Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Prosecutors MAKE MOVES against Trump AFTER SCOTUS

Episode Date: July 4, 2024

Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back for the midweek edition of the top-rated Legal AF podcast. On this episode, the anchors vigorously debate: (1) the impact of SCOTUS’ recent immunity decision on all of Trump’s current prosecutions; (2) Judge Chutkan’s next steps in the coming weeks now that SCOTUS has returned the Trump election interference federal criminal case back to her; (3) whether Judge Merchan in NY will find any of the felony convictions for the Stormy Daniels hush money cover up crimes immune from prosecution, or whether he will sentence Trump to prison; and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/LegalAF Thanks to our sponsors: Moink: Keep American farming going by signing up at https://MoinkBox.com/LEGALAF RIGHT NOW and listeners of this show get 2 FREE Steaks in your first box! Lume: Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with Lume deodorant and get $5 off your Starter Pack (that’s over 40% off) with promo code legalaf at https://LumeDeodorant.com! #lumepod Beam: Get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to https://shopbeam.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF at checkout! Laundry Sauce: For 15% off your order head to https://LaundrySauce.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Look for new value programs when you shop at Loblaws, like Hit of the Month. So you get the best deals and low prices on amazing products every month. And did you know? PC Optima members save more. For exclusive offers and members-only pricing, just scan and save. And don't forget in-stock promise, where you can count on great offers being in-stock or get a rain check. Discover more value than ever at Loblaws, in-store and online. Conditions apply. See in-store for details. Make your nights unforgettable with American Express. Unmissable show coming up? Good news.

We've got access to pre-sale tickets so you don't miss it. Meeting with friends before the show? We can book your reservation. And when you get to the main event, skip to the good bit using the Card member entrance. Let's go seize the night. That's the powerful backing of American Express. Visit amex.ca slash ymx. Benefits vary by card, other conditions apply. Travel better with Air Canada.

Enjoy free beer, wine, and premium snacks in economy class, now extended to flights within Canada and the US. Cheers to taking off this summer. More details at aircanada.com. Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF. We've curated the top stories, the intersection of law and politics, just like we do every Wednesday and Saturday, right here on the Minus Touch Network. And these are the ones, I mean, we could have had our audience curate these. These are the ones that we just have to talk about.

First, we'll talk about the immunity decision and its aftermath, Trump versus the United States. What it means for future presidents, whether they're named Donald Trump or not, what it means to this former president and all the other current cases that are out there. We're going to also talk about a companion case, Fisher versus the United States and its impact on the Trump prosecution and on the Department of Justice going after Jan 6 insurrectionists who battled it out, many of them medieval style,

for instance, at the West Portico, the West Terrace, and yet will they be found to have violated the obstruction of an official proceeding crime or not? We're going to break it down for you. Then we're going to spend a considerable amount of time talking about Judge Chutkin. Yes, thank God we have to bring her back into the mix. And now that the Yes, thank God we have to bring her back into the mix. And now that the Trump versus US immunity decision has come out with remand and direction to the trial judge, we need to talk about the trial judge. And what is she going to do next procedurally in the month of July and beyond, both based on what the Supreme Court has ordered her to do in terms of sorting out official from

unofficial conduct, from core presidential conduct, from absolute immunity to no immunity, to immunity with a presumption. This all has to be sorted out in what effectively becomes, as was anticipated by our sister podcast, Miss Trial, a mini trial. A mini trial from now until sometime over the summer in which the entirety of the evidence will be presented against Donald Trump to the American people. It sounds a lot like a trial, it sounds a lot like the American people

are gonna get a lot of data points before they have to go to the polls, whereas our president put it, since the Supreme Court is not gonna do their job and going to allow the district courts to do their job in criminal justice to hold Donald Trump accountable, the court of public opinion is going to have to do it at the polls. So we'll talk about Judge Chutkin, the timeline for what we think is going to happen and what's going to happen there as that case gets back on track. And then we'll, of course, from a former prosecutor

and a current defense lawyer, two defense lawyers now, we'll talk about whether as Judge Ludig, who's gonna be a guest of mine on Friday in another interview, whether the Department of Justice should straddle election day and the inauguration and try their case against Donald Trump regardless of where it lands on the calendar.

As Judge Ludig said in a recent interview, and I'm sure he'll have a version of it with us, this decision has become the un-souling S-O-U-L of America. And he is commending the Justice Department to throw the political calendar out the window and prosecute this case on time, whenever that time is. We'll know more after we talk about Judge Chutkin. Then we're going to return to the implications of the immunity case on the New York case, which was led successfully by Karen Freeman at Nifilo, my illustrious colleague's former office, the Manhattan DA. Sentencing has been delayed from 7-11 to 9-18. And Judge Brachon has signaled that he is going to hear.

And it was not opposed by the Manhattan DA, which I think was a good move. I will hear from Karen. The issue of whether this immunity decision at all maps onto the conviction by a jury of pre-presidential conduct by Donald Trump when he devised the scheme to pay off Stormy Daniels so she wouldn't go public with the story of them having sex. Yeah, sure, some of the invoices and payments were made on personal checks books and personal invoices by Donald Trump once he personal checks books and personal invoices by Donald Trump once he got into the White House, which was the fruit of his scheme, him winning.

But that doesn't, I don't believe, convert what has just happened into official conduct for which he has any type of immunity. It certainly isn't core presidential conduct that comes from the language of the Constitution, or as Judge Hellerstein once put it, it is not a presidential duty to have an affair and try to cover it up with bribery. That's not a payoff. That's not an official conduct. And I think ultimately even this United States Supreme Court will agree to that. But Judge Mershawn's got to get to the bottom of it with briefing and an appeal to the state appellate courts and maybe jump the tracks and appeal to the United States Supreme Court. And then we'll get around to a sentencing right in the thick of things. Or as I've said in a recent hot take, as a baseball fan, you don't win the World Series

in July. You win the World Series now in November. And so the fact that it's been a sort of a rough week for the Biden administration with these with the win in the debate, the Supreme Court ruling in the debate, I mean this is July and we've got we've got plenty of time and Judge Murchon has plenty of time we'll break it all down for you there. And if and if we have time I don't know if we'll get to it we'll talk about a couple of other decisions by the United States Supreme Court as they dropped all of their decisions and then ran off to their summer holidays.

We'll do a, probably a special episode of Envisioning, combination of Karen, me and Ben over the summer, dog days of summer as we like to say, where we look, we take the plane up, look down at the 60 or 70 decisions by this United States Supreme Court last term and talk about what it means globally, macro, micro, what it means for the future. Some of the cases they've already accepted for argument next term, October will be right

on top of us. We're not out of the woods yet with this current makeup and what it means for the selection of the president who will obviously get, you know, as every president has gotten almost to a one, at least one or two more picks on this United States Supreme Court. But Karen, we've got a lot to talk about here as we enter our 4th of July midweek episode. How are you? How am I? How are you? You're home for week one with a newborn. How are you guys doing? It's doing fantastic.

Knock on wood. And thanks to all the MidasMuddy and the Legal AFers, some of which follow me on social media about baby Francesca. And stay tuned, because we did get her an amazing Fourth of July jumper, newborn baby's first Fourth of July outfit, and we will be posting it on the internet.

Oh, that's so cute. I can't believe how cute. Wow, that's amazing. I'm so happy to hear that, and I'm so happy to hear that you're doing well and everybody's doing well. Yeah, my wife's doing great, right? Listen, I did my part but the lion's share of the work is has been has been done will be done by my wife. I'll be a great dad. I'm sure

I hope my wife certainly says that I'm doing great so far. But let's let's be honest. It's a lot. It's a lot on her. I do appreciate it. You know, I've said to you before what an amazing woman she is and and she I mean is and she really is an amazing person as evidenced by the fact that she is already on a treadmill and it's a week out. I mean, she just makes people like me. When I had my kids, I was not her, let's just say that. I am so honored and proud that that rocket ship that contained my wife landed in my backyard, oh,

those many years ago from Krypton. Yeah, exactly. She's really not, she's not, you know, I said to you right before that you were about to go into the hospital and give birth, I said, do me a favor, watch that movie What to Expect when you're expecting. Because your wife is the one giving birth to twins, and I'm the stepdaughter of her. That was me. Yeah, she's just an amazing woman. But more importantly, I'm just so happy for you guys and the baby.

