Legal AF by MeidasTouch - The Marjorie Taylor Greene Hearing, January 6 Committee Bombshells, and More!

Episode Date: April 24, 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 consequential developments. This week Ben and Popok discuss and analyze: 1. The Jan6 Committee’s upcoming June hearings on the Insurrection that one senior member claims will “blow the roof” off of Congress as it describes an “inside coup” led by Trump. 2. The DOJ adding a new lead prosecutor to head the Jan6 prosecutions, including leading the prosecutors focusing on Trump and his inner circle. 3. Marjory Taylor Greene’s efforts to avoid being thrown off the upcoming ballot for reelection as an insurrectionist, and her providing the first sworn testimony of any member of Congress about their role on Jan6. 4. Newly-discovered audio recordings confirming that Kevin McCarthy sought to have Trump resign for his role in the insurrection, and that Trump had confessed about his role in the attack on the Capitol. 5. Alex Jones being hit with over $1mm in fines by a Texas judge presiding over his defamation trial related to his denying that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre actually happened, his filing for bankruptcy to avoid liability, and his contacting the DOJ to cooperate concerning the Jan6 criminal investigation. 6. A new lawsuit filed against Florida Governor DeSantis’ racist redistricting maps, adding 4 new republican seats while cutting Black representation in half. 7. The DOJ filing a new appeal to reverse a Florida Federal judge’s decision last week finding the CDC’s Mask Mandate to be illegal. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: AG1 by Athletic Greens: https://athleticgreens.com/legalaf Aura Frames: https://auraframes.com/legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 Zoomed In: https://pod.link/1580828633 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Congressmen Jamie Raskin says the January 6th committee revelations will blow the roof off the house. Marjorie Taylor-Green insurrection hearings in Georgia are broadcast live. We break it down. The Kevin McCarthy tapes, audio recordings from Republican leadership conference calls following the insurrection exposes Kevin McCarthy as a liar and exposes him saying he would ask Trump to resign after saying him saying that was fake news, a total liar. Alex Jones puts info wars into bankruptcy on the eve of the Sandy Hook defamation, jury trial on damages delaying the case, will justice be served, the Department of Justice files and appeal. On behalf of the CDC challenging the Florida District Court order prohibiting the mask

mandates in public transit and civil rights groups sue Florida officials for their racist and partisan Jerry Mandarin created by governor death Santas the most consequential legal news of the week This is legal a f Ben micelle is joined by Michael Popok Popok the Popokian how are you doing today? I am doing great. I got, I'm all energized after watching hours of Marjorie Taylor Green. And I know our followers and our audience

are ready for us to dive in this week. And, and you got me fired up with that intro. Let's go. We're gonna take a deep dive into what happened in the Marjorie Telegrin case. Many people are saying Ben Popak, tell me, what was this hearing? Is this a jury trial?

Is this a civil case? Is this an administrative case? Like what was I watching? By the way, you were probably watching it on the Midas Touch livestream feed. Midas Touch will be doing more live streams like that of consequential hearings. We had about 30,000 concurrent viewers, about half a million people tuned in on the Midas feed

alone thus far. And I think it was an important aspect to add to the Midas repertoire of the services and content we deliver. I think one thing we should ask the audience tonight on live chat is whether they would like one or three of us, you mean Karen, to do some sort of live analysis during some of these seminal trials of the century type matters. Because we're willing to do it if people are willing to watch us do it. Well, I think that would be a great addition as well. Popox, let's get into it. Let's take it in reverse order to start. Let's talk about the civil rights groups, who these Florida officials for their racist and partisan, gerrymandering maps. We talked about this before

that the Republican legislature in Florida proposed racist, Jerry Mander maps and for governor DeSantis. He said, whoa, whoa, whoa, not racist and partisan enough for me. True. I'm going to veto those maps unless you make those maps even more partisan and racist. You know, Florida is an interesting state Pope, we've discussed it before because they have specific constitutional amendments that have anti-political gerrymandering provisions, not just the constitutional protections of the anti-racist gerrymandering embodied in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which the Supreme Court has eroded. We've covered in detail the erosion, the attack on the Voting

Rights Act of 1965 on the Midas Touch Podcast, a long line of attacks from the Federalist Society spanning many, many, many years, basically trying to declare the United States free of racism such that the judges should not be scrutinizing the legislature's decision-making and making the maps. There used to be a process actually called pre-clearance. And up until 2013 was taking place and the pre-clearance was that you had either the DOJ or a three-judge panel. It means what it said, they would pre-clear the maps before a map would be approved.

It would have to go get approval by the government to say, is that map racist or not? The formula was challenged in 2013. The Supreme Court struck down the formula which struck down pre-clearance, which basically said, legislatures go and pass whatever maps you want and let shift the burden away from the legislatures. Let's put the burden now on civil rights groups to have to sue. But then with the Supreme Court did to try to screw the civil rights groups is basically say, whoa, whoa, whoa, civil rights group, you're suing way too close to an election. This is called the Purcell doctrine.

And now we can't do anything as the Supreme Court. So we're just going to let those maps stay in place because it's way too close to the election or the Supreme Court says we shouldn't really be challenging what the legislature's doing, the legislature seems to be doing a fine job. But you add to the mix here in Florida, these anti-political gerrymandering provisions in addition to the federal issues and you have a real mess on your hand. So, um, DeSantis, uh, you know, told the legislature, you know, basically by, you know, like a dictator, passed my map. He drew it himself. They passed his map and the civil rights groups now have sued immediately and now we'll go through a process where it's in state court.

They're challenging it based on a number of factors including this state law. You know, Popeyes, this map should be struck down, you know, but I ultimately fear that as we go to the federal processes, what's the Supreme Court going to do? What are the federal courts of appeals going to do following those really bad federal precedents? I think the state courts are going to do the right thing here, but ultimately is the outcome going to be one, are these maps going to be struck down? And two, are they going to be struck down in time for the elections?

Because what's at stake here is that DeSantis has redrawn the map to specifically remove two districts represented by black Democrats. That's what they did. That was the purpose of it. So it's a swing of about plus four to Republicans and it's blatantly racist. So Popeye, what's going on here? Well, the good news is it's gonna be litigated

in Leon County up in Tallahassee, which is, as you've noted, is a better forum for the challenge to this map. I want to make this clear, the Republicans in the legislature in the State House of Tallahassee have completely abdicated all responsibility and have now just genuinely reflected to the idol of the Santas in every way, shape and form.

He has taken over that government NA, as you said, in a fascist or dictator way. We'll talk about it on another podcast, what he's done to retaliate against Disney of all things and exercise it. It's First Amendment right to challenge his don't say gay. He's now retaliated against him this week by taking away their tax, their tax status and their ability to run the government in and around and the property in and around where Disney World resides. That's another example of 65% of the of the legislature in Florida being controlled by the Republicans and therefore controlled by DeSantis. They are so

a supplicant to DeSantis that they just turned over completely and abdicated the map making responsibility for redistricting directly to the governor's mansion. They didn't even try. They said, you know what? They literally delegated it back to the governor. You send us the map that you want us to pass and will pass it. And that's exactly what they did this week. And that map, as you pointed out, completely halves black representation. It and retaliates against two very high profile, democratic, black democratic leaders in Florida, including Val Demings, the former police chief of Orlando, who sits in Orange County and trying to eliminate or gerrymandor around her district. The good news is I have a reasonable modicum of confidence in the Leon County slash Tallahassee

state court judges, who are often a burr in the saddle of the governor de Santis, because they're not overly Republican, although it's the northern part of the state, and that's that part of the state is very Republican. So I think it's a better chance than not. Here's a Pope-Pock prediction that this judge, and I have to look up who exactly has been assigned to this case, and we'll talk about it on Wednesday or the next pod. They will strike this down under the Florida constitutional provisions that you mentioned and the US constitutional provisions. I think this plaintiffs group of black voting activists who were the plaintiffs properly strategically chose Leon County instead of the Northern District of Florida federal court, where a lot of those judges owe their political

fortune and their careers to Governor DeSantis. And so they did an end run around that. They said, you know what? Let's go to Tallahassee and Leon County. And let's see if we can get a better ruling on that. Could it end up flipping over to a federal matter? It could, but I think it stays for a long time in Leon County, but just to astral project into the future, as you and I like to do, the Supreme Court of the State of Florida is very, very conservative,

right-wing, and most of them have been appointed by DeSantis or by Governor Scott, the other fascist governor just before him. And I know a couple of the appointees and they're nice people, but they are federalist society, right, right wing, a couple came out of Miami, right, no, well, but that's, it's not going to be great at the Florida Supreme Court level. And then they may, I think it gives the litigants the plaintiffs the right almost two bites at the apple. Let's see how we do it, Leon County. Let's see how we do it. The Supremes of Florida. And if we don't like it, we'll flip over to Northern District of Florida.

