Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Popok and Don Lemon Analyze Trump DOJ Tactics, Media Pressure, and Newsom Probe

Episode Date: June 20, 2026

Popok is joined by journalist extraordinaire Don Lemon to give his unique perspective of the Trump Administration's possible use of criminal investigations and indictments against the NYT based on their reporting supported by what looks to be secretly recorded conversations in the Situation Room; Governor Newsom getting ahead of the story of his investigation, and Federal Judges vigilant against grand jury abuse by the Trump DOJ. https://www.youtube.com/@TheDonLemonShow/videos https://substack.com/@donlemon Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Become a member of Legal AF YouTube community: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJgZJZZbnLFPr5GJdCuIwpA/join Become a member of the Legal AF Substack: https://michaelpopok.substack.com/20off Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 Subscribe to the Intersection with Michael Popok podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-intersection-with-michael-popok/id1818863274 Subscribe to Unprecedented with Michael Popok and Dina Doll podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/unprecedented-by-legal-af/id1867023089 Subscribe to Court of History with Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz podcast feed here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-court-of-history/id1867022920 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Seriously, why aren't Democrats in Washington doing more to stop Trump? I know. Have you heard about Phil Weiser and Colorado, though? No. Is he different? Yeah, A.G. Weiser sued the Trump administration 65 times. He's beating Trump in court again and again. Things like protecting Obamacare against Trump's illegal tariffs, and he even won against Ticketmaster. So he actually gets results. Exactly. As governor, Phil will fight for Colorado. Paid for by Phil Weiser for Colorado registered agent in Nand and Nosegazy.

Visit BetMGM Casino and check out the newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. BetMDM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connects Ontario at 1-866-531-2,600 to speak to an advisor.

Free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Seriously, why aren't Democrats in Washington doing more to stop Trump? I know. Have you heard about Phil Weiser in Colorado, though? No. Is he different? Yeah, A.G. Weiser sued the Trump administration 65 times. He's beating Trump in court again and again. Things like protecting Obamacare against Trump's illegal tariffs,

and he even won against Ticketmaster. So he actually gets results. Exactly. As governor, Phil will fight for Colorado. Paid for by Phil Weiser for Colorado registered agent Nanden in Nostasy. Welcome to a special edition of Legal A.F. There are so many things in the news right now that involve the media. In particular, the White House is reportedly running around like a chicken with their heads cut off because of reporting that suggests at least indicates that Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan of the New York Times, for instance, had a mole, had a leak or perhaps had a recording, a verbatim recording of conversations not only about the Epstein cover-up in the situation,

room, but perhaps about the Iranian war. And they courageously published that story. And now we've got to talk about the repercussions. Similarly, we've got in the Gavin Newsom, a frequent political target, an enemy of Donald Trump, because he's the presumptive, at least one of the people running for office in 2028. He's come out in front and said that he and his wife are being investigated by the Department of Justice. We've got judges that are looking carefully, and with John disti at the Jan 6th anti-weaponization fund. One judge in particular wants to get to the bottom, whether there's been fraud on the court and deceit that would completely overturn that settlement agreement involving Donald Trump. And then we've got in Chicago, we've got grand jury prosecutorial

abuse and calls that the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Andrew Boutros, resign and step down. And when I think about all of those things and how those can be woven together in a brilliant tapestry, I think my next guest. I think Don Lemon. Hi, Don. How are you? Thank you for thinking of me in such high esteem. I do. And legalities that are going off.

Absolutely. And thank you for taking time out of your travels to join our legal AF audience. And we're all big fans, the Don Lemon Show and everything that you do in independent journalism and commentary. over there. And you and I made a commitment that we do more collaborations together. So here we are. So when you read The Freak Out in the White House is a chapter from Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's book that's about to come out called regime change. And you saw the footnote that the writers, the journalist put in that said, thousand interviews inside and outside the government. If we quoted it directly, we have a transcript or a recording or notes. If it's a paraphrase, we did

something else. And then you see the description, dozens and dozens of direct quotations from people like Dan Bongino, J.D. Vance, James Blair, Susie Wiles. And you're like, who's the leaker? Who's the leaker? And now the government is going to try to get to the bottom of it. I may just be interested and curious, but I also know that Maggie Abram and Jonathan Swan have to protect their sources. And yet this government, in your case as an example, has no problem. in retaliating against people exercising their First Amendment freedom of the press. So what is Haberman and Swan up against now that they've published this and the White House is trying to get to the bottom of what happened?

Well, let me just say that I appreciate you for what you do, for your legal expertise, and I appreciate Jonathan Swan, and especially Maggie Haberman, who is my former colleague at CNN and what they do. Maggie Haberman is just a She is a lightning rod She is the gold standard of reporters Her reporting on Donald Trump has been spot on since the very beginning As you know, he relied on her a lot to try to get his messages out But also she developed him as a source

So when you say leaking, Donald Trump could very well be one of the people Who's leaked to her and he doesn't even realize it What are they up against? They're up against the Justice Department of the United States. They're up against the government of the United States. They're up against the United States government that does not run out of money, a Justice Department that's been weaponized against Donald Trump's political enemies or anyone who threatens Donald Trump, a Justice Department that has become Donald Trump's own law firm.

And the proof of that is that the Attorney General of the United States was, and still is, I believe, Donald Trump's personal attorney, they're up against the possibility of a legal, a lawsuit, or even worse than that, being arrested or charged or indicted by the Donald Trump Justice Department, which I know a lot about. So they're even sort of indicating that. When they say, Michael, that they are concerned that, would they say, that they obtained Situation Room tapes for their book, regime change, they're going to say that this is, I believe, information that is classified, and so whoever is releasing it needs to be prosecuted, and whoever is publishing it needs to be prosecuted. And we can do whatever we want in order to subpoena or get, what do you

call it, warrants to be able to find out who did it. Whoever is involved, whether it is, It should be journalistic. You should be able to source material, attorney-client privilege or a reporter-subject, a reporter-source privilege. They're going to try to go around that because they don't believe in the freedom of the press. They don't believe in the First Amendment, and they don't believe in the rule of law. So I think they're up against the full Justice Department, and there's going to be a big shake-up. So look out to see possibly some indictments coming for them.

I hope it doesn't happen, but that's what I think. Well, you and I are on the same page. That's my fear. I did a substack live today, and I said, that's my fear. But let's put ourselves, and you particularly, in the shoes of Maggie Haberman, well, let's just go through process. She is writing this story with Jonathan Swan. And when they're about to publish, it goes through with, it's vetted to within an inch of its life by First Amendment lawyers inside and outside the New York Times, right? Yes. Okay. And then at some point, somebody,

he says to Maggie, although we know she knows this already, are you prepared? You know, this is like the movie The Untouchables, right? What are you prepared to do? Are you prepared for after we publish this with all of you, with all your journalistic integrity, you know, baked into this article? Are you ready, though, for the Trump administration to come after you with everything that they have, including not just intimidation, but indictments and the rest? And so if you're Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, what's going through your mind when you make the decision that I'm going to not only turn this in to my editors and publisher, but I'm going to have it published? Well, what's going through their mind? I would imagine folks like Haberman and Swan have prepared for this, hopefully, by having representation already. They work for the New York Times. So what I think is that I think that's, I think it's good that they work for large news organizations.

organizations because their attorneys, and New York Times attorneys are their attorneys. And as Swan, not still with Axios, but Swan has worked for other news organizations. So I think that they are well represented, especially if the Times and others, if their lawyers, have fact-checked this to within an inch of its life and what they call standards and practiced it through within an inch of its life. So it's going to be tough for the Justice Department to get anything done or to make anything stick. But as you know, Michael, that doesn't mean that they're not going to try. It doesn't mean that they're not going to put the full weight of the government behind them. And so I think that they should brace for that.

And I think that they, when you go into something like this, and Donald Trump is no stranger to any of these, to either of these guys. And so I think they know what they're, I think they know what they're up against. But this is what I think they should be thinking is that, okay, go ahead, because that is going to make the sales of their books go, that book go through the roof. And especially if there's an indictment hand. You talk about, you know, talk about the stricand effect. If they just shut up about it, perhaps nobody will, I mean, well, people will pay attention. Perhaps not as many people will pay attention. But I think now more people are going to pay attention, especially if they start trying to indict them and so on.

So I would be thinking, I could not get better publicity for this book. That's what I would be. Yeah. Or the Robert De Niro counseling. Shut the F up. Right. And stop talking. And they did something like that, just to put this in context. When in the beginning of the administration, Mike Waltz accidentally on purpose added the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic magazine to a signal chat about war plans in Yemen. And the guy published the article, which he had to, and follow-up articles, including war plans that he was sent in the signal chat. They never went after the Atlantic. because they had egg on their face from the signal fiasco, right? Here, you got to, it's a little bit different.

And then if you're trying to figure out who the sources is, I mean, the quotes are so exquisitely precise about Dan Bongino, Susie Wiles, and the rest. You got Dan Bongino is no longer in the government, who is famously noisily quit, went back to being a podcaster, hated every minute of being there, especially them trying to make him complicit in a continued Epstein cover-up. The guy made his whole career about the Epstein conspiracy, so you didn't want to be a part of that.

And so you've got Bongino. You've got it buried, I don't know if you know, I know you've been traveling a little bit, buried in Haberman and Swan's report when she outlines who's in the sit room. She says, this is the nine that are in the room. And then she says there are two that phone in. First of all, you already got security problems. You get people phoning in to the situation room. which is supposed to be like hermetically sealed on purpose

from the outside world so you can make those decisions. And it's Pam Bondi. Yeah, it's Pam Bondi and Cash Patel. Now, is there a good chance that Dan Bongino is sitting in with Cash Patel and one or both of them are recording or taking copious notes? Yeah, of course. But I also think, look, some folks have said, now, look, some folks have said, many people have said,

and according to some of the reporting, that J.D. Vance is like the biggest leaker of them all. heavy or as the biggest source for people of the law. And he looks good in the story. Well, relatively. Well. That's like when, what do I mean, well? No, what I mean?

Among the liars in the room, he looks like, he's the one that says, let's get the story out about Donald Trump with attacking this woman's nipples. You know, we need to, we need to be over-inclusive. I'm like, among those people in the room, That was like the best thing to say. Yeah. Well, and but also what was the other reporting? Oh, the Iran War.

Remember, the reporting was that J.D. Vance was the only one in the room who was against it. And it's like, well, how does J.D. Vance always come out looking? Like the hero. Better than anyone. Right. Look, the better for the worst. He's better than the worst of them, but not necessarily great. One odd man.

I agree with you. It could be J.D. Vance. And then Susie Wiles has to be looked at. There's direct quotes from Susie Wiles. Remember when we all scratched our head when she went and spoke to Vanity Fair for three days, three sessions and ended up throwing everybody under the bus, including Pam Bondi, including J.D. Vance, including other. We were like, what is Susie Wiles who never speaks?

She spoke to Vanity Fair for three interview sessions? Are you kidding me? Yeah. Wasn't there some reporting, Michael, that she was going to step down? She's stepping down soon? Well, she's got breast cancer. I think that's been reported. and that that that was going to be her exit, her exit out.

But, of course, you know, they rallied around her with some social media post. But sure, I mean, you got, look, we know that somebody, there's a recording. I mean, there's a recording, there's just amazing transcripts. I've been doing this for 35 years. I've taken notes. They're not anywhere near an AI agent or a recording. And she said, if I quoted it, that's what was said. If I paraphrased it, it's because the person confirmed the thrust of it.

And that's, so that's really great reporting. And then while we're on the journalist versus Trump topic, or enemy versus Trump topic, self-proclaimed enemy, self-identified enemy. No, that's the right way to put it. The person that Trump considers his enemy, that's the right way to put it. You got Gavin Newsom. You got Gavin Newsom. He investigated and his wife.

