Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts Ben Meiselas and Karen Agnifilo REACT to Breaking Legal News 10/5/2022

Episode Date: October 6, 2022

MeidasTouch co-founder Ben Meiselas co-hosts this midweek edition of Legal AF with Karen Friedman Agnifilo. The two discuss (1) the recent application by Donald Trump to the Supreme Court to vacate the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Ruling returning the classified records to the DOJ, (2) the Order by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Granting the DOJ’s Motion to Expedite the Appeal of Judge Aileen Cannon’s assertion of equitable jurisdiction, (3) a recent Voting Rights Act case that just had oral argument before the Supreme Court, (4) the Elon Musk potential settlement with Twitter on the eve of trial and Musk’s deposition, and (5) the upcoming January 6 Committee hearing scheduled for October 13. This is a CAN’T MISS mid-week edition of Legal AF, with the most consequential legal news! DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: Bombas: https://bombas.com/LegalAF GET LEGAL AF MERCH: https://store.meidastouch.com 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 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Wheels of Justice Turned. Donald Trump files an application with the United States Supreme Court to vacate the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals order, their motion for partial stay, returning classified records to the Department of Justice that Donald Trump stole and hid at the weird resort that he lives in. Then the 11th Circuit grants the Department of Justice's motion to expedite their overall appeal, challenging the hack judge, the Judge Eileen Cannon, who Donald Trump appointed in 2020, her order ass certain jurisdiction, equitable jurisdiction, overall matters relating to

the search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago. The October term of the Supreme Court has begun and a critical voting rights act case has already been heard. There's no ruling yet. The case is Merrill versus Meligan. We talked about it previously on the legal AF podcast some months ago when the Supreme Court temporarily granted an emergency order that stopped a district court order that would have

changed the maps the Alabama Jerrymandered maps were allowed to stay in place and this was now the full hearing after the granting of the motion for cert on whether Alabama's gerrymandering was permissible or not permissible under the Voting Rights Act and the Alabama Solicitor General made some really really bold claims to try to undermine the entire voting voting rights act section two. We'll talk about that more on the podcast. Also, Elon Musk claims that he is getting ready to settle with Twitter as he approached a trial date in the Delaware Chancery Court on October 17th. Is he

playing games? Is this for real? He was getting destroyed in court, we will talk about that. And the January 6th committee is set to resume. Very, very, very shortly. We will talk about what we could expect there. I'm Ben Myself as joined by Karen Friedman. Ag Nifalo, this is Legal AF, the most consequential legal news.

Michael Popak is out observing the holidays. Karen, how are you? I'm good, I'm good. I got my fifth booster yesterday and a flu shot all at the same time. So if I start to glow in the dark a little bit here during the podcast, that's why. You don't glow in the dark, you glow generally.

That is what people like to see. You're glowing legal analysis. Let's get right into it with Donald Trump's application that he filed with the United States Supreme Court yesterday. This was an emergency application that's filed to vacate the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals order where they granted the Department of Justice's motion for partial stay regarding Judge Eileen Cannon asserting that she had equitable jurisdiction over the search warrant issues relating to the search warrant executed

at Mar-a-Lago. Judge Eileen Cannon's order was overturned by the 11th Circuit as it related to those 100 classified records. The 11th Circuit permitted those records to be returned to the Department of Justice as the Department of Justice argued. This is an emergency. We're going to be caused irreparable harm. If we can pursue our own criminal investigation regarding documents that belong to us, Donald Trump hasn't claimed a possessory ownership

and he doesn't have one. He's a former president who stole stuff. You can't steal stuff, especially classified records and then just say dibs and then you get it. This is the United States of America, and our national security is aligned. That didn't matter to Judge Eileen Cannon. It mattered to the 11th Circuit. The 11th Circuit was a three-judge panel to Trump appointees,

one Obama appointee. They said, look, it's self-evident that the Department of Justice should have the documents back. They analyzed under a case called Richie and said every factor favors that the Department of Justice should have their records back. But nonetheless, Donald Trump has filed this emergency application to vacate what the 11th Circuit ruled returning those records. And here's the unfortunate part, Karen Clarence Thomas is the Supreme Court judge who has previously been assigned. So it's currently the allotted assignment that he has to oversee emergency orders with respect to decisions reached by the 11th Circuit.

So you actually in weird Supreme Court procedure, which a lot of this stuff really hadn't been invoked and we hadn't really heard about this so much until a lot of the recent machinations by Maga Republicans like utilizing these procedures and processes to undermine our democracy, but we talk a lot about it now. But Clarence Thomas ultimately oversees these emergency orders. Now, he on his own could make the decision to overturn or to vacate the 11 circuits order on an emergency basis. His decision, though ultimately would be revisizable or go in front of the entire Supreme Court. It would only be temporary if he makes that such a ruling vacating what the 11th Circuit did.

He could also refer it out to the full Supreme Court to make a decision. He doesn't have to make it on his own. But what he's done, at least in the short term, is require the Department of Justice to respond by next Tuesday, 5 p.m. Eastern time. But the very fact that he's involved in this and his wife's an insurrectionist, it just leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, Karen. What do you make of all of these machinations? Yeah, look, there's a couple of things going on in this case right now at the same time.

