's the only place you can use them. It was in a half paragraph unsigned decision, but we know we can do the math in order for them to have issued that. With two people that publicly dissented, Alito who wrote an opinion, we'll talk about that. You can talk about Ben Alito and what he said about the Biden and FDA, Biden administration and the FDA, which was total, as you like to say, projection.

And of course, Clarence Thomas. Now the question is, they nearly needed five. We know, we know that Brown Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor voted for the stay, right? Voted to stop cosmetics over throw of this drug and this drug use. Now you need two more. If I got a guess, it's John Roberts and then you need one more or more,

could have been seven to two from Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. We don't know because it's unsigned, but we know that two were in descent and that none of the other Trump appointees, none of them, dissented. Doesn't mean they voted for it. It just means they didn't publicly descent, but they got at least five votes. Now, what they said is for now, we're going to basically stay the operation of that order from Cosmetic and the fifth circuit's version of it. So now it's without any limitations available.

And we'll let it wind its course through a normal appeal at the fifth circuit, which takes time. And they also know, of course, that the night circuit will be getting probably an appeal up from the other side in the case that was decided in the opposite direction. They then will vote at some point in 2023 or maybe 2024, whether to take the case at all it takes four votes to bring a case up for Sershari at the Supreme Court. But that will be kicking the can down the road. Usually stays like this mean that they don't have the votes if you're on the right-wing side. You don't have the votes to kill these pills from being used nationally in the states that allow abortion. And usually it will die right there.

We'll have to see, but it's at least for now. Thank God. 2020, you know, right now, 2022, 2022, 2023 and beyond, that those drugs are going to be able to be used just as the FDA prescribed them and allows them in states in America that allow abortion as a right. Yeah, Justice Alito's descent was very odd. It accused the Biden administration of doing something the Biden administration did not do. I mean, it says that, you know, the Biden administration, no matter what the

Fifth Circuit or this court does, even if we, you know, did not stay what the Fifth Circuit was going to do, the Biden administration is so lawless that they would do what they want to do anyway. And their DOJ would do what they want to do anyway. And their DOJ would do what they want to do anyway. Like, it's a weird shot to take at the Biden administration where the Biden administration went through the formal channels.

They sought this emergency petition before the Supreme Court. By the way, they petitioned it to Elito. Elito referred it to the full court. And you may be saying, well, why did Elito have itito referred it to the full court, and you may be saying, well, why did Elito have it? Elito is the emergency Supreme Court justice over the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Why did Elito just not on his own? He could have made the decision and basically rejected the emergency petition to the Supreme Court, but what seems to have occurred is that a deal's been made amongst all of the Supreme Court justices that when it is a high profile matter, regardless of which district it is, you refer that to the full court for decision and not one justice makes a decision.

We've seen that a lot in the January 6th committee related cases where there were these emergency petitions. That's because we shine the light on the shadow docket and talked about it at length. People didn't even know what the shadow docket was. And I think we, I don't know, I don't want to say us, you and me, but certainly organizations and media outlets like this one shine the light on the shadow docket and they stopped doing it.

I think they would have done it had they not. But Ben, just on your Alito point, the quote that I took away is that he actually said, talk about projection, that the FDA, which is the Biden administration, he faulted them for using the court system to evade proper administrative review and judicial review. Are you, are you effing kidding me? They filed in Abilene, Texas to get Kazmaric in order to get this ruling. He'd been a general counsel of a right wing religious organization that was against the portion in order to conjure up this decision to then put it back in front of the Supreme

Court. And you're blaming the Biden administration for filing in Washington to get a competing order. That's just called good practice. That's not called flouting the Supreme Court rules. If anybody's flouting the rules and trying to form shop in order to get a ruling of their choice, it is the other side.