Right. And he feels he has to. What did you think about the strategy of Newsom getting out ahead of the story? Okay, one thing, before I go into this, before I go into this, can I say this, Michael? There is a part of me as well where he said that they're going to probably try to do something, look out, Jonathan Swan, look out Maggie Haberman. And there's another part of me that says, maybe not, because can you imagine if this is litigated in court, the, what do you call it,

the discovery that will come from this. The people whose, you know, devices would have to, you know, that the defense would have to get their information from their devices. A thousand people. A thousand people and all of this information will be made known to Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan's attorneys. And then eventually some of it will come to light publicly. I don't think the administration wants it.

So there will be a lot of bluster about this and that but they will never get to the point where there is discovery because they stand to lose too much i agreed that's great i think that's i think you're perfectly right about that so so what did you think about adam newsome i think he was smart to get out in front of it because the whole point of it as i said to you and as you know when um when they went after me when they you know came and arrested me is that the punishment is a process you think about the events that happened to me, it's, you know, is that event a big enough, big enough deal to indict a prominent journalist for someone who is just reporting? No, it's not. And we all know that it is, that it's BS.

And, you know, I tried to get out in front of it and I said, look, I was doing my job as a, as a reporter, as a journalist. There is no conspiracy there. There's no evidence of a conspiracy. They will never find any evidence of conspiracy because there's none. And that's the whole crux of the case. Something was conspiratorial. There's not conspiratorial. Doing my job as a journalist. Gavin Newsom is doing his job as the governor of California. His wife is doing her job in whatever charity, or whatever it is that she is doing. And shouldn't you're the attorney, shouldn't they be looking for when there is some evidence of a crime, that's when you investigate. But should you be investigating people just to find a crime. They have not been charged with anything. And usually,

you know, like with Comey and with others and with Bolton, John Bolton, there was evidence. They charged them with something. Evidence of a possible crime, at least as they said, but there is no evidence. They're just kind of fishing now. So it's beyond bizarre. You're the legal person. I mean, have you heard anything like this before? Yeah. In this particular Department of Justice, The Robert Jackson, a very famous attorney general and then on the United States Supreme Court, and eventually became the Nuremberg prosecutor, said this, and it's been quoted by judges now in the Trump era. The greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power occurs when a prosecutor picks a person first and then looks for an offense, rather than finding an offense and then identifying the offender.

And that's what you're watching. They just want to go after Don Lemon. They just want to go after Gavin Newsom, as opposed to evidence of a crime or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, which is in the Department of Justice Manual, which is in the principles of federal prosecution, which are all but ignored by this Department of Justice and Todd Blanche and Donald Trump. Yes, of course. And it was ignored by Pam Bondi as well. Yeah, yeah. And now Todd Blanche, but is it surprising? do you especially look look at what's happening around the country and I think we're going to discuss

this later look at what's happened in chicago look at all the evidence that they found of you know i guess you would call it prosecutorial misconduct with their the misconductor with the grand jury that was admitted to in illinois the cases were thrown out and in other places and so i think we're at we're at a point now where the grand jury process used to be secretive and it was held close but i think under this department of justice you really need to look at that because the old thing you know, the whole thing you can indict a ham sandwich. With this Department of Justice, you could indict, you know, an earpiece holder. You can indict anything because they're not following the rules.

If they go to a judge, the judge doesn't, you know, the magistrate, they go to somebody else, as they did in my case. They go to another judge. That judge says, no, they go to someone else. And then they keep trying until they take it to a grand jury and then they take whatever information that they want to give to the grand jury and they make it fictional enough, and that it is perceived somehow to be believable or so hyperbolic and over the top

that the grand jury goes, oh my gosh, we must indict. And so I think that you have to look at, in this particular case, at least the judge, the judge needs to take a look at the grand jury process themselves. And I think that they're going to have to do that. I think they're going to try to do the same thing with Gavin Newsom. They are fishing for something, and they're not going to stop until they find it.

