Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok REACT to Breaking Legal News

Episode Date: November 20, 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 at the wheels of justice in “real time” in this post-Midterm Elections edition as they analyze and discuss this week’s most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this week’s episode, the anchors break-down and analyze: Attorney General Merrick Garland’s appointment of Jack Smith as Special Counsel against Trump for Mar-a-Lago and the Insurrection; the 11th Circuit’s future oral argument on Judge Cannon’s special master procedure related to the Mar a Lago documents scandal; the appointment of an Independent Monitor over all of Trump’s businesses and assets by the New York judge overseeing the New York Attorney General civil fraud case; Trump’s lawsuit against the New York Attorney General in Florida gets transferred to the federal judge who just sanctioned Trump and his lawyers for their meritless case against Hillary Clinton; the Department of Justice files its emergency brief to the Supreme Court to reinstate President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program; and Mark Meadows loses again in his efforts to avoid testifying and producing phone records to the Jan6 Committee, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: AG1: https://athleticgreens.com/LegalAF GET MEIDAS 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

This week, the January 6th Committee held a powerful hearing, concluding with a unanimous vote to Sapina Donald Trump. Meanwhile, at the same time, the Supreme Court denied Trump's application in the Mar-a-Lago search case regarding the classified records he stole. And shortly thereafter thereafter this week, the Department of Justice filed its opening brief in its overall appeal of Judge Eileen Cannon's order where she asserted, equitable jurisdiction,

Popeyes and I believe she's going to be overruled, I can almost guarantee it. New York Attorney General Tish James filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against Donald Trump and the Trump organization citing Trump's continuing fraud and criminal conduct. And get this, she requested that the court appoint an independent monitor, kind of like a special master in an

ironic twist. And Trump is ordered by a federal judge to sit for a deposition this upcoming Wednesday in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. And how does Trump respond? Well, he goes on his social media platform and defames her again, likely giving rise to a new cause of action, which indisputably can't be covered by any presidential immunity that he previously tried to claim. And a Connecticut jury awards Sandy Hook victims defamed by Alex Jones, almost $1 billion in damages, off to bankruptcy court.

We go, the wheels of justice, turn and oh, did they turn this week? The most consequential legal news, I'm Ben Myceles joined by Michael Popak. This is legal, A, F, Michael Popak, how are you? That I'm doing great. You and I called this show legal, if I have a new phrase, I love WTF for Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays.

They're my new favorite day on this show. And we're gonna talk about it all. Wednesday Trump's ordered to go to a deposition. Thursday, Scotus rejects his emergency application, the Jan 6th Committee subpoena's him, and the New York Attorney General seeks an independent monitor and an injunction. And Friday, the Department of Justice files its lawsuit or its brief to the 11th Circuit. I love WTF. You know, Donald Trump is clearly spiraling. He's been spiraling, but spiraling beyond anything we've seen before. You saw that letter, Popok,

that he sent at the end of the week to Benny Thompson, the chairperson of the January 6th committee in Big Bold Capital letters saying that the election was rigged and calling it a hoax and calling the committee members and FBI thugs and blaming Antifa and BLM. What I call that letter, Michael Popak, exhibit A. You know, the January 6th committee in subpoenaing Donald Trump. We'll talk about it and get into it on the episode. Of course, they could face some potential hurdles. Here you have co-equal branches of government in the usual sense. You don't have a president trying to overthrow the United States government. So there's been usually a lot of deference to inter-branch disputes where Congress is disputing

with the executive branch or the former executive branch even. But here Donald Trump just serves up the evidence and basically says, here it is, here's intent, here's my involvement in it all. And of course, the public disclosure of information is not subject to any potential executive privilege claim. And the point, I guess, will make at the top here, and then go back a little bit in reverse order, Michael Popack, is that unlike the judge I lean Canon dispute where it's the executive branch trying to get its own documents back,

that Nixon GSA line of cases from the 70s, though, does recognize a potential situation where a former president may be disputing with another branch of government, in this case, Congress, with kind of a slight ability to assert executive privilege. But that goes out the window when you start talking about things in public, whether it's at the rallies on your social media platforms. And here in this letter, because any assertion or objection now of Donald Trump saying, I don't need to respond to these subpoenas, the January 6th committee is going to say, we're

just going to ask you about your letter, sir, we're asking you about the letter, we're asking you about your social media posts, we're asking you about all the things that you've previously said, what do you think about that take, Popeye? I like it. I think you're, we've talked before, Joe only half jokingly about he should type at the bottom of all of his fake tweets and submissions exhibit A. And he covers himself in no glory. He's in, you know, don't be fooled by his false provato at, I mean, our listeners and followers are it, but don't be fooled by the false provato at rallies and

at social truth tweets and whatever the F they are. He's in serious legal jeopardy and he is whistling in the graveyard acting like it's no big deal. It is a very big deal. I said with some jocularity rubbing my lucky flag pin that Wednesday, Thursday, Friday was a terrible, terrible day. If you and I had a client that had a Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, like this guy just had, we would be having a serious heart to heart come to Jesus come to Abraham conversation with them about how to try to resolve some of these if any of these he will not resolve any of them and he will not only go down fighting he will go down and circle the drain. He's already circling the drain.

Let's recall. I know our listeners and followers have been frustrated in the past about how big the wheels of justice are, right? What the circumference of the wheels are and why it takes so long to turn, but once they turn and you're trapped under them, you're crushed very finely. You know, he is, in all of his suits that he's filed, he's like one and 70. And the one when he has, it was a, it was a, well, to use that phrase of the day, nothing burger related to his ballot counting that didn't change any aspect of the votes that were counted. He has lost 70 times in the courtrooms of America, federal and state. And so,

by the way, that's just related, just related to the 2020, he's lost probably, he's probably, I would say this pro fuck the biggest loser in the history of defendants. I agree. I agree. If you know and lost lawsuits more, if you start in the 80s and 90s with his bankruptcy filing three times for the casinos in Atlantic City, the only person in America ever to lose money in gaming. If you follow that when he was put under a, talk about it a monitor, he was put under a

babysitter, a trustee that gave him an allowance every month because they didn't trust his finances back then. But you start in the 80s and 90s. Every suit, every suit his father lost related to fraud and housing. That family is, I mean, they used to host a show called Celebrity Apprentice. They should have hosted a show called Biggest Loser because he has, as you said, he has lost more when it matters in every courtroom in America. So just be patient, everybody, because his track record is terrible. And now his, his Vanguard, his defender is Alina Habba. And we're going to talk

about her in the course of two cases today. And her stupid remarks after, after court's federal judges have ruled against her client. Terrible week for him. You want to dive into the first? Yeah. And last but not least, you've talked about Trump in the 80s and the 90s and all of his laws is there. The parallel is there where he extorted essentially his creditors, right?

That was his strategy at the time. Now he is extorting the United States. Remember, he doesn't have an actual defense anymore. What he does have is basically, you go after me and I am building this QAnon weirdo dangerous army of people and I'm going to further try to destroy the country. That's all he's saying when I read these letters, but the January 6th Committee sees right through it.

And the January 6th Committee hearing this week really focused on premeditation, intent, and Liz Cheