Legal AF by MeidasTouch - The Impeachment of Clarence Thomas because his wife is an insurrectionist

Episode Date: March 27, 2022

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF x MeidasTouch is back for another hard-hitting look in “real time” at this week’s most important developments. This week Ben and Popok discuss and analyze: 1. Ginny Thomas’ role in the Jan6 Insurrection and what it should mean for both her and her husband Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. 2. Trump’s filing this week of a Florida federal civil suit against Hillary Clinton and others related to the Russia collusion investigation and why it will likely be dismissed quickly. 3. The end of the Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearing and next steps. 4. The leaked resignation letter of the Manhattan DA special Trump prosecutor and what it will mean for DA Alvin Bragg and the investigation. 5. The Supreme Court providing President Biden with a rare win and reaffirming his role as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces with the power to order Navy SEALS to be vaccinated before deployment. 6. The conviction by a California federal jury of Nebraska Republican Representative Jeff Fortenberry for lying to the FBI about a campaign finance violation he committed by accepting a donation from a foreign national businessperson. Support the Show! AG1 by Athletic Greens -- Athletic Greens is going to give you an immune supporting FREE 1 year supply of Vitamin D AND 5 free travel packs with your first purchase if you visit https://athleticgreens.com/legalaf today. Meidas Merch -- https://store.meidastouch.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to MidasTouch Legal AF. If it's the weekend, it is Legal AF Ben Myceles and Michael Popock breaking down for you the key legal issues of the week, of the day, of the year of our times and Popok Boy have we had a busy week today with the confirmation hearing of Katanji Brown Jackson more on that later we have convictions of members of Congress, a member of Congress, Nebraska, Republican representative, Jeff Fortenberry. We have the resignations of special prosecutors in the Manhattan D.A.'s office. Well, the resignations happened already, but we've seen the letters now that were revealed this week in Boyle Boyer. They dammit for Alvin Bragg, the Democratic district attorney in New York in Manhattan, who has been not exactly living up to expectation. Hasn't exactly been meets expectations. We've got the Ginny Thomas text

messages insurrectionists. We have a Supreme Court justice and Clarence Thomas whose wife was apparently the leader of the insurrection. We have her text messages as well. Talk about that and we'll talk about Clarence Thomas's absence from the court with flu-like symptoms after he ruled against testing requirements for COVID. And we'll talk about the new lawsuit, which shouldn't even be called a lawsuit, a piece of trash, piece of crap that was written on a paper masquerading as a lawsuit filed by Trump against pretty much everyone he has a grievance with including Secretary of State or former Secretary of State Clinton and like a hundred other defendants and what may be the worst written stupidest, the going nowhere piece of crap

lawsuit. I have Everred and we'll talk about all of those issues. And I've got to go and summarize it. Yes. Yes. Yes. Because even I'm listening, I'm at the edge of my seat about what we're going to do today. And the end of the episode tonight, when we get to this press release piece of crap masquerading as a new lawsuit. They they pulled the worst Trump pulled the worst judge possible for this piece of shit that he could have. I'll talk about judge middle Brooks. I've been in front of judge middle Brooks. He's a Clinton appointee. They

tried to avoid judge middle Brooks. And I'll tell you how it landed there by the wheel by the random wheel, and I'm sure they're not happy with that judge selection. Well, Popak, I am speaking keynoting Florida A&M's entertainment and sports law society today as well. So let's get the special shout out to Florida A&M for inviting me there and let you know how that keynote goes. But let's get into the law.

Let's get into the cases. Conviction alert, conviction alert, represented to Jeff Fortenberry. He was tried in Los Angeles district court. We talked about this case. This was the unlawful straw man donor case where this member of Congress, Jeff Fortenberry, was accused of accepting and funneling foreign money from a Nigerian businessman through various kind of middle, man-middle persons in Glendale, California, the doctor out here in the Los Angeles kind of proper area. Fortenberry was never actually charged, though, with the crimes relating to the accepting

of the unlawful money. He was the crimes that he was charged with was basically lying To the FBI and no the crime is to cover up If you're right, and if he's not covering it up then then why then then why why Why is he alleging that he didn't commit bad behavior? But there was an informant who called Fort and Barry on the phone who basically said I'm Making this a little more simple than what was said, hey, you took illegal money in foreign bars. Like, yeah, I took illegal money. You know, it wasn't that basic, but it was basically that. And Fortenberry's argument in the trial was, I didn't

even hear what that guy was saying on the phone. I thought that guy was saying everything. I take lots of phone calls. Later on, Fortenberry was interviewed by the FBI in connection with that phone call. He told the FBI He did not say what was later recorded on the phone call and so he was tried with that and his defense was the bad cell phone service defense. I had mentioned on the last pod pop-up that I said This is not a great place L.A. to make that argument I said I could see that he wants to bring that case to Nebraska,

not have that case tried sure enough before the trial started. I went back and looked at my notes, Popeye, he did try to get the venue transferred before the trial to Nebraska, which was denied. Republican representative Jeff Fortenberry convicted in less than three hours swiftly, convicted in less than three hours swiftly. No questions whatsoever, like just see you later. Alligator, Jeff Fortenberry. Yeah, so I was, I thought Fortenberry's approach to this was sort of disgusting. He should have put his big boy and big girl pants on.

He did not testify in the trial, but he trotted his wife out to testify so that she would put into evidence that Jeff's a very important person and takes lots of phone calls, and he may have misunderstood what was told to him in the recorded line. The fact that you trought your wife out to run that interference for you and you don't even take the stand, I mean, you don't have to in our system of justice take the stand as a defendant, but the fact that you've put your wife through that and then pulled another member of Congress that's a friend of his that testifying his behalf. But he had no problem after being convicted after three hours in California,

going to the courthouse steps, reading text messages, talk about modeling, reading text messages from his daughters, daddy, I'm not kidding, daddy, I love you, Nebraska loves you. I mean, you know what, man, I was trying this case in Nebraska and Los Angeles. Right. I mean, I'll take the stand. If you think that they think you have a legal defense that you missed it on the phone call when the fundraiser called you and said, hey, you know, um, you know, that 30 grand came in from Gilbert, Chakuri, you know, the Nigerian Lebanese business person, right? And what? We're going to lunch later. I mean, come on. This is not working. And the jury of six women and three men, we talked about the jury composition last week,

three hours. I mean, that's basically there was no doubt in their mind from almost the beginning. And this is something about jury science. I want to remind our listeners and viewers or tell them, maybe for the first time, that the science around juries and how quickly they make decisions, they make their decision usually, despite the instruction that you're supposed to listen to all the evidence two week, three week, six month trials. They make their decision relatively early on in a case. I'm not saying it's after the opening statements,

but it's early. And then they're sort of waiting for the lawyers to stop talking so they can get in a room and actually deliberate. And they're not supposed to do this, but they do it because it's human beings and that's jury science. So I am sure early on after openings, they were like, this guy is guilty of everything

he's been charged with. And so yeah, he's going to take the appeal, but I think it's going to be a tough road to hoe. And I think he's going to stand as a convicted felon. The question is, is he going to run for reelection? He's announced that he is. And allegedly, you know, we've seen in the media reports, McCarthy has suggested that he sort of step aside and not go through the process of if he gets elected, having him being

denied his seat with a whole messy house procedural issue. But we'll have to see what the Fortinbury's doing next. We will see what the Fortinbury's doing next. He has an R in front of his name, R stands for corruption these days, Michael Popeye. So I have no doubt that he probably will continue to run. That is unless there is someone who is challenging him. And so if the person challenging him is even more pro, the big lie and more pro insurrection.

So even more criminal than Fortenberry, that will probably be the ideal candidate for the Republican party to replace him. But you know, I'll say what though, that Nebraska one though, has progressive areas, Lincoln is in that district. And so there is an opportunity here for the Democrats to take that seat. And I think the voters of Nebraska, Nebraska one should look very hard in the mirror

and say, do we want criminals as our representatives? If you haven't already, you should have the progressive Democrat who's running for that seat on your show with the on the brothers podcast, right? Oh, I definitely, I definitely have to. And I will make sure to shout out the name of the individual who's running. I just, I forget her. The woman, I just, just her name escapes me. Well, we will definitely get it.

We will definitely make the advice. Popo, go into the next story of the day. So this Mark Pomerance resignation letter. You read this letter? I mean, it is as... Well, we predicted what the letter was going to say. If you remember, we talked about the resignation February 23rd of the two prosecutors, special prosecutors, civil, civil private lawyers coming out of retirement in the form of Mark Pomerance to under Scy Vance before Alvin Bragg became the Manhattan District Attorney. Scy Vance appointed two special prosecutors. And Mark Pomerance.

Right, both, and they're both men, Carrie Dunes, a man. And Mark Pomerance is considered one of the lions of the New York bar, a white collar bar. Pomerantz is considered one of the lions of the New York bar, a white collar bar. He's on the short list. If you ever want, if you're in trouble, Mark Pomerantz is on your short list of who you want to hire. And coincidentally, and it hasn't really gotten

a lot of media play, was a law partner for Farshetty who was Trump's lawyer back in the day. So those two were law partners at some point. But Pomeranz joined that office, undersized Vance was moving along, was had a grand jury in panel, was presenting evidence, was bringing in witnesses, and had not yet moved for the indictment,

when the change in administration happened, when Alvin Brad came in in January. So okay, so a new prosecutor brings his special prosecutors in, present the evidence to me, tell me about the case. This is now my case, my prosecutorial discretion. And we reported last a month ago, totally a month ago, that Alvin signaled, stated to his prosecutors that he was not buying the indictment, that he did not want them to go forward and get the indictment on fraudulent, on false financial inflation, loan inflation, asset inflation, and all of that, that Mark Pomerantz believed in his heart, that he had the evidence for. And when Mark resigned February 23rd with Kerry, we knew the reason that it was because Alvin was not going to go forward with the Trump investigation, but we didn't have the resignation letter.

And you know, Tom Arks credit, he didn't leak it at the time. And now the New York Times got a hold of it two days ago and published it. And it is damning, not only for Alvin Bragg, but it's going to have an impact on the continued prosecution of Trump by that office if Alvin even decides to go forward with it. What do you think? First off, special shout out to that progressive state senator patty pancing Brooks from Nebraska one. Just wanted to shout her out. And I'm with you, Popoq. When you read this letter, it is damning to Alvin Bragg and frankly damning to just what it means to be a prosecutor.

And I just think that one, doing this resignation, Carrie Dunn's resignation, Pomeran's resignation was 100% the right thing to do here. And how they did it, how they went about it though, Romaranza's resignation was 100% the right thing to do here. And how they did it, how they went about it though, just shows how you can wield also your power as a respected attorney in ways of not just what you do as an attorney, but what you don't do, not lending your name to something that is clearly against your morals and your ethics is an important thing.

Let me just read some of this letter. I write to tender my resignation as special assistant district attorney. As you know, from our recent conversations and presentations, I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations of the penal law in connection with the preparation and use of his annual statements of financial condition. His financial statements were false and he has a long history of fabricating information. He goes on in late 2021. Wait, wait, stop, stop, stop. You just had a prosecutor say not that he should be charged with a crime and I'm up to

the task of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty. This prosecutor just wrote, he is guilty of crimes. He continues in late 2021, then district attorney sirens vans directed a thorough review of the facts and law relating to Mr. Trump's financial statements. He concluded that the facts warranted prosecution, exactly what you said, Popeye. And he directed the team to present evidence to a grand jury and seek an indictment of Mr. Trump and other defendants as soon as reasonably possible.

This work was underway when you took office as district attorney. You devoted significant time and energy to understanding the evidence we accumulated and applicable law, but you have reached the decision not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at the present time. He goes on later, in my view,

the public interest warrants, the criminal prosecution of Mr. Trump and such a prosecution should be brought without any further delay. the criminal prosecution of Mr. Trump and such a prosecution should be brought without any further delay. And then he says, to the extent you have raised issues as to legal and factual sufficiency of our case, and the likelihood that a prosecution would succeed, I and others have advised you that we have evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

And we believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matters were tried to an impartial jury. No case is perfect whatever the risks of bringing the case may be. I am convinced that a failure to prosecute poses a much greater risk in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice. He goes on, but those are pretty damn words right there, Popeye. Well, and I also think it's, I agree with a number of things that you said. First of all, when, when your moral and professional boundaries have been crossed, whether you are

a career prosecutor, the way that KFA, our colleague was, or you are a special appointed deputized prosecutor coming out of private practice. You need to leave if things have gone across those boundaries for you. And he left in a noisy way in the sense that he quit. The letter, however, may have, and I want to get your impression on this, may have an impact on two different levels. One, there's only one person that can have an impact on this prosecution other than Mark Pomeran's and that is Governor Kathy Hoke. The governor can replace a prosecutor duly elected whether at the New York Attorney General level or at the district attorney level. she has that power as really all governors do. Or she can

step in and reassign the prosecution to another district attorney or special prosecutor and take it away from the one that she believes is not doing the proper proper justice. That's out there. She's already met with Alvin once on this case. The Mark Palmerance letter is not going to help him in his future discussions with the local, the governor, local about the prosecution. That's one. But the other impact this will have is on the lawyers for Trump, like Frischetti, because if they then, if, if either a new prosecutor or Alvin on the backs of the Pomeran's letter, which is going to have an impact, you've talked about, lawyers have impacts in ways that sometimes go beyond the courtroom.