And we'll file there. Well, we will keep everyone updated on what is happening there. And this is what the radical right extremist governors are want to do. They don't want to play fairly. They want to cheat at every single turn. And these stakes cannot be higher. We will keep you updated there. I want to talk about the Department of Justice this week as filed an appeal on behalf of the CDC, challenging the Florida district court order, which prohibited the mask mandate. It was an injunction stopping the mask mandate declaring that the CDC did not have the power to institute a mask mandate in the public transit. This was a ruling by a judge named Catherine Mazzell. We all have kind of now talked about Catherine Mazzell

on prior legal AF. So she was appointed, she graduated law school in 2012. So she was a lawyer for about six to seven years before she was nominated. She was actually confirmed after Trump had lost. She was ranked by a bipartisan group as being unqualified and kind of per se unqualified because she had very little experience, almost no experience as a trial lawyer as doing cases or anything like that. She only she only practiced for six or eight months in private practice her entire career.

If you want to call it that in the legal profession, following law school bed was in federal clerkships in the hermetically sealed chambers of judges. She did three clerkships. She did a six month stint or less, I think at a national global law firm. And that was it. Now she's qualified to sit and make constitutional

and other life altering decisions as a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. So not only did she strike down the CDC's mass rule and public transit, but she did a universal injunction. She did a ruling that affected not just Florida, but the entire 49 other states. But 49 other states. And so, you know, regardless of what your view is on, you know, wearing masks, I'm going to put this out there, Popeye. Do I like wearing masks? Do I enjoy it? No. Do masks feel itchy? Yes. Do masks feel uncomfortable on my face sometimes? Yes. But guess what? We're

in a global freaking pandemic. And if the minor inconvenience of wearing a mask based on the scientific data from the agency that we've always trusted for telling us how we stop the spread of communicable diseases says in certain situations, like public transit that's very crowded, can you just wear this thing and may make you uncomfortable for a little bit of time? Hey, when you're eating, you could even take it off. When you're eating, you could take it off. You're make you uncomfortable for a little bit of time? Hey, when you're eating, you can even take it off.

When you're eating, you can take it off. Just wear it for a little bit. And for the radical right extremists who want to control the bodies of childbearing persons for them to say, oh, this is an invasion of my right that you're making me wear a piece of fabric over my mouth. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My face.

My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face.

My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face.

My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. My body, my face. disinfection, sanitation, and other measures in its judgment that may be necessary. In its judgment. In its judgment that may be necessary.

So in Katherine, Mizell's big ruling, I could break it down for you very quickly. What she basically said is masks, it's just the most bizarre logic in the world. Like masks are not sanitation was how she said. So therefore, the statutes had sanitation. The masks are not sanitation. And the masks don't work, according to her own scientific views apparently. And therefore I'm striking down the mask minute. And by the way, her ruling does not apply to this piece of,

to this period of time where there have been vaccines, you know, where things have gotten slightly better with COVID. What her ruling is saying, even in the height of a global pandemic, the CDC doesn't have the ability to do things like, like have met. That's why this is a very good observation. That's a very, very good observation, because if left on the books, you're right, her ruling would completely eviscerate the power of the CDC person, you know, the head of the CDC, which has been delegated by Congress under the statute, the public health statute that you just cited. In the face of this pandemic or the next, I hate to break it to everybody.

We're not done with pandemics in our lifetime. And there'll be other ones. And it says specifically, as you read, as you read from it, that the CDC is authorized in it in the director's own judgment. So puts a tremendous amount of power and authority in the judgment of the agency to protect the spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries by regulating, inspecting, fumigating, disinfecting, and sanitizing. Now you we spoke about this provision a year ago on the rent stabilization or rent eviction moratorium. And there was this same, this very same language

that was cited. And you and I had a hard time with, well, which one of these fumigation, sanitation, applies to people not being evicted from their homes. A terrible event that we couldn't quite figure out language wise where that fit. This one is not even a close call unless you judge myself and you pull out some dictionary or you do what's called Google search because literally at one point in her decision, she said, we need to go to the context and contextualizing of what the word sanitation means and sanitary. And so I googled it. I mean, she didn't quite say it that way, but that's what her clerks did for her or the briefs for the opposition did for her. And by the way, she ignored, I'll give you one example. A surgical mask is technically called a sanitary mask. That is the technical term for a surgical mask.

So a mask obviously has a sanitary component to it. She might not think it's sanitary or she might have other aspects of the rule that she thinks is wrong, but to twist herself into knots, to try to redefine what sanitary is in order to say he doesn't have the ability or she doesn't have the ability as the director of the CDC to impose a mask mandate. That is gymnastics of a level that, you know, that would be tens in the Olympics. I've never seen such a thing.

So, but then there was that moment and you and I talked about it offline about, well, why is the Biden administration just laying down for this? Because, you know, Jen, Jen Socki got on and said, well, we're disappointed. We're going to evaluate. And every airline within the three day period made an announcement, including in flight, that people could drop their masks at that moment. And then we were like, we set it on the show, Ben. We said, I wonder if they're going to appeal this. What are they waiting for? And now they have the Department of Justice has filed. Now, the problem with the appeal location is because because we're back to the Santas, because Judge myself sits in the northern district of, no, sorry, the middle district of Florida in the Tampa area, all the appeals go to the 11th Circuit, the 11th Circuit, while not as bad as

the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal in terms of being right wing, is pretty conservative. I know a number of the judges that started out in Miami and ended up being elevated by, let's say, DeSantis to the Supreme Court of Florida. And then that's a stepping stone to the 11th Circuit when it gets appointed by, when it gets appointed by that wherever the president is. So a number of us 11th circuit judges ultimately trace their political fortunes back through DeSantis or through Scott. And so I'm not that confident at the 11th circuit,

we're gonna get a great ruling. But then of course we're off to the Supremes, which, you know, on vaccine in the military, they've sort of been in favor of science and appropriate values, but on masks, they've been all over the map. So I don't, what do you think the Supremes do about the mask mandate when it comes back to them? See, I think with this area, when it comes to the CDC's rulemaking authority for masks in this discrete setting, even with a radical right extremist court, for them to remove that power from the CDC would

be such a slippery slope, even for their radical right extremist agenda, because you're basically saying that the organization that is there to help the safety in issues involving interstate commerce. States are the ones who are responsible for public health issues on a state-by-state level. That's why all of these issues are always usually like the governors in different states have different health mandates or mask mandates for specific states. But when a disease can travel across the borders, that's really the only area where the CDC actually comes into play. And so it's ability to make these rules is

actually very narrow, but it involves interstate commerce, but it's incredibly important. And the ruling here that, you know, my, the last name is my zealot, it seems a little bit like my cell is so I'm a hard time getting over that, but her rule in a very narrowly circumscribed setting, if we say, well, the mask mandate was going to go out of effect anyway, probably early May, based on what Biden's extension, they extended it to early May. Things have gotten better. It is a little bit odd that you can not wear a mask. There's no mask mandates in pretty much any state inside anymore. So why when I have to go into the airplane, do I have to wear it? Well, the CDC has said that in public trends that that's a very unique setting, but I could see at least the argument of people

saying that doesn't really make all that much sense anymore. I can go into a crowded supermarket, but not the airplane, but that's also dropping the, dropping the mask for snacking as, you know, and, and there's no man, there's other problems too, right? There's no mandate that it be a K95 or N95 mask. It can be any old piece of cloth. But, but you're right. Go on to your point about the Biden administration, not allowing it to stay on the board. What's at stake here is that for any future pandemic, or whenever the pandemic occurred,

that the CD, that according to this order, the CDC doesn't have the ability to make very common sense recommendations in this area. And every time the CDC wants to act in its capacity to help public health on an interstate commerce level, it will be struck down. So it creates horrible and scary precedent and basically completely takes away anything the CDC can do unless it's circumscribed into one of those like four things, like sanitation

and, you know, and those other things we mentioned. Well, wait, wait, and just the last point, I joke to Pat it, sort of gallows humor with Karen on Wednesday. Basically, my cell, my cellist, my cell, whatever her name is, the judge ruled effectively that the center for disease control cannot control disease. I mean, it is that simple. And I'm sure she's been championed in all the places that you and I don't reside

and don't look like Fox News and things. I'm sure she's now some sort of champion of right wing freedom, but it's a terrible decision and I'm hoping that you're right that when it eventually leapfrogs the 11th circuit ends up at even this Supreme Court, that they will not totally eviscerate the powers of the CDC in the midst of a pandemic or epidemic. You know, I want to talk about Alex Jones and his bankruptcy in a second, but I do want to mention this. I think it's very important how we message masks in general. I think it's very important how we message masks in general. I think it's not that we love masks or that we want to put masks on everybody and that there's some weird, bizarre, like, fetish-

That is. involving masks that exist. Like, I think that it's fair to say what I said at the beginning that nobody, you know, that it's, it's, it's a pain in the ass sometimes to wear masks and it is uncomfortable and it is difficult sometimes to see our children and people have to wear masks and we don't get to see their beautiful smiles. I get that, but I rather have a minor inconvenience, you know, to make sure that I'm improving the health and I'm helping out and I'm doing my part. Our ancestors have had to make far bigger and broader sacrifices for this country than having to temporarily wear a mask when we're in crowded spaces.