Yeah, Judge April Perry in Chicago, when she tossed the Broadview Six indictment with prejudice, she said, talking about the prosecutorial misconduct that was spotted in the transcript, we have the jury transcript that's up on our legal AF substack. She said it was the worst abuse of the grand jury process that she had ever seen. She also said that the prosecutor under Boutros

and Butrus was participating in the process. He was not just, they act like, well, we're apolitical. Then what is the U.S. attorney that's handpicked by Bondi and Trump doing in a regular grand jury, sitting there with his assistant U.S. attorney, and giving a speech to the grand jury, apparently, Boutros did, that was not recorded by the, like he made sure that his words were not as if he wasn't there. And the judge says, you as prosecutors, you have one. client and your client is justice right and you've breached yeah and you've breached it so what you're talking about just to tie it into your minnesota case is that not just apparently this um assistant

u.s attorney who's been fired from a couple of jobs since then sherry becklenberg who knew who was there for 12 years she was there before she did a series of things with a regularly meeting grand jury that met for 18 months done. This was the end of 18 months of her meeting regularly every Thursday with this grand jury for various indictments. And then at the end, she just, either the pressure of her boss being in the room or main justice department of justice, she violated all of her ethics, all things that she knew well. She spoke to grand jurors outside the jury room and had to admit that she did. She dismissed grand jurors who indicated they weren't buying what she was selling. And she vouched for the evidence.

She said, I only bring you good cases. I want to get with my Thursday grand jury because you know me. We've been together for 18 months. You can't do that in presenting your case to the grand jury. And everything was polluted in that grand jury. All the indictments, not just it turned out, we get this Don, they not only had to dismiss the Broadview Six, the First Amendment protesters. They had to dismiss an $800 million COVID.

testing fraud case with prejudice. I don't know whether those guys did or did or didn't do it, but they got the benefit of getting dismissed with prejudice by the Department of Justice to try to cover up for the prosecutorial misconduct. And the judge, Judge Coleman said, that's Pandora's box. You think dismissing this indictment with prejudice is going to end the inquiry? You're not. I'll see you on the, I'll see you tomorrow on the 17th for an evidentiary hearing about whether there's been prosecutorial abuse by Butros. He's hanging on by his thumbs right now. And as what, just to, I'll make it, I'll make the point my way as a lawyer.

If you're a defense lawyer and you're not asking right now under the Department of Justice for a federal grand jury transcript in your cases, you're committing professional malpractice. Yes, and keep fighting for it. If one judge denies it, keep going, keep going, keep going, do what they do. You know what's interesting, Michael, is that, you know, I worked in Chicago. I was an anchor in Chicago for a couple of years and got to witness Barack Obama's assent from a state senator to United States to the United States or his run. By the time I left Chicago, I was at CNN when he was elected president of the United States. So I was there for a while.

And when you said Sherry Mecklenburg, because I had been following local politics, Chicago politics said, You said Sherry Mecklenburg, I've known Sherry Mecklenburg since 2003, before she was the general counsel to the superintendent of the Chicago Police Department. And it's, I mean, there can only be one Sherry Mecklenburg. I mean, that's such an unusual name. That's her. That's her. And wow, that brings back, you know, Chicago is such a hotbed for interesting things that relate to politics and the law. when you think about what's going on.

We'll put up on the screen, Don. I got a picture of her receiving the Federal Bar Association Lawyer of the Year Award a couple of years ago. That's up on, that's up there. And by the way, just to round out the story because you and I like to do that kind of deep dive journalism, she had a, the reason she left in a hurry is that Dick Durbin had hired her to be the counsel

for the Senate Judiciary Democrats. And as soon as this story broke, she got fired from that too before she even started. Why would she be carrying water for this Justice Department, especially because I would, I think, I mean, if you're under Mayor Daly, she was there for Mayor Daly and so on, and Chicago is a very democratic town. Why would she be carrying water for this MAGA Justice Department? I think it's Butros, I think Butros who practiced law in Chicago, defense lawyer before he

became this U.S. attorney was sitting in the room. I think there was a lot of pressure. I think this will be discovered, hopefully by Judge Coleman's. a lot of pressure from Maine justice on that office to deliver about Operation Midway Blitz. And you see that, you know, listen, what do they say in our two respective fields? You know, pressure either makes a diamond or dust. You know, you either melt or shine under the lights. And she melted and outwent all of her professional ethics and her career as a result of it.