She's so beautiful. I'm fortunate to be surrounded by amazing woman and I'm looking at happy for you guys and the baby, which is so beautiful. I'm fortunate to be surrounded by amazing women and I'm looking at one right now. Let's talk about the immunity decision, because we have to, but we've had enough time now to digest it and sort of dust ourselves up. Yeah, it was a hit to the solar plexus of our democracy,

but now we've all picked through the 50 or 60 pages of Chief Justice Roberts, seen the crappy things that Clarence Thomas wrote as a big, you know, big red signal to Judge Cannon about maybe Jack Smith's not a properly appointed special counsel and the whole thing could just go away for that reason. But let's, we'll get there in a minute. Let's talk about what you picked up from the immunity decision and then how you think the prosecutors and Judge Chutkin, what do you think she does? How does she call everybody back together? I'm assuming it's going to be next week to bring them back to court to say, all right, we got the

judgment. There are certain mandates that have been given to the trial judge by the Supreme Court. They want her to get down to it with a razor blade and look at that indictment and its overt acts and categorize things into core presidential conduct for which there's absolute immunity, presidential official conduct for which there is a presumption that can be overcome if the prosecutors show it's not going to improperly interfere with the

exercise of presidential power in that way. And then just unofficial stuff that is naked and doesn't have any immunity protection. Fortunately, we've all looked at that indictment in DC election interference at 10 Ways to Sunday, and we've always thought that most of it is unofficial conduct. Now, there's one caveat. Supreme court said, don't look at motive. You're not allowed to look at motive. You only can look at whether something is official or unofficial based on, I don't know,

factors not related to motive in categorizing it. And they already went out of their way, even though they said it's really for the trial judge to develop a record here, but they went out of their way to even though they said, it's really for the trial judge to develop a record here. But they went out of their way to say, anything related to Donald Trump's interaction with the Department of Justice, including Jeff Clark and the acting attorney general,

is off limits, absolute immunity. We're gonna take that off the board right now. So there goes the Jeff Clark and the weaponization of the Department of Justice in the waning days, the Trump administration as part of the prosecution, that's out the window. They've said the Mike Pence one, the interaction and pressure campaign of Mike Pence

may or may not be depending upon the trial judge determining if this is inside the outer boundaries of executive power official duties about electoral vote counting, which I think is well outside what a president is responsible for, the vice president may be responsible for it, but not the president. That's left to be determined by Judge Chuckin after an evidentiary hearing. And then what

is left over, right? What falls into this last bucket and how big is this last bucket to salvage the indictment in the District of Columbia? Why don't you walk through what you saw and how we map this Supreme Court opinion onto the existing indictment in the District of Columbia. Why don't you walk through what you saw and how we map this Supreme Court opinion onto the existing indictment in the District of Columbia? Look, you know, unfortunately, this case, the more you read it, the worse it gets. It's really just a travesty. And on the day before the Fourth of July, which is such an important day in our history and in our democracy, you can't help but just really feel that the founding fathers are turning over in their grave

at this decision. It is just really, really horrendous. The fact that the president of the United States now is a king essentially, that he, and he alone, has absolute criminal immunity for doing his job. There is not a single other job in the country, not a Supreme Court justice, not a member of Congress who has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. It is shocking, absolutely shocking to me that the laws do not apply to him.

And when you play it out in the scenarios and you look at kind of how the parade of horribles could be in addition to the fact that Judge Sotomayor in her dissent said the president could use SEAL Team Six to assassinate his rivals. He's immune. He can bribe someone in exchange for a pardon, immune. She goes, immune, immune, immune. Now they read each other's opinions.

If the majority opinion and Justice Roberts disagreed with her assessment that you would be immune for doing that, If people are saying, oh, that's such an exaggeration. Oh, the left is fear-mongering. What typically happens is Justice Roberts would take that as an opportunity to say not true in the majority opinion, that the dissent says X, it is not X, which essentially is saying to the world, it is true,

it is accurate, it is a fair reading of this opinion. And what shocks me the most is, and again, I'm looking at category number one, his core official duties. I'm looking at the fact that the majority opinion says the Constitution requires the president to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. As such, there is a Department of Justice. They're the ones charged with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. Therefore, you want to encourage a robust, don't look over your shoulder presidency where they, he'll talk to his attorney general and make sure that the laws are faithfully executed,

and therefore you are immune from being prosecuted even if you commit a crime in that context. Think about that. Think about whoever he's going to install as the attorney general of the United States. It's going to be someone who's loyal to him and somebody who essentially pledges allegiance to him as opposed to the United States Constitution, if he asks them to commit a crime on his behalf, go after my political rivals, go, you know, assassinate something, go shoot someone, they can be prosecuted for it. He can't, he cannot. And you're not even allowed to look at his motives. You're not even allowed to talk about it. He can't. He cannot. And you're not even allowed to look at his motives.

You're not even allowed to talk about it. You're not allowed to do anything because of this ruling. He is absolutely immune from crimes if it had anything to do with his poor constitutional duties. Now, I know a lot of people say, why didn't Tonya Chutkin, the judge in the district court, make a record below about what's official and unofficial. And then we wouldn't be wasting all this time now that we're going to have to have this mini trial. And we'll talk about that in a minute. I think it's because it is so far, it is so perplexing that anyone, how could committing a crime ever be in your job description?

How could you ever be doing your job or in any way carrying out your duties if you're committing a crime? It just is such a head scratcher to me. So that in and of itself to me is just unbelievable that they would say that, number one. Number two, the next category that you were talking about, the presumption of immunity,

the presumption that the president gets. Once again, yet another kind of like elevate him to a status that is above Supreme Court justices, that it's above members of Congress. It's supposed to be, they're supposed to be separate but equal. You're not supposed to have one that is higher than the other. And it's just very interesting that the Supreme Court is essentially consolidating power in one branch of government. And interestingly, there's another case that came down this week that overruled something called the Chevron Doctrine that the Chevron Doctrine basically said, and if we have time, I'm sure we'll talk about it, but it essentially talks about

what powers administrative agencies have, right? Like the Environmental Protection Agency, whatever it is, all the agencies that exist in the executive branch that are tasked under the Administrative Procedures Act, they exist in order to carry out the laws that Congress passes. Historically, under Chevron for the last 40 years, the administrative, the agencies had a lot of power

and a lot of authority, and the court took that away and consolidated it with themselves, right? They said, no, only the courts have power. Courts, so it's like essentially what they're doing and consolidated it with themselves, right? They said, no, only the courts have power, courts. So it's like, essentially what they're doing is they're consolidating power with themselves and the courts, and they are giving the president even more power.

It is just incredibly just surprising and shocking to me, this decision and all of the decisions. It's hard for me to parse them out and say, oh, this one's worse than that. This one is truly the worst. But the part about this decision that to me takes the cake is that you're not allowed to even look at the motive and you're not allowed to use any evidence. And that's the part that could potentially impact the Manhattan DA case. But that's what surprised me. But to answer the question, what happens next? What has to happen next is this case is being sent back down

to the district court where Judge Chuckin now has to hold a hearing, which Danya Perry, my colleague in law and in podcasting on our other podcast, Miss Trial, she said a couple of weeks ago, she said that she predicted this. She said, okay, even though clearly we're not going to have a trial in this case, we could have what she called like a mini trial, meaning a hearing to determine what is official and what's unofficial. She, I think, predicted that this was going to be

the direction they went, certainly not as far as they went, right. She, I think, predicted that this was going to be the direction they went, certainly not as far as they went, right? She didn't think they would go so far as to even talk about evidence. You can't even use evidence to prove other things in your case, you know, if it involves anything involving his core powers.