And we need to really frame this radical right anti-mask agenda as weird, as dangerous, as strange as it is, and as unhealthy, and as kind of disgusting as it is that these are actually very unsanitary human beings who, you know, who want to spread diseases. It's a very strange, it's a very strange position. Speaking of, speaking of weird unsanitary and really strange, let's go to Alex Jones. Let's talk about Alex Jones and Alex Jones. Here's an interesting fact about Alex Jones and I didn't realize. So Alex Jones, we've talked about these cases where the family members who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook massacre in Newton, Connecticut, They sued Alex Jones, because Alex Jones said that their children who died and the families were crisis actors

and that Sandy Hook was where 26 people were killed was made up and didn't exist. And he repeated it over and over again on Info Wars and on his TV shows and his digital streaming shows and the family member sued in Connecticut, family member sued him in Texas and Alex Jones response to this litigation was basically that obstruction, hiding documents, not showing up to depositions, just literally not responding. What I was shocked about to learn in these bankruptcy filings, I'll talk about in seconds, that he claims to have spent about $10 million on legal fees in connection with these proceedings

where he hasn't done anything and he hasn't showed up and he hasn't appeared for deposition. So how the hell did he spend $10 million? But what had previously happened because Alex Jones was not participating in these lawsuits filed against him for defamation is that he was found to be liable. He was there was a default judgment when someone doesn't participate in the litigation. There could be a default entered against, meaning you lose the case. He's found liable and responsible

for his conduct in defaming these family members. So what was left to be decided? Just the damages. How many, how much money would compensate the family for the horrific, egregious acts by Alex Jones in brutally defaming them and saying that they didn't lose their children and that they're acting and the trauma that he put them through. And in my view, that is there's no dollar, by the way, that could ever compensate a grieving family for the torture. the way that could ever compensate a grieving family for the torture Alex Jones put them through. But we're talking about tens of millions of dollars that a jury would likely award

these families. And punitive damages. There could be many, many multiples of that as we talked about in the case involving Tesla last week. And so these family members suit Alex Jones. They suit infowars. They suit a number of his other entities and his main kind of holding company that holds all of his intellectual property is this Info Wars LLC. So we were headed to a trial that was going to be taking place and next week, it's going to be very soon. And on the eve of the trial for damages, Alex Jones put info wars, the company, the holding company into bankruptcy and filed

chapter 11 bankruptcy. There's a difference between chapter seven and chapter 11 bankruptcy. I won't be labor and fully go into it here. But we like to educate on legal AF. So chapter seven, you really think of like an individual's liquidation bankruptcy. So all of these non-exempt assets are basically sold off. Whatever is left is distributed to creditors. The individual gets a blank slate. They get horribly dinged on their credit report for seven years as having that bankruptcy, but all of their creditors are out and then that individual goes out of debt. Whereas chapter 11 is a reorganization, usually of a corporation, where there's a plan

that's created with certain debtors. And then the then the debts wiped away and the corporation can then kind of proceed and exist. And in these chapter 11 cases too, a United States trustee is appointed and the United States trustee oversees the bankruptcy proceedings as well to make sure that there's no fraud and that they approve the plan and that they could object to the plan before the judge. fraud and that they approve the plan and that they could object to the plan before the judge. They represent the trustee represents the bankruptcy estate, which is an entity that is created by the filing, which is the is the organization in bankruptcy is now in a state in bankruptcy. And the trustee is the trustee over that estate in the dialogue with the judge over the plan of reorganization,

the creditors committee, and all of that. But you're right. The goal here in a chapter 11 is that they come out, it's called coming out of chapter 11, and get to reorganize in order to be a going concern, whereas as you said in chapter 7, the entity is liquidated and no longer comes back. So he thinks he's coming back.

He just wants to get all of the cram down some sort of debt plan. So people take sense on the dollar or whatever money he has in the bankruptcy. But you'll go on and talk about why the Department of Justice, which oversees the trustee program and the families are so concerned about this filing and are questioning whether it's a bad faith filing. So we talked about bad faith bankruptcy filings before on legal AF. Actually, in Texas, where the NRA filed for bankruptcy, and it was challenged as a bad faith bankruptcy, that is what we will be seeing here as well with Alex Jones. He filed in the Federal Bankruptcy Court in Houston immediately the trustee representing

the US government who represents, as you said, the bankruptcy estate has raised serious questions about the validity of the filing, wondering also why Alex Jones individually did not seek bankruptcy and did not file for bankruptcy individually. You know, why the other entities that Alex Jones controls were sued did not seek bankruptcy and was this just the sham filing because a bankruptcy filing stays. it temporarily stops and delays a litigation with that entity from proceeding until the bankruptcy is resolved. And so one of the other issues that comes into play here, though, too, in bankruptcy, though, is a certain claim, dischargable in bankruptcy as well. So if it is, if the claims actually proceed through a bankruptcy and it's not a bad faith bankruptcy

There's still another analysis that would need to take place of if it is intentional conduct often like defamation or an assault or a battery or other types of intentional torts like that as opposed to negligence oftentimes those types of claims torques like that as opposed to negligence. Oftentimes those types of claims are also not dischargeable in bankruptcy. But then you also go to the issue that Alex Jones hasn't declared bankruptcy and the other entities haven't declared bankruptcy. And so there's concern that's a bad faith filing. There's also concerns that Alex Jones is putting money in all these other entities and basically engaged in all these fraudulent conveyances.

And so one of the things that the families have also been filing and are bringing is a claim that there's fraudulent conveyance taking place under a Texas fraudulent conveyance that you that Alex is hiding his money in shell corporations and avoiding paying them. Because the same thing. Real money. In 2019, $78 million from the products that he sold, he's lost some money since the filing of it, but still, you know, that's like pandemic, you know, decreasing sales.

Anyway, like $58 million last year in his products. And this is more. And this is kind of gloating, calling him, like he's the McDonald's of conspiracy theorist, they called him something stupid like that at the hearing. So Popeyes, tell us more about what's going on here. Yeah, no, I think we impacted there pretty good. No, and I think you did.

Then we'll talk next about him now at the same time and the same breath as trying to avoid ultimate liability and playing a shell game with his assets with these fraudulent transfers and putting the holding company into potential chapter 11 bankruptcy. While at the same time, the entity under the holding company is being is about to go to trial and defamation and has already been hit with a million dollar fine by the Texas judge. Everything's been filed in Texas by these families from Sandy Hook because he resides in Texas. And it was just, you know, easier not to fight over jurisdiction. And so they went where he lived and, you know, the federal judge there, this, I'm sorry, the state court judge there has nailed him with a over a million

dollar fine, both him personally and another entity that is not in bankruptcy, but is related to the entity that is in bankruptcy. This whole shell game of assets, the families to not be left with the peric victory of a giant judgment, but a paper judgment that they can't enforce because they can't find his assets. That would be just adding insult to injury again. So they're trying now to cut them off at the pass by objecting to bankruptcy filings, because they assume he's doing it for a reason. He's doing it so he can pull out his pockets and say, yeah, I have no money.

And the money that you're going to get a judgment against one entity, but then how are you ever going to go and pierce what we call pierce the veil and go through all of my other entities to get into me. Now fortunately, he's a named defendant in these cases, but he'll say, I don't have any money in my own name. I have a thousand LLCs and in corporations, and I'm sure he does, in which his house is in one, his car is in his another, you know, his retirement fund is in a third is whatever. I'm sure he's got everything he thinks bulletproof locked away. And now these, it's now not, this is what you and I do.

It's not just winning and coming out with a judgment and celebrating. It's now collecting on that, if you're on the plaintiff's side and getting and connecting the money to the victims. And that's a whole other art that's not taught in law school that you and I have mastered and do every day on behalf of our clients. That's the next step.