As you said on Tuesday, Trump asked the Supreme Court to issue a real, it's kind of a technical ruling saying that they should intervene because the 11th Circuit did not have jurisdiction to remove those classified documents from the Special Master's Review. If you recall, there's lots and lots of documents, thousands of documents, but the Department of Justice issued this appeal on a very limited basis saying, we just want to take away the 100 or 103 documents from the Special Master's Review so that we can continue our investigation and what Trump, and then the Special Master can look at the other things and go on a rolling basis is what Judge Deary,

the special master, said he was going to do and turn those remaining documents over on a rolling basis as he goes through them and as he makes a determination. But what Trump said was that not to overturn, in essence, the most important part of the 11th Circuit ruling, the decision that frees the Justice Department to continue using those 103 documents

with classification markings. What they asked the Court to rule, but I Tuesday at 5 p.m. was this very technical ruling saying that the 11 circuit didn't have jurisdiction to remove those documents in the first place. So even if he wins this small modest request, it's more, he's just trying to, it's more his trying to delay, I think, because substantively he doesn't get much from

that. I think the more significant thing that's happening in that case is the Department of Justice's full appeal. You know, the, the originally they just said, you know, Judge Cannon were just, to the 11th Circuit, We're just saying judge canning was wrong with the, with saying that the 103 doc classified documents, we can't have them. And the 11th circuit, as you said, unanimously ruled on the side of the Department of Justice. But now the Department of Justice has filed their full appeal before the 11th circuit. And that's the thing to watch. I think that's the more significant,

the more significant part of what's going on here. You know, they're asking for an expedited consideration of their appeal and hopefully they will get it. But, you know, we'll see where that one goes. The whole thing with the special master really is head scratcher for me because Donald Trump asks for the special master, the department of justice opposed the special master.

Then they all submitted their names and put their names in a hat. Judge Deary was Donald Trump's pick. So what does Judge Cannon do? Judge Cannon bends over backwards, finds equitable jurisdiction that she has equitable jurisdiction over the case. A point's the special master and a points Judge Deary, essentially giving Trump everything he wants.

Well, Judge Deary, it turns out, didn't roll over the way Judge Cannon is rolling over for Trump. And so now all of a sudden, Judge Cannon is backtracking and saying, oh, well, Judge Deary, I'm not going to allow you to create the schedule. I'm not going to allow you to determine timing of when these things happen. I'm not going to let you turn over these documents on a rolling basis. And I'm not going to do anything the way you're suggesting, which begs the question, what do you need a special master for in the first place? I mean, you know, this was what Trump wanted, and this is who Trump wanted. And so now Judge Cannon is saying, no, hold on, I'm going to, I'm going to do this. So, so thing seems quite strange to me. But I think hopefully this will happen on an expedited basis.

The 11th Circuit will allow the Department of Justice access to all the documents and they can continue with their investigation. Of all the investigations that the Department of Justice is doing into Trump, I think this is the one that's furthest along and most ripe. And if he's going to, if heads are going to roll, I think it's going to be in this case, certainly, it's certainly ripe or to me than the January 6th matter and the others. Well, in many ways too, it's a slam dunk in the sense of he stole records that didn't belong to him. We know the history and the timeline of even dating back to May of 2021.

In terms of intent, Donald Trump was telling Mark Meadows to lie to other senior lawyers affiliated with Trump at the White House and then after Trump left to lie to the National Archives that it was basically, it was just newspaper clippings and it wasn't anything significant. Then the reporting from the Washington Post is that when the National Archives wouldn't go away, that it was actually Donald Trump himself, Karen, who was the one who packed 15 boxes and kind of cherry pick the documents he wanted to return to the National Archives.

I mean, just put that image in your head of Trump rummaging through documents and putting clippings and then putting some classified records to try to act like, oh, I'm returning some of them. And then asking other lawyers to continue to lie to the National Archives and then eventually the Department of Justice that all of these records were returned, which they were not, and then have Christina Bob do a false declaration in June. Christina Bob ostensibly is Trump's lawyer. She claims that she's not Trump's lawyer anymore and that she's just some news reporter who follows Trump

around in rallies, which is a whole nother weird thing in and of itself. But she lies and says all of the records are returned, and she gives a red weld filled with some additional classified records. And then they conduct the search in August 8th, and lo and behold, there's a lot more classified records, including like potentially nuclear secrets

in their complete and utter violations classified records, including like potentially nuclear secrets in there, you know, complete and utter violations of the espionage act of obstruction like the timeline I just did may, you know, that's the case. It's not. It doesn't get more complicated than that in my opinion there. So if I could just say one thing about the case. So if Donald Trump was found physically holding those documents, I would agree with you. But don't forget, these weren't found in his possession like that. They

were in his domicile, they were in his office, they were in a place that he had construction, constructive possession over. And so they need to put these documents in his hands as opposed to someone else because he could have a defense, you know, there was, there, he could have a defense. What's her name? Christina. Yeah. Christina Bob. She could say, he had, I packed those boxes. I put them there. He had no idea who it was. You know, who, who, he had no idea what was in there. And so I wouldn't put it past some of his followers to follow in the sword for him because they seem to follow him and will do anything for him, even put their own law license on the line. So really what the Department of Justice has to do is they have to put these documents in somebody's hands and

figure out who removed them and who brought them there and who possessed them. And that's why context matters so much. That's why when they say in their appeal, it's not enough that we have our 100 documents, our 103 documents. Our search warrant said we not only want to take the classified documents, but we also want to take the surrounding documents, what's with them, so that we can put into context what this is and try to figure out who might have taken these documents and who might have possessed them. So I think the same Washington Post article

that you referenced talked about various aides of his former aides talked about him being a little bit of a hoarder that he would just hoard documents in his private residence and in the dining room. And I just pictured his catch up layered in, ketchup, layered, and fingers, you know, touching classified documents and having like fingerprints. The whole, the whole thought of this is a little bit strange to me. But, you know, you can imagine a scenario where classified documents are, you know, sandwiched in between his personal documents, which would make it even

more, you know, things that only he would necessarily have or he would necessarily be around. And, and it is that context, I think, that is needed to see what was commingled, you know, they look at what was commingled with the documents, to see who handled them, who mishandled them in the first place, and do a investigation to place these documents in either his hands or someone else's. So I do think there is a slightly more nuanced, you know, from a prosecution standpoint. They just a little more work to do, not a lot. But the only reason it's not done

is because of these delay tactics and because of the fact that these documents are now with a special master and now Judge Cannon has extended the time period for the special, that Judge Deary tried to expedite this and said, come on, you know, let's get this done. And it's his delay tactic, which is his number one legal strategy across all cases that is hampering the investigation at this point. But I think as soon as the Department of Justice can do that, I think you're right.

It's a straightforward case. And I think one that, I guess it's a political decision after that, and whether or not to bring the case. And I know that I'm sure I would guess that Marik Garland's Department of Justice is thinking long and hard about the threats made by Lindsey Graham, that they'll be riots in the street in a civil war and all the other things that his people are threatening if a case is brought. But really, if you don't bring the case, you're really sending the message that there are people who are above the law and it's not fair. It's absolutely not fair. Want to stress a few things here as well.

One, how odd it is for a district court judge to overturn recommendations, routine recommendations that are made by a special master in any context, you know, that that's a very unusual thing. But in this context, the special master judge Raymond Deere was the former chief judge of the Eastern District of New York. He sits on senior status right now. One of the most respected jurists, district court judges in the United States of America. And you have this newbie judge appointed by Trump overturning recommendations that reflect very sound judicial determinations and not just judicial determinations, common sense, like Judge Raymond Deere saying

to Donald Trump, hey, can you as the plaintiff just submit to me a declaration under penalty of perjury that these records here are either what was in Marlago or if you claim that these documents are suspicious and like you claim for all the radical mega media that you go on that this is planned today, put that in a declaration under penalty of perjury. So I know as the special master the full universe of records and that's where Judge Eileen Cannon swoops in and goes, nope, he shouldn't do that. I don't want a plaintiff submitting an affidavit only.

The defendant in this case, and the way this case is styled, because Trump brought it, asserting this lawsuit essentially against the Department of Justice for return of property and the injunction and all of those things. Judge Eileen Cannon stepped in and said, no, it should just be the Department of Justice who files the affidavit regarding the evidence like. So just weird things like that, which is what led to the Department of Justice to finally

say enough is enough. We're filing this motion to expedite appeal. I think at one point the Department of Justice thought that they could live with Eileen Cannon. They've got this special master, as you mentioned, Karen, who is a respected person. Let's just go through the process. We got our classified records back, whatever. But she kept on making these horrible orders and it was like enough. The fact that the 11th Circuit granted this motion for an expedited briefing schedule,

which is rare for them to do appeals take a very long time. It could take years for appeal. The fact that this is all going to be done now by November 17th is the end of the briefing schedule based on the order by the 11th Circuit is rare, but shows the 11th Circuit has a deep understanding one of Donald Trump's game playing and also the national security interest to try to expedite it. And finally, what Donald Trump is really looking for, Karen, was you talk about this technical motion to vacate that's filed with the Supreme Court.

I think there's one important piece, though, that is very significant. He wants access and he wants to look at those classified records so that he knows what they are. And so one of the things he wants with the ordering that the Department of Justice put those hundred classified records back into the special master process is so he and his lawyers can look at it. And by the way, you know, his lawyers like who Christopher Kice, the lawyer who literally is a foreign agent of Venezuela,

like who filled out a foreign agent registration act that he represents the Maduro regime, like you can't make up this weird madlib fascist, like Trump's lawyer who is a agent of the Venezuelan regime would like our classified records back. But that's what Donald Trump is really looking for there. But there are those two separate things that are taking place here, the overall appeal and then what's now with the Supreme Court regarding the classified records that the Department of Justice has back, although I'll leave you with this. The fact that Clarence Thomas is requiring the Department of Justice to respond by next Tuesday, though also shows that