But this mini hearing or trial, if you will, if I were Jack Smith, I think the way I'd be thinking this through is I would put on my whole case, everything. I'd want a record. I'd want the judge to make a record of what's core presidential responsibilities, what's presumptive, what's in, what's out, essentially what's official conduct and what's unofficial conduct. Because if it's unofficial conduct, it's out, essentially what's official conduct and what's unofficial conduct. Because if it's unofficial conduct, it comes in. If it's official conduct, it's out, that's it. And so I think that they should go through

every piece of evidence and every witness and put the whole case on. And the good news is what that does is that gives us a preview of what the evidence is. Now, Judge Shukin might preclude Jack Smith from putting on the DOJ piece of his trial because the Supreme Court has already ruled that that is clearly core presidential conduct or duties

and therefore is out. So there is a chance we won't get to see that. We'll only get to see the part about what could go either way. So that's what's going to happen. The other thing that the Supreme Court in this decision said in a footnote that Judge Chuckin has to do is also analyze the Fisher case

that also came down this term recently that talks about whether obstruction of an official proceeding, the charge that two of the charges against Donald Trump and the charge that has been utilized in many of the January 6 cases, whether their decision about how that, what needs to happen in that, in that, in order for that statute to stand. It's not okay to obstruct an official proceeding for example by breaking and entering it has to be you have to like rip up a document it has to be involved you have to involve

something tangible like a document so so I think I think that's the other thing she's going to have to determine is how because he's charged with four counts two of them are obstruction of an proceeding in that case, she's going to have to make that determination as well during this hearing. Well, yeah, that's a good breakdown. I mean, the way I've told people it's a waterfall. Core constitutional powers, which are literally expressed in the Constitution itself. War powers, commander in chief, that's where the SEAL Team 6 stuff comes from and some other executive branch function that is literally spelled out as an

Article 2 power, absolute immunity. What you throw into that bucket is going to now be up to Judge Chutkin, although as you said, the Supreme Court has decided at least one of them in but that she doesn't have to decide, which is his interaction with the acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, and with Jeff Clark and all that weaponization of the justice department, that's out. Things that are official conduct and the outer perimeters of that under the Blassing Game case and other cases, that's going to get an immunity unless, not absolute though, unless the government, the DOJ is able to overcome the presumption by showing that the prosecution would not improperly interfere with presidential authority or power. Which I think in some of the examples that we've been throwing around about crimes

and go kill my opponent, I think they would overcome the presumption. So I'm a little less- Let's play that out, let's play that out, okay? Okay, sure. So Donald Trump walks up to Jeffrey Clark and says, Donald Trump appoints Jeffrey Clark to be Attorney General of the United States.

Okay? And he says, I want you to go kill my opponent. Yeah, I don't think that works. I don't think that, even though on first blush, it falls into some sort of absolute or rebuttable presumption, I think that he has gone beyond what is within the canon of the core conduct to order something that the founding fathers, the framers, the Constitution never would have envisioned is

that he would be a murderous president. And I think even this Supreme Court, if somebody tried that, hey, let's try this. It's an owner's manual. Let me try to kill my opponent or give an order to kill the campaign manager for my opponent or wiretap the Democratic National Committee like in Watergate. See I think that whole... I don't think they're even allowed to look at it. They're not because you're not allowed to look at motive. You're not allowed to look at motive. It specifically says that.

You're not allowed to look at motive, but you are allowed to look at motive. It specifically says that you're not allowed to look at motive, but you are allowed to look at the crime being inside or the alleged act being inside or outside core conduct, you don't have to get the motive. There is no way the United States Supreme Court is going to allow a president to pull to push the button to kill an opponent. I know we like talking about it that way, because it's very interesting. But it's not going to happen because they're not going to find that that's core conduct.

But Sonia Sotomayor put that in her dissent and Justice Roberts… I don't agree with it. I don't agree with it. But Rob, okay, but she said she, who's a member of the United States Supreme Court, said… In dissent. In dissent, said that conduct would be immune and Justice Roberts did not disagree with her. You don't have to,

but that's not how the Supreme Court rulings work. You don't have to disagree with every aspect of dissents to say, well, no, that just like the majority opinion didn't adopt Clarence Thomas's special counsel, is it proper? So it's not always call and response in majority opinions by the United States Supreme Court. If they had a problem with it, there are some places where they get wounded and they're like, oh, I better take on the prosecution. I better take on the dissent. I'll be frank.

I know Ben has said it too. I just don't see it. I see where there are certain things in his core powers that they're not going to allow you to touch. And yes, motive is one of them and you can't put on evidence of official conduct to prove unofficial conduct. I get all of that. But they're not, they haven't, in my view, they haven't created a Leviathan, out of control, imperial president who can commit murder on domestic soil and get away with it and get away. I just don't see that. I'll be honest with you, I just don't.

Plus, plus, as I did at a recent hot take, he would be impeached and convicted by the House and the Senate, which is the ultimate check and balance on the president, and removed from office, whether or not it is an immune crime or not. The analysis of high crimes and misdemeanors, which starts from 1368 in Britain,

which was adopted by the framers of the founding fathers, says it's not a crime on the books. And as Justice Roberts said in this decision, impeachment is a political process. You don't look to the statute books to see if the crime happened or if there's even a crime that matches. Abuse of power, mal-administration, abuse of public trust is all high crimes and misdemeanors. So that guy that you just described, a woman or whoever it is, ends up being removed from office and then it's gonna be up to a court to determine if the kill order is a

Core presidential function as as outlined by Justice Roberts in this is a I I just see it totally differently I know you do that's what makes for a fun show. They don't get to high crime or misdemeanor because it's not a crime He's immune. No He is not the way high crime and misdemeanors ever been used. Yeah, not only that. Look what happened. Jan Six, they didn't convict him. He was impeached and not convicted. You think you can trust the political process in this divided world?

Well, let me unpack that. Okay, go ahead. Let me unpack that. High crimes and misdemeanors historically for the last 400 years has never meant an actual crime on the books. And it doesn't matter whether you have immunity. And I think Roberts recognized that when he said it's a political process and we're not touching the political process. See, Trump tried to argue, you have to go through immunity, you have to go through impeachment in order to come out the other side to a prosecution. And Robert said, no, you don't. That's a political process for removal, which is the penalty for impeachment and conviction.

Now, whether you can get a majority of Senate to recognize a murderous president, I guess that'll have to be left for another day, hopefully not. But I don't think it's gonna fall into core from the text of the Constitution absolute immunity. Maybe it falls into rebuttable presumption, official conduct. And then I think the prosecution is

able to rebut the presumption by showing having a murder as president, if this is going to be our continued example, is outside the outer boundaries of official conduct. And it's not something that interferes with the normal operation of the executive branch. See, that's where I come out differently. Although I think it's fun to talk about the killer president. I don't know. It's interesting and I think I love that you have a different take because... Of course.

But I don't see it even remotely. I really see this as... You think there could be a killer president that the Supreme Court will ultimately say, yeah, that's fine, it was court presidential power. He's gonna say, you know, it was a, there was a, you can't even look at it. He's going to, he's not gonna just go out and shoot someone, right?