So while he's doing that, knowing that, and I'll transition here for us, knowing that Ali Alexander, his close buddy, is already giving testimony to the grand jury, knowing that his number one lieutenant who helped attacked it was the first one in to the capital attack has already been arrested and is facing a and facing trial knowing all of that he has come forward with a letter to the department of justice saying, Hey, I was at the Willard hotel and I was on the ellipse and I helped I helped

organize certain things related to the attack. I'm willing to come in and give you my testimony in exchange for 100% full immunity, get out of jail free pass. When would you like to meet with me? So let's talk about what you think about that and why he's doing it. You know, our system is built, I think, fortunately, but also we see the unfortunate side on good faith

dealings and following the law. And with these, you know, actors, these people who play the role of villain, who simply have no regard whatsoever for our legal process, we really see how it could all be manipulated. I don't want to be labor this point, Popeyes, but it may be worth just mentioning it here because I feel like it's a bit related as well. Donald Trump filed some supplemental briefing in a BS federal lawsuit he filed against Tish James to delay her civil investigation taking place against the Trump organization, Trump and his family members for all of their against the Trump organization, Trump and his family members for all of their fraud in their valuations

and of their different entities and the investigation that she's doing there. And that is to delay and slow down her investigation as no good faith basis to even be filed. This is at the same time she, Tisch James is seeking a contempt order against Donald Trump for not turning over documents and Donald Trump basis. I don't have the documents.

You're asking me for documents. Actually, it's the Trump organization that has the documents. I don't have the documents. Then you go to the Trump organization, they go, we don't have the documents. This organization has the documents. And so why I'm mentioning all of that is that you have people who don't follow the rules of the litigation and don't follow. And so how do you take what

is even happening here by Alex Jones in any way seriously. Him approaching the government for immunity, that's probably more PR stunts for his TV show. I got a son of a sh**. The way for him to, you know, you have to be so careful as the government even dealing with him because the investigation by Merrick Garland and the DOJ has been airtight

almost no leaks whatsoever. The moment Alex Jones starts talking to them, the leaks that are occurring are from Alex Jones and people like Ali Alexander leaking the people who they are talking to. That's not coming from the DOJ that Alex Jones is talking to the DOJ. Alex Jones is leaking that he's talking to the DOJ. He's doing that to promote himself, to distract what's going on from Sandy Hook. And ultimately, the DOJ may not care at all about giving this guy immunity. And they probably would never give a guy immunity. And he's floating in out there to New York Times reporter. So to answer

your question directly, a bit of a circuitous way is that he's the one in my view who's leaking that. I don't think there's any serious, you know, views of ever giving him immunity. But I think he's also trying to, in his own way, blackmail people on his own, you know, who people, his own co-conspirators to help him out, to give him more money, to protect him. That's what's going on there. And then what we see with Sandy Hook is just more delays by him and he in his own way with $10 million in legal fees. And he defaulted on the case. It tells you that he's spending his money on lawyers likely creating the shell companies to hide his assets versus actually litigate the case. That's his plan and his strategy.

And we see that, you know, we're seeing it here in a very glaring way, but stuff like this happens a lot with wealthy people. So you're, I 100% agree with you. I think this is all a publicity stunt. First of all, the prosecutor, and I want to talk about a new prosecutor who's joined the Department of Justice team and why it's really, really important.

And we'll answer the question that many of our audience have asked, which had been until about a month ago, and we reported on the Department of Justice and the grand jury process in Washington, about what is the Department of Justice and the grand jury process in Washington about what is the Department of Justice doing beyond the 700 that they're prosecuting who actually participated in the insurrection that attacked the Capitol.

What about the planners? What about the organizers? What about Trump? We have some answers to that, and I think our audience will be happy about it, and it's kind of nestled within the Alex Jones reporting. Just to remind everyone, Alex Jones was at the ellipse. Alex Jones helped plan the ellipse speech for Trump.

Alex Jones participated in the ellipse. Alex Jones was at the Willard Hotel, which was their bunker that he and banan and Giuliani and Powell and others. Flynn came in and out of on Jan 5 in order to organize all of the what Jamie Raskin is now called and we'll talk about next. The the inside coup led by the president of the United States against the vice president and Congress. Because that is how the JAN-6 committee is going to present this. And Jamie Rasking gave us a little bit of an insight to that.

We'll talk about the next segment. What was Alex Jones' role? The JAN-6 committee has concluded. And Alex Jones just reminded everybody, testified in front of the JAN-6 committee. Now, he says on his info wash or whatever it is that he took the fifth a hundred times, but he answered some questions. So he already went in and what is the linkage between Alex Jones and all of this? It's the following that he Carolyn Ren, WREN, a Trump aid who worked in the Trump organization, Cindy Chaffion,

who worked in the Trump organization, Cindy Chafein, who helped organize the First Amendment Praetorians and their security detail around the ellipse, and Julie Fanceli, who is an heir to the public's super market fortune. That group, Alex Jones at the top of that group, financed 80% of the ellipse events. That's one. The second thing is that we learn from the reporting off of Alex Jones saying, if you give me full immunity, I'll give you whatever little information I'll provide to you, is that Thomas Windom, WIMDOM, a very successful federal prosecutor based in Maryland. It's now reported as been added to the Department of Justice team and he will oversee the entire

Jan 6 investigation as the front line as the line prosecutor. There's two groups of prosecutors that are working simultaneously who will now report into Thomas Windom. One is the group that we've all heard about and you and I have reported on for the last six or eight months. That's the group of prosecutors that are investigating the Gen 6 riot and everybody that was involved, the Gen 6 riot.

Then there's the second team of federal prosecutors who are looking at the conspiracy case and that's the case that gets closer and closer to Trump and his inner circle, and the related issues related to the forged and fraudulent electors in the battleground states and that submission. And those two teams are now being supervised by a brand new prosecutor who have been brought in to work with the different departments of the Department of Justice, the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, for instance, to try to decide when and whether to prosecute people like Donald Trump. And so the good news is, for those that said,

they're not doing a darn thing, they are. And whether it's exactly at the level that the Gen 6 Committee is. Remember, the Gen 6 Committee are not prosecutors. They are not presenting evidence and evaluating evidence on a prosecutorial scale. The one that Karen talks about with me a lot on the Wednesday podcast of beyond a reasonable doubt and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. They don't have to. We don't want them to.

They're on a completely different standard of preponderance of the evidence. And that's what they're going to present in June during the hearings. And that's what they're going to deliver the Janskis 6 Committee in their report before the midterm elections in the fall or the late summer. But that's the Alex Jones thing. I think you're right. He's starting a fire in the corner in order to distract from all of his bankruptcy problems to make himself relevant, to continue to generate money in the cash and his pocket.

And there is no way that Thomas Windham, the new prosecutor, or anybody else in that team, another prediction is gonna give him immunity to get any information out of him because they have what they need against Alex Jones from his tenant from Owen Shryer who was his first lieutenant who worked on info wars who's going to jail to Alex to Ali Alexander who seems more worried about his personal liberty than than I think Alex Jones does. They'll do it without him. Thank you very much Mr. Jones for

your offer, but we pass. And I think that's what we're going to see in the next set of reporting related to the Department of Justice. The January 6th committee hearings, as you mentioned, Michael Popack will start in June and Congressman Jamie Raskin says, the revelations at these hearings, quote, will blow the roof off the house. We're going to talk about Jan 6th updates and we're going to talk about the Marjorie Taylor green in surrection hearings. But before doing that, I want to talk about our partner athletic greens.

This podcast is brought to you by athletic Greens, the health and wellness company that makes comprehensive, daily nutrition really simple. Everybody knows on legal AF and the Midest Touch podcast how transformative athletic greens and its product, A.G. One has been on my life before Athletic Greens. I was taking vitamins and minerals and I was taken gummies and I was taking the pills and I thought they were working, but they were not. I was not taking what I needed.

And then I discovered about four months ago, athletic greens. If you've been watching a legal AF or the Midas Touch podcast, you've seen for yourself my health journey as I began taking athletic greens. What I do is I take the athletic greens powder. It's a green super food powder. I take it. I put it in my cup.

I shake it up. I drink it each morning, put some water in it, shake it, drink it with some water. And before you know it, I've got all the energy I need. I have all the vitamins and minerals I need for the day. I feel that I can conquer the day. With one tasty scoop of AG1, it contains 75 vitamins, minerals and whole food source ingredients, including multivitamin, multimineral, probiotic, green superfood blend, and more in 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 and delicious drink. It's lifestyle friendly, so whether you eat keto, paleo, vegan, dairy-free or gluten-free it's for you, it contains less than one gram of sugar, no GMOs, no nasty chemicals, or artificial anything while keeping it tasting good. Please join the movement of legal a efforts of the mightest mighty of athletes of life, leets of 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. 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 athleticgreens.com slash legal AF today. Again, simply visit athleticgreens.com slash legal AF and take control of your health and give AG one a try. There are so many legal AF podcast listeners who will send me DMs or emails thanking me for the recommendations and saying that taking AG one has changed their lives has given that energy that makes them feel great.