if he thought there was a greater degree of urgency in that request by Donald Trump, he would have made that deadline a bit earlier. But nonetheless, the fact that he's even requiring the Department of Justice to respond to this frivolous motion that was filed with the Supreme Court. I mean, Donald Trump is arguing that the 11th Circuit had no appellate jurisdiction. And he's arguing that this appointment of the special master was a non-appealable order by Judge Eileen Cannon that she's basically immune from any appellate review. And meanwhile, she did grant an injunction stopping the Department of Justice from utilizing

their own records, their own classified records in a criminal investigation. while she did grant an injunction stopping the Department of Justice from utilizing their own records, their own classified records in a criminal investigation. Like, it's the most unprecedented ruling in the war again, the history of the United States that you just tell the Department of Justice, you have to stop your investigation. But I digress there. Karen, any final points about the proceedings with the Marlauga search ward case? What do you predict Thomas, Clarence Thomas is going to do? Oh, you always have to think the worst with Cl Marlauga search warrant case. What do you predict, Thomas? Clarence Thomas is going to do. You always have to think the worst with Clarence Thomas.

I mean, the one thing that would restrain him, I think, here, is that the 11th Circuit has a reputation for being a right wing court and him tying up the 11th Circuit, which ultimately makes a number of favorable rulings. I mean, you have two Trump judges on this and this percurium opinion that the unanimous opinion that the 11th Circuit reached overturning Judge Eileen Cannon before. So that's the factors that think maybe Judge Clarence Thomas will exercise restraint. But look, Judge Thomas is literally literally married to an insurrectionist who is trying to overturn our government.

Just as Clare is Thomas is talking about banning contraception and that he didn't want to stop at overturning Roe v. Wade. This is a rogue radical extremist judge. If I place confidence in a rogue radical extremist right wing judge, I mean, that's not really the best place to put confidence here. But I do say, yeah, you go for it. No, I was gonna say, can I give you my prediction? Yep.

My prediction is that he's going to rule in favor of the Department of Justice for the following reasons. This is such a limited, small appeal, and it's kind of inconsequential. It's not a huge deal so that he can say, see, I'm, I don't always do Trump's bidding. I don't always rule, you know, in his favor. I look at things correctly and so that Trump and all his cronies will have something to hang their hat on to rehabilitate Clarence Thomas.

That's what I think, you know, I would never put too much confidence in Clarence Thomas not surprising us with, though, a more corruption, but we, we will see. But ultimately, and this is the thing I've told everybody, his decision, though, is still revisable by the entire court. So if he goes rogue here, which would be truly rogue, I truly don't believe that even as radical and extreme right wing as the Supreme Court is, they would side with Judge Eileen Kennan's opinion here. And we've already seen what the 11th Circuit did in their Percurium unanimous opinion. And there's a reason they did a Percurium. They wanted to send a

message and they used very strong language in their ruling, giving the records back that it was self-evident. But let's talk about some other things going on before the Supreme Court. The October term has started, right? There's a reason that we've been quiet talking about Supreme Court rulings, the Supreme Court basically left us hanging in the last season, destroying our country by overturning Roe v. Wade and the separation of church and state and the electoral, the Voting Rights Act, and you can go through the litany of horrible rulings, this radical extremist court made by allowing the proliferation of weapons of war and the streets of cities.

I can go down the list in their last horrific term, but they kick this term off some new, a new face on the, on the bench, Katanji Brown-Jackson, who made her presence of health and actually made some very, very compelling and strong arguments in the case that we're about to discuss. But the big case this week that I want to talk about is Merrill versus Meligan. This case involves a decision by Alabama, a Republican-led legislature, to Jerry Mander, their seven congressional districts to basically only allow one district to be represented by African-Americans

and have African-American leadership in that district. The others were just so happened and Alabama claimed it was quote unquote just trying to be race neutral yet in a state that has 27% of the population is black. You only have one district that has actual black representation. And again, Alabama said, oh no, we're just being race neutral. But Alabama made an even more, I view, outlandish, but an argument to try to just completely repeal the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And they basically argue that section two, which prevents discrimination in voting,

to which prevents discrimination in voting, that that section to is itself a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In other words, trying to stop racism, Alabama argued, is racist. And that trying to help and assist in dealing with systemic racist issues that exist, to even think about addressing that, reflects an evaluation of race, and that violates the equal protection clause of, they don't say this part out loud, but obviously what they're saying is you're violating the equal protection of white alabama and that's a very dangerous precedent. Now, the Supreme Court who heard oral argument was a little bit skeptical of those claims that section two itself was a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but the radical right, MAGA extremists on the court seem like they were willing

to uphold the Alabama Jerry Mandarin scheme. And you go back here, Karen, for the past 20 years, plus the Voting Rights Act of 1965, even a little longer, has been under attack by MAGA extremists than the precursor to them, radical right extremists. You have the Shelby decision from 2013, which essentially revoked the pre-clearance requirement. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act provided that you needed Department of Justice approval or a district court panels approval.

If you were changing up your electoral map and doing the gerrymandering to approve it, that it wasn't a racist map. What the Supreme Court did in this Shelby case in 2013 is they didn't say that section five was unconstitutional, but what they said was that the formula for how you determined a section five analysis, which was embedded in section four, that that formula was unconstitutional to determine where preclearance should apply, and that therefore the effect of that was to basically revoke or remove preclearance. And so that is why what we've seen here without preclearance taking place, states have put forward, racist, gerrymandered maps.