He's gonna go out and he's going to, like say he's going to order an investigation into his rivals. How about he pulls, no, I'll give you your example. He pulls the Secret Service detail for Biden, if Biden loses, and Biden gets assassinated. How about that? Is that okay? I think he's immune. Okay, I don't think he is. I don't think you can pull the

Secret Service detail. But we'll see. Hopefully, we'll never have to see the problem that you and I are demonstrated by this debate, which is good, because we like to we always say in our notes we're debating, is the problem with it is that this order, this decision is so opaque as to how human beings and trial courts are supposed to apply it to conduct that it's going to be a tremendous Herculean task, you know, for Chutkin through this mini trial, I agree with you, and I agree with you that she's not going to be able to put on, they're not going to be able to be able to put on evidence related to the Department of Justice. But at the top, when I turned it to you, I said, what do you think's left? I think there's a lot of the

indictment and the four counts of the indictment left over that will be able to be, A, the evidence will come out this way before the election, and then there'll be a trial which hopefully will happen, I don't know, it may not be November, it could be November, December, January, I don't know, somewhere in there by that point. Do you think that, well, do you don't think that he can, so this is another question, let's say she has the hearing and she rules certain things are in and certain things are out, you don't think he can appeal before trial? Yeah, no, I do. I do.

And there may be, I don't know if there'll be another stay of it. And then Roberts, who wrote the opinion, is going to be the first judge to get it on the appeal. First, it'll go to the DC Court of Appeals. And yeah, there's going to be a whole delay thing. And that's part of the calculus. That's why I know people are like, try the case. I'm not sure, excuse me, the timing of all these appeals is going to actually come out. If you and

I were talking about this two years ago, I feel a lot better. On obstruction in the concurrence, Kataji Brown Jackson gives the way to thread the needle and to say that the integrity of the certification process was impaired by Donald Trump's conduct and the use of false evidence, which is in the majority opinion in Fisher, I think salvages the claims against Donald Trump. And as you said, she's been directed to apply that as well. But that's another appeal processes delay thing. I mean, this is why if back to Merrick Garland, if he had just not wasted a year to appoint a special counsel and just did it himself with main justice, we wouldn't be in this mess. The original, you know, because I keep like, how did we get to how did we get to this place, right? It's just unbelievable to me. And it's two things. The original sin is that my beloved Barack Obama,

who I just think is the world's greatest president, left and left. I can't remember what the numbers but it's like, like 60 or 70 federal judgeships open, like some ridiculous number open for Trump to fill. And he filled them with these judges like Eileen Cannon, like Kazmarek, like the guy who, the Miffah Preston judge, like other just extreme right-wing judges who are making these crazy rulings. And then, of course, unfortunately, Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have stepped down and let Obama fill that spot.

Well, let me ask you something on that. Mitch McConnell has had as much to do with Obama's problems in getting confirmations as Obama did, getting out of his own way. Here's a question that we'll save for after our ad break, otherwise my producer is gonna kill both of us without, with immunity. Should Sotomayor step down while Biden is still president? We're gonna pick that up.

And we're gonna talk about what happens now with this immunity that Karen and I has vigorously debated. What does it mean for the Georgia election interference case? How does it map on Amaralago? We're going to talk about the New York prosecution and the sentencing there being delayed for the briefing about immunity. And if we have time and we feel like it, we'll talk about what the Chevron, with the overturning of the Chevron decision means to our day-to-day life. But first, we have some amazing sponsors this year, all brought together by Midas Touch Brothers and Geordie in particular.

And here's a word from them. What if you could support small family farmers and reduce your environmental imprint all while enjoying the highest quality meat on earth? When you join the monk movement, you can. Moink delivers grass fed and grass finished beef and grass-finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and sustainable wild-caught salmon straight to your door. Moink farmers farm like our grandparents did. And as a result, Moink meat tastes like it should. Because the family farm does it better and the Moink difference is a difference you can taste.

Unlike the supermarket, Moink gives you total control over the quality and source of your food. You choose the meat delivered in every box, like rib-eyes, to chicken breasts, to pork chops, to salmon filets and much more. Plus, you can cancel anytime. Moink is helping save rural America. I love it and you will too. Join the Moink is helping save rural America. I love it. And you will too. Join the Moink movement today.

Shark Tank host Kevin O'Leary called Moink's bacon the best bacon he's ever tasted. And Ring Doorbell founder Jamie Siminoff, he jumped at the chance to invest in Moink. Plus, they guarantee you'll say, Oink, oink, I'm just so happy I got Moinked. I know I do, and you will too. Keep American farming going by signing up

at moinkbox.com slash legal AF right now. And listeners of this show get free bacon for a year. That's one year of the best bacon you'll ever taste, but for a limited time. Spelled M-O-I-N I N K box.com slash legal AF. That's moinkbox.com slash legal AF. When I think of summer smells, I think of sunscreen, salty beach air, barbecue on the grill, and unfortunately, body odor. But not this summer. Thanks to Lume, whole body deodorant BO will no longer be an unwelcome guest at my

summer plans. Their pH optimized formula is clinically proven to block odor all day and not just for your underarms. It's for everywhere we get odor, your pits, your privates, your feet, your under your other privates, etc. So you name it no matter how hot it gets, you can still smell fresh and feel confident from head to toe ready to make your freshest summer ever. There's a special offer here just for Legal AF. New customers get 15% off at Lume, L-U-M-E deodorant.com and just use code legal AF. I love Lume. I love how versatile it is and that you can put it anywhere that you feel you need just that little extra help at smelling extra good.

So it makes me feel confident and I like that it was created by an OBGYN who really cares about women and women's bodies and making sure that things are done in a way that's healthy and pH balanced and designed for your body. It's baking soda free and paraben free. And because it's pH balanced, it's safe to use below the belt. So I my favorite is clean tangerine, but they have other great scents like lavender sage or toasted coconut. So Lumis starter pack is perfect for new customers. It comes with a solid stick deodorant, cream tube deodorant and two free products of your choice, like

a mini body wash and deodorant wipes. It also comes with free shipping. So as a special offer for our listeners, get 15% off all Lummi products with our exclusive code. And if you combine 15% off with the already discounted starter pack, that equals over 40% off the starter pack. So use code legal AF for 15% off your first purchase at lumideodorant.com. Code LegalAF, that's L-U-M-E-D-E-O-D-O-R-A-N-T.com. And we're back. All right, we've done, we've chucked ourselves out here. Let's go back to New York. You asked a question.

Oh, oh, Sotomayor. Okay, yeah, this is, we're gonna get a lot of chat on this. So it's interesting. I, as you said that I googled how old is she? 70. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily say, you know, I mean, I know, but what happens if something happens? By the way, it could happen to anybody. Clarence Thomas is older. Clarence Thomas is older. Alito is older, but they're not stepping down. If she stepped down, they picked a 47-year-old.

Yeah, but don't freak. And I'm just, forgive me, but who was it that they blocked in the last year? And then do you remember it? What was that? Right exactly. Oh my god. There you go You didn't want to remember that I really did it because yeah, you're absolutely right They tried to put in Merrick Garland They blocked it and somehow Trump got Amy Coney Barrett through in like 38 days. Yeah, how the hell? That's what I don't understand. That's what there's somehow like there's this imbalance between Democrats

can't, you know, they try to do something and somehow they can't get it done. Yeah, because we're not unscrupulous. And McConnell said he created a new rule. He said if you're in the waning days of your administration, and the the the party, the House and the Senate are split, then that's a signal to the American people. You know, it just makes shit up. That's how that's what he said. He said, he said about Trump

lost Biden won, but there was a but he didn't, he didn't come in with both houses, did he? That's we have to, we have to made up. It's all exactly. It's all made up. It's very frustrating. Yeah, very, very frustrating. By the way, I'm not proposing it because I think she should. I think I think Sonia Sotomayor, her dissents alone are worth the price of admission and are important to democracy. But you

know, people that and yes, do I think that in retrospect, that, you know, that's the, she just, her name is flat on my head, that Ruth Bader Ginsburg stayed too long at the party, maybe, but she was vital and vibrant and writing opinions that mattered right up until the very end. And you know what? They have lifetime appointments and sure, certain people retire. I mean, just aouter retired, I think he's still alive. Sometimes popes retire. I know, but I mean, look, she was having health issues. She was amazing, but she was having health issues. And I think she was holding out because she thought Hillary was going to win. 1000%. I totally agree with you. I totally agree with you. But then she didn't. And then we are where we are. So I think everybody just sits tight. But to our law and politics intersection, that's why the November election

is so important. I tell people, the hand-wringing and the bedwetting about Joe Biden's campaign debate performance. You're voting for an administration. You're voting for the person at the top of the ticket, the vice president, all the people that he brings back in with him, with the secretary of state, all the major cabinet positions, and how they're conducting foreign and domestic policy. That's what you're voting for and the Supreme Court.