And that makes me so proud that we sell products on here that people love. Athleticgreens.com slash legal AF. And I wanna talk to you as well about aura frames. This podcast is brought to you by aura frames. The gifts you make mean the most. So this year, turn your families past into the perfect mother's

day present with a connected frame from aura. Name the number one digital frame by wire cutter and select it as one of Oprah's favorite things. Three years running, it is guaranteed to make mom smile. And or a frame brings all your photos and videos together in one gorgeous, high resolution display where mom can really enjoy them. Also known as not a group text or on social media, preload any frame with meaningful memories and a special message that will appear as soon as it's set up. Invite the whole family to add to the frame and feel close for anywhere. From now until Mother's Day, listeners can save on the perfect gift and get up to $40

off while supplies last. or a frames that's a you are a fram.es.com slash legal a f that's a you are a fram.es or a frames.com slash legal a f terms and conditions apply. I have two or a frames in my house. It was so easy to put the photos. You have one two Popeye. It was so easy to put the photos. You have one, two, pop up. It was so easy to load the photos in there. It looks beautiful in the past when I had these frames,

like when I tried ordering them years ago, like the quality didn't look good, and it just didn't, I didn't, it didn't look good in my house. This looks great. Everyone complements it. I'll tell you one thing about Oregon, I'm glad they're back as a sponsor

because I liked them for the very beginning. It is that app, that's their, that's their better mouse trap. That app they have is so seamless, is so easy to use that I'll be out at an event or, you know, some life experience where there's a photo. And it's just so easy directly from your photo library to go to the app and immediately send it to your frame by time you get home, it's already rotating on your frame from the event you just left. It really is, I think, for that market of digital frames, I think this is the best one out there because of that app. The best. All right, let's get into it. January 6th committee updates. And then let's talk about the Marjorie Taylor Green insurrection hearings. First January committee updates. As I mentioned before,

I read those ads, we have a congressman, Raskin says, quote, the revelations we will be discussing in June are going to quote, below the roof off the house. I believe this is what the insurrectionists were trying to do. There's irony there. The January 6th committee has now interviewed approximately 850 individuals who gave statements under penalty of perjury and one individual who did not give a statement under penalty of perjury and likely for good reason because he wouldn't be able to withstand

the most basic of questioning, although he is a trader for his a trader and a coward, Kevin McCarthy. And the recent revelations after Kevin McCarthy completely denied, I never told Donald Trump that he should resign. I would never make a comment like that. Well, those revelations were printed in a new book written by two New York Times writers.

That was leaked in connection with the book. Kevin McCarthy said, I'd never said that. That's fake news. And then immediately after, guess what drops on Rachel Maddow, the tapes get dropped by New York Times, where Kevin McCarthy was speaking with Republican leadership on a conference call as it was January 10th. And what did he say? He said, I am going to speak to Donald Trump and tell him to resign. I think Donald Trump should resign. That was one tape.

The other tape that was revealed was he said that Donald Trump, by the way, tapes are a terrible thing for liars. Absolutely. And the other thing he said that Donald Trump told him that Donald Trump believed that he was responsible for January 6th and that he was at fault for January 6th. Those two things are on tape. We will keep talking about that each and every day

at Midas Touch and Legal AF. But that's like atomic bomb level evidence, Popocht does. Do you think people fully understand the implications of that or is that just lost in the noise of the Republicans or a fascist traitorous party and that they're corrupt criminals and that's just who they are right now? It gets lost in the noise,

which is why the brothers podcast and all the other podcast in the stable of might as touch are so important because we bring it front and center. We're not going to stop talking about that. You're not. We're not going to stop talking about the link between Jenny Thomas and all of the QAnon and all of the cultists that that attacked the Capitol and her and her her marriage to to Clarence. We're not going to stop talking about these things, but they not going to stop talking about these things, but they want us to stop talking about these things. This would be the equivalent then.

What you just described would be like if there was an audio tape of Benedict Arnold at the time betraying his country. I mean, this is the level that we're talking about. And I'm sorry, and you're exactly right. It gets lost in the transom and the morass of all of the digital feeds that could plug into everybody's head. As you talked about the competing chihuahas

that are out there and or the direct mainline feed into the arm, I think, is another way you put it, which I can't do. Yeah, for those who are just tuning in to legally after the first time with people're not too sure what was what Popeye is talking about is the way the media presents things is this false competition where you elevate two sides, one democracy, one fascism, as though it's just a normal

Democrat Republican conversation, and you have two chihuahas talking at each other like, and you have two Chihuahua's talking at each other, like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and that's how 90% of the mainstream media does it. The largest platform mainstream media Fox News, though they're just injecting fascism directly into the veins of India. Yeah, they're mainlining the vein.

Now, here's what I thought was the most interesting about and most heartwarming, I guess that's the word as a true believer in democracy and a protector of our republicas. We are on this show and on the other shows is Jamie Raskin gave a preview of what the June hearing is going to be and the presentation. He's not my alma mater. Georgetown. He gave it at at a Georgetown conference on religion and law. I forget the topic as a guest speaker. You didn't hold back. They're not gagged. They have not gagged themselves. They feel they have to talk in the public in advance of the delivery of the report to be a counterweight to what Trump does every day and meadows and and McCarthy and the rest of them. And I'm glad about that.

I'm glad that they're out there talking about their report. And Jamie Raskin, who's kind of the lead prosecutor for the Jansix Committee, he said, point like this was an insider coup, the likes that we've never seen were a president to cling to power, had a coup arranged against the vice president against Mike Pence and against Congress in order to create the framework for first the insurrection to be used as a cover for the

coup, then use the insurrection act of 1807 to to put down rebellion, which rebellion means democratic voices, to take then control, to throw the entire thing to the house under the 12th Amendment, an amendment we never talk about, and to have Mike Pence do his bidding. And the most chilling thing that Raskin said to him, that he's heard out of 800 interviews is that the Secret Service agents reported that Mike even Mike Pence sensing the coup, and this is Raskin's view, refused to get into a car to be whisked away from the Capitol, knowing that his place to stop the coup was to stay in the capital. And the quote from Raskin, from the Secret Service agent, is that Mike Pence told to get in the car by the Secret

Service agent said, I am not getting in that car. He, Raskin said, that's the most chilling six words he's heard out of the entire set of testimony. And he took that to mean that the light went off in Pence's head that Trump was trying to get Pence out of there and order for this chaos to ensue for the insurrection act to be invoked for Marshall law. We're going to talk about that next with Marjorie Taylor Green for Marshall law to be invoked. And for this president desperate to cling on to cling to power to try to overthrow the legitimacy of the Biden win. Because what were they trying to do as part of their plan?

And we talked about this with John Eastman, who I believe were co-conspirators, were all of these traitorous Republican senators who were objecting to the certification process. You know, there's a weird law on the books. Obviously, the Constitution is the president of the Senate, the vice president counts, the electoral votes, and it's a ministerial act, right? Where they just literally counted and say, the states have submitted it.

Here's what the state said. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 is this very strange law that was passed, which is very vague. But what it basically says is it gives the power to members of the House and Senate to object to the certification. And if there's a certain level of objections, if the majority of the House and Senate sustain the objection, agree with the objection. If there is a new slate of electors that's approved by the state government, those electors could replace the electors where the objections were sustained.

And, and state houses are controlled by Republicans by and large. And so they were, the states were submitting the fraudulent electors that they sent to the National Archivist for processing, which then went to the House. And so the idea was, was that the Republican senators were going to object to the legitimate electors, the Republicans, senators and House of Representatives, was going to object to that. And because though the governors, who Trump, that's why Trump was threatening the governors of the Republican States to support the unlawful electors,

but because that didn't happen, the plans switched and hinged on Pence, basically saying, based on the objections, I don't have the ability to certify the result. So you take Pence out, you risk him out, you throw the elections into chaos, the ideas it goes to the house of representatives, and it goes to the story, the state legislatures are the ones and the state houses would ultimately, you know, decide. And if the state houses in these areas where

there were disputes, which leaned Republican, then it would overturn the election in favor of Trump. But they needed pens to get in that car. He refused. They needed pens to get into the car. And needed pens not to engage in the ministerial act as the vice president. Had pens just simply said, hey, there's way too much confusion here and got into the car, the United States of America would be likely an authoritarian country, we would have a civil war. That's what would have happened. That's how close it came. And that's why they had backup plans to including killing Mike Pence. That's why it was hang Mike Pence was the plan when it was clear that Mike Pence wasn't going to go along with the plan. The Republicans knew this,

Kevin McCarthy knew this. That's why on January 10th, Kevin McCarthy said I'm going to call President Trump and tell him to resign. That's why in the audio tape, Liz Ch 10th, Kevin McCarthy said I'm going to call president Trump and tell him to resign. That's why in the audio tape, Liz Cheney, Kevin McCarthy, the Republicans are talking about the 25th Amendment. That's why there's Steve Scalise, who's a big Trump supporter publicly, but privately, we have the information of him saying that Trump should be removed from office. But you have this cowardice, this obsequiousness, this traitorousness of the Republican party, whereas this is what they're saying privately. This is how fascism and authoritarianism is created by people like Kevin McCarthy doing just that. I'm sorry.