And whereas before, the burden was on the states to justify their maps and it had to be pre-cleared. Now the burden falls on civil rights groups to have to file a firmative lawsuits which could take a lot of time and as the time inches closer to an election as it works its way through the court what the Supreme Court has basically said is, ah, too close to an election. And if it's too close to an election, the presumption is going to be, let the racist map stand until we have an overall oral argument until after the election. Well, the damage will then be done. And that's what's happened in Alabama.

But now they're addressing this racist Alabama map, which the radical MAGA extremist on the court seemed okay with that map. But the argument was one to try to even push it further in abolish section two, which prevents discrimination in the steering mandarin process. Karen, what else do you think is going on here? By the way, I thought Katangi Brown-Jackson's argument here, when she was speaking was great. She goes, the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act

are not race neutral pieces of legislation. These pieces of legislation and the constitutional amendment addressed a problem of systemic racism in this country and it tried to address it. So for you to say that the thing that tried to address it is racist and that we should be race neutral and look away and blind our eyes to the reason that we have the Voting Rights Act and we have the Equal Protection clause, you are twisting and contriving this to support the exact opposite ends of the Constitutional

Amendment and this major piece of legislation. Yeah, so I think, like you said it beautifully, but I think that the critics of this, the critics, I should say the supporters of this law, the people who, the people in Alabama who are trying to keep their gerrymandered districts the way they are, basically is saying that this is racism. You're asking us to consider race to create these voting districts. And so that in and of itself is racist. You're supposed to be race neutral. We're supposed to level the playing field. We're no longer obsessed with issues of race.

Lavery was a long time ago, time to move on and be colorblind. And those are the kinds of arguments that they put forward. But I think, as you said, Katangi Brown, Jackson, really leaned into this in a beautiful way and reminded people that the whole point of the 14th of the meant, excuse me, the whole point of the 14th amendment was to make whole former slaves. The historical record established that the founders of this country who created our nation and created the Supreme Court and created the rights

were all white men. And so when you think about it, most, I think five out of the nine Supreme Court justices today, whether they're because they're women or black, wouldn't be able to vote today. If you really want to just look at the history of the Constitution here. And so there have been lots of laws,

including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, all trying to address the issues of inequity and of these freed slaves called freedmen who were not treated equally and they weren't treated equal to white people. And so the whole point of many of these laws and constitutional amendments was to try and elevate the status of these freed slaves, these freed men. So they could be brought equal to rights, I mean to whites. So I thought, you know, she really leaned into the issue of race and said that it's not the goal isn't to be race neutral

or blind. That's not what's required or even the goal. The goal is to recognize unequal treatment and to elevate people who are treated unequally so that they can have the same rights as everybody else and try and eradicate discrimination in this country. And it's just amazing to me that whether it's in laws like poll taxes or all the things throughout history that have tried to suppress voting in people of color. And today, history is going to look back to our last election and say, it's all this talk of mail-in ballots, or computerized ballots,

and all the things that the Republicans are trying to outlaw today there's always been efforts in voter suppression and it's always geared towards minorities and people of color. You can call it whatever you want to call it you know it's always they call it different things and now today it's the gerrymandering in Alabama. And I think that it's really important to recognize that these laws exist to try to level the playing field because the unfortunate and disgraceful history of our country has been to always try and put down people of color.

And until we recognize that and we embrace that and try to correct for it, I think we are going to run the risk of either suppressing or diluting black votes in this country. And that's exactly what the argument, I think, that's happening here. You know, there was a moment during the oral argument as well where Justice Alito was like, well, if these factors are met and you're able to show the populations of the minority, majorities in certain areas are met in these southern states, wouldn't the plaintiffs always win and wouldn't that be unfair? He made statements to that effect, and it was like,

what's unfair is that their representation is being taken away from them. That's what's unfair. And what he didn't recognize in his statement was that he was acknowledging, or maybe he did, but he just contorted the unargument. He was acknowledging, yeah, the problem is in Southern states like Alabama like in this specific case, if you have a 27% population is black yet they're only represented in one congressional district. That is problematic and to say that they should

have additional districts to be reflective of their actual representation. He views that as like an unfair advantage and a win. No, what's the unfair is that African Americans were enslaved in our country and they have unfair advantages and there's systemic racism in our country and that these laws that were passed tried to address that to precisely address the problem that we've seen here in Alabama. This is a case that if there was pre-clearance, wouldn't even be a close call.

Karen, I mean, like, just look at the numbers. 27% get one congressional district. That's absolutely insane. That's the exact problem why there was the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to specifically address the situation like this. But also, this just goes to show how important the census is every 10 years. The census, sometimes people get annoyed by it's quite expensive.

It takes a lot of time. And you have to knock on doors and try to count people. And the 2020 census was a challenge because of the pandemic in COVID. And people weren't going to open their doors to strangers, et cetera. The 2020 census was a challenge because of the pandemic, you know, in COVID and people won't open their doors to strangers, etc. But this goes to show how the census is such an important part of our history because the 2020 census is what demonstrated that Alabama is the 27% black of their voting age population, and it's what allowed this particular scenario

to come about, because it showed that given the numbers that exist, they should have to voting districts, and not just one out of the seven. So this is why things like the census is such an important part of our history and our tradition and our laws and people need to participate because it's really the only way that you can fight for equal representation in areas like this. Oh, couldn't agree with you more and then you can also ignore the fact that the Supreme Court had previously made rulings regarding the census, cutting it off, I think prematurely, during 2020.