Right, wrong or different, the mock Pomeran's letter is going to have an impact on the future prosecution and the shape and contours of that against Trump. If he gets indicted by the Manhattan D.A.'s office, expect Frischetti to stand up and say, this is all a political ruse. He's only bringing this because the Parmerance Letter came out.

There's not a shred, and that was a guy who added in, he's a never-trump or he added in for Trump. So it's done something to potentially color the prosecution in a way that will give some mileage to the defense to argue that this is an improper prosecution. If Alvin's office brings it, if another office brings it, it's going to be, oh, look, the Democratic governor has picked her own special lackey to be a prosecutor. And now you're buying into the whole narrative that Trump's been doing from day one, which we'll talk about the end of the pod about, you know, the conspiracy against him brought by the left-leaning fascist Democrats. So it's going to have

a, it's going to have an impact. And there are deeper issues here, Popak, because if Alvin Bragg is afraid to stand up to Trump, when you have Mark Pomeran's, Carrie Bragg on your team, you don't even have to do it. I mean, if you're Alvin Bragg, at this point, you can just let the process that's in motion, just continue on its course. You have some of the best prosecutors who have ever been in the United States of America on your team who are digging into these issues. It's not like Alvin Bragg is the one who has to try the case at the end of the day. So the message this sends though to other criminals out there engaged in similar conduct as Trump. I mean, if I'm there in New York, I'm thinking Alvin Bragg is soft on every type

of crime. Alvin Bragg is soft on violent crime. Alvin Bragg is soft on white collar crime. Alvin Bragg does not want to do the job of a district attorney. He does not want to roll his sleeves up and work. Like, I feel totally lied to and deceived by Alvin Bragg, even though I'm not a voter in Manhattan. But if I was, I was. I was. I was. I mean, I would. You I didn't vote for him, but I was. You know, and we had on our show other candidates as well, who I know would have pursued justice here and would have pursued the ends of justice. And frankly, Alvin Bragg has made a mockery of the system. And look, to some extent, Popok, when you and I predicted

that what Scy Vance had set in motion was there was going to be a criminal prosecution. You and I were right. The Popokian, my cellist prediction was accurate. What we didn't predict, what we couldn't have predicted is that Alvin Bragg was not just going to win, but when he was going to win a major part of his platform was apparently going to be

the worst district attorney in the history of Manhattan. We did not predict that. The, I agree with you. And I'm disappointed about Alvin. I mean, I wanted Alvin the first black district attorney in the history of Manhattan to be successful, even though he was not my candidate. Everybody knows who my candidate was. It was Lucy Lang, who is now the inspector general for the state of New York under Kathy Hocal. Maybe she'll

be the special prosecutor that's appointed to run that case. Who knows? That would be ironic. But I wanted him to be successful. But from day one, literally his day one memos, first day memo, which was at odds with Mayor Adams, it was at odds with every New Yorker about how to approach prime post-COVID in the city, was a disaster. And he has not recovered. He's been off on the wrong foot since day one, and he hasn recovered. And you're right. The is the messaging now in Manhattan to white collar criminals that the DA's office has become toothless, feckless, and is not going to go after real criminals because Alvin has a different view of criminal justice. It's it's real. I don't even understand why he interceded in this. Look, I get that the buck stops with him.

And I will tell you that I have friends that are in that world, as you do, the white collar world, the former prosecutor world, who were concerned as early as November and December, when the only prosecution that had come out of that office was like Weiselberg. And they were not able, apparently, to get anybody else to flip on Trump, including Weiselberg, the former accountant, long time accountant. And they thought then, and I was

talking about this at the holiday time, that that was a terrible sign going into Alvin's start of his tenure. And that Alvin would have, you know, he's like, well, that's all you got. You only got the accountant and the accountant didn't turn. Now, it doesn't help the Mark Pomerance believes with every fiber of his being as reflected in the letter that if you put me in coach, if you let me go in and get the indictment with the grand jury, I'm going to get the indictment. Beyond that, I think if I try the case, I'm going to be on a reasonable doubt, convict the former president of multiple crimes under the New York penal system and a needle, penal code. That's what is probably and what evidence does he have? I mean, yes, he can evaluate his own evidence. With all due respect to pomerance, he hasn't really been a prosecutor about 20, 30 years. So I get that there is, and I want there to be

a healthy dialogue between a lifelong prosecutor and the special prosecutor about the case. But who pulls the plug with so much evidence? Just get the indictment and go from there and let the other side defend their case. It's not like though, there should really be an anticipation of a lot of people to flip. There are like five people who work for the Trump organization. It's not a real company. You have Weissselberg and then you have his children. It's not a real company.

Then you have all these other lackeys that are around it and then you have whatever foreign money that Trump uses to fund his schemes, which is at the core of what the central allegations are here. But there is no really people to flip. Weiselberg is the only guy. It's not like Trump has a true compliance. It's an true compliance.

I mean, his accounting firm left and that Maezer's accounting firm said, you can't rely on our financial data. That's kind of a flip. So you got Maezer's, his own financial firm saying, we've provided inaccurate financial data on major portions, but very, very, very, very disappointing. We'll follow the developments there.

We just report, don't kill the messengers in PoPock and Myceles. We're just telling you the news and keeping you up to date, but some positive news to report with respect to the Supreme Court making a ruling siding with the Navy in certain challenges that were made to COVID vaccine requirements. These were challenges made by a group of Navy seals that basically challenged the president of the United States' ability as the commander-in-chief United States is ability as the commander in chief to have vaccine requirements for members of the Navy, members of the military. That's one operational control over the army and the armed forces as the commander in chief.

