Legal AF by MeidasTouch - The Intersection with Michael Popok Full Episode - 9/9/2025

Episode Date: September 10, 2025

Why the OTHER birthday cards in Epstein’s album prove that Trump’s card is not a forgery, as MAGA women reject Trump and the Wall Street journal goes on the attack.  How close is E Jean Carroll to taking $100 million off of Trump as a survivor of his sexual abuse? What has the Supreme Court done to our rule of law in just the last 48 hours. How Trump’s weakness is being exploited by our enemies and allies alike. How Trump’s Recession and failing job and economic growth, is being reported by MAGA media outlets.  Popok lays it on the line in defense of our democracy on the latest episode of The Intersection.   Magic Spoon: Get this exclusive offer when you use promo code LEGALAF at https://MagicSpoon.com/LEGALAF Cook Unity: Go to https://CookUnity.com/legalaffree for Free Premium Meals for Life! Check out The Popok Firm at: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN?sub_confirmation=1 Legal AF Substack: https://substack.com/@legalaf Follow Legal AF on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/legalafmtn.bsky.social Follow Michael Popok on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mspopok.bsky.social Subscribe to the Legal AF by MeidasTouch podcast here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/legal-af-by-meidastouch/id1580828595 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 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

This episode is brought to you by Square. You're not just running a restaurant, you're building something big. And Square's there for all of it. Giving your customers more ways to order, whether that's in-person with Square kiosk or online. Instant access to your sales, plus the funding you need to go even bigger. And real-time insights so you know what's working, what's not, and what's next. Because when you're doing big things, your tools should to. Visit square.ca to get started.

$1 plus tax for a smooth, small, premium roast coffee at McDonald's? That means rich, full-bodied flavor? At a price that's just as satisfied. Must be McAfee. Enjoy a small, make-cafe premium roast coffee for just $1 plus tax at participating McDonald's and Canada prices exclude delivery. Reading, playing, learning. Stellist lenses do more than just correct your child's vision.

They slow down the progression of myopia. So your child can continue to discover all the world has to offer through their own eyes. Light the path to a brighter future with Stellist lenses for myopia control. Learn more at SLR.com and ask your family eye care professional for SLR Stellist lenses at your child's next visit. Wendy's most important deal of the day has a fresh lineup. Pick any two breakfast items for $4. New four-piece French toast sticks, bacon or sausage wrap, biscuit or English muffin sandwiches, small hot coffee, and more.

Limited time only at participating Wendy's taxes extra. Td Bank knows that running a small business is a journey, from startup to growing and managing your business. That's why they have a dedicated small business advice hub on their website to provide tips and insights on business banking to entrepreneurs. No matter the stage of business you're in, visit td.com slash small business advice to find out more or to match with a TD small business banking account manager. It must be that time because my alarm just went off. We're on live on the intersection with Michael Poppock on the Midas Touch Network. Here's my list, everybody. This is what we're going to be going over today.

For those that wonder, how does Popak keep it all straight? What are we going to talk about? Yeah, it's in the notes, but we're ready to go. And plus, I'm going to try something. That's what happens in live TV. Plus, I'm going to try something else tonight. I'm going to check out. I got two people working with me.

Ben and Terps, and they're checking the chat, because I'm busy doing this part, and if they're going to catch some great questions, and I'm going to try to do that at the back end of the intersection. But I think you come here for the reason that I want you to be here, which is so we can talk honestly to each other about things at the intersection of law and politics that we're watching, and so that we can talk truth to each other first, which is necessary before we talk truth to power. We've got to know what we're talking about in the streets, around the kitchen table, around our social media, and here's the stories I want to talk about first.

I'm going to lead off with Epstein. Of course, I've got to lead off with Epstein and this ridiculous, nonsensical, illogical defense that they've now come up with, which is the birthday card submission was a fraud. Somebody signed my name, thank you, somebody signed my name 30 years ago and pasted it in the middle of a multi-volume book. about a person that I knew well because they wanted to tank my presidency 30 years later. And if you line up the signatures, and I'm going to talk about question documents, there we go. We're going to talk about question documents because I've done cases involving handwriting

and people challenging the authenticity of documents in front of a jury. And I'm going to tell you why, I've got a lot of assets tonight, I'm going to tell you why this would never fly, it will never fly with the Wall Street Journal and the multi-billion dollar lawsuit that Donald Trump has brought. The worst thing he ever could have done

was to bring that lawsuit. I'll tell you how it's going to be used against them. And I'll tell you what I have seen. And we have posted in the legal AF substack, all 300 plus pages of this ridiculous 50th birthday leather-bound scrapbook that Galane Maxwell, do I have to continue to say her name? Galane Maxwell assembled for her.

boyfriend slash co-conspirator in a child sex predator ring. And why, if you're going to create a forgery, this would not be the one. And there was worse things in there, acknowledging that everybody knew that Jeffrey Epstein was chasing after girls, meaning he was raping girls, because you see it in the cartoons that were submitted by others. There is one right there. We'll talk about that a little bit later. And you also know that Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein traded like it was collateral or chattel or an inanimate object, girls and women between themselves because there's a card inside of the book that represents that.

And this entire attack right on cue by MAGA, right wing, social media and podcasters and Charlie Kirk and Benny, whoever he is, is all written. ridiculous. I got news for all of those people. They've never been in a court of law. They've never had a jury in front of them. They've never handled successfully a question documents case. I have. And I'm going to tell you what we're going to do about it here at the intersection. But it's not just the birthday card because I don't want to lose sight of it. That we're using as a way to continue to bring maximum pressure on the Trump administration to release the files. But Donald Trump doesn't want the files released. In fact, he has said, I quote, it is a hostile act if any Republican joins the discharge petition that's very close to getting the 218 votes necessary to go to the

House floor for a vote. We're going to talk about all of that. Galane Maxwell, the victims, the survivors taking back their dignity on the steps of the Capitol and what it means for the Trump administration. Speaking of the Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch. We've got multiple, look at my hands today, a pen exploded. Sorry, folks. We have multiple elements, tentacles about the Walt Rupert Murdoch's family and the Wall Street Journal.

First of all, the Wall Street Journal has kind of gone off sides and has continuously attacked Donald Trump personally by publicizing the pornographic birthday card submission that he made for which they got sued, but they will ultimately win. their case. There's a there's a copy of it. And also by attacking him on the op-ed pages by the editorial board declaring what we all see, which is Donald Trump's failed one-trick pony of fiscal policy around tariffs is terrible for economic growth and jobs. We just got, as I came on the air, we've got new job numbers. Turns out the economy made one million less jobs, some of which under the Biden administration, some of which

under the Trump administration. But the reason I pin the tail on Donald Trump is because he knowing or should have, between his counsel of economic advisors and his Commerce Secretary and his Treasury Secretary, when they're not busy trying to have fistfights in the hallway with people, apparently,

they should have told him that the job numbers get revised by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And it could be revised up to 3,400,000, a million jobs. And so don't do a job-killing policy around tariffs when you're coming off of a Bureau of Labor Statistics set of job numbers that can be and will be revised likely downward.

Jay Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve in his speech just last month in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, knew that the job numbers were going to be substantially revised down. And now Donald Trump, and now the rest of America, were all caught with our pants down, as the economy falls off the cliff. If you haven't noticed, we are in the beginning of the Trump recession. I'll talk more about that from my economic perspectives as Rupert Murdoch solves his succession problem by buying out the other three kids for $3 billion

and turns the reins over to Lachlan Murdoch. I'll tell you why I think that's a death sentence for Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. We got a win for E. Jean Carroll that we're going to talk about. I've interviewed, I've had the pleasure and the honor of interviewing E. Jean Carroll on the Legal A.F. YouTube channel. What an amazing person. She's also the only person in America or in the world that has taken not one but two judgments off of Donald Trump totaling $100 million. And the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in one of my home states of New York has ruled in her favor related to the $83.5 million side of the judgments that she's holding for being a sexist. abuse survivor and victim of Donald Trump for being defamed and the punitive damages that the jury awarded her. It's a slightly complicated case procedurally, but I'm going to get you everything you need to know about why Donald Trump just lost, and she's likely to get her $100 million

subject to the Supreme Court. We'll talk more about the Supreme Court. Speaking of the Supreme Court, haven't they been busy little beavers getting ready for the first Monday in October and the opening of the new term. This is like preseason. It's like football in preseason. We're waiting for the opening of the season, but we're getting all these preseason games. Unfortunately, they count against our democracy. So we're getting all the emergency docket cases now being resolved. So I don't know if you've heard, but there was a funeral for the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution two days ago in which the right-wing MAGA of the Supreme Court took the Fourth Amendment against illegal searches and seizures, took it out in the back, and shot it.

I would have thought that if they were going to put the Fourth Amendment out of their misery, they would have done it in a 50 or 100-page decision with a proper oral argument and a number of briefs and people commenting about it. Nope. They did it in a sit down for this one, everybody. They did it in a paragraph and then a concurrence by Brett Kavanaugh that demonstrates that he does not live on planet Earth. There's Brett Kavanaugh. that he does not live on planet Earth and then a scathing dissent by Justice Sotomayor. I'm going to talk about all of that

as they also decide that they're going to get rid of 95 years of precedent which was represented by a case called Humphreys executor. Yes, yes, you came for the intersection but you stayed for Humphrey's executor. I'm going to explain what that case is

so that you can talk about it at your next cocktail party. around the kitchen table and why, again, we're watching yet another 100-year-old or 50-year-old precedent being overturned by this MAGA right wing of the United States Supreme Court as John Roberts bails out Donald Trump again and lets him cut $50 billion worth of funding for global affairs by just a simple administrative stay, the old administrative stay game. And then finally, the United States Supreme Court is going to be hearing and deciding whether Trump's reciprocal tariff scheme combined with his trafficking tariffs, I'll talk about the difference there, which rips

the heart out of two-thirds of his tariffs. There we go. He's waiting for the asset to come back to me. Waiting two-thirds of his tariffs, meaning hundreds of billions of dollars are now at risk. They were struck down. We've talked about this on the intersection. Seven to four. for by a specialty appellate court called the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals or the appellate court for the Federal Circuit. They were struck down 3-0 by the Court of International Trade. And now the parties are taking their show on the road to the United States Supreme Court, who has agreed to have oral argument in November on full briefing this time.

I'll just leave you on this before we return to it during the show. The Wall Street Journal in their op-ed piece or their editorial board piece a couple of days ago said that the best thing that ever could happen to the U.S. economy and to Trump's presidency is if the United States Supreme Court strikes down those tariffs. We're going to talk about that and so much more that pops into my brain. Plus, I'm going to try to do, you can tell this is a high wire act without a net. I'm going to try to answer your questions, stump the Popak towards the end of the show as we accumulate some of your questions because I want to see if Ben and Terps can pull this off with me.

It's really the reason we're doing it. All right. Thank you for being here on the intersection. Let's get to the first story, which is if, I see, thank you, Midas, Cheryl, for being a moderator tonight along with the others and trying to catch those questions for me. Let's start with Epstein. Okay. How do we get here?

Donald Trump is probably his closest personal friend for a 15-year period turned out to be, oops, a convicted, well, it indicted child sex trafficker and pedophile. The reason he wasn't convicted, I'm sure, is because something happened to him in that jail cell while he was on trial or awaiting trial, and he didn't come out, if you know what I mean. Galane Maxwell, his co-conspirator, she got to have a trial and she got convicted and is looking at 20 years, although she's been moved to a federal spa, apparently, as a reward for trying to help out Donald Trump, which I don't think,

In retrospect, just a month later, I don't think it's helping at all. I think it's actually killing Donald Trump because Galane Maxwell's rehabilitation tour is now over and her trying to act like she was the victim, the more you read her or remember her 300 pages of testimony to Todd Blanche, Donald Trump's former criminal defense lawyer, now DOJ second in command, the more you come away with, she's a liar, she's disgusting, and nobody believes that she doesn't remember of Jeffrey Epstein chased girls and rape them. Nobody believes that. So it actually backfired. And in places where you think she'd remember, you could tell she purposely forgot, like, well, as long as we're here, let's talk about the Epstein leather-bound birthday book. Do you

remember that? Oh, yes, I do. I'm sorry if I launch into some plummy British accent for her. Yes, I do. What do you know about it? Well, my mummy gave it to my daddy for his 80th. I thought it was a great idea. So I decided to do it for Epstein. I didn't realize it was a multi-volume set. Like when I was a kid, they were selling the Encyclopedia Britannica one letter at a time at the supermarket. I didn't realize it was like volumes of this thing. They had so many friends that wanted to send in perverse submissions for his 50th birthday. Do you remember who? So there were like hundreds of people. There was 10. It was separated in the categories. You can find it on legal AF substack. There was the family section. There was the friend's section. There was the ex-girlfriends or girlfriend's section. It was like there were chapters.

And do you remember any of it? No. Do you remember anybody being in it? I don't. Do you remember if Donald Trump submitted anything for it? I can't say. Nobody believes that. She made the effing book.

I haven't seen my yearbook from high school in 30 years, but I can tell you certain pages that are in there that I remember from having looked at it. So nobody buys this. And this new defense, now I'm going to take it from a defense lawyer standpoint, this new defense, that this was a forgery by who?

The Wall Street Journal. In order to believe Donald Trump, now be jurors for a minute, be six or nine jurors in Florida. We're in federal court, nine jurors in Florida. And this is what you have to believe in the opening. statement for Donald Trump. Somebody, we don't know who, decided they wanted to embarrass and tie Donald Trump closely to Jeffrey Epstein and his pedophilia. So they created a birthday card that they

pasted on page 158 out of 237 pages in volume one. He's not even the headliner. He's buried on page 158 that they made the card, that they then researched Donald Trump's vernacular, his vocabulary, his grammar, his syntax, and they wrote something in his voice using words that he uses like Enigma, and it's a wonderful thing and other stupid phrases. And then they took a pen and they sat with tracing paper or on the fly and they mimicked his handwriting exactly. to sign Donald, not Donald Trump, Donald. See, that says, leave that up there for a minute. That says Donald.

Now, leave it up. Now, here's how that card got created. I'm going to be the defense lawyer for the Wall Street Journal. Donald Trump drew the outline. He then told the people in his office at the Trump organization what he wanted it to say. They then created it. You can come back to me now. They then created it.

And then he signed it with his Sharpie pen. So to believe Donald Trump, somebody unnamed, created a card exactly like his vocabulary, then signed it exactly like his signature, glued it into a book along with 70 or 80 other submissions, hid the book for 35 years somewhere in the Epstein House on a shelf, and then used it to embarrass him when the Wall Street Journal said, we've seen the book. Donald Trump said there is no book, and then the book gets whipped out. This, you have to believe every link in that chain. Who would do that? Or there's a time machine. Somebody went back in time and pasted the page into that. And there was a blank page and they were able to paste it in there. Who is buying this?

This is the equivalent of Donald Trump leading the birther movement against Barack Obama. And when Barack Obama and his people produced a 1963, you can look it up, Honolulu times or whatever it was, birth announcement for Barack Hussein Obama mentioning his mother that that's a fraud because somebody either went back in time or his mother knew in 1963 that he would one day be running for president. No jury, no jury on planet Earth that breathes oxygen and is carbon-based is going to believe a word of what they're peddling through Carolyn Leavitt, through Benny Johnson, through Charlie Kirk, or any of these other morons. In fact, let's put up, since I've got my bed with me, let's put up some of what they're saying.

We have, that's Benny Johnson, the Wall Street Journal just released a letter they claim, they claim. President Trump sent to Epstein. They're not claiming that. Benny, let's stop right there. This album was preserved by the Epstein estate. it was provided to the oversight committee pursuant to a subpoena. We have a chain of custody. It's not the Wall Street Journal doing arts and crafts and creating something and writing about it.

The difference is back in July when they wrote about it with such great detail, they didn't publish it. Now the oversight committee basically has made it public record so that might as touch and legal AF and the legal AF substack can show you what we're talking about. Let's go back to Benny for a minute, Benny Johnson. Trump has the most famous signature in the world. And then he puts at the bottom. Now, stop right there. He puts fake at the top and reel at the bottom. The reel at the bottom, he's comparing apples and bowling balls.

The reel at the bottom is Donald Trump, Donald Trump. That's how he signs Donald Trump on official documents. You can see that's an official document, either an executive order or whatever. The one at the top is Donald, which he saves for his personal note. How do I know that? Because the New York Times went back into their archives. You can come back to me.

The New York Times, no, leave that there. Leave that there. The New York Times, I love it. We just cut and pasted it with my phone. I love that. The birthday book is at the top. This is from the New York Times archives. The letter to Rudy Giuliani from two years earlier.

Then a letter in 98 to a New York official. These are all the Donald examples. another Giuliani letter, another Giuliani letter. Now, come back to me for a minute. Now, let's talk about question documents and handwriting. You do not have to have a handwriting expert in front of a jury. A jury in Florida or any place else is considered to be the trier of fact in a case, and they alone can make a determination once they're given what's called the exemplar,

which is a certified example of an authentic signature. and they can compare it to the one that somebody is questioning as a forgery. I deal in evidence, and I'm an evidence-based person and what courts and juries decide. Now, you can bring it a handwriting expert. You can go and find one of these former FBI questioned documents guys, you know, or people who, you know, at Langley, and they can, and the juries like them, you know, they eat popcorn, they watch the, oh, that's interesting. But you don't need it.

A lawyer can do it. You put up the signatures, three or four or five or ten examples. of an authentic signature, you then show one versus the other. Now, nobody can replicate their signature exactly. I defy you to take a Sharpie pen right now and we'll watch the show, do it later. But write out five or ten versions, like you're, you know, Bart Simpson at the chalkboard of your signature. They won't be identical. They'll be, and now do it one today, one a week from now, one a year from now.

They're not going to be identical, but there's going to be some common hallmark. some idiosyncratic aspects of it that you can point to, the curly cue, the way the line is drawn at the end, the way the D is. And if they can get the actual documents, then they can do ink comparisons. You might need an expert for that. Ink comparisons, pressure, you know, harder on the D, lighter on the end. But I'm just telling you, I've done enough of these cases where there is no doubt in my mind that that is his signature.

And then answer, riddle me this, Benny Johnson, or don't we have the one for Charlie Kirk? Let's see the Charlie Kirk one. Does the below, first of all, that's not even the reproduction. That's a lie to his audience. That is not the signature on the bottom of the letter, of the birthday letter. That is, I don't know where he got that from. But that's what he throws up to feed his audience some bullshit. Let's take it down.

so then you have to also believe the rest of it who fabricated it who would manufacture it who's the forger why would they forge it did galane max will make it how did they get the signature almost perfect why did they reuse the words that donald trump used now look this isn't like um when they they try to figure out whether a lost shakespeare play is really shakespeare So they run it through the computer and the AI, and they compare it to, oh, this is just like the 12th night. Here's a rhyming couplet that was used in Romeo and Juliet. This is just language that Donald Trump uses every day.

He says, and in his defense says, I'm an idiot. My vocabulary is terrible. I never used the word enigma. Look at the challenges that he, they're not even really challenges that he gives to media to go out and find every example. of him saying the word enigma, and there's a dozen of them, including about Dan Rather, about Don King. He did it in books that he's written or had ghost written for him. He also said, he also has said, it's a wonderful thing about a million times. So it is in his vernacular,

as limited as that may be. But all of this that we're talking about now is only important to convince the holdouts who are not signing the discharge petition. I'll talk about that next, the discharge petition to get that bill to the House floor for a vote where it will win by majority to have the entirety of the Epstein files released. Instead, Donald Trump has told his people and has told and threatened Republicans, including those who are about to sign that discharge petition, to get an adequate. committee and onto the House floor that it is an hostile act if they agreed to the full disclosure of the Epstein files. Did you hear what I just said? This puts a lie to all the things that Donald

Trump and people around him are telling you, or telling the American people, that he's in favor of transparency. He has threatened Nancy Mace, Bobert, and Marjorie Taylor Green, and they have been told it is a hostile act if they sign on to the discharge petition to get to the 218 signatures necessary. And they've said politely, they don't care. They're for the victims, not for the predators. And they're going to buck the president on this. Right. Now, they leaned on Anna Luna from Florida, and she backed off. That's where we're at right now. So I want to talk about the discharge petition. I want to talk about what the victims were able to accomplish the survivors with their press conference. The Wall Street Journal going after Donald Trump in the lawsuit there.

and how they've attacked him on the economy and how Rupert Murdoch thinks he settled his succession problem, but I think he bought himself a bigger problem. We're going to talk about E. Jean Carroll and her victory, not just for herself, but for all victims and survivors of sexual abuse, especially at the hands of Donald Trump. She's courageous woman. She's already said she's taken the $100 million. She's not taking a dime for herself. She's putting it into foundations to support women. especially the ones, in her words, that are going to upset Donald Trump. Love everything about E. Jean Carroll. We'll talk about what just happened at the Second Circuit.

Multiple decisions coming out of the United States Supreme Court, including ripping away 100 years of precedent about who the president can fire or not fire of an executive agency or commission and the death of the Fourth Amendment by this United States Supreme Court. And then we'll talk about Trumponomics and the beginnings and the rise of the Trump recession and what it means moving forward,

including for the interest rate to be considered on September 18th by the Federal Reserve. You are on the intersection, the live podcast, with Michael Popak, here on the Midas Touch Network. I appreciate you all being here. A lot of people ask, and we see it in the notes tonight, how do we support, we got 3,000 people with us tonight so far, how do we support all the work that you do and others do,

related to legal AF, this ecosystem that we have built together, relatively straightforward and simple. We created a legal AF substack. I'm doing two lives a day. There we go. Thank you. Two lives a day. In addition, 10 or 12 postings a day of current things you need to know at the intersection of law and politics, including my contributors on legal AF, including versions of the actual the YouTube versions of the podcast, Legal AF, and the intersection, one-stop shopping on the substack. Become a member, and I'm watching various haircuts of mine over time. If you become a member, and if you want to help us out, become a paid member. And I kept the rate low for paid membership.

Get back to me. There we go. I'm trying to guide my editors to get off some of the assets quicker. We're getting there. We're getting there. It takes a village to make a podcast. If you want to become a paid member, I kept it low. It's like $7 or $8 a month.

I promise you the return on an investment will be great. And there's things that you'll be getting as a paid member to support us and take your receipt with you that you won't be able to find anywhere else. And then we've got our, so substack is a major way to support the intersection as well. And then we've got our sponsors who are along here, just like they are for legal A.F to address our audience. These are sponsors that we selected through the brothers, through Jordy Micellis. We then curate them with them. We adopt them. We negotiate great deals. And, you know, if you find something that you like up there, you got some disposable income,

it would be a good way to support the sponsors as well. So now let's take a word from our sponsors. Guys know I love my late night snacks, but not the sugar crash after. That's why I'm obsessed with magic spoon. It's the cereal and treats you remember from your childhood reinvented. Each serving of their high protein cereal has a wild 13 grams of protein, zero sugar and only four grams of net carbs. Perfect if you're carb conscious or live in that low carb lifestyle. And the flavor straight out of the Saturday morning cartoons, fruity, cocoa, frosted, nostalgic, fueling, and totally satisfying. Now let's talk about their treats. They're crispy, crunchy, and packed with 12 grams of protein. I tossed them in my gym bag, my glove box,

even my nightstand with flavors like marshmallow, chocolate, peanut butter, and dark chocolate, you really can't go wrong. Get $5 off your next order at magic spoon.com slash legal a.f or look for MagicSpoon on Amazon or in your nearest grocery store. That's magic spoon.com slash legal a.f for $5 off. You ever have a meal that just stays with you? Like for me, it was this spicy citrus marinated grilled fish thing I had on vacation last summer. It was perfectly charred, bursting with flavor, and I still crave it.

That's exactly what Cook Unity delivers. Meals so good, they stick in your memory. Cook Unity was made for adventurous eaters with countless global cuisines from more than 160 award-winning chefs. Explore an ever-expanding menu of small-batch meals, tailored to your lifestyle dietary needs and cravings, and get them delivered right to your door.

My go-to, chef Andres Mendez's chicken pabil bowl with passion fruit. Perfectly juicy protein. That sauce I could drink by the spoonful and made with you mainly raised meat and organic ingredients when possible. It feels like savoring, not sacrificing, and I have more energy all day. These are handcrafted meals from Food Network alums, James Beard award winners, and acclaimed restaurateurs, never frozen, ready in as little as five minutes,

and at a fraction of restaurant prices. Get what you're craving. Try the freshest, best-tasting meal delivery made by your favorite celebrity chefs. Go to cookunity.com slash legal AF free or enter code. legal a.F free before checkout for free premium meals for life. That's free premium meals for life by using code legal AF free or going to cookunity.com slash legal a.f free. Terms and conditions apply. Go to cookunity.com for details. I am back. I'm glad I'm back. I got a couple of questions that came up. So let me see if I can answer some of them. Um, on the,

when we're going to get to the Fourth Amendment issue, which is coming up a little bit later, actually I'll be dealing with it in about a second. So Blue Vays asked, why did Sotomayor sent it to the whole court? I know what they viewed by that. She can't be that naive that she didn't know what happened. Her dissent sings hollow. So what we're talking about there is in the shadow docket. The first stop on the train is one of the associate justices or the chief justice when an emergency the application comes up from one of the 13 circuits to decide whether they're going to decide it on their own or it's going to go over to the full en banc all nine of the Supreme Court. And I'll just tell you, I've asked this of people who are Supreme Court experts, you know,

they've served on the Supreme Court as clerks and that kind of thing. And they're just not going to, and I've said the same thing, they're just not going to buck tradition that when it is a major issue, a major question, they're, while, they could decide it on their own, they're just not going to. And they're going to now, although they used to, they're going to send it over to the full nine. And if they didn't, the parties could still request an en banc consideration of it to bypass Sotomayor. So while I agree with you, but there are just certain protocols that they're not willing to scrap at this point. And I encouraged her to do that and Kagan to do that and Sotomayor to do that.

and Katanji Brown Jackson to do it in their districts, they're just not going to do it. And so it's sort of like the blue slips in the Senate for confirmation of U.S. attorneys and judges, you know, could the Republicans get rid of the blue slip rule and help Donald Trump right now, get all these people confirm? They could, but they don't even want to do that right now. They're going to keep it in place because they're afraid that if Gavin Newsom or somebody the Democrats becomes president, they just lost the blue slip tradition. So it sort of falls into that category.

great. Let me turn to a little bit of the Wall Street Journal. Then we'll talk about E. Jean Carroll. Wall Street Journal attacking viciously Donald Trump on the editorial page owned by Rupert Murdoch. They just had about the Trump economy a tutorial for Donald Trump in which they said, and this is my, this is exact quote, repeat after me. tariffs are taxes and taxes are bad for economic growth. Because Donald Trump's entire, he's a one-trick pony, his entire domestic and foreign policy is framed around tariffs, 158 of them against countries up to 20%, sometimes 50%, and other types of tariffs, including sectoral tariffs against copper and metal and, and gold and electronics and chips and that kind of thing.

It's the entirety of his plan. There is nothing else. He uses it to abuse our allies. He threatens to use it against our enemies, but doesn't. He uses it to fill the giant hole in revenue collection because he cut taxes. But now that whole thing is up at the United States Supreme Court level. Somebody asked in one of the questions tonight, what are the chances that the United States Supreme Court, taking up the case in November

on full briefing, not on the shadow docket, are going to overturn the tariffs. I'll tell you they should overturn the tariffs. Wall Street wants them to overturn the tariffs. It's terrible for the American economy. It's job killing. There's no way out. Donald Trump is not going to grow a brain between now and the midterms and fix his failed economy.

He's gone all in on the tariffs. So he should be praying, as the Wall Street Journal says, that they overturned them for him. Now, the analysis should be relatively straightforward. Congress has not delegated to Donald Trump or a president, the express power to impose reciprocal tariffs or trafficking tariffs for the drug trade to stop the fentanyl trade,

and because they haven't expressly delegated it, and it doesn't appear in the statute, the International Economic Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEPA, because it doesn't appear there at all, he has no power. Presidents only have the power that the Constitution gives them or that is delegated from Congress. That's it. Now, the definition of their Article 2 powers, of course,

is subject to interpretation by the United States Supreme Court. But what their job is as the executive, branch is to execute faithfully the laws of Congress. We know that's not happening. And so if I were the Supreme Court and you were being intellectually honest and their jurisprudence was being honest, I would say international economic emergency economics powers act does not contain the word tariffs. At no time is any president attempted to use it that way. Tariffs is the power of Congress. Congress has not clearly spoken. nor given you the power, and since it's a major question, which they, which is a man-made,

Supreme Court made, fictitious doctrine that they used against the Biden administration to strike down anything that Joe Biden tried to do to help the American people. Oh, uh, forgive student loans. That's a major question. That's not, that doesn't appear anywhere in the statutes. That would have to go to Congress and Congress would have to clearly speak in a statute, the major questions doctrine. Well, why doesn't the major questions doctrine?

and apply to the tariffs. It should go back. If they're not being legislators, which Amy Cody Barrett just had, you know, she's on some sort of bookshilling tour to earn her $2 million advance. You know, we don't make the law. We don't, we're not here to put our values

down people's throats or up their body parts. I'm paraphrasing now. No, no, no. I don't like to be unpopular. I'm like, I almost vomited during most of her interview. She's the person who's single-handedly on her own found a way to rip away a woman's right to choose after 50 years of being in the Constitution

and being declared to be in the Constitution. So if they're not legislating and they're just calling it like they see it, then why isn't the major questions doctrine the death knell for the Trump tariffs? Should be. Now, the only thing we got going for is right now is this is not going to be on the shadow docket,

meaning there's going to be not two briefs and no oral argument and no reasoned opinion that we could read, but there's going to be full briefing, three briefs. It's going to be the Trump brief, the opposing brief, and Trump gets one more brief. That's how it works. There's going to be a ton of what we call amici or abacus briefs, which are friends of the court. You're going to see there are Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, all sorts of crazies, professors, of both sides in the aisle submitting briefs. And then the court can read them. And sometimes they don't just read them.

They like cite to them and their opinions. They find something that's very, very interesting. So there'll be a raft of, of abacus briefs, the briefs, and then there's going to be oral argument. We'll run it live on legal AF. You can watch it. I'll do commentary during it.

And we'll see. We'll know right away whether those tariffs are going to live or die. And that's going to be sometime in November. But they're not going to rule on it right there. it's not going to be like from the bench they're going to have to write an opinion circulate the opinions get enough votes to get five votes or more and then publish it i think it's going to be a i don't know january event maybe december maybe february somewhere in there in the meantime they're letting them collect the money uh which is of course trump's using and saying look at all the

money it's like a bank robber saying you can't put me in jail look at the amount that i stole If he didn't have the power to do it, if it's what we call void ab initio, then I don't understand how that justifies the fact that he did it without legal basis. I don't understand how by collecting the money, it justifies it. But that's what all of his people around him are doing, all his economic people. Look at the money. You can't take it away now. It's the basis of our foreign policy.

And speaking of foreign policy, how is that going? not well. Donald Trump's closer to being indicted as a war criminal than he is getting a Nobel Peace Prize. Let's take Russia as an example. Let's do my global AF segment here on the intersection. Alaska, remember that meeting in which he had the military bowed down to Putin

as he applauded and took him into the beast to put his arm around him and gave him all the hugs and kisses that were available. What did Putin get at? out of that, everything you wanted. No ceasefire. We're still no ceasefire. Bombing of Kiev just in the last 48 hours. Biggest air attack of the war, setting the government's buildings ablaze, that is a major middle finger to Donald Trump because he's weak. You know how you know somebody's weak? Because they keep saying they're strong. When somebody tells you they're stronger, it's not about the money,

or it's exactly about the money and you are not strong, you are weak. And the rest of the world allies and enemies know it and they're exploiting it. Look how much, not only how, look what Putin has accomplished since he left Alaska. No ceasefire. Him getting property and territory that he's never going to get in a war is on the table. And Donald Trump's still running around declaring, I'm getting mad. It's like watching the old honeymooters routine. Alice, I'm getting mad.

I'm going to do something. What are you going to do? You've threatened these economic sanctions now. I mean, this is a toothless threat. And Putin knows it. While Putin goes off and celebrates in China, because now we've turned Russia and China into best friends economically, along with India.

India's prime minister was literally dancing on a stage during in America to support Donald Trump's election. You know, coming out to raucous applause. And what did he get in return? A 50% tariff because he's selling oil to Russia or whatever he's doing. So I agree that the tariff scheme is at the core of all that Donald Trump is trying to do around the world. It's not working. and people are dying because of it, just like people are hundreds of thousands of people

are going to die because of Donald Trump's depraved public health policies being implemented by RFK Jr, the worst Kennedy in history. And that's saying a lot. Joe did a lot of bad things, by the way. So that answers, I think, in a long-winded way, the question about what's going to happen at the United States Supreme Court and what is the purpose of the tariffs, if it's not going to ultimately be used against somebody like Putin to stop and solve the war

that should have been solved according to Donald Trump eight months ago, then what? You're watching, if you didn't know before, not only the intersection, but if you're seeing what a failed presidency actually looks like up close, we unfortunately have the ringside seats for it. Let's turn to some positive news before I return to the United States Supreme Court. E. Jean Carroll, love everything about E. Jean Carroll, personally, about the pleasure and the honor of interviewing her. E. Jean Carroll, for those that I don't want to talk too much in shorthand, I'll do it briefly. She was a famous advice columnist for Elle magazine in the 1990s in New York. I worked in New York in the 1990s, blocks away from where a lot of these events happened.

and she knew Donald Trump the way a lot of people in New York at the time knew Donald Trump. She was married to a famous newscaster, John Johnson, for those that watched W.A.B.C. in New York, I used to watch him a lot. And he was running around in between wives and being a bachelor or whatever. And they have a fateful meeting for her, fateful, in front of the revolving doors of Bergdorf-Goodman department store, which is a stones throwaway across the street from Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York. For those that visit recently or have visited recently, you know where the Apple store is with a giant glass cube. It's the store across the street. And so they bump into that they bump into each other, starts with according to her, playful banter,

ends dark and ominously with her being pushed into a private dressing room and being sexually assaulted. And then years later, she's defamed on top of it when she writes a book about the assault twice, once when he was president and once when he was not president. So there's two lawsuits that went to trial. That's why there's two cases and two judgments. The first case that actually went to trial was about Donald Trump's sexual abuse of her in that dressing room and the defamation what he was not. president. When he called her a hoaxter, a fraudster, that she's trying to shake him down, not my type, disgusting person and all the other things, which are defamatory. The jury, this was led by Alina Hava, by the way. Donald Trump did not testify.

Jury returns a verdict of $5.5 million. It's been affirmed on appeal at the Second Circuit, and she's going to get that money. Three months later, there's a second trial. Why was there a second trial because he defamed her, he defamed her twice. The earlier defamation, the earlier or sorry, the later defamation went first in trial in order of operation because Donald Trump took a, Donald Trump took a bunch of appeals about certain types of immunity, and it took a while to get back to the trial judge. So now he, after the jury found for E.G. and Carol, the first trial, that she had been sexually abused. They were very close to finding rape, but under New York law at the time, they had to find,

based on her testimony, that she was penetrated with a penis and not digitally, and she couldn't testify to that because she had her eyes closed during the assault. Today, that would be a rape in New York. So second trial starts, and Judge Kaplan decides, rightly so, affirmed on appeal, that the issue of sexual abuse can't be relitigated. It's already law of the case. It's already what we call race judicata. The only issue for the jury is putative damages and the amount of damage for the second jury. He testifies in that trial.

How did that go? Not well. 83.5 million dollar judgment, $65 million of which was for punitive damages. Donald Trump takes an appeal, multiple appeals. First appeal, he argues that he's got presidential immunity because of the criminal immunity case that came out two years ago by the Supreme Court.

The big problem with that is Alina Haba did not raise immunity. And in the world of defenses, you have to raise defenses or you waive them. So the Second Circuit in 2023 ruled that she had waived it or he had waived it because she never raised it. And they pointed out, you know how to raise a defense, but you raise the wrong one. You raised the Supremacy Clause defense. You didn't raise the presidential immunity defense. They argued, but we didn't know we were going to win at the Supreme Court. court two years later, they said it doesn't matter. You need to raise it to use it and nothing about

the case of criminal immunity dealt with waiver. Donald Trump then appeals this case and he lost two days ago on the $83.5 million. In a decision written to 30 by the three judges, they said, first of all, Judge Kaplan did nothing wrong that constitutes reversible error in how he ran the case. They argued that, well, he didn't let Donald Trump testify about certain things. They said, what were the questions that Alina Haba was even going to ask? Oh, those were the questions? None of that would have helped him against the mountain of evidence against him. So no.

Then the major argument was presidential immunity, and they said, no, our brethren two years ago ruled against you on that. You don't get to relitigate that. That's now law of the case. Third, they argued that the punitive damage award was ridiculous. And they went through methodically. all of the vicious attacks for five years. This is the appellate court that Donald Trump did against E. Jean Carroll, during the trial of the first trial,

during the second trial, on the way into the trial, during breaks of the trial, calling her every name in the book, every name of the book. And they said that level of vicious attack rises to the level of sufficiently to be outrageous conduct to support a $65 million judgment because they said rightly so, the judge instructed the jury, pick a number that makes him stop defaming her. And that's what Eugene Carroll's lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, who I also interviewed a couple of weeks ago on the legal AF YouTube channel, that's what she said was the turning point in the case that

when, in the closing, when Robbie Kaplan looked the jury in the eye and said, make him stop. he says he's a billionaire i'll take him at his word make this check big enough that he stops defaming my client and while she was doing that he got up and walked buttoned his jacket or whatever he tried to do with his jacket and walked out in front of the jury in front of a woman making a closing argument about sexual abuse how do you think that went over with the jury according to egee and carroll not great it was it was uh it was demeaning it was it was was misogynistic and it only reinforced the entire thematic for the trial. And so she's now been affirmed to the Second Circuit to answer the questions that have come

up. Supreme Court, anybody? Sure. Could he ask for what's called an en banc of the 20 judges of the Second Circuit first? He could. He's going to lose that, by the way. But he could delay, although it's running with interest. She's up to $100 million in what she's owed.

Then he's going to have to try to lobby into the United States Supreme Court. court. First stop on that train is Justice Sotomayor. Back again. There we go. Thank you very much. About whether it's going to be referred to the full, it's going to be referred to the full appellate panel. That is for sure. And then of the Supreme Court. And then they're going to have to decide whether they're going to bail out a president who's been a judged basically twice to be, according to the judge, a technical rapist, a sexual abuser, and a defamer. out of a putative damage award for stuff that he did while he was president, where he defamed her effectively from the Rose Garden. I don't even think this Supreme Court wants to touch that with a 10-foot pole, but we'll have to see.

They certainly limited their immunity decision to criminal conduct, not civil liability. And they took pains to do that. So if they're at all ideologically consistent, which of course we know they're not, they will avoid this appeal and leave it where it lies with the Second Circuit. So if you're looking at this as a clock, she is one minute to midnight to getting her $100 million. And I'll continue to report on it, on legal AF and a legal AF substack and the rest.

So that's E. Jean Carroll. Let's talk about the Supreme Court and what's going on there. So as it relates to Rebecca Slaughter on the Federal Trade Committee, It looks like the Supreme Court is going to finally overturn 95 years of precedent in a case called Humphreys executor where Humphreys, who was a federal trade commission commissioner, sued FDR to get his job back because he was fired without cause. And the way the FTC was set up in 1914 by the Congress required that it be for cause. Meaning you can't just fire somebody because you don't like the look of them or you don't like their politics. And That's been on the books, sorry folks, that's been on the books since 1935, that decision. Now, they've chipped away at it. That's why we've seen Donald Trump firing the heads of different agencies and commissions. And every time they say, well, it depends on how much executive power the executive commission exercises.

The more power the exercise of the executive branch, the more we're going to let Donald Trump fire them without costs, except for the Federal Reserve. They're always like, except the Federal Reserve, because we don't want to like take our economy out in the back and shoot it. So we're going to make sure you can't, they went out of their way in May in a decision about the National Labor Relations Board to say not the Fed. You can't fire them without cause. That's why we're watching the fight with Lisa Cook about whether she's being fired for cause or not or not because she took out a couple of mortgages that checked the box for primary mortgages, which is exactly apparently what everybody in. Bill Pulte's family has done with the federal, the head of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Donald Trump's pitball, and 20% of Donald Trump's cabinet. But be that as it may, that's for another day, another intersection. But that's why he's fighting for a cause over there, because only because

the Supreme Court said not the Federal Reserve. Everybody else you can apparently fire. Now we figured, well, not the FTC, that is Humphreys, exact case. In fact, last week when I reported on the decision on on Friday, Friday off a Labor Day, which would have led to today's show. That's why I was, it wasn't sure what the Supreme Court was going to do. The two to one panel on the D.C. Circuit court said, we're not going to do your job for you, Supreme Court. We're going to apply Humphrey's executor. It's exactly on all fours, and we're going to reinstate Rebecca Slaughter into her job. She's the only Democrat on the panel, on the commission, the Federal Trade Commission.

And so what does the Supreme Court do? They block the decision, effectively ruling for now, that they're going to signaling they're going to throw away 95 years of precedent, and they're finally going to get rid of Humphreys' executor, meaning they are going to create, not just for Trump, but for the next president, who hopefully will have a D next to his name, an ability to hire and fire anybody they want, for any of these what was supposed to be nonpartisan commissions just to do the people's business.

And if that's what they want, as even though we'd like it to end now, Donald Trump's tenure is going to end. I guarantee it, by natural causes or otherwise, it's going to end. And there will be a new president. And if it's a Democrat, they are going to get the benefit of all of this case law, body of case law with Donald Trump's name on it. So be careful what you wish for. And if the House is returned to the Democrats, which looks like it's likely, and if the Senate is too, then we're up and running with impeachment. We're up and running with conviction.