And you see what happens when people were like, well, I don't like Hillary. Hillary might be a little corrupt. I don't like her. I mean, I'll just take, I'll roll the dice with Donald Trump and look what happened. And so, it's in court alone. I hear you and I agree with you.

And I just wanna say two things. Number one, I think we said this before. Someone said, when you're voting, it's not like picking a husband or a wife. It's more like, you're not falling in love. You're not picking the one. It's more like public transportation. You're looking for the train that gets you closest

to the place you want to go at the closest time you're trying to get there. You said it. That was your phrase. Well, someone else said that. Yeah. You said it. That was your phrase. Who said that? Yeah, I said it quoting somebody else. I didn't make that up. But the other thing, so I agree with that and I will definitely vote for whoever is on the Democratic ticket at this election, period, full stop. But someone said, someone recently said to me,

because we was having this debate, because as we can't pretend that the New York Times and everybody else is calling for the whole, right now there's a lot of people calling for Joe Biden to step down and that's being talked about. And so having that discussion with people, and I said exactly what you just said, that you're picking an administration,

you're picking people with advisors, et cetera. And someone said to me, yeah, and he's being advised by someone who thought having a debate was a good idea. I know, there's always an answer. But no, but you know what, you can't, you can't pretend, we cannot pretend that that didn't happen, that debate. No, you can't. But as Justice Warnock, as Reverend Senator Warnock said, he's given bad sermons on Sunday,

but he walks and lives the gospel. And I agree with that with Joe Biden. Other presidential candidates and presidents have had terrible first debates. Ronald Reagan wouldn't be president if you judged him by his first debate against Walter Mondale. There wouldn't be a Barack Obama. Now, they also weren't 81 years old. Yeah, this wasn't a bad debate in those sense, though. Those debates are, I wasn't prepared

or I was out, whatever, maneuvered. There are significant questions into his competency that unfortunately, there was an article in the paper today that I read that is saying that the problem is worse than we knew that he is that has been going on in meetings. I mean this has to be addressed in's decision as to whether he wants to continue as president or whether he wants to pass the mantle down to Kamala Harris. Or he wants to throw it open to a wide open convention. But he's earned the right, as far as I'm concerned, to make that decision along with his advisors. And if the American people don't like it, they can tell him so on November the 5th. Yeah, I hear you. I hear you.

And like I said, I love the guy. I think he's been an amazing president. I'm just worried. I hear you. I hear you. And like I said, I love the guy. I think he's been an amazing president. I'm just worried. I am too. Alexa, I could think of any number of people that would solve for the problem that we have with two 80-year-olds running against each other. And the good news for America, if there's an America left, which I think there will be, is that there's gonna be a bunch of 50 year olds fighting it out for the both parties leadership over the over the next four years. And whoever gets in is gonna be lame duck after two and a half years because of that's just the nature of it. And so we're gonna see all, you know, if you like Gavin Newsom,

you like Gretchen Whitmer, you like you like Pritzker, we can keep going, you have the Pete Butt-Edge edge, Kamala, you like all of them, they're all in their 50s and early 60s, you're gonna have an opportunity to vote for them, which is going to be 2028. And on the other side, they've got a bunch of, you know, younger people too, you know, Christine Noem will get over the dog shooting by then.

And all of that. I don't think you can ever get over a dog shooting, ever. I would, not for me. You can't, but not from anybody, like you just can't. Karen, I would have agreed with you. I mean, George Bush I lost his election because he looked at his watch during a debate. But now we have a criminal president who you believe

could also commit murder and get away with it. And people are thinking about voting it back in. By the way, I'm not the only one who believes that. And I'm not. You I mean you I mean, Sonia Sotomayor believes it as well. So I'm not the only person. But I'm terrified of Donald Trump becoming president. It's not just you know, it's that it's not a matter of who do you like better.

This isn't about the public transport. This is literally about, are you getting on a train or are you getting on, you know, a rocket ship or are you getting on like a missile that's going to come and destroy our country? Because that is what voting for Donald Trump is. It is, this isn't just, oh, Republican versus Democrat. This is this is literally this. The stakes couldn't be higher here. Like no other election, I think, ever.

But that's that's to you and me and our party and people that are independent that lean that way to them, to the MAGA and the Republicans, they're they're doing an Irish jig in the streets because they think their guy has been vindicated and they're as happy as you are as you and I are fearful. They are ecstatic and that is the divide in this country. I mean there's no other way to put it. Me I like my presidents who aren't felons who don't immunity doesn't mean you didn't do it.

I mean he's a rapist. Right. I like non rapist, non felonious presidents, but hey, that's me. I'm crazy that way. Yeah, but look at the end of the day, the American people are going to have to choose they're going to have to make their decision. I'm not telling them to ignore things that they've seen as part of data points. And if Joe Biden can't turn things around, like I said, you don't win the pennant in July. In making his closing argument to the American people, he can't convince them of his vitality and his ability to do the job, that it hasn't been diminished and impaired. And what we saw was what he's claiming now is that he was overtired,

too many trips overseas, not enough prep, you know, although he did pick the format for this thing. I think the biggest mistake if he ends up losing is that they picked a debate format Not enough prep, you know, although he did pick the format for this thing. I think the biggest mistake if he ends up losing is that they picked a debate format that was no energy, weird with a mute button, and that he wasn't ready to go mano a mano with Donald Trump that way. And that's, that's, you're right. That is partly the people around him as handlers and how they prepared him for that. It also doesn't help that you and I aren't talking about him gearing up for another debate two weeks from now, like the

regular cycle. Normally there's two to three weeks between debates and you have three of them. Biden decided to have two of them two months apart. You're right. That's a judgment issue. How you run your campaign is part of what you're being judged on. I totally agree with you. We're going to ask one more question before you move on. This is your show. You don't even have to say, can I ask you a question? Do you think, do you think, by the way, one of the things I love about you is you make me feel so much better because I get, you know, I'm a, I'm a worrier. I can't help it. I got one more. I got one more. I did a hot take on it. Impeachment. If they vote, even if whatever happens with

Biden, if everybody votes down ballot the right way and the House and the Senate go in large numbers to the Democrats, under my theory, not just my theory, under a theory, high crimes and misdemeanors and Donald Trump is the major check on an imperial president who's gone rogue and that he can be removed upon arrival of being sworn in, even for past conduct. Even if it is immune as a crime, it's not what the term of art, high crime and misdemeanors refers to.

So don't be surprised if the Senate and the House get picked up by the Democrats, there's not a move to try to impeach and remove him within the first months of his term. And you don't think this MAGA, oh, I love that idea. You don't think this MAGA Supreme Court will say, sorry, if you're immune, it's not a high crime, Mr. Mearnor? No, it's 600 years of jurisprudence. I mean, they could, but you have the framers and the founding fathers like Alexander Hamilton and others, like George Mason from Virginia,

who at the last minute when they had just bribery and treason listed in that provision, he said, that's not enough. What about mal-administration? What about the breach of the public trust? What about corruption, public corruption? And they said, well, let's use the term that we used back in the old timey days in Britain, which is high crimes and misdemeanors, which was always seen as a political, not actual statutory crimes, and will cover all the things you're talking about. And George Mason said, good, let's do that and put it in. That is the legislative history of that particular provision of the Constitution. Yeah, and I understand. I agree with that, that things that aren't necessarily enumerated

as crimes, but when they are enumerated and you are immune from those crimes, right? They could have created a privilege. The Supreme Court could have created a privilege and instead they created an immunity. And I think by doing that, it's just makes this a different potential ball game, but I do love how you've gamed that out.

I do would love if he does get in and we take back the House and the Senate that they would impeach him, convict him, remove him from office. I assume then the vice president, whoever he picks, would become president. Yeah. But I have a question for you. Sure. Under your theory of immunity, would Nixon be immune for his conduct from Watergate?

I don't know. There was never an indictment of Nixon, so I don't know exactly what they would have indicted. You mean from a crime standpoint? From a crime standpoint. From a crime standpoint. Under the same analysis, right? Yes, I have to be consistent. I don't think giving an order for your campaign, the committee to reelect the president creep to go spy on the Democratic National Committee and to pay bribes and everything around the way is either a core presidential duty or even the exterior of official conduct. I think he would be without immunity. So as we are talking, and I haven't read it yet, but there is an article written by John Dean

in the Atlantic. What did he say? He's, he said, Richard Nixon would have been thrilled with the ruling of US Supreme Court in Trump versus United States earlier this week. I would know I served as Nixon's White House counsel until he fired me for seeking to end the Watergate coverup by openly cooperating with the investigation. And then John Dean went to jail. Okay, if I get you.

You know, he says the new ruling in effect decriminalizes Nixon's conduct during the Watergate scandal. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Dean. That's why people come here. They want to see disagreement. I don't agree with... I like John Dean a lot. There's a reason he went to jail, that's all I'm gonna say. Let's pick up where we're gonna go next, which is gonna be back to New York. You'll lead on all of that. In fact, when we come back from commercial, Salty,

let's dive right into New York and the move of the 7-11 sentencing to a 9-18, the judges comment, if necessary, there'll be a sentencing with that all means. And what do you think is going to happen with this briefing that the Manhattan DA's office has agreed to about the application of this immunity decision on the particular 34 felony counts the trial jury found against Donald Trump for actions, most of which all almost all of which happened before he was even a president, some of which happened in the White House where he's cutting checks. But you're what you're

feeling is about that one. And I think that'll make for a very good show. Why don't we first go to our next commercial break and come right back talk about New York. Proper sleep can increase focus boost energy and improve your mood. Introducing Beams Dream Powder, a science-backed healthy hot cocoa for sleep. If you know me, you know that dream has been a game changer for my sleep,

and boy, do I need sleep these days. I drink Beams Dream Powder each night in order to get my optimal sleep. And I gotta say, I wouldn't be recommending this if it didn't actually help me. And today, my listeners get a special discount on Beams Dream Powder. They're science-backed, healthy hot cocoa for sleep

with no added sugar. Better sleep has never tasted better. Now available in delicious flavors like chocolate peanut butter, cinnamon cocoa, and sea salt caramel with only 15 calories and zero grams of sugar. Other sleep aids can cause next day grogginess, but Dream contains a powerful all-natural blend of reishi, magnesium, L-theanine, melatonin, and nano CBD.

To help you fall asleep, stay asleep and wake up refreshed. The numbers don't lie. In a clinical study, 93% of participants reported dream helped them get better sleep. Beam dream is easy to add to your nighttime routine. Just mix dream into hot water or milk froth and enjoy before bed. Find out why Forbes and the New York Times

are all talking about Beam and why it's trusted by the world's top athletes and business professionals. If you want to try Beamams bestselling dream powder, get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com slash legal AF and use code legal AF at checkout. That's shopbeam.com slash legal AF

and use code legal AF for up to 40% off. My old laundry detergent used to drive me crazy. It comes in those big plastic jugs. They make a mess. They drip everywhere. It's hard to pour. And so I just really dislike it very much. And of course, I do a lot of laundry. I have a big family. And it's so frustrating when you are doing laundry and you have to use use that big plastic jug. And you know, frankly, I don't love the smell and it smelled very synthetic to me. So this podcast, I'm loving the sponsor,

it's called Laundry Sauce. Laundry Sauce has created the world's best smelling laundry detergent and simple to use, high performance pods. Laundry Sauce has transformed the mundane task of doing laundry into a luxurious and exciting experience. So you don't have to dread laundry anymore. And what is the secret behind Laundry Sauce? They partnered with one of the top fragrance houses

in the world, the same team behind many of your favorite designer scents, from Australian Sandalwood to Egyptian Rose to Cyber Pine. Laundry Sauce will make it so that laundry day will never smell the same again. Plus they stripped away all the unnecessary ingredients and artificial dyes that now is more science backed with stain fighters and enzymes that are much better to ensure your favorite clothes come out looking brand new and not smelling synthetic. And I love it so much.

My whole house smells like it now. And it's a great thing. So they have reviews on their site. You should check them out. They're funny reviews. They're very authentic. It was started, laundry sauce was started in 2021 by a team who were bored by the mundane scents

in their detergent aisle. So they decided to make a product that was conscious, relevant, and innovative. It's not just the pods. LaundrySauce makes scent boosters, dryer sheets, dryer balls, fabric softeners, and even candles too. So if you aren't happy, send back LaundrySauce for a full refund. No questions asked. Elevate your laundry with LaundrySauce. Now is the time to experience LaundrySauce. Head to La to laundriesauce.com slash legal AF and use promo code legalaf at checkout for 15% off. That's the best offer you'll find,

but you must use code legalaf for 15% off your order. That's laundriesauce.com slash legalaf, promo code legalaf for 15% off. Are our audience is gonna be clean smelling, whether they like it or not. Thank you to all of our sponsors today. I love our products and I love our sponsors. I'm just saying, a lot of them had to do with the BO

or how your laundry smells or whatever I did today. And I really appreciate it. We're not on the air without, I think people are like, Marge and the Mini ads, we're not on the air without our pro democracy sponsors and not just listening to them and don't tune out. Support them, as that helps too. Cause then they go,

where are we sold a couple of products on that show, we should re-advertise. That's my artist rendering of what sponsors sound like. Let's turn to New York and turn it over to you. Turn the microphone over to you. Let's kick off with the immunity decision, your old Manhattan DA's office making the decision not to oppose Donald Trump trying to argue that somehow he's immune from his candidate Donald Trump attempts to hide his sex act with Stormy Daniels from the American public while he

was running for office in October and November of that election year against Hillary Clinton. He cut a few checks and then some invoices came in, all private checkbooks, private invoices to Donald Trump. He happened to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time that he did it. But you can then take your analysis of the various absolute and rebuttable presumption immunities and apply it to this and tell me what you think is going to happen in New York and the timeline related to it as we move into a new updated continued hearing date of September the 18th. Yeah, this is I'd love to hear if you agree with my assessment here. So this is this is really interesting how this immunity decision applies to New York and the conviction that just happened.

A couple of things just to kind of level set. There's there's a post verdict motion in New York called a 330-30 motion. It just essentially means anything from the time of a verdict before sentencing, that little window, that's your time to file any motions you have about the trial, about the verdict that you want addressed before sentencing. And it's so that it becomes part of the record so that if you appeal, it will be part of the official case record. So that's the posture we're in. The judge gave Donald Trump until June 13th

to file any 33030 motions. He didn't. And then this decision came down on July 1st. So some people were arguing, well, he missed his deadline to pass, to file a 33030 motion. No surprise that Judge Mershon is giving him a chance to do this. How could you file a motion if the decision hadn't even come down yet? So that doesn't surprise me at all. It also doesn't surprise me that Donald Trump would ask that they have an opportunity to brief this and to put off the sentencing. I'm also not surprised that the prosecution consented to an adjournment and wants this briefed as well. Cause what has to happen now is the exact same thing that Judge Chuckin is doing,

which is make a record of what's official and what's unofficial and just make a finding and a judge has to make a finding. And so that's what Judge Mershon has to do. Unlike Judge Chuckin, however, who has to hold hearings and have evidence and have testimony and actually analyze things, that already happened at the trial. Every single witness, every piece of evidence, it's all in.