I just want to break that down. That a federal trial court, first to even get to the Supreme Court, a federal trial court, first they even get to this Supreme Court, a federal trial court in Texas. And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is the region where you would appeal a case from a federal trial court in Texas, basically sided with rogue. Rogue, that's the only way it can be described. Navy SEALs officers who broke the chain of command, who went against their commanders, who challenged the president of the United States, the commander of the military, saying that I want members of the military to get the vaccine, that it is mandatory for them to be combat ready. And the fifth

circuit and the federal trial court sided with these rogue Navy SEALs opposite president. You can't mandate that your troops be vaccinated, which is the craziest ruling really imaginable. And here's the thing too, we know that over 98.5% of active and reserved members of the Navy have been fully vaccinated because they follow the chain of command. And these rogue judges, these rogue federal Trump judges and right wing judges, radical extremists, sided with these radical extremists and took away the power of the president as the commander in chief. Now, the Supreme Court made the right ruling in Justice Kavanaugh to his credit. Basically, you know, in this ruling stayed, he stopped

the federal courts in Junction. He stopped the federal court's requirement that Biden can't enforce the COVID vaccine requirements. And basically, Kavanaugh was like, and Kavanaugh's right here. You know, he's like, this is the president when he's talking about, he goes, this is the president of the United States. The president can tell his troops that you need to get the vaccine to be command right.

I like telling, it's like, it's like a federal judge telling George Washington, as he's crossing the Delaware, you know, what direction he should put in the boat and how he should cross it. And, and you're right, it crossed so many lines that even the right wingers on the Supreme Court in Kavanaugh in his, in his dissent. And, and there's only, there's 13 pages in the order. It's a rare win for the Biden administration at the Supreme Court. It's an unsigned decision staying, temporarily staying. We'll talk about the procedure in a minute. The the federal judges order ordering that these unvaccinated seals be put back into the operational,

be put back into the operational, put back into operation and not be sidelined by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Navy, which is they were. They were just not being, which means battle readiness was being severely impacted because 23 out of the 33 plaintiffs were Navy SEALs who were doing the most critical, the most important national security operations imaginable, you know, the tip of the spear for the military. And now they're short 23 SEALs, which is like a large number of SEALs. So, you know, everything that you cited before 98% of the Navy, that was actually a fact that the trial court cited as the reason and the fifth circuit cited as the reason that these 23 didn't have to get vaccinated. Well, there's 98 percent and that should be enough.

And Cavitosset, look, article two of the Constitution makes the, that makes the president the commander in chief of the armed forces and no federal judge should ever substitute his judgment for the commander in chief, especially during wartime. I mean, it was totally crazy. Now, this is the procedural little hook here. In case we end up talking about this case again, I don't want people to say, well, Pope Buck and my Salah said that the Supreme Court ruled in their Biden's favor. They did for now.

They did until there is a full blown appeal at the Supreme Court level by writ of searcher Ari, which we've talked about in the past, the application to have your case heard at the at the at the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said, if the writ of searcher Ari for the full blown appeal is granted, that ruling that comes out of that writ of searcher are we will replace this ruling. If it is denied, in other words, they decide not to take the case. Or a rid of searcher are is not granted. Then this, I guess, this stays sort of stays in place. But it's not totally done, but it does show you that at least there are six votes on the

US Supreme Court to support the commander in chief during wartime, at least on this issue, at least on this issue. It should be a nine to zero ruling. And we look at who voted against the Clarence Thomas, more on Clarence Thomas than a minute. Talk about him later. Emil Alito and Neil Gorsuch. I was surprised by Gorsuch. I mean, Elito, I'm never surprised by anything where he's an outlier and Clarence Thomas is Clarence Thomas. We'll talk about later. He was the only person that thought the Gen 6 committee shouldn't exist at all in an

eight to one vote. And we're going to, and we're going to talk about why that may be based on who he, who he shares a bedroom with later. Well, and Neil, Neil Gorsik doesn't fully surprise me. I mean, Neil Gorsik looks like he could be like a commander on the handmaid's tail. I mean, you know, it's, I mean, like he, you know, he looks like he, you know, I won't even,

I won't even go there. Neil Gorsik, shut up while I'm ahead and say that. I like that one. That was good enough. Thank you. But also moving on, Popak, I want to talk more about the, what everyone's talking about, the Katanji Brown, Jackson confirmation hearing, I want to get your thoughts on it. Of course, Jenny Thomas, Claren Thomas, his wife being the leader of the insurrection, what the implications of that are and the Trump lawsuit.

We're doing off the tongue, by the way, when you say it that way, it just comes, it just comes rolling off the tongue. Jenny Thomas, that Supreme Court justice wife, one of the leaders of the insurrection. There's no other way. There's no other way to say it. It's just those are facts. But before doing that, want to tell you about athletic greens. This podcast is sponsored by our partner, athletic greens. Everyone knows that I love athletic greens.

You've seen the before and after. You've seen what I've looked like when I was taken athletic, before I was taken athletic greens, what I've looked like after taking athletic greens. And you know that when I endorse athletic greens, I do it with my full heart, because it has made a major impact in my life. And in so many of our listeners and supporters, legal aifers, might as mighty, all getting healthier on track for that healthy

summer, healthy bodies, getting the energy they need and they deserve. You know, before I took athletic greens, I would take different pills, I would take different, different gummies, and I would just try to mix and match, but it was never really working for me. But with one tasty scoop of AG1, it contains all of the vitamins. In fact, 75 vitamins, minerals and whole food source ingredients I need, including multivitamins, multiminarols, probiotics, greens, superfood blend, and more and one convenient daily serving. The special blend of high quality, bioavailable ingredients in a scoop of AG1 work together

to fill the nutritional gaps in your diet, support energy and focus, aid with gut health and digestion, and support a healthy immune system, effectively replacing multiple products or pills with one healthy, delicious drink. And as the research changes, so does AG1 and most nutritional products that come to market never evolve and get better athletic greens continues to obsessively improve, produce over 53 improvements over the last decade and counting. And it's third party testing ensures their customers continues to receive the highest quality and counting and it's third party testing ensures their customers continues to receive the highest quality and best daily nutritional habits on the planet. It's lifestyle friendly. So whether you eat keto, paleo,

vegan, dairy-free or gluten-free, and it contains less than one gram of sugar, no GMOs, no nasty chemicals or artificial anything while keeping it tasted and good. So join the movement of athletes, life fleets, moms, dads, rookies, first timers, and everyone in between taking ownership of their daily health and focusing on the nutritional products they really need in the simplest manner possible. That's essential nutrition. And to make it easy, athletic greens is going to give you an immune supporting free one year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. If you visit athletic greens dot com slash legal AF today, visit athletic greens dot com

slash legal AF and take control of your health and give a G one and try that's athletic greens dot com slash legal AF Michael Pope, you watch these confirmation hearings the three days of testimony. I suppose that Khatangu Brown Jackson gave questioning if you want to call it questioning from the Republicans, it was really a disgusting display of QAnon, rabbit hole, cultish, it was just really strange. Like to me and highlighted one, how dignified, how experienced, what an impressive person, Katangi Brown Jackson is, and it highlighted just how far down the Republicans kind of sunk like they weren't asking. Here's the difference. Like to me in a past confirmation hearing where you