We're up and running with investigations. And all of these people, I'm looking at you, Stephen Miller. I'm looking at you, Pam Bondi, and Cash Patel, and Taylor Buttig, and the rest of you, and Alina Haba, and Todd Blanche. you know, let's just say after Watergate, a number of people went to jail, including the Attorney General for Nixon. I'm just saying. I always like to leave the intersection with some hopeful. I don't want to be the grim reaper all the time. We've got to talk about something hopeful. So let's talk about that was slaughter. And then the new decision finally by the Supreme Court that just

came out is against the Fourth Amendment. Fourth Amendment was originally enshrined in our Constitution, by our framers and founders in order to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures. So we don't have unfortunate interaction with law enforcement, if you know what I mean. And reasonable suspicion is the doctrine created by the Supreme Court, which is that a law enforcement officer, whether ICE or Border Patrol or your local state trooper or whatever, can't stop and frisk you, can't stop and start asking you questions in an interrogation moment or apprehend you or seize you without having reasonable suspicion, which is based on a totality of the circumstances

in the mind of an objective, reasonable law enforcement officer. That's the law. What they weren't allowed to do until, like yesterday, is racially profiled. So this case came out of a ruling by Judge Frimpong in California, of course, federal judge, who said, there's four things you can't, use if you're doing a stop and frisk for citizenship and immigration. You can't use race.

You can't use what they sound like, what language they're speaking. It's going to be more than four. You can't use where you see them, Home Depot parking lot, car wash, a field, a day laborer hangout spot, or what you think their ethnicity is. You have other things in there? Fine. And what she was basing that on also was she got the trial. record because they had some hearings over this, where people testified about how they were ripped out of their places of work or out of Home Depot parking lots thrown to the ground. There were very few questions about their citizenship while they were having their Fourth Amendment rights deprived, their civil liberties abused.

And so that's how Frimpong made her temporary restraining order. She's now off on doing preliminary injunction and a trial related to that, which doesn't stop, by the way, it continues. what the court decided to do in one paragraph was to block her temporary restraining order allowing ICE and Border Patrol to run amok and abuse civil liberties all through California and other places, which they are more than willing to do because they've announced they're going to do it. And Brett Kavanaugh, because it was one paragraph in the decision, one paragraph, we're going to block it, we'll get back to you after there's more in the case.

but for now you do you do you government and fourth amendment we're going to anesthetize you so we got two written opinions off of that not the opinion because that was the opinion we got a concurrence and a dissent cavanaugh who lives something there he is who lives somewhere not on planet earth and who's never i'm sure run into anybody that's had a mixed immigration status or had an accent or hung out at a home depot or shopped at a home depot. He wrote an opinion that said, I concur. I don't think that the law enforcement should be hamstrung in their abilities to deport 1.5 million illegal people in California because they're not allowed to make a reasoned

opinion about somebody's ethnicity, their accent, or go shopping for them. words in a Home Depot or car wash or in a field where day laborers hang out. And the reality is, Kavanaugh said, there are just so many people who don't speak English. This is a barely paraphrasing. By the way, there's no requirement to be a citizen that you speak English. So now, if you're a Hispanic person who happens to be at my local Home Depot and you're in the parking lot with your family talking to them in Spanish about something you want to buy inside and your friendly neighborhood ICE or border patrol agent comes knocking on your door

and you don't have what in his view is the required citizenship papers, give me your papers, you'll end up in an interrogation proceeding and maybe we won't see you again. And that's okay with Brett Kavanaugh, who says, who describes it this way. I don't think it's an inconvenience from a constitutional standpoint for a person to be asked a few simple questions about their citizenship before they're let to go on their way. This is how he describes it. Sotomayor says, we now live in a country where based on the color of your skin, the language you speak, or the job that you hold, you may now end up without any civil liberties.

I respectfully dissent. And she went through from the record, because that's what you're supposed to be doing at the appellate court level, you're supposed to be doing the record developed below on the facts like what Judge Frimpong developed. She said in the record below, there are descriptions not of people be, you know, the way he sounds, the way he does it, it's like this very polite interaction. Hello there, kind sir. Do you have your citizenship papers on you? Oh, you do. Great. You can go on your way. No. How about ripping people out of their employment or on the street or out of a van or you know in home depot parking lot throwing them to the ground hog tying them

ripping their arms behind them and saying do you know what hospital you were born in under that pressure the one guy couldn't remember and he got taken to an interrogation center but but to cavanaugh with his one sentence it was just a little gentlemanly interaction that's the that's the fraud That's the intellectual dishonesty of the MAGA on the United States Supreme Court. Whether it's Amy Coney Barrett or it's Kavanaugh or it's Roberts or Alito or Thomas. I'm getting choked up. They are intellectually dishonest and lying to the American people every time they put pen to paper. So to answer the question, what can we do about it?

Okay. We can't do anything about the current makeup of the United States Supreme Court. We just can't. We have to wait them out. We got to get control of the presidency. We got to hope there's some openings that we can fill to change the numbers from six to three to five to four or six to three in our direction. And we got to hope that Donald Trump doesn't fill Clarence Thomas's in a lead-o seat if they decide to die or leave them. the bench. And he fills them with a 40-year-old. And then we're going to have, we're going to be stuck with a six to three maga majority for my natural born days. Now, I will tell you that in my 50 years plus, there has never been a Supreme Court dominated by liberals or moderates. Never. It has been Republican dominated for 50 years. And yet they whine and complain about the United States Supreme Court. How about give it to us for a while? We've never had it.

we've never had it. So maybe the solution is somebody with some brass ones comes in like Gavin Newsom or one of the other major candidates for the Democrats on our bench, and we expand the United States Supreme Court. Why don't we add a few seats? Gavin's good at this, by the way. He's about to add five seats to his congressional map to balance out Texas. Why don't we do a little court packing? That's what FDR had a threaten in order to, and then suddenly when he threatened court packing, All of a sudden, a lot of aspects of his New Deal were approved by the Supreme Court.

So I think we're going to have to be transactional here. First step is getting back into office. Second step is thinking about how to restructure the United States Supreme Court. While Donald Trump tries to figure out if he's going to restructure the Federal Reserve, we should be doing the same thing at the United States Supreme Court. So let me see what's come up in questions as we come to the end here. I have a cheat sheet for that. Pardon me.

Somebody asked, Donald Donnie asked, what can the American people do legally to get this administration out of office now? Not much. There's no will of the people that can, we don't have a recall ability like they do in some states. We have impeachment.

The will of the people is supposed to be expressed through our Congress. So give me back the House in the Senate, in the midterms, and I will give you investigations, impeachments, and maybe convictions and removals. And that's the start to answer that question. Let me do, somebody asked, here's Hillary Clinton, but I doubt that's her real account, said Popok, see, Hillary Clinton calls me Popok.

Can we have a Dem Congress write a new update to expand the court? Yeah. Yes. it's yes that new congress could do some court packing and start getting some bills passed on it there's going to be a fight over it about the separation of powers but the supreme court's already destroyed the separation of powers and the co-equal branches that we don't have co-equal branches now we have a giant leviathan called the executive branch which levitates above the other two branches or he's got them on their lap like lapdogs because of the supreme court immunity decision so i don't

want to hear an argument, although it'll be made, that, oh, this destroys the delicate balance of co-equal branches. F that. This is for the, this is for the, the, are the, the, the constitutional republic is what we're trying to protect at this point. Let me look at one more here. Hold on, folks. I got one more coming in. J.D. Smith asked, is it possible to fill a jury with all MAGA or Republicans. I mean, technically there's no, there's nothing against that. You just can't get rid of all the black people. At least the Supreme Court has said that. You can't use racial aspects. You have to come up with other reasons to bounce jurors. But if you're in, if you're in Alabama and they're all MAGA, they're all show up wearing their MAGA hats, there's nothing you can do about it, you know,

in that case. That's why Trump's worked so hard to file some of his cases. in places where he thinks he'll have a better shot at getting some of his MAGA onto the jury. You know, like in, you know, it's funny on that note. Eging Carroll told a great story. She said that a snowstorm helped her case. A snowstorm helped her case. I said, how was that?

She said, we were picking a jury in the, I think in the case they gave her the 83 and a half. And none of the people in orange, County, which is a more red, there's no pun, the Orange County in New York is more red, more conservative, more MAGA potential than the five boroughs of Manhattan that make up the Southern District of New York, which is where she tried her case federally. And Orange County couldn't get in because of the snowstorm. And so it was all of Manhattan. I was a lot of Manhattan people, which trends more liberal. See how that happens? But I like this part. I'm a

to do more you know we love doing the lives i'm going to do more questions here here's one from k-marie that i'll end with if scotis continues to bend to trump and with the immunity granted to him what hope is there that this regime can be brought down i think we're back to the same you know approach we have levers of power as we the people we've got think of it as fists in the fight one fist we have is at the front lines for the battle is in the court system and rest assured that the public interest groups and the new york and the new york and the attorney generals like from new york and california and the 23 other blue states and the other public interest groups like democracy forward that has an amazing playlist with me on legal a f and the ACLU and the

nbacp they filed over 400 cases against the trump administration they're winning 90% of them democracy forward and as 80 cases alone, they're winning 93% of them. And that is backing Donald Trump off the ball in certain important areas. So one fist is in the courts. The second one is in protest. It's joining together here and getting the information and talking truth to power here, talking truth to each other first, and then hitting the streets. And whether that means joining in the no Kings Day protest or the 5501 protests,

or it's just signing up for your local party affiliation, Democrat and whatever, to help with voting and voting roles and voter registration. I'll do my part. I'll be a poll watcher where I live and inside the polls to make sure if things don't go awry and people's real ballots end up provisional ballots and not count it. And you can do the exact same thing. You can be trained to be an election worker. You can be trained to be a poll watcher. You can work the phone banks. You can knock on doors to get mail-in voting, mail-in registration done properly,

absentee balloting done properly. You can get people to the polls on Election Day, solds to polls. That's your other fist, right? Court and then over here, go to town halls, write letters, and all of that. Collectively, and then we'll do our part from the main, from the, independent from the mainstream media. That's why we're building this legal AF community together and the intersection as part of it

so that we can come together. On Legal AF Substack, which I'll talk about in a minute, legally have substack, I get two or three thousand people in an instantaneous huddle to talk about something that just happened. And then I post the video later on in there. This is the way we overcome. This is the way we overcome the Trump administration.

But don't lose faith. Don't lose heart. don't lose energy, lean forward, not back. We have to keep the edge, not lose it. We are a party, and not even party. We are, whether you're fair-minded, what other party you're in, independent, moderate, socialist, Democrat, whatever you are. Now is the time not to be fatigued. And we need to redouble our efforts.

And we do it here on podcasts here on the Midas Dutch Network. So here's how you support what we're doing. We've got the Midas Dutch Network, subscribe there. We've got Legal A.F, the YouTube channel. We're about to hit 800,000 subscribers before our one-year anniversary on the 17th of September. We've already crossed the 250 million view barrier over there. It's all because of you. And we're continuing to try to grow that to get to our $1 million, that landmark on LegalAF, YouTube.

10 new videos every day, 12 contributors. Amazing, amazing things are going on on Legal AF YouTube. But then we have this companion audience. that we built on Legal AF, substack, and think about being a paid member there as well. With original content, you're not finding anywhere else in the Substack universe. And if you don't know what Substack is, check it out.

It's an amazing, amazing place for people, whether you're a hobbyist, somebody involved in law or politics, or just an interested concerned citizen. Come over to the Substack on Legal AF. And then finally, I think people know, because we talk about it on the podcast. Wait for the B-roll. role. We talk about it in the podcast. I formed a law firm called the Popok firm. And what I do

there is I've assembled this amazing group of plaintiffs lawyers around the country who have billion dollar verdicts in order to get into this club, meaning they're helping the American people and the mightest money and the legal AFers with their most important legal matters and focused on catastrophic injury, illness, wrongful death cases, auto accident, medical malpractice, employment cases at the highest levels where you need to have somebody in your corner to fight against big insurance, you want to come to the Popak firm. We've got a 1-800 number. There we go.

1-877 Popok A-F, or you can go to the website, thepopak firm.com. a live real person is on the other side of that phone call to help screen that case for you, tell you if you have a case that we're interested in, and if we decide to take that case, we're doing it on a contingency meeting. You don't pay unless we get paid. That's the justice that we will provide.

And hundreds and hundreds of legal A.F. And might as mighty have come to the Popak firm and are now clients. And we're in courts all across America from airplane disasters to truck rollovers, to car accidents, to employment cases, medical malpractice, civil rights violations, you name it. We'll screen it, and if we take the case, you've got, you have a vigilant law firm on your side that I lead at the Popak firm.

So I'm glad you're here at the intersection. We'll see you next Tuesday for a live along with Michael Popak answering questions. Until then, I'm Michael Popak. You're on the Midas Touch Network. Shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal AFers. I'm Michael Popak, and I got some big news for our audience. Most of you know me as the co-founder of Midas Touch's Legal AF and the Legal AF YouTube channel,

or as a 35-year national trial lawyer. Now, building a what we started together on Legal AF, I've launched a new law firm, the Popok firm, dedicated to obtaining justice through compassionate and zealous legal representation. At the Popak firm, we are focused on obtaining justice for those who have been injured or damaged by a life-altering event, by securing the highest dollar recoveries. I've been tirelessly fighting for justice for the last 35 years, so my own law firm organically building on my legal AF work just feels right. And I've handpicked the team of top-tier trial fighters and settlement experts throughout all 50 states known as big auto injury attorneys who have the know-how to beat heartless insurance companies, corporations. government entities, and their attorneys. Big Auto's attorneys, working with my firm, are rock stars in their

respective states and collectively responsible for billions of dollars in recoveries. So if you were a loved one, but on the wrong side of a catastrophic auto, motor vehicle, ride share, or truck accident, suffered a personal injury, or been the victim of medical malpractice, employment, harassment, or discrimination, or suffered a violation of your civil and constitutional rights, then contact the Popok firm today at 1877 Popok A.F or by visiting my website at www.w thepopokfirm.com and fill out a free case evaluation form. And if we determine that you have a case and you sign with us, we don't get paid unless you do. The Popok firm fighting for your justice

every step of the way.