It's just... And Justice Alito fundamentally, he does understand, but he's being disingenuous. The complaints about the shadow docket are that in these shadow docket emergency rulings, the Supreme Court would use their powers to stay things that would dramatically change the status quo. So imagine if the orders happened differently,

like imagine if rather than the Texas ruling coming out, you had the order just from Washington state, which found that the FDA had to continue to abide by its 2000 approval of the Princeton. And then that was appealed to the Supreme Court. And then on the emergency application, docket, the Supreme Court stayed that ruling and fundamentally altered the status quo prohibiting the FDA's approval of MIFA Pristone. That's where the people complained about the shadow docket, because it was like, you basically just made a ruling overruling the FDA by couching it as a stay of a lower federal court judges ruling,

but you fundamentally made a ruling which should have occurred through a regular oral argument process. And here you have Justice Alito in the dissent saying, oh, liberal justice is, I thought you were upset about the shadow docket. Now you're using the shadow docket to stay judge, Kazmeric's order and to stay the 5th Circuit's order. And it's like, no, you're missing the point. What all the Supreme Court did here in staying judge, Kess Merrick's ruling is

preserving the status quo that existed since the year 2000. That's all the Supreme courts then and it's later approvals. So the status quo is now preserved pending a normal appeal process. So just wanted to explain that, but that's what Alito used a lot of his descent to say, he's like, oh, now you like the shadow docket. No, no one likes the shadow docket, but the status quo needs to be preserved and these massive rulings overturning FDA approvals of safe drugs used since 2000. The status quo needs to be preserved and then go through a normal court proceeding.

And to state the obvious, but I've seen some confusion out there. So this is all this only applies in states, the 23 of them or so. I think we might even have a map of it that allows abortion as a state constitutional right or a state right. Federal right is gone because the US constitutional right was ripped away by Alito and the other right-wing maga back in the summer with the DOPS decision. So now we're just talking about only where, so if you're in Texas, you can't get these drugs anyway because it's illegal to bring in these drugs into a place like Texas. That's the other thing that was wrong with Casamaric.

Nobody in Texas is getting those drugs because the state has a ban on it. So you got a phony plaintiff who moved to Abelene to file the case in a state where there is no use of the drugs. It's a great point. It's a great point. No medical harm. It's a great point. There should be no standing on that basis alone. But POP, we discussed a lot on this episode of Legal AF.

Hey, everybody, make sure you subscribe right now to our YouTube channel. We're past 1 million subscribers. I think we're 1 million 100,000 subscribers. Let's get to 1.5 million subscribers by this summer. Hit subscribe for all of our YouTube watchers. Make sure you also subscribe wherever you get audio podcasts as well. So if you listen to audio podcasts on Spotify or Apple or Google or Stitcher, whatever you use, just subscribe to Legal AF on those platforms as well. You can also subscribe to the MidasTouch podcast there as well, but make sure you subscribe

to Legal AF for sure right after this episode. And check out store.mitustouch.com for the best pro democracy gear, all 100% made in the USA, all 100% union made. And we got the official legal AF gear right there. That's store. MidasTouch.com. Popoq, what we probably need to do on store. MidasTouch.com too is add new diplomas for our legal

AFers. It's unofficial diploma. So you can't actually tell people you graduated from law school. So I'll give you that disclaimer, but you and I offline, let's work on doing new diplomas that we could put out there for the legal avers, because that was really popular.

The first time we did that also, if you want to support the Midas Touch Network, we don't have outside investors. In one of the main ways we support this network, you're through our Patreon, go to p-a-t-r-e-o-n.com slash MidasTouch Patreon.com slash MidasTouch. As always, Popeyes and honor and a pleasure hosting this with you.

Thank you to all the legal aeifers. None of this is possible without you. This is a movement and it's a movement led by the legal aeifers. And the Midas mighty, we're so grateful for all of you. This is a movement and it's a movement led by the legal a f'ers and the Midas mighty were so grateful for all of you. See you next time a lot of legal news is gonna be happening this week So I can't wait already for next week show. Till next time. I'm Ben myself. It's joined by Michael Popeye Shout out to the Midas mighty Shout out to the Midas Mighty.