And not only is it in, and it was also cross-examined vigorously by the defense. And so it's all out there. All the judge has to do is apply the law to the facts and make a record. And so that's what he needs time to do. And that's why he put it over until September 18th. Now, what he said was his decision will come before September 18th. I can't remember the date, but a week before, I think. And then he said these ominous words, and if necessary, a sentencing will be on September 18th. And everybody clutched their gut and said, oh my God, what do you mean if necessary?

Does that mean it's going to impact it? It's typical Judge Mershon to put it that way. He doesn't prejudge anything. He leaves everything open. And so look, this could theoretically impact the case. If he's immune, if this is all official conduct, yes, the conviction would get thrown out. That being said, I think it's very clear that most of this case,

if not all of this case, will be fine. And it's for several reasons. Number one, Donald Trump and through his lawyers is on record saying this is personal conduct. Don't forget there was a removal hearing to go to federal court and in the removal hearing, there was to Judge Hellerstein, there were proceedings and motion practice and hearings because Donald Trump didn't want to be prosecuted in state court. He wanted to be removed because he was a federal officer to court. He wanted to be removed because he was a federal officer to federal court. He thought he had, I think, better luck of the draw of having a better judge. I don't really know why they want

to get removed to federal court, but that's what they wanted. That's what he wanted. And during that proceeding, a lot was conceded and put on the record and found by a federal judge already. And so there's no doubt that this is all private conduct and personal conduct. He also withdrew his, he made a presidential immunity claim and then he waived it. He withdrew it. So that issue is not necessarily preserved here. That being said, I do think the, uh, the judge will apply this new law to the facts and the only facts that I think are going to be in this category of presumption or that might fall into this presumption category.

In other words, he gets the presumption that it's official, but then the prosecution has to overcome it. And I think they do has to do with Hope Hicks testimony. I think her name was Madeline Westerhouse testimony. These were White House employees. These are conversations between Donald Trump and White House employees. Part of Hope Hicks. She was also the campaign president. Yes, that's true. That's true. Part of Hope Hicks. I think that gets you into the presumption. I think that makes it presumptively immune because it's presumptive because they're employees of the White House. That's part of talking to them openly and unfettered, vigorously and energetic, but that's how you overcome the presumption. So, right, but I'm, first you have to be put into a bucket.

You think, you think if the conversation takes place in the Oval Office, it's automatically official conduct? I think it's presumptively official and then you have to overcome that. You have to rebut the presumption. And so, so there's certain things that aren't presumptive, right? Conversations with Jeffrey Clark, that is official conduct, period, full stop, cannot even, it's not presumption. That's even core.

That's my point. Yeah, that's what I mean. That's core official conduct. And so that you can't rebut that. It's out no matter what. There is this gray area that you are presumed to be immune, but you can rebut it, it can come out. And I do think those fall into the presumptive category because they're White House employees working for the president, and they wanna promote a vigorous and energetic, not looking over your shoulder presidency.

So I think it gets into, I think those two witnesses go into that presumptive bucket, but I think the record easily overcomes it because it was about personal matters. It was not about anything official or presidential. So I do think those witnesses. And then the next area where I think is also going to fall into this presumptive category is going to have to be, is going to have to do with the tweets that were from the White House Twitter account that were put into evidence. They will say, they specifically said communication with the public in this decision, they said

communication with the public is a duty, is part of the presidential function. And I think that's going to be also presumptively, presumptive, he's going to be in the presumptive immunity category that can be re-budded by other evidence. I think it'll all come out. I think those are the only pieces of evidence that I can think of that will be impacted by this at all. I think they will be found to be unofficial as opposed

to official and therefore not subject to any of this. However, I do think you're going to hear the judge say, even if I'm wrong, the evidence is overwhelming and it's harmless error. So even if I made the wrong decision and it turns out those pieces of evidence should not have come in, then I think he's going to do a harmless error analysis and I think he prevails. So I do think that the conviction will stand. I think it'll be okay. I do think the sentencing is delayed. I think there will be a sentencing. And as I've said many times, I think he will receive a sentence of incarceration. But this decision to me makes it even more likely that the judge will stay sentencing or pause the sentencing

pending appeal because obviously now that the immunity decisions out there's a significant issue that needs to be reviewed. So he will that that's my kind of prediction of how things are going to go here. Yeah, so you're on incarceration now, no longer subway litter picking up, right? Yes, I have, because you know, when you look at the other cases that have received incarceration, you can't ignore that this is by far

the most serious of them. You know, it's only 20% or so of this people charged with the statute who have received incarceration. However, they this the the when you look at the facts that support that and their egregiousness of it, this is by this. This makes them look petty. And in addition, when you add his post trial conduct, all the threats and the baseball bat and all that stuff, when you add his post trial conduct, all the threats and the

baseball bat and all that stuff, and you look at his being held in contempt 10 times and you even look at his, I'm sorry, that was pre-trial conduct. You look at his post trial conduct, you know, where he doesn't take responsibility for his actions and he shows no remorse, etc. I really think that all of those factors will lead the judge to have no choice but to say, look, I'm going to treat you like every other person, anyone else who's not named Donald Trump, who is in this position with all the things that I just described, you have to sentence him to incarceration. He's just not going to go to jail until after his appeals are up. Yeah. You and I come to the same exact place from slightly different angles. I don't think

because it happens in the White House that it automatically converts into official acts. If you read the majority opinion, this is the basis I'm using, This is from page 14. Taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a president's acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. I don't see him directing the payoff of Sir Mead Daniels and repaying Michael Cohen out of a private checkbook to even be within the outer Blassingham perimeter of official responsibility. So I don't think you have to ever get to the rebuttable perception because I would…

No, no, I… Let me finish my thought. Sorry. And so there's either it's either two things, it's either one of two things. It's either, as you said, it's an official conduct. So there because because of all these people's involvement, and then you need to rebut it and you they will successfully rebut it. Or you never have to get there because it's an unofficial conduct that is prosecutable. And I'm in that last category. there because it's an unofficial conduct that is prosecutable and I'm in that last category. So I completely agree with you that paying a porn star and everything you just said is unofficial and so I don't think the conviction will stand. I'm talking about the part of the decision that says-

The evidence? The evidence. Okay. You're talking about the... All right. I agree with you there that the evidence about covered conduct should not have come in and I agree with you there, that the evidence about covered conduct should not have come in. And I agree with you that the judge should find and the appellate court should also find that it is a harmless error. But just to leave the note, to square the circle here,

he's gonna make his decision, Mershon. He may or may not sentence come, he said, I may or may not sentence, it he said, I may or may not sentence, it depends on where we are in the briefing. The first line of appeals to answer a prior question about why did they want to take it to federal, because they wanted to stay in the federal track, federal ballot court, federal Supreme Court straight shot. Here they got to go through, arguably they got to go through the court of, up to the court of appeals in New York. Then they're going to have to try to

jump the track with a writ to take it over to the United States Supreme Court, which is sort of, and that's delay, delay, delay, delay. He may sentence and then suspend waiting to see how this immunity thing plays out, but I agree. There should be no immunity for this even under the outer perimeters of everything we've just discussed, and that the Berchon's going to find that there's no immunity for it, any of the other evidence that was let in, which is relatively minor. I mean, Hope Hicks mainly testified about how the campaign freaked out when they found out about the hot mic moment about Access Hollywood with him bragging, Trump bragging about grabbing a woman by her vagina, which he can get away with because he's a

celebrity and how they then that launched that lit the fuse for the catch-and-kill program through the National Enquirer, Michael Cohen, David Becker, Donald Trump, you, the three co-conspirators in the Trump Tower conspiracy. That's real. Yeah, she talked about him. Well, he gets mail, and he was very concerned about the articles and the media. I couldn't believe I was even picked as I really wasn't qualified to be a communications director. Yeah, I get that. That's why I totally agree with you on the harmless error thing. Then then, you know, to another point, just to round it out, the Department of Justice has basically taken the position that their guidance about not indicting or moving forward with a criminal prosecution

that's within 60 days or so of an election and putting it in a box does not apply when there's already been an indictment and the criminal case is already up and running or they're in trial, for instance, as the election nears and that they are not going to let the calendar of the political calendar influence their decision and they will prosecute up to election day and beyond. I mean, if the unthinkable happens, Joe Biden is still president until the 19th or the noon on the 20th of January. And plenty of time to continue a prosecution related to it. We know what happens if Donald Trump gets in.