It's a whole nother conversation. We'll cover that in another legal AF, but the whole census process was co-opted and corrupted by Donald Trump's level. I have a lot to talk about here on legal AF, but I want to talk about our next partner. It's Bombas. Bombas mission is simple. Make the most comfortable clothes ever and match every item sold with an equal item donated. So when you buy Bombas, you are also giving to someone in need. Bombas design their socks, shirts, and underwear to be the clothes you can't wait to put on every day. Everything

they make is soft, seamless, tagless, and has a cozy feel. There's a pair of Bomba socks for everything you do. They come in tons of options like comfy performance styles made with sweat wicking yarns, which means your feet stay cool while the rest of you works up sweat. Bomba's no-show socks are designed for comfort while being specially engineered to never fall down. So let your ankles be free to soak up the sunlight. Bombas t-shirts are made with thoughtful design features like invisible seam, saw fabrics, and the perfect weight. So they hang just right. And Bombas underwear is so breathable and fits so well. It feels like you're wearing nothing at all

in a good way. And did you know that socks, underwear, and t-shirts are the three most requested clothing items at homeless shelters? That's why, and this is so important. Bombas Donates One for every item you buy and so far, Bombas customers like you have helped donate over 50 million items of essential clothing. Go to bombus.com slash legal a f. That's B O M B A S dot com slash legal a f and use this code legal a f led gl a f for 20% off your first purchase. That's B O M B A S dot com slash legal a AF and use code legal AF at checkout bombas dot com slash legal AF code legal AF and get that 20% off your first purchase switching gears here. I want to talk about the Elon Musk potential settlement apparently he's ready to settle with Twitter

He was on the verge of going to trial in the Delaware Chanceree Court. The settlement is certainly, he's not getting a discount. He has to buy it for $54.20 a share if the settlement goes forward as it's being reported. That's still the $44 billion purchase price that he initially said that he was going to pay before backing out and leading to the lawsuit. As he was approaching trial, there was a number of pretrial rulings that were against him first like Trump. He wanted to delay delay delay and the Chanceree court judge would not let that take place.

a chanceary court judge would not let that take place. There was a number of other pre-child rulings that did not go in his favor. He was asked and he was ordered rather to hand over files about potential investors in a seven billion dollar. Equity raised as part of the deal in late September. The judge denied Musk's demand for additional documents about Twitter's internal measure of robot and spam accounts.

In other words, the judge was not buying his arguments that he backed out because of the bots and the spam and all of that that he was claiming. And one of the things that the judge recently allowed, remember that whistleblower Karen who had fortuitously emerged and made the claim that he was aware, he worked for Twitter was a hacker and said that he was aware of all of these body counts and claim to be a whistleblower. Maybe in a whistleblower, I don't know what the issue is, is that Twitter basically said, that's a little bit suspicious here. The timing's a bit suspicious.

I think that Elon Musk is behind it. And the judge allowed discovery to proceed into those areas as well. Elon Musk had a turnover additional records. The judge was very critical of Elon Musk and his lawyers and just how they've conducted themselves in discovery. And it did not seem like Elon Musk was going to win this trial. It seemed like he was gonna have a very, very, very significant loss. And so I guess to cut his losses, he's claiming he's going to proceed with this acquisition,

although with Elon Musk, it's all games, so you never really know until you know. And it's possible that it's just a delay tactic. The settlement won't materialize like it's supposed to, and then they try to delay the trial. So I think you have to be very careful strategically here if you're Twitter and how you approach this potential settlement agreement. You got to make sure it's real and with Elon Musk, you don't know if he's actually trying to set up

his own bankers or there's a lot of questions here about what led to this settlement. I can say from a standpoint of Twitter, I think it would be very problematic to have Elon Musk standpoint of Twitter, I think it would be very problematic to have Elon Musk control Twitter. I think he, just the way he's even conducted himself with this acquisition, empathy, a lack of caring, a bully, someone who's willing to dispose of, not just Twitter employees, but of the communities that have developed. And I think it is very important.

And this is one of the things that the radical right wing extremists try to do, but it is important for me to have social media platforms that have certain common sense forms of moderation where I don't want hate speech, I don't want Nazis, I don't want to have to go on and see people, you know, hate, spreading hate and Nazis and spreading Putin propaganda and disinformation about pandemics. That type of stuff is problematic. If Elon Musk allows all of that to take hold of the platform, I think people are going to run for the hills, quite frankly, because you just look at what truth, that truth social app is like. I mean, it's

filthy. It's all Q and on stuff. And it's like, you know, you think about just going to a public square or a public space or, you know, there are limitations to what you can do. And then you think about going in a private space, though, or going in a mall and then, you know, people like spitting on your food and yelling at you and giving you the middle finger when you're just trying to interact and have normal appropriate conversation. So anyway, that's my analysis of the law and there's my personal feelings. What do you think? So I understand my understanding was that Elon Musk was set to be deposed right before the trial as well in the coming weeks, which seemed like a really short period of time