would have a Democratic president appointing the justice where the Republicans used to go is very detailed in the law, try to get gotcha questions to the justice of if they know, you know, what a 10 B five, you know, cases and, you know, can you explain to me what this case stands for and what that case stands for and really try to paint the nominee as not being qualified or not having a grasp of the cases of the law Going after their trial experience. I mean here you had Ted Cruz Basically criticizing her for being anti-racist. He had like children's books blown up Behind him and trying to show that these children's books, which tried to teach children to be respectful

of all different people, of all different backgrounds, was part of a agenda to compromise the minds of youth. Just one question after another. I mean, you had Hauli and Lindsay Graham, who wanted to let everybody know how much they know about child pornography and the details how much they know about child pornography and the details at which they know about it. And even though her sentences were stronger than judges, that Graham and Holly had voted for and other Republican senators had voted for, that didn't bother them.

They wanted to harp on her about like child pornography sentences that she gave while following the guidelines that she gets as a judge. It was just very, very, very strange. And you would think like Ben Sass, for example, he appeared to be an adult in the room and appeared to have been critical of kind of Ted Cruz's Jack Astoria, I think was the word that Ben Sass used. But even Ben Sass, he like wrote a tweet. She's supremely qualified, an incredible person, a great Supreme Court nominee, I will not be voting for her.

And so I think you and I did predict Popok that there really was not going to be, even though these Republicans, some Republicans had voted for her when she was a DC circuit judge and she had to go through a less grueling, a less exhaustive, but nonetheless a serious nomination process. I thought that there was going to be some members that weren't going to vote for her, but there's really no justice that the Republican senators appointed by a Democrat would vote for. And I guess I could would vote for. And I guess I could, I guess I could attenuate it more. There would be no black woman nominee that a Republican male would or Republicans in general, you know, whatever vote for. I think that's what. Let me pick up, let me pick up with that. I think

if it was Michelle, Michelle Chiles, which is the one that Graham was pushing along with Clyburn. I think Lindsey Graham would have been more diplomatic and less of an a-hole during the confirmation process and probably would have voted for her. He would have been hard pressed not to vote for Michelle Childs since he pushed her to be the candidate. Problem is he's not the president of the United States. And that's not who the president of the United States

wanted to be in the position of the Supreme Court justice. And I have nothing against Michelle Childs, but I think Katangi Brown-Jaxson has demonstrated with both grace, humility, intellect, and everything else that she deserves to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. And we'll be a fine addition to it. And the reality is what you said, Ben, not one of the Republicans on the Senate should just share a committee, not one. It's going to vote for her in the committee process. It's gonna have to get out of there,

which it will off a tie. There'll be a tie vote because that's the way the panel is split. It will come out of that as a tie without a recommendation because there won't be a, it won't be a majority vote. And then it's going to go to the full Senate. And then she's going to win. I post one second there, Pope, I just tell our listeners and viewers how important it will, Georgia was because if the Democrats did not stop and Reverend, Reverend Warlock,

yeah. If Democrats did forget the White House it. And Reverend Warnock, yeah. If Democrats, forget the White House. I mean, the White House was critical to be able to make the, you know, to nominate Katanji Brown Jackson. But if Democrats didn't win Georgia, Republicans would not have allowed Katanji Brown Jackson out of the committee. She would not be a Supreme Court justice.

They would have done the same thing with her that they did with Merrick, Ireland. They would have not allowed the Democrats to appoint a Supreme Court justice. So for all these Republicans who were out there saying, we're against court packing, we're against court packing all of that. The Republicans aren't against appointing Democrat nominees to the bench. And they have put their thumbs on the scales of justice. They have changed what the system is supposed to be. And they have perverted. They are perverts. And they have perverted the Supreme Court. I totally agree. So let me just remind people, I don't have to rehabilitate KBJ because she is so

such a superstar and such a rock star and so deserving of this position. But let me remind you and remind our listeners and followers that her parents went historically black colleges and she was born in Washington DC. She moved to Miami when she was four. Her parents are the poor educators. Her father became a lawyer and the head lawyer for the Miami-Dade school board. Her uncle was the first black chief of police for the city of Miami, Calvin Ross, who I knew

of his legacy. Her brother did two tours of duty in Iraq. She served as a federal public defender helping Guantanamo prisoners make sure the justice was done in their direction so that in the crisis after 9-11 the constitution was insured and thrown in the waste paper basket. That was the role of public defenders and she defended that role quite eloquently during this process. And instead, oh, by the way, not that it matters who she's married to, but her husband is not only a surgeon, but is a descendant of the constitutional congress delegates.

And she's, she's related by marriage to Oliver Wendell Holmes, famous Supreme Court justice, and to Paul Ryan. So, you know, it's, she has, she was magna cum laude undergrad at Harvard. That's not affirmative action. That's hard work and intellect. She was cum laude graduate at Harvard Law where she was editor-in-chief of the Law Review. That's not affirmative action. That's hard work and intellect.

And then she's got all the other credentials. And instead, she was subjected to the following over four days. She had Marsha Blockburn asked her, do you believe child predators are misunderstood? She had Lindsey Graham asked her, could you fairly judge a Catholic? She had Ted Cruz asked her, do you agree with this book that that is being taught with that babies are racist? And then had Ted Cruz, this is the New York Times reporting,

had the temerity to lecture, to lecture Katanjit Brown Jackson about the teachings of Martin Luther King. I mean, it's almost, I can't even go further than that. The fact that he had the balls as a white Canadian, because that's where he's from, a white Canadian to lecture the first black woman nominee to the US Supreme Court on Martin Luther King's teaching.

Her parents went to segregationist schools where blacks and whites were separated. That was her in her immediate history. And you got Ted Cruz giving her a lecture about racism and everybody wondering, are you a secret critical race theorist? What's your agenda? None of this would have been none of this was done to Amy Coney Barrett by the Democrats at all. None of it was done to any of the other white guys that were appointed to the US Supreme Court. And it shouldn't have been done to her. The only thing she had in the back of her mind, as I mentioned, on our Wednesday podcast, is she had the confidence to know

that when she's done with this bullshit, she's going to be a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court and nobody in that room, including Ted Cruz, who's secretly long to be on the US Supreme Court. None of them are going to be there. And turn about his fair play. Look what they just did, Ben, to Katanji Brown Jackson. And look what we're going to be talking about next, about the possible impeachment of Clarence Thomas because of the role of his wife. No doubt about that, Popak. And again, I mean, Katanji Brown Jackson, showing grace, showing dignity. I'll make one other point with Katanjee Brown Jackson. So Katanjee Brown Jackson, one of the questions, was it Lindsey Graham who asked her about her

faith? Was he the one who said, what's your religion? And I guess his point was the Democrats had asked questions of Amy Coney Barrett about Amy Coney Barrett's religion. So, of course. And they're very different points, though. Amy Coney Barrett in her writings said that she could not differentiate her religious views from her legal views.