There were people behind Hitler's back in his inner circle that we're talking negatively about him, but they never stood up to him. And we know what happened historically from that. So if that is the preview for what and that was just one comment where where Jamie Raskin summarized, you know, a year's worth of investigation by saying it was an insider coup led by the president against the vice president of Congress and ultimately the American people. And the six most chilling words are those of of of of of Pence get strapped in. You think you got a half a million people that watched the Midas touch Twitter feed or

Twitch feed of Marjorie Taylor Green? Wait, do you see the numbers? And if we do the live commentary about it, when the week long or more hearings in June start, I might have to take a sabbatical just to sit and watch these with you. Hope, you may have to hold you to that sabbatical, but that's what's going on there.

Those are the big Jan six updates. And lawmakers are looking at the Electoral Counter-Akk Act again. They are looking at the Insurrection Act again. These things that are being used by, you know, as the Constitution was stress tested, seeing where these points of weakness were that tried to be unlawfully exploited by Republicans.

And as David Carter, federal judge in California, that tried to be unlawfully exploited by Republicans. And as David Carter, federal judge in California, said, this was a coup in search of a legal theory. And the legal theories they searched for, one was the electoral count, act of 1887 that I discussed. The other was the insurrection act that you discussed, you know, and trying to pervert and destroy our Constitution. That's why when these radical right extremists hoist

up the Constitution, the flag in performative ways, they use the flag, the radical right extremists to beat and kill police officers. That is how they use the flag. They use the constitution to allow guns to spread rampantly in our schools and allow school shootings and protect conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. That's not what our constitution is for. That's not what the values and they don't want to take respond. The people that vote for that party by large and I have friends that are that do that. Do not want to take responsibility for the moral and ethical issues and dilemmas that are created by voting for a Trump. They don't want to acknowledge that they are responsible for the first time in 200 years for the for

Congress to have to reconsider changes to martial law, to the insurrection act of 1807, to the Electoral Count Act. These are civil war era law in our books that I would have thought I would have went to my own personal grave undisturbed in the last 200 years. I did not think we would have a presidency that would require a reevaluation of the law of the land after the assassination of President Lincoln and the combination of the Union again after the Confederacy. And they're okay with that. They fly their Trump 2024 flags. I've got them in my neighborhood. I ride by them. I see them on their trucks, but do they ever think about the implications for the survival of our democracy?

Because they have pledged allegiance to a madman. And I hate to be cruel, but just for a moment, I think I've earned that right. I don't know how old Trump is. What does he push in 80? And I know I was going to say, well, Biden's older doesn't matter. Eventually, and soon, because that's the way longevity works, Trump's going to be dead. Trump's not going to be alive because he's going to die of natural causes. I don't know if he's going to be 85 or he's going to be 90. And then what? And then what? Are they going to wait around for his coming back his resurrection? I mean, he's going to be gone in a very short period of time, five years or 10 years, not soon enough for me, but eventually he'll be gone. And what are these people going to do? Who is going

to be their new Messiah that they're going to follow towards fascism? That's the scary part. It's not that we've now identified Trump and have him in a box and are starting to pin him down like Gulliver in all of these prosecutions. The question is, who is the next one? Is it de-Santis? Is it whoever?

And that is why Midas Touch and the Midas Mighty are so important. Because we've already, Trump is a returning the page on Trump one way or the other. He doesn't win in 2024, but who comes next to follow in his footsteps and pick up the mantle from these people that have supported him? And that's why you have to call it out. And you have to condemn it. And you have to stand up. And you have to be a leader if you truly care about our democracy. Because it is obviously the heir apparent is DeSantis. DeSantis is smarter than Donald Trump.

He's a Saviour political maneuver. He's a Saviour executive than Trump. Trump is not a good executive. And you have Governor DeSantis who clearly has authoritarian leanings who is increasingly acting like a dictator within the state. And that is how he will desire to run the country. And that's why we have to call it out at every single turn. So let's talk though about the Marjorie Taylor Green and Syrac션 hearing.

It streamed live on the Midas Touch YouTube channel in addition to some other places where it was live. And a lot of our viewers, a lot of listeners wanted to know what was I watching? Like what was this proceeding? Well, it was an administrative proceeding before a judge by the name of Judge Charles R. Bedro, Jr. who was in the office of the state of administrative hearings for the state of Georgia. He's an administrative judge. So it's an administrative hearing before an administrative judge to disqualify an individual from being judge to disqualify an individual from being Popeyes. You're raising a coffee up. I got a point of order.

Point of order. He's going, the only thing this administrative judge can do, and we're gonna talk about the whole thing backwards. He can make the explanation, Popeyes. He can make a referral to Brad Ryan. Yeah, I hit the point, Popeyes. I gotta go there, but the hearing is to disqualify. And what you have no faith in people

talking knowing the law. I have so much faith in you that every Saturday, I show up, that finger showed no faith. I put, I don't have a yellow card. You put a finger in your face. I have, it was the right finger. It was for those that don't watch this on YouTube, it was an appropriate finger. I just wanted to make sure the people know it's a report

recommendation to the secretary. Exactly. Okay. He makes a report or a furl to the secretary of state Brad Raffinsberger who can accept or reject that referral because the Secretary of State in Georgia oversees the electoral process. That's why Trump threatened Brad Raffetzberger and said, find me 11,000 blah blah blah votes because Raffetzberger oversees the election process. So what does that mean? That means even if this judge found one way or the other, the recommendation would still go to Brad Raffinsberger who could accept or reject that recommendation. And so that's a weird process. It is a weird process. I mean, there's no, it's not, this is not in a normal court. It is not in a federal court. It is not in the Georgia traditional state court systems. It's not in front of a jury, that's not what this proceeding is.

The 14th Amendment Section 3 has really never been litigated before, which basically says if you're an insurrectionist, you can't run for office or you'd be disqualified from running from office. There was a subsequent law that gave immunity to insurrectionists of the civil war that they could go back and run for office, that gave them immunity there so that we could heal as a nation purportedly back in the, you know, back in the late 1880s. So that law was passed. And there's been a dispute amongst federal courts, whether that law, which granted immunity, if you want to call it immunity, for insurrectionists of the Civil War, for Confederates to run for

Congress. If that applied to insurrectionists in the future, a Georgia federal court found that that law does not supersede the Constitution, and that it was not meaning, did not give immunity to future insurrectionists, that future insurrectionists, they could be challenged. And then the court and Madison Coffearns Challenge in North Carolina, that judge found that this immunity was given to all future insurrectionists, but that's being challenged in the appeals court there. So because of the ruling and federal court

in Georgia saying that all future insurrectionists cannot have their ability to run for office challenge, we had this administrative proceeding. Now administrative proceedings happen a lot to challenge maybe someone's qualification, maybe someone registers for the wrong party or whatever. And no one hears about these administrative hearings. They don't, they're not widely attended. maybe someone's qualification, maybe someone registers for the wrong party or whatever. And no one hears about these administrative hearings. They don't, they're not widely attended. That's why if you noticed the room it was in, I heard people saying, like, that looks like the back room of like, you know, whatever.

I'm like, yeah, it's a weird room at the DMV. That's like the hearing room with the DMV. Exactly. It's a weird location. It's a weird proceeding because people don't know. It hasn't been said whether the 14th Amendment section 3 is self-activating. Is it Congress's job to disqualify its own members? Is it a federal judges job to disqualify? Is it if somebody is convicted? So, but all of those issues, those legal issues are actually still in play.

And that's what Marjorie Taylor Greene's lawyer was arguing too, even though they're in this forum, is that this forum still doesn't really have the right to make the ruling that the forum's going to make. But these civil rights groups, these pro-democracy groups, You know, I think we all agree that Marjorie Taylor-Green is incendiary, is hateful, is a horrible representative of all of the values of the United States of America. I mean, she's harassed, surviving victims of school shootings.