between deposition and trial that's supposed to start October 17th. Do you think that's part of the reason he's saying that they're going to enter into potential plea so that he could delay his deposition and delay the trial? And then that way, as you said, maybe the whole thing falls apart,

but at least then he's not forced to be deposed right now or to go to trial right now. Yeah, I think that's the short answer is yes. And the longer answer is he's probably a very difficult client to manage as well. And there's a great degree when you're dealing with him, though, of bad faith, of obfuscation, of vagary, and trying to gain the system. And so, you know, we're not dealing with, in a litigation, he's view of things. He would say he is a rational actor who acts irrationally to try to take advantage of situations. And so, you know, you just have to try to take advantage of situations.

And so, you know, you just have to be very cautious dealing with them. Yeah, no, it's, this is definitely one to watch. You know, I have to say I'm slightly disappointed in Twitter why they're pushing this, you know, it's because I think it's the end of Twitter. And, but who knows, I'm sure they have the reasons why they're the way they're pushing this.

Well, I think they have a lot of money. The reason is money. I think it's that simple. The share price, whether it trades in the 30s, 35 range, Twitter has not done a good job monetizing their platform the same way Google has with YouTube and other social media platforms are. And so I think you have directors there who believe they have a monetary fiduciary obligation that the stock prices never going to go higher than 5420 and Elon Musk picked 5420 because it has 420 in it and he thought it was funny. And I think if you're a board of director on Twitter, you're thinking we're never going to get higher than that, or it's going to be incredibly high. And a lot of our investors will get an exit. I mean, I remember the people who are on the boards of these and the people

who are pushing for these are shareholders and usually institutional shareholders who want to return on money. And they're going to make a lot of money from this transaction, but to your point, Karen, they've really kind of sold out. They did sell out the community on Twitter. And I think it will lead to the inevitable destruction of Twitter, although I would not like that to be the case. But I do think when you are a platform like Twitter or you do have and you are a public company, I guess it is upsetting sometimes to see them view it so crudely when they do play an important function in discourse and in communications for them to just sell out this way. But nonetheless, that's the situation.

We'll see what happens, but it's why we at the Midas Touch Network, make sure that there are lots of groups that are, we're really big on Twitter, or we're really big on TikTok, and we're really big on just one of these, but not the others, right? What we've made our mission is being really big at connecting with a community of people,

real people, and having communications and connecting. And so the Midas Mighty is always the secret sauce of the Midas Touch Network and Legal AF. And that's who supports this. So no matter what social media platforms exist today or exist tomorrow, the most important thing is that there's a real vibrant pro-democracy community out there, and that's one of the things I love about the Midas Touch Network.

Now, one of the other important things I want to mention before talking about the final story is, if you know this, Karen, but we just got a Patreon website at patreon.com slash might as touch. That's P-A-T-R-E-O-N. .com slash might as touch. We're not funded by any outside investors at all at the might as touch network,

but if you want to help grow the might as touch network, we're fueled by democracy and powered by you, no matter where you live in the world, you can join a membership tier with exclusive benefits at patreon.com slash Midas Touch. And also check out store. Dot Midas Touch dot com for the best pro democracy gear. That store dot Midas Touch dot com for the best pro democracy gear. Finally, we are gearing up for the next January 6th committee hearing,

October 13th. Be there or be square. People still say that Karen, is that like a dokey expression? Be there or be square. That's okay. But we will be of course course, doing a live stream, as we always do, we're one of the top viewed live streams for the January 6th hearings live on October 13th here on the Midas Touch Network. Anything you're looking forward to Karen coming up with the October 13th January 6th Committee hearing or in general? I'm hoping that it's a blockbuster. I'm hoping that they're saving the best for last. I'm dying to know what Ginny Thomas said to them.

And I'm really hoping that they're going to link even more so directly the insurrection of January 6 with Donald Trump, because so far, these hearings have not disappointed, and they have exceeded any expectation I had of them. I really think that they have served such an important part of just creating a historical record for future generations because the January 6th insurrection was such a significant day. I was talking to someone last night about these hearings and they said, do you think anything is going to really come of this? And I said, well, what do you mean by that? What is the purpose of these hearings and what do you expect to come of it? I think

that's one of the things that people are looking for is what will come of these hearings? Will there be a result given what happened? I found myself explaining to this person, well, really, I think a lot has come of these hearings. Number one, I think the house did their job by holding these hearings and so creating a historical record, as I said, for future generations, just so that people know exactly who did what. They interviewed thousands of people and there is a record of what happened on that day. And there's also been lots and lots of prosecutions.

I think we're up to eight or 900 at this point. And so that to me is one really important part of it. Another important thing that these hearings have done is there's a lot of people, and I hate to admit it, but myself included after January 6th and after Trump, so many of us were, I was traumatized by the whole Trump four years as well as the January 6th insurrection that I was so relieved that Joe Biden was our president that I just kind of felt like, let's just move on. Let's just move forward, put this past us,

think about this as just this ugly part of history and let's just move forward. I don't want to think about it. And so when the January 6 hearings came about, part of me was like, why are we bringing this up again? It's like an ugly part of our history can't we just move forward. And I will say, I think I was dead wrong about that.