And you're right. Why would you sacrifice that? There's something about this corruptive influence. of Trump and the Department of Justice. I had Judge Lutig, who was a frequent guest with mine on Legal A.F., and I said, what is it about the corrupting nature of this administration and lawyers who are willing to sacrifice their ethics and maybe their law licenses like Todd Blanche? And Lutig looked at our audience in the eye and said, it's Donald Trump.

It is just his combination of bullying and power that people just literally lose. their minds. And I also think, too, it's survival, which sadly, and I think when you're in those jobs, it's like the military. If someone gives you an unlawful order or tells you to do something that is unethical, I think you have the obligation, you should be obligated to, you know, to refuse to say I can't do that. And I would at least want to go out with some integrity because now, think about it. It's always going to be exposed.

Who's going to hire you after that? I don't have to go out with integrity. Somebody else would hire you, you know? She could have been working for the Democrats. If she had said, I'm not doing this, she could have had the job that they just fired her from. Right. So weird.

So weird. Yeah. And let's end it. And thank you again for the generosity of your time. I know you're trying. You're kicking me off. Oh, my God. Oh, we got one more thing.

You're throwing me out of court. Are you throwing out my case? What is that happening here? One more thing. I've got one more thing. So, sure. Can we name that? Maybe that we should do a show together.

We call it in one more thing. And one more thing. It's like Columbus. Just one more thing. So you've got in Miami, Judge Williams, she tells Trump's lawyers to answer for the charges raised by 35 former federal judges led by Judge Ludick, who I just talked about. And to answer for the charges of whether there's been fraud and deceit on the court perpetrated by Trump's lawyers and others. and deceit on the court that would, if she finds that, and that the settlement agreement and the lawsuit,

the Trump versus IRS lawsuit that led to the settlement agreement, that led to the compromise of the claim, that led to the settlement agreement, that led to the weaponization fund, is all the product, right? It's the fruit of the poisonous tree. It's all the product of this illicit illegal fraud on the court. And how do they respond to the, I mean, I've been doing this 35 years, to have a judge use the F word or the D word with me and then have to respond to it,

I would do a lot better than attack what they did, which is the lawyer's no affidavit, never look at the judge in the eye and say you were not defrauded and you were not deceived. Those judges over there are political hacks. You don't know what you're doing either. You don't have jurisdiction and they haven't met the burden of showing fraud. How about starting out with there's no fraud on the court, I didn't deceive you, and here's why. They can't do it. And where's Todd Blanche's affidavit to support the legitimacy, allegedly, of the lawsuit or the settlement, or of Scott Besson or Stan Woodward?

And now who gets the final word? Well, the second to final word is going to be this Friday with the judges responding. But look how they're playing with dynamite, Don. with a federal judge who could declare this entire thing Nolen Void and a fraud on the court by Donald Trump's lawyers. And then what happens, though, with the, what do you call it, is it the slush fund, right? Yeah, yeah, the slush fund.

That would be fruit of the poisonous tree, and so that would, like, that money would go away. If she declares that the lawsuit was in bad faith and illegal, The settlement, therefore, is illegal because Blanche doesn't have the power under the Judgment Act to compromise judgments and claims, especially with, that are illicit or illegal. So you got that. And then if she declares the fund and the second day settlement amendment that Blanche tried to do by himself, boy, I wish this was something you could do as a lawyer. You wake up the next day after you sign a deal with a client and you amend it yourself without anybody else. his participation and you'd sweeten the terms. Don, give yourself a raise. All you got to do is

write an amendment you sign. That's what's talking about you. I mean, I might have to do that, Michael. I mean, look, if we could all operate in that world, and you know it gets me about that, and you know, this administration, they came into office saying, you know, everything in America should be based on meritocracy, right? People who earned it. People who have, you know, some respect for the jobs and experience. None of these people have the experience. It's required. to do what they're doing. Todd Blanche is a personal attorney who is obviously biased, right, because he's acting as Donald Trump's personal attorneys

and the Justice Department is his own law firm. You see what happened with Pam Bondi, not qualified for that job. She's gone. Kristy Noem not qualified for that job. She's gone. J.D. Vance is definitely not qualified. Look how he screwed up Iran. They put, after Donald Trump screwed up and went in,

he came, went in as a negotiator screwed up, took Jared Kushner with him to Tehran, where they went to Pakistan, where they went to do the, negotiations, and could not get the job done. Look at what's happening over the Department of Transportation. John Duffy is not qualified for his job. Pete Higsep, of course, I mean, that goes without saying not qualified. This isn't about meritocracy.