She's claimed that 9-11 is a fraud. She talks about anti-Semitic things all the time, Jewish space lasers, horrific, horrific, hateful, hateful rhetoric that's coming out of there. She has not been criminally prosecuted under the sedition statute yet. And so this was a administrative hearing saying that she engaged in insurrection conduct. And therefore, this judge, this administrative judge should issue a referral

to disqualify her. It's a weird process for me as a lawyer, Popeyes, too, because I'm used to in court cases, depositions, to dismiss, hearings, you know, and this was kind of like, all right, just go for it. Yeah. Like, like she shows up, but she shows up at a sun, sun dress, swear in the witness. Let's go. So that's the background procedurally of what took place. So then you have this hearing where the judge would make a referral at the end of the day.

The hearing took place. It lasted a full day. It was streamed. There is now post trial briefing that's going to take place next week. And then the judge is going to read those briefs and then make the recommendation. And ultimately, Raffensberger can accept or reject the recommendation to disqualify Marjorie Telegram. So that's the framework. Popo, you want to go into what you saw at the hearing. Yeah. Yeah, I'll do a little bit more on the framework. So the different states do different things. And if you're in Pennsylvania, that kind of challenge doesn't go to the Office of Administrative

hearings in Pennsylvania, for instance, it goes to the board of election, and the board of election convenes, for instance, there in another states a hearing and does the hearing. Georgia, basically, any time there needs to be an evidentiary process, an evidentiary hearing where evidence is presented, witness testimony is presented, concerning any level of administration or any level of agency decision making in the state of Georgia, they've put it all under the office of administrative hearings, they call it Oath. And so there's a judge. And that judge normally hears things like, oh, you lost your dog license. Oh, you can't be a barber or a cosmologist anymore. Okay, let's, let me hear from you and let me

hear, oh, your firearm went off too many times and you're getting fine for that. Okay, let's, and that's a 20 minute thing. And then they make either a recommendation or they actually sometimes have the power to make a ruling in the election law area. The administrative law judge does the evidentiary hearing developing the evidence makes a report and recommendation to in this case, the secretary of state for the final decision.

So in fact, the judge, Boudreau, and I'll talk about him in a minute, a number of times he reminded the participants, both lawyers and other people that were in the gallery, many of whom started to applaud when Marjorie Taylor Green came in, so the room was packed with her supporters, including Matt Gates, from some reason, who decided that he should sit at council table because that's a good thing. Matt Gates on your side, he assumed to be going to jail for child endangerment

and child prostitution trafficking. But in any event, he kept reminding, Judge Boudreau kept reminding people, this is not the Supreme Court, and you're making oral argument there. I am here on an evidentiary hearing. Stop with all the objections. Let's get the evidence out so I can make

my report recommendation. And he was pretty even handed in that. All right, here's his background. I looked at him. I looked him up on LinkedIn. He says, first thing about himself, he's a musician and a composer. He went to Harvard. He went to Duke undergrad.

And for 38 years, he's been a tax lawyer until he retired recently. So this is, you know, first amendment versus election law, the 14th amendment. This is not this guy's gig. He's a smart guy. I mean, I'm not a 38 year tax lawyer. It's not an idiot, especially given his credentials. But this is not what he's been trained for. He'll do the best he can possibly do. Now, I want to talk about the two lawyers that were on either side. I know one of them by one degree of separation, and then we'll talk about the other one.

So Andrew Chelley, who has a very successful firm here in New York, I know through a mutual contact. He used to work for a former governor in New York as the chief of the Civil Rights Division when that governor was Attorney General, when he was Tisch James. And so that's where Andrew Chelley got his start. He's about my peer.

I think we're one year off in law school graduation. And his firm is dedicated in New York to civil rights law, first amendment law. It's very similar to what you and I do. He's represented the Tribune company. He's done voting rights cases and all of that. He's on behalf of the organization, the group of people that are challenging her eligibility or her disability to be on the ballot. On the other side is James Bop, B-O-P-P. We've talked about his cases before because he has represented Madison, Cautorn.

He's represented, he's filed briefs against abortion rights. He's a former district attorney general or a deputy attorney general for the state of Indiana. He's a big member of the federalist society. And the only cases that his law firm take are on the right, right wing of the party in supporting everything that we've talked about. SBA, he's in favor of SBA. Dobbs, he's he sends an amicus briefing. So he represents all these people like Marjorie Taylor Greene. And in fact, at one point in the proceeding, he wouldn't let her answer a question because he's been involved with President Trump and the exercise of executive privilege when they asked her, did you talk

to the president about him imposing martial law under the insurrection. And she responded, I don't recall, as if, and I saw a tweet of yours been, as if that's such a commonplace thing that the president talking to you about martial law, you may forget that within the last year, like you forgot what you had for breakfast last Tuesday, totally not credible as an advocate. And the things that she said, that she did not recall, despite having the tweet of the video, the interview presented to her by Chelly, who was cross-examining her, is mind-boggling.

Did you like the tweet about the way to take out Nancy Pelosi once and for all to put a bulletin ahead? Oh, I don't run my social media. I don't really don't know. I don't really know who did that. Did you once say that the FBI was involved with a false flag event and they were involved with staging the insurrection? Oh, I don't recall saying that.

And of course, they play the tweet of the video where she said that. Did you once say it was a false flag event and it was Antifa or Black Lives Matter that were staging the insurrection and not actually who it was. I don't know. I might have said that. And then she brings up her QAnon theories about, you know, Black Lives Matter and Antifa, all the same thing. So she spent an incredible amount of her three hours of testimony denying that she knew anything, even in the face of these things. Now, for those that were questioning this

on your Twitter feed or on your YouTube feed, perjury, what about perjury? Yes, Georgia has on its books, on its penal code, a perjury statute, which is at 16-10-70, which says that if you're in a judicial proceeding and you do not tell the truth about a material issue that is the point of the question, then you can go to jail for between one and 10 years. But that has to be a referral that's going to have to be made off of maybe the administrative law judge to the prosecutors to prosecute the crime of

burgery, if they can prove, if they can prove burgery, I'm not sure this judge is going to find that. Now, I do think that when the briefing happens next week, the post hearing briefing, I think it's on Thursday, and this judge ultimately makes a ruling relatively quickly because the absentee ballots for mayor going out with her name on it. Can he comment on the testimonial evidence and the credibility of the witness? Absolutely. I mean, judges do it all the time. I did not believe the veracity of the witness who had taken the stand in their own defense. They say that all the time. Is this sort of mat lock, southern, you know, federal, you know, tax lawyer, retiree musician? Is he going to go out and alimmon say that? I want to manage expectations. I don't think so.

What do you think, Ben? I don't think he's going to find her perjury. I don't think he's going to find her in contempt. I don't think he's going to find her perjury. I don't think he's gonna find her in contempt. I don't think he's gonna disqualify her. I don't wanna be the bearer of bad news because I'll tell you where I genuinely think there's good news for democracy. I think there's great news for democracy

in what's going to happen in June with the January 6th Committee, with 850 witnesses that they've interviewed and that they have the goods. I think what we're seeing, you mentioned federal prosecutor Wynman from Maryland and the increasing efforts by the DOJ to rise, to increase to the top of the food chain of who is involved in the insurrection. I think one of the issues when you have these quasi-judicial proceedings like Marjorie Taylor-Green that don't involve the same level of why is discovery important in a case?

Why do we have subpoena power? Why do we have these authorities? Is because when you were questioning Marjorie Taylor Green, all they basically had were her public statements, her tweets. And while she showed that she's a liar, while she showed C's evasive, while she repeated the conspiracy type things over and over again, and what she didn't recall is completely preposterous. And you can make a big issue in an out of it as a cross-examiner. Wait a minute, Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Are you telling me here that this was just to be clear, this was your first term as a member of Congress? Isn't that correct? And you had a conversation with the president. Is that a big deal for you to have a conversation with the president? And you can't recall one way or another if you spoke about declaring martial law, you don't remember that. That's not a big deal to you, Miss Green. That's just something that, you know, you would forget that's something. And jurors, tryers of fact, listen to that. And as you said, Pope, you would forget that's something. And jurors, tryers of fact, listen to that.

And as you said, Popeye, you would say that's impractical. That's incredible. We don't believe that. That witness has no credibility. I've interviewed individuals. I won't get into the nitty gritty of the cases because I represent plaintiffs against defendants in some really horrific, disgusting cases

where I'll put on a witness, I'll put on the defendant, and they'll say, I don't remember it. And I'll say, so did it happen more than once? I don't remember. Did it happen more than five times? I don't remember. Could it have happened more than five times?