These hearings were incredibly powerful and significant. And really, you know, the people like me who thought can't we just move on, we shouldn't just move on. And we need to really understand what happened, how significant it was, how close we came to civil war and to a coup and overthrowing democracy in this country, and until we understand it and really understand how important that was and how much there is still a group of people in this country, a large group of people in this country who continue to feel this way, I think, you know, there's

a risk that this could happen again. And so I think the hearings have done an excellent job at really showing people like me who didn't quite understand the insidiousness of the problem. It wasn't just this bad day. It's a whole, you know, from the day Donald Trump became president and started filling federal judges, filling spots on the federal bench with Trump supporting judges. You know, that he recognized right away how he's going to infect like a bad virus every part, every branch of government, every part of government, whether it's state and local races and supporting these candidates to get the state governments and the state legislatures filled with MAGA Republicans to the judicial branch and all the judges.

And to, as you always talk about, this misinformation campaign that he, that he espouses. And I think the January six hearings have done an excellent job at just showing how insidious this entire, this entire conspiracy to take over the country has been. So to me, those are two really important things that have come of this. But I think what a lot of people are looking for is handcuffs on Donald Trump. And that's what they want. They want him to be arrested.

And I kind of hope that that's the one criticism I have of these hearings so far is somehow we have, there is that kind of missing link between all of this and him directly. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence, but I would love to have the smoking gun, but I do think that whether it's Fannie Willis, in Georgia with find the votes case, or whether it's the Southern District taking, you know,

the call to action from Tisch James and the criminal referral that she's giving them or whether it's the Mar-a-Lago case that we talked about first with the classified documents or January 6th. I'm hoping one of them will come of this. But I do think that the January 6 hearings have been extraordinary. And I'm hoping that since this is Liz Cheney's last or close to last hearing, hopefully. I don't think she'll disappoint. I think we're going to be a blockbuster like the rest of them have been. The January 6th Committee hearings, though, I think also injected like a booster shot of democracy at a time when we needed it the most.

In addition to the proceedings that were taking place, I think it just injected a sense of energy and passion and a rallying call for democracy. And we've always framed the issues here at the Midas Touch Network as pro-democracy and that this is a pro-democracy network and community, which includes Democrats, independents, and people who still may identify as Republican, but not Maga Republican,

and people who are leaving and feel like they are partilists at this point. But it's all under the rubric of pro-democracy. And I think the theme and the message that it has pervaded all of these January 6 hearings has been the importance of our democracy. And there are people on Republicans who testified, mostly all Republicans testified, right? 98% of all the witnesses who testified were Republicans, but you saw a difference between

a Republican who we could have policy disagreements with, but who support our Constitution. And then you saw, as you said, Karen, this new strain of Maga fascism that like a virus spreads its tentacles and tries to infect each of our institutions. And that's why we do this show Legal AF each and every week and have the midweek episode as well, because it is so vital to empower you at home or wherever you watch this, with this knowledge to understand these legal cases and their implications so you can be ambassadors for this unapologetically pro-democracy movement. Karen, it is a pleasure spending this time with you for this special midweek edition.

Well, it's special because you and I are doing it, but there's a normal midweek. This midweek edition of the Legal AF podcast, everybody, make sure to go check out our Patreon website at patreon.com slash might as touch P-A-T-R-E-L-N dotcom slash might as touch p at r e l and dot com slash might as touch now's the time to also check out store dot might as touch dot com if you are watching this on youtube please make sure you hit the subscribe button now and do me this one other favor wherever you get audio podcasts make sure you download this and subscribe on the audio podcasts, play it on the audio

podcast. You could re-listen to it as well. It helps with the algorithm there. So make sure you check that out on the audio and leave a five star review. Well, it takes you two minutes to leave a five star review and it's so great. And always warms my heart when I see those good reviews and honest reviews. If you have criticisms, I could take them. So send them those well, whatever. But leave a five star review. And I want to thank our sponsor again, Bombas, B-O-M-B-A-S dot com slash legal app. I love, I wear Bombas and I know you two care. And so it's great to have them as a sponsor again. Check out B-O-M-B-A-S dot com slash legal a f.

Let me just say one thing before you sign off. Bombas really are better socks than any other sock. They are exceptional. And if you're on the fence and you're looking for a new pair of socks, these are your socks. And it's great that they donate a pair, but that is not the main reason I think to buy them. I think they really are better than every other type of socks. They don't bunch up, they don't fall down, they're more comfortable, they hug your feet beautifully.

I know this is totally off script, but I've been a bombahs wearer for many, many, many years and I always get them as gifts for people because I do think they are that much better than all the rest. So I highly, highly recommend them. That's all I want to leave you with. That's a great way to leave the episode, Karen Agniflo, appreciate it. I'll see you next time on the Legal AF podcast with Midas Touch. I'm Ben Mysel. It's joined by Karen Friedman Agniflo. Until next time, shout out to the Midas Mighty. Until next time, shout out to the Midas Mighty.