She said that her religious views would be principle in from her legal views, she said that her religious views would be principle in guiding her legal decisions, which is what is not supposed to take place. They're supposed to be a separation of that. So in Democrats were asking her those questions, they wanted to make sure that she would be guided by the law first and foremost and not be prejudicial based on her religious views. And Katanji Brown Jackson made the point, my religion really shouldn't be an issue, Senator, because I will follow the law, not what my religion is, which Republicans wanted a point out to say, ah, she won't even say what her religion is.

She's faithless because the Republicans want to turn this into a theocracy, but worse than a theocracy. But by the way, she's a non-denominational Protestant and she's it's publicly known all that, but you just made that amazing. It was really good. That amazing apples to bowling ball analogy that makes no sense. Amy Coney Barrett made sense because as you detailed so eloquently yourself, she's written about how that animates her judicial philosophy. Ketachi Brown Jackson has never written about how being a Protestant

as impact did her sentencing when she was a judge or her defense of somebody at Guantanamo when she was a public defender. And Amy and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and that they want to create, but it's worse than a radical right, theocracy. I mean, I guess you could say, how could something be worse than a radical right, theocracy? Because it's a radical right, theocracy that also has no credibility. It wants to self-destruct the United States of America, it looks very much like what I would expect like a Taliban council to look like is what division of what the Republicans want the Supreme Court to be.

I mean, this stuff that's come out recently with Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginny Thomas, is unbelievable. I mean, first, Clarence Thomas has been kind of missing from the court. He said that he would have flu-like symptoms. He wouldn't even say what it is because apparently flu-like symptoms that would seem to be COVID, like Republicans don't even call COVID COVID. And he more, you have to like guess what their issues are, even though they're public figures. So so he was gone for about a week. And then the Washington Post and CBS and others had this groundbreaking story. The documents obtained by the January 6th committee documents that Trump and others challenged

that should not be turned over to the January 6th committee under their claims of executive privilege, which the Supreme Court rejected by a vote of eight to one, the one vote against, the one vote in other words, in favor of Trump's position, not to give these documents to the January 6th committee was Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself from ruling and it turns out that what these records show is that Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginny Thomas, was in direct

communication during the 2020 election following the 2020 election, leading to the insurrection during the insurrection with Mark Meadows, the chief of staff, urging Mark Meadows to overturn the election and saying wild things like we have to let the army gather and that the perpetrators, and Biden, and the perpetrators will be sent to Guantanamo Bay. will be sent to Guantanamo Bay. This religious allegory going back and forth between their messages too, and Meadow saying how, basically, Jesus Christ is going to give him the powers, the chief of staff. How Jesus Christ is going to give him the power

to overturn a democratically election and Ginny Thomas responding, oh, that made me so happy and you've made my friend happy. And I think that last part doesn't get enough attention. She refers, and she's been known in the DC community to refer to Clarence Thomas, her husband as her friend, and as her good friend or her best friend. And the text messages, no one's really covered that aspect, but her messages do reference my good friend, my close friend, my best friend is going to be happy.

And many believe, I believe that's Clarence Thomas, but regardless, Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from that. And I mean, there's, how do you not recuse yourself from that pop-up? Well, let's tie the two stories together. You have Ted Cruz. This is where it turned about his fair play. You have Ted Cruz drilling into Katanji Brown Jackson saying to her, you went to Harvard. There may be a case this year coming up about Harvard's affirmative action policies. Are you going to recuse yourself and got her to sort of commit that she would not sit on the bench during the Harvard, even though she could. There's no

real reason because she hasn't really been involved. She wasn't selecting students, you know, but he got her to say she should be recuse. Well, is that the standard now? Is the standard now if you went to the same school, then you should recuse yourself because if that's the standard in Clarence Thomas, and this is very interesting because we talked about this once before. Let me lay it out this way. Supreme Court justices, unlike all the other federal judges, are not subject to the federal canons of judicial conduct. There's ethical canons, ethical rules that all federal judges are bound by, including avoiding an appearance of impropriety, including presiding over matters in which somebody in your family has an interest economic or otherwise, and the like. And whether you, whether

it was canon one, upholding the integrity and the dependence of the judiciary, canon two, a judge should avoid impropriate, the appearance of impropriety in all actions and not allow a family member to influence judicial conduct or a judgment and canon three, dealing with disqualification. Now, the problem is US Supreme Court justices are not subject. They've like opted out of that particular judicial code of conduct, but there is a federal law that even they are subject to and would require in this instance. It's 28 USC 455.

It requires even a Supreme Court justice to disqualify themselves where his impartiality might be reasonably questioned. So now there's a groundswell ever since the text messages because Jenny's been, Jenny Thomas has been spoon-feeding to the media her actual involvement with January 6th. First she said she had to admit she was on the ellipse during the speeches for Jan 6th that immediately preceded the attack on the Capitol, but claims that she left before Trump took the podium. Okay. She also admitted that she emailed former clerks of her husband, the friend, um about Jan 6th and Jan 6th ishers. So she had to admit that.

Now, as you've just outlined, including the one I think is a breaking one about reference to the friend, she not only claimed that left wing fascists were stealing the election, but she even used QAnon language and examples that is only found in the deep, deep, deep QAnon rabbit hole. For instance, QAnon believes or believed that Donald Trump put watermarks, stop me if you've heard this before Ben. Put water marks, secret symbols on certain ballots so that he could prove that the Democrats had stolen the election. And she refers in her

tax tomatoes. And what about the water marked ballots in 12 states that I mean, so she is a complete lunatic that not only has the bedroom of the Supreme Court justice, but apparently the ear every reporting I've ever seen about the relationship between Clarence Thomas and his wife is that she is a close confinant and advisor. He listens to only one person. And that is his wife, Jenny Thomas, and has since he was confirmed in 1991 or so as a US Supreme Court Justice. And every photo you see of them, they are, it looks like it's a relatively happy marriage, lots of giggling, lots of laughing, and no one could possibly believe that he does is not aware of all of the conservative right wing lunatic organizations

that she is headed, that she has found it, that she's connected to, and that he wasn't aware that she was communicating with Mark Meadows when he ruled eight to one or one to eight against the Gen 6 Committee getting the documents from then. So what, here's the question, Ben. I've seen now two reports.