This is about lackeys. I do believe it's also about white supremacy. I think it's about just having control because Donald Trump knows this is the last gasp of mageism. and he's trying to make as much money and try to retain as much power on his way out as possible. People would think we're separated at birth. I put it exactly that way about the people are, they're like, some people say, oh, he's never going to leave. I mean, that's not what we're watching. What we're watching is he knows time is up in November, and he's trying to do, reshape the face of

Washington, steal as much money as possible, and get as many judges on, maybe get a Supreme Court justice on, God forbid, or two, there's a rumor that Alito may resign or retire after the summer. And Clarence Thomas, as long as we're all here together, Clarence Thomas, as soon as he hits, the longest serve, I can't believe I'm saying these words, the longest serving Supreme Court Justice, which happens just before the midterms, there's a rumor out there that that's when he resigns and gives Donald Trump two more picks. You and I'll be back on to talk about that at another time. But the way you know, oh boy, is right.

But Don, just as we round out here, I don't think you're being fair to the qualifications of the Trump administration. Sean Duffy, he was on Road Rules, MTV. That matches with him. And Pete Hegseth was weekend anchor. He couldn't even break into the starting lineup weekend anchor for Fox and Friends. Qualified to be the Secretary of Defense. Yeah. I mean, road rules, and have you seen the like half-naked video of Sean Duffy on the curtains?

And did you have you seen that video? No, but I can picture it. Yeah. Oh, yeah. When he's on one of those reality shows, he's like doing some sort of, like strip teas and it wrapped in a curtain, nothing but a curtain. Oh, yeah.

Hey, whatever. Yeah. Yeah, so there we are. Don Lemon and the Don Lemon show, it must see TV, YouTube TV, everything about Don Lemon, you need to follow and support independent journalism at its best. And I'm glad that we've made that commitment to do more work together here on legal AF and enjoy whatever time you are. But every time you have, wherever you are, and we'll see you when you come back, state-set.

I'm always working. There is no vacation for me. Yeah, I'm with you. When you're doing this, if you don't, it doesn't work unless we work. You and I're talking. I'll clue people in to our pre-production conversation. You know, I'm like envious of some sort of, you know, satellite link that you have because when I'm traveling, you know, for summer holiday with my family, it's a work.

It's a busman's holiday. I'll be working. I get it. But I do appreciate you taking an extra time out for this audience and to support what we do. We're big Don Lemon fans over here in every way. And in notes, everybody go down and hit the link and subscribe and become a paid member of all the things that Don does on Substack Live. We should do some Substack Lives together. I would love to do Substack Lives together.

Anywhere you need me, I just have such respect for you. And I love what you're doing over there on your channel. And I love, you know, I love what the Midas Touch is doing, those guys. Hit the like button and subscribe. Make sure you hit the like button because it does affect the algorithm. More people become aware of our conversation and our channel. Michael's conversation in our channel. So it's very important, especially in this time that we're in right now,

to support independent journalists, independent media, because the gatekeepers over on the networks are not doing you justice. Couldn't have said it better myself. Don Lemon, we'll see you very soon. It's Michael Popak on Legal AF. Can't get your fill of Legal AF. Me neither. That's why we formed the Legal AF.

substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, morning A.F. What else? All the other contributors from legal a.F are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes. Where legal A.F on substack. Come over now to free subscribe. Seriously, why aren't Democrats in Washington doing more to stop Trump? I know. Have you heard about Phil Weiser and Colorado, though?

No. Is he different? Yeah, A.G. Weiser sued the Trump administration 65 times. He's beating Trump in court again and again. Things like protecting Obamacare against Trump's illegal tariffs, and he even won against Ticketmaster. So he actually gets results. Exactly. As governor, Phil will fight for Colorado. Paid for by Phil Weiser for Colorado registered agent in Nand-N-N-Nuskeesie.