Donald Trump gets in and any prosecution that's federal against him or people around him gets killed and gets ended and this Supreme Court will say, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. That's an absolute core power related to removal, related to appointment, related to all the things that are within his, the Department of Justice being within the executive branch. You can do midnight firings of your attorney generals. That's not obstruction of justice. And that is fine. That's the power we give to the person who gets the job. Remember that when you vote, that is the power, that this new powers, that superpowers that the Supreme Court has given, it's there. And now you

think about what that power means in the hands of somebody like Donald Trump. That's what Joe Biden was saying in his closing argument that he started to make the day after the immunity decision came out, which I thought was a very powerful speech. He was basically like, think about the new powers that have now been given and immunity and shield that have been given and in the wrong hands, how do you think that's going to turn out? I agree with that. That's the right argument to be making to the American people. Karen, we sort of reached the end here, but you always have some great things to talk about at the very end. I want to give you that opportunity to share with the audience

anything that sort of popped up. And then two things, though, before one is I'll promote and you promote. Mistrial, our sister podcast, if you will, that you're anchoring. There it is, Karen Free McNiflo, Donya Perry, Kathleen Rice, taking it from a prosecutor's standpoint and having some great interviews as well. And that's a period. Do we have a regular date for that yet? We're working on it. So usually it's going to be Thursdays, but we're sometimes going to have them pop up sooner depending on what's going on. Is there one this week? There is and it's going to actually drop at some point today. What's gonna be today? Okay. Okay. Is there a special guest? No, no, no, no, no. Is there a is there a method to the madness of keeping people guessing when mistrial is going to appear? We're just trying to figure out what the right slot is because, you know, look, there's so many shows on the Midas Touch, so many amazing shows on the Midas Touch Network, right?

And so it's just trying to figure out what slot works for both our schedule, breaking news and the Midas Touch Network. So I'm sure Ben has an opinion about that. Yeah, well, exactly. And that's what we're trying to sort through. And today, the problem is there's some technical difficulties, which is why, if I'm being a little cagey, it's because we're having some technical difficulties. But it's a great episode that everyone should watch. Why do you mean to put you on the spot? I'm just trying to promote the show. We also have for those that geek out on the law side of law in politics, we've got a 3,500 strong Patreon community for Legal AF at patreon.com slash legal AF. Ben and I are doing some amazing, I think, breakdowns of the law, civil and criminal, federal and state, constitutional, civil rights, women's rights,

reproductive rights, Supreme Court rulings, and anything else that from our audience tells us they'd like to learn more about at patreon.com slash legal AF. Entry level membership is about $10 a month, and we've already got about 70 exclusive videos that are up. We did almost two hour, I almost said meet and confer, which is the legal term, two hour Zoom chat Q&A, where when we weren't able to, we were either answering them live in real time for the audience or I or Ben were back filling, answering questions within the chat itself.

So that, and we're gonna do another one we decided in July, we'll probably do something about the Supreme Court term. We're gonna put together, we're gonna get the band back together again of Karen, me and Ben. We're gonna talk about, I think the United States Supreme Court this past term and what to expect in the next term.

That's fun to do during the summer. So we'll do that as well. And Karen, I'll turn it over to you for any last words. With your mic on. Sorry. Yeah. I was on mute because my dogs just came in and have decided to make a huge noise. So I put it on mute. So hello, Boogie. A joyful noise of Boogie and the dogs. Yes, exactly. Exactly. I just can't help but really, the 4th of July has turned into a really solemn kind of day in a way, given where we are at this moment in time. And I

just can't help but really reflect and think about the Midas Touch Network and the Midas Mighty and this movement that we are all a part of and just how incredible it is. I don't know anyone else who saw this as early as the Three Brothers did and decided to create this space for us to come and tell the truth and talk about these issues and to really just get facts out there and have a place for us all to come together, be with like-minded people. And there's just been a trust that has been developed, relationships that have been developed. And I can't help but notice there's a lot of other people who are, the greatest compliment in the world is when people replicate what you're doing.

But it's just fascinating to me that so many other podcasts and individuals and also just news shows that are following suit and replicating what the brothers and we have done here. And I just am so honored to have been part of this for so long. And that's what I'm sort of thinking about and reflecting on, on this Fourth of July. And, you know, really so grateful that you're in my life, Popak. You know, I learn so much from you. And one of the great, really great joys in my life is having gotten to meet you and your beautiful family. And I'm just so feeling incredibly, incredibly grateful. And, you know, know and and I just it's in it can be very If you're like if people who are in the world who are like me and can be a little doom and gloom and not very you know

Who can sometimes see things and it's like oh my god, you know Like it's scary, you know, it's scary. What's happening. You see Donald Trump. He's a criminal. He's a rapist. He's horrific You see what's happening on the Supreme Court, you see what's happening, women's rights are being taken away. I have a kid who has some intellectual disabilities and she's terrified, she's terrified. She's like, mom, what does this mean? Are my rights gonna be taken away?

And you just look at the country we're in and it can be really scary. And what this place gives me hope. And hearing from you and from Ben and from all the other people who come together on this network and frankly, our followers, that I sound so, you know,

our colleagues in social media is what I'd rather call people, you know, people who just really come and give us such hope and you don't feel alone, you don't feel as scared. people who just really come and give us such hope and You feel you don't feel alone. You don't feel as scared and so I'm just feeling grateful for that and for all the people who come here each week and Listen to our podcast and join us and participate and come to the comments, etc. So so that that's what I want to say today That is so Beautifully poignant that I won't I won't step on it other than

to say whenever I'm around you, people in your life, your family, your husband, Ben and all, just a warm embrace and that bosom of that friendship and that kinship does sustain me in any dark hours, especially when we're doing a lot of work in the dark by ourselves in front of microphones and laptops. You guys, along with our audience, are the fuel that motivate me. And as I joked recently, I think I'm employee badge number four, you're employee badge number five for this network. Because we've been here so long from the very, very beginning. And it is, it is time to reflect Memorial Day and the 4th of July. I'm getting all my MAGA people in my life writing me crappy 4th of July distorted messages. And I'm just like, you know, please, please.

I have so much faith in the jury system and in our electorate to do the right thing come November the 5th, despite what the polls and pundits are saying. But always my pleasure to be here with you. So we've got a, we've got Mistrial coming up. You got to keep an eye on it. You got to set a reminder so you know when that show is going to be on with Karen anchoring that with along with two other prosecutors, Donnie Perry and Kathleen Rice.

You've got Patreon, patreon.com slash legal AF. All these things help keep the show on the air, keep your favorite anchors on the air. And then we've got another show that Ben and me will be doing on Saturday, whereas the weekend wrap up of all things that have happened and we give you our analysis there as well. So until our Saturday show and all of our hot takes and podcasts, it's Michael Popock, camera free of Mideast Nifilo for the midweek edition of Legal AF. Shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal AFers.