Some as recently is about an hour before we started podcasting. One is the Gen 6 Committee is considering, and I think they should move on this, bringing Jenny Thomas before them to testify. I think that has to be done in light of the text. The second I saw is that there are senators, including White House, who are now moving to bring, this is almost, this is

like a, this is like a movie, bringing Clarence Thomas, a sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice before the Jan 6th Committee. Separately, there's now a movement to impeach Clarence Thomas, because the only way you really can punish a sitting U. sitting US Supreme Court justice is through the impeachment process just like we just saw for Trump and like we saw for Clinton. There's been one Supreme Court justice that's been successfully impeached. He resigned in the face of an impeachment proceeding and that was Abe Fortis during the 1960s.

So I want to hear your handicap. Does Jenny Thomas end up in front of the JAN-6 committee? Does Clarence Thomas and does there enough votes to start an impeachment proceeding against Clarence Thomas? There absolutely should be an impeachment process started about Clarence Thomas. Do I think that will be started right away?

I don't, but let me tie the concepts together. She should go before the January 6th committee immediately, they should subpoena her, they should ask her questions. What I would anticipate, she would invoke, if they ask her questions about all of her communications with Clarence Thomas, is the Marital Privilege. And there would be the Pellow Privilege. The Marital Privilege, which basically says the communications between husband and wife remain confidential the same way we've talked in legal AF about the

attorney client privilege. But as we've talked about on legal AF about the attorney client privilege, there are exceptions to privileges. And one of them is the crime fraud exception. And so if she's claiming that she had these discussions that appear to relate to crime and fraud, don't appear they are crime and fraud with her husband, Clarence Thomas, she either had the conversations or didn't have the conversation. So if she answered the question, no, or if she did not produce records, that would be, you know, an answer in her response, if she pled the fifth, that would be a response. But it would be interesting to see if she invokes the crime fraud exception.

But Clarence Thomas is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court period. And specifically, because of the rule, the fact that he did not recuse himself from this ruling. I mean, the fact that he would continue, I mean, if you go back and look at Clarence Thomas' radical extreme rulings and positions on all issues, it's horrified. And this is just kind of symptomatic of that though.

And this just makes it even in more clear focus. Like he ruled on this case, it's unbelievable. Not just this case. He's ruled on two cases that implicate the Gen 6 already. There's at least four that'll be coming up in the next term. So now you have a Chief Justice Roberts problem. Chief Justice Roberts has a problem. And the problem is when, if he hasn't already, when does he go and sit down with Clarence

Thomas as the Chief Justice, as the one that's responsible for the fair administration of the Supreme Court, who just gave a report, the end of the year report in December, about non- not politicizing the Supreme Court and letting it, and letting it, without outside interference, regulate its own affairs, maintain independence, and make it a political. That was his declaration in December. You and I talked about it during a prior podcast. Now you got a problem, Chief Justice, because down the hall from you, you have your longest serving justice in Clarence Thomas, with all the facts that are now presenting themselves about his wife, his connections,

the friend references, his refusal to recuse himself. He has to go down and say to Clarence Thomas, Clarence, I'm not going to, I'm not going to venture an opinion about impeachment, but you've got to recuse yourself from anything that deals with Trump, Jan 6, the insurrection, and things like that. Or you'll never have any credibility and by extension the Supreme Court will continue to lose its credibility as a alleged, a political third branch of government. He has to have that conversation. The question is, does Clarence Thomas go tell

him to F himself? I am, and you know, he missed three days of oral argument while he had COVID. I mean, he didn't just didn't go to work. I mean, there were oral arguments that he missed. Apparently he's going to go back when Ben does that conversation take place and what do you think Clarence Thomas' reaction to Robert's friendly suggestion, if you will, that you got to recuse yourself on these things. I don't think Clarence Thomas is going to recuse himself. I don't think he gives it shit. I could be wrong.

I just think that this radical right wing extreme court, the Robert's court, you know, Robert's always was this had this reputation as being a pragmatic practical smart even killed guy and I'm sure he is He's lost control of this court this court is embarrassing and frankly cheap justice Roberts Reputation right now if this is the way it goes and he doesn't assert himself It doesn't do something he'll go down as probably one of the worst cheap Justices in the history of the United States. People will look at the Roberts court as really the worst that America represents. And Roberts is a good guy. And he knows this in his way, you know, but, you know, you

know, you reap what you're so. And this is, this is the crew. You know, this is the crew they hang with. And every year Roberts does those speeches where he talks about the state of the Supreme Court. And every time he does this speech, he goes, hands off, we're good. Don't look at us here. And, you know, it is. We'll regulate ourselves. We'll regulate ourselves. So where is that regulation? Hey, well, it's, it's no more pop-up. But speaking about where is the regulation, there's nobody regulating the stupid fucking lawsuits that Donald Trump is filing. I'm sorry that I cursed right there, but I mean, the you know, we need to appropriately frame these things. The problem with the media when Trump

files a dumb loss like the stupidest lawsuit in the history of legal whatever, it gets reported at least though, like it's a legitimate lawsuit at first. And then very rarely, like when he loses because he files so many things, the losses don't really get reported. The headlines though, get reported, which Trump looks for, to promote himself and to raise money off of. So for example, you know, the headline is Donald Trump sues Hillary Clinton and allies over Russia claims sprawling lawsuit accuses a large cast of racketeering conspiracy over allegations that Trump was in Putin's pocket in 2016. That was the political headline, but all of the headlines are not too dissimilar from that. And this is the way I want to approach this topic. Now, we could talk about the lawsuit at stupid. We could talk about Alina Habba, the lawyer who like she

has like a small law office shop right next to Trump's golf course. And she's been filing these stupid lawsuits. We could talk about his his his high school classmate, who is the co counsel in the case. The Tickton Law Group, this Florida group when you look at if you Google where the Tick-Den Law Group is that like a shopping center and no offense to law firms that are in shopping centers, but yes, offense to law firms in shopping centers when you file stupid lawsuits that make it, that give a bad name to good law firms and shopping centers. Is the way I would put it.

It's sad. This ad for law firms choppy centers brought to you by legal AF. But we have here these pathetic lawsuit that's brought by again, Alina Haba. She's gone on right wing media to say she's filing more of these lawsuits. She's doing the media tour. You see her smirks like she thinks she's doing good work here. Alina Haba, let me be very clear. You're going to lose all of these lawsuits in miserable fashion.