I don't remember. Could it happen a hundred times? I don't remember. Could it have been five hundred times? And then I'll get with them. Could it have happened a thousand times, a million times? I go, so as you're sitting here today, you don't remember if you engage the Nat Act one time or one million times You know and you play that out and you look at the judge you look at the jury and that doesn't that's not a logical explanation Sometimes you have to prove cases just on that theory

So why don't I think though I listened to all of the evidence that came out. I think Marjorie Taylor Green is absolutely an insurrectionist. Okay, I do what I do. And do I think that she wanted for that conduct to occur? Do I think all of her pre-conduct, all of her ginning up her base? Did I think that did it?

Yes. But in my view, I think you have to be like criminally convicted of the statute. I think you have to have, I think you have to have either the DOJ convict, you have to have, and you know, because again, where I get worried in this area is that, and I shouldn't be worried, it's the way it shouldn't be, but we know that the Republicans operate in bad faith. What I worry is that it will just open up the floodgates, where you're just going to have every member of Congress in the future will be challenged because if they make a statement or if they say

something, the Republicans are going to make them sit in a hearing and then you're going to get in front of a judge, an administrative judge who is more like a Ali Alexander, who may disqualify candidates. And they're not equal. Like Marjorie Telegram's conda clearly is antithetical to our constitution versus what they accuse people on the other side of. I just worry that the process itself is with limited discovery, doesn't achieve the ultimate

outcome. And I know people may not like me to hear that. I love the, I love the idea of cross-examining Marjorie Taylor Green. I love the idea of holding a mccountable, you know, I just, I wonder, I have that concern Popeye. Yeah, I don't disagree with, I have that concern, Popeye. Yeah, I don't disagree with you. Let me put it another way. It is important to hold people accountable

and call out their bullshit and when they participate in insurrections to put them on trial for it one way or the other. So do I think the plaintiff's groups and the cellies of the world that are bringing these cases are doing God's work. I do. It's important to have put her through that process. Do I think this is the actual process where she's going to be declared an insurrectionist under article 14 section three of the U.S. Constitution in the back of the DMV? I do not. Now, Congress can censure her. I can't

even remember right now. Was she censured by Congress for any of this? I don't think so. I think a lot of this, I don't, was she been? I think she was previously censured by Congress and then they removed her from the education committee. On the committee. But not, but I don't think related to the insurrection. Right. So she wasn't even censored by her own political body, because they don't have the balls to do that. Let alone prosecuted yet for insurrection. And then you've got that, that interesting issue, that academic issue you and I have debated,

not to bait it because we're on the same side, about there's not one person who's been charged with with the crime and it is a crime of insurrection. So, dishes conspiracy, yes, obstruction, yes. So, it's, but, but to your point and to the point I'm making, continue to hold their feet to the fire, take the moe Brooks, take the go-sars, take the Marjorie Taylor Greens, and go through the processes to have them denied their right to be on the ballot. Even if it now, it'll have one or two effects, it'll either make them chased and make them not participate in the next insurrection, we hope, or it's just another fundraising

drive for Marjorie Taylor Green. And then the other reality I hate to be the bearer of bad news is that even if Marjorie Taylor Green came off the ballot in the northern District of Georgia, we're not turning that corner that Trump won by 32 points into a blue District in our favor in Georgia. So yes, we all don't like she's she's the Congressperson. We love to hate Okay, because she's so blatantly and acutely to hate, okay, because she's so blatantly and acutely, everything that we think is wrong with the Republican Party and the QAnon fueled Republican Party. But she'll just be replaced.

It'll be next man up with another person. The challenger, the Democratic challenger has zero chance of winning in that district. Well, I wouldn't say a zero chance, but I would say that it is a significant upheld fight. And Marcus Flowers is actually a good candidate. He's raised a lot of money. The area though is an area that elected Marjorie Taylor Greene. And so how do you defeat where there's a great deal of support for that version of QAnonism. It is a real, real problem that exists there. And then you have the issue of, if the judge makes a disqualification referral,

and then that goes to Brad Raffensberger, even though Brad Raffensberger was targeted by Trump and extorted by Trump, and Raffensberger probably does not think highly of Marjorie Taylor Greene would be putting it lightly. You know, does Raffensberger say that I think that this was the process for disqualifying or do I think the process was if Congress wants to do it,

if DOJ wants to do it, if she's criminally prosecuted in the state for insurrection, it's a criminal process that she's found to be an insurrectionist by a jury. And then the jury's finding then has effect under the Constitution as it. But I'm with you, Popeye. We got to hold these people accountable. I do applaud the lawyers for holding her accountable,

but I do think it's a very, very, very uphill battle. She's not gonna be found guilty of perjury. She just isn't, so I want people to know that that's not going to happen. And when she's saying, I don't recall, I don't remember, that happens every day in court with witnesses who are being accused of things. And you as a skilled lawyer have to make it clear that that witness doesn't have credibility. It's a jury instruction, the witness's credibility, what they remember and what they don't remember.

You can do things like the lawyers were doing there, refreshing the recollection with the document, is this what you said, impeaching the witness by showing that the witness said that, oh, you don't remember, put up exhibit three, put up exhibit seven, put up exhibit 15. You did say that, correct? That's what you said.

But you can't force the witness to say, oh, now I remember, they can just say, I don't remember, and then you show the documents and you leave it to the person who's making a ruling to say, well, that person's a liar. I don't believe them. But that's the overall kind of summary there of what happened in the Marjorie Taylor Green case.

And I do wanna leave on this positive note. Like, here's what's going to happen. Like, I think that these hearings, the Jan 6th hearings in June, are going to be among the most impactful, meaningful, historical, game-changing events that, you know, it's almost like if you think of an international perspective, no one realized the courage and strength of Ukraine. And then once you saw Zelensky in action,

and once you kind of saw it, it was a game changer of kind of a framework. And even you saw Tucker Carlson, you saw Fox News trying to spin it, trying to downplay Zelensky, trying to prop a Putin, but you couldn't. The facts were a tsunami. It was overwhelming. That's what we're going to see in June with the Jan 6th committee. These facts are going to be overwhelming. There's going to be public hearings. There's going to be the release

of the findings. Every single day, that's going to be the focus. And people are going to leave with the only conclusion that could be drawn is that Trump is guilty, Trump's inner circle is guilty, and that's gonna be important for the election, but it's gonna be more important for the democracy, for the safety and safeguarding of our democracy, the work that Jen Six can be made. Let me make two quick observations, One historical. I was nine during

the Watergate hearings, nine. I still remember them. Okay, so if I remember the Watergate hearings as a tiny Popaki in the tiny nine-year-old, can you imagine what this is going to do to a generation at every age level about our democracy. And I think that was a teaser from Jamie Raskin about what's going to be presented. But we know from having watched the impeachment hearings by many of the same people here, that there are deniers out there within that party

that are going to say this is political show theater, political show trial, that none of this is true. How they're going to deny 800, it's hard to believe there are 800 people that had personal knowledge of the assault on the Capitol on the attempt at a violent overthrow in an inside coup. It's hard to believe that there's that many people

that have that knowledge. And one last thing in the presentation, because I want people to, I want to start coaching them about frustration levels. There's gonna be a certain group that's never gonna crack directly around Trump, even when you hear of Ancestestifying or this one's,

they're jarrered, went in or this or that. They don't need, and we don't need, if we were the prosecutors or defenceless, we don't need every bit of evidence in order to reach logical conclusions and make a and make a case. There are times when circumstantial evidence, when inference, when you get to the one yard line or one inch yard line of the football field, but you don't have that last piece to punch it in, but you know,'s going to happen next and that's okay.

It's okay that Trump will never testify to the Gen 6 committee. It's okay that Meadows will never testify. It's okay that all of these people will take the fifth amendment. They have enough visual evidence, documentary evidence, recordings, text messages, emails, and then the testimony of 800 people to tell an effective truthful story, a real truth that others can deny, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened. And I think you and I are, there's things that we don't even know yet. And I'm hoping the Department of Justice knows that we're going to hear for the first time in June. Have you checked out store.mitustouch.com to get all of your mightest merch to get all

your legal AF merch. We've got great gifts for Mother's Day. We got great gifts for any day. Go to store.mitustouch.com. That's store.mitustouch.com to get all of the merch. Thank you. Everybody for listening to this edition of Legal AF. It is always a pleasure and an honor to be joined by my co-host Michael Popak, delivering the most consequential legal issues of the week to you all. We're so grateful for you, our legal AF supporters, our legal AF students, our legal AF friends. We'll see you next time on legal AF.

Shout out to the MidasMighter. you