You are likely going to lose your legal license for filing these lawsuits. Trump is going to throw you under the bus. This racketeering lawsuit that you filed, pages don't equal good lawsuits. Everybody, Alina, I'm talking to you because I know you listen to this. And I want your friends to send us to you as well. This lawsuit is one of the most embarrassing

legal documents I have ever read. And everyone in the legal community is laughing at you. You are being laughed at. You are the people. You are the blunt of people's jokes. You are the punchline to everybody's jokes. This racketeering lawsuit, the defendants that you sued, you sued like 50 people claiming that they said that Donald Trump was involved in Russia collusion and that's why you sued them. After an investigation by a special prosecutor, there's no legitimate even cause of action in here.

And let me tell you why you're also dumb. Because you sued people who Donald Trump is a defendant in their case. Donald Trump is trying to stop them from getting his deposition. So Peter Strock, for example, is trying to get Trump's deposition. Now, Peter's just going to say, hey, Donald, you sued me. I'm going to take your deposition tomorrow. And so now you've given Hillary Clinton a free deposition of Donald Trump. You've given Michael Susman and Perkins court.

You sued law for, you know, if I were these people, Popak, each one of them I would petition before we file our motion to dismiss, we want to take Trump's lawsuit. I mean, Trump's deposition. Seven hours, it's federal court. Seven hours per defendant. Per defendant. We want to take her defendant. Per defendant.

So each one of these defendants, we're going to take Donald Trump's depot. Yeah. So OK. So when you, I totally agree with you. I hate with the way the media kind of says, well, we're just reporting the facts. So we'll get to the analysis later.

Legal AF, Popeyes and my Salis who do the analysis in real time when things get filed and call them for what they are. First of all, the thing is filled with typographical errors. They can't spell the word fictitious, right? It comes out as fictitious, numerous occasions. The people they've sued, they can't get their names spelled right. Here's the other thing besides why would you open the door to subjecting your plaintiff to discovery when he's, as you said, he's fighting off discovery in every case. He doesn't want to give a

deposition anywhere, except where he files a case. You can't have it both ways. You can't have be a shield and a sword. You can't just give dep depositions when you're the plaintiff, but not give them when you're the defendant. Secondly, the Rico or the racketeering claim, which is the weakest of all the claims, all the claims are really bad, but this was really weak. What is the damage that he could possibly claim? First of all, he sued Komi. Komi got him elected because of the email server bullshit that he dropped on the media a week before the election, which carved off just enough votes, peeled off just enough votes from Hillary that she lost. So why is he suing Komi?

Komi was his buddy that helped him, if you will. The other people, what is the damage? He beat Hillary. He beat Hillary. I don't know if people remember this. He was the president. He won that election. So all the stuff that's in there about Russian collusion, he boils it down to my damages.

I had to spend $24 million in legal fees with all of these investigations and somebody should be made to pay for it And it's gonna be all of these individuals. So it's a press release Masquerading as a lawsuit and they picked the they pulled the worst judge Haba is gonna get her you know what handed to her along with Tickton ticketed Don Middlebrooks, former partner and Acreman, well-known firm in Florida, appointed by Obama to the bench. I've appeared in front of him, I've tried cases in front of him.

He is incredibly intelligent. He is incredibly well versed in the law. He reads everything. He is patient, but he'll call it for what it is. And he's already dismissed in 2015. One racketeering case brought against Hillary Clinton related to her email servers. So that case got assigned to him. And now they tried to avoid the, I'll tell you what they tried to do. The southern district, here's insider knowledge for our friends and family, here on Legal AF. The southern district of Florida starts in Fort Pierce

in the north, in the north, in, I forget which county that is. And then Monroe, and then goes all the way down to Key West and everything in between for Loderdale, West Palm Beach, Miami. When you file your case, you usually file it in the county of the Southern District. So if it's a Broward for a Loderdale case, you file it there. If it's a Miami case, you file it in Miami or West Palm Beach, you file it at West Palm Beach.

If you want to try for the more conservative aspects of the Southern District and get away from the judges in Miami who are by and large more liberal and more democratic, you file in Fort Pierce, which is the closest thing to a sort of Republican Bastion in the Southern District of Florida you can find. They slept 50 miles north from Fort Lauderdale, where Ticton offices and drove with somebody to file there that very tip, tip, tip, furthest extreme reaches of the Southern Diction of Florida. And what happened, what happens is just because you file in that county, doesn't mean

that the clerk is going to put it in that county. And the random wheels spun and it ended up in Fort Lauderd in West Palm Beach with mental Brooks. Terrible judge for them. And this case, I assume, will be dismissed on motion to dismiss relatively quickly. Popak, that's why I like legal AF. We don't buy into just what the headline is. We take the analysis first, we break it down, and we talk about the problems about the media, the problems about the way these lawsuits are reported. And so Popeye, I wanna tell everybody also,

check out, there's a sale going, I'd be remiss if Jordy, if I didn't give a shout out to Jordy here, who runs the MidasTouch Store, store.mitusTouch.com. Go check out store.mitusTouch.com. We have a 20% off sale right there. So everybody go and check that out. And this is what we always say. Popok and I are practicing lawyers.

So you can always reach out to Michael Popok and I. If you have a case, we handle big, whether it's discrimination cases, sexual harassment cases, business dispute cases, contract dispute cases, and you can feel free to reach out to me or Michael Popak's email is mpop.ok at zplaw.com. That's mpopak at zplaw.com. My email is benat mightestouch dot com Ben at mightestouch dot com. If you have a case, feel free to reach out to us. Want to give a special shout out to all the mightest mighty. We covered a lot and we were very

We were very quick today. Popak we hit all those big issues. Boom boom boom boom boom. Always enjoy spending these weekends with your pop Popok, and we will keep everybody updated on all of these legal developments. Any final words? No, I'm looking forward to Wednesday with Karen, and I always, it's my favorite part of Saturday with you and the Midas Mighty. Special shout out to the Midas Mighty.

Everybody, thank you so much who purchased the Legal AF certificates at the Midas Touch store. We've officially done a hundred certificates, which was what our goal was to do a hundred legal AF certificates, and we will be announcing next week where the money's going for the Ukrainian refugee charities that we will be supporting. Thank you everybody for listening. Special shout out to the Midas mighty. Oh, and special thanks to our sponsor, Athletic Greens.

Always love Athletic Greens as a sponsor. See you on the next LegalAF. Shout out to the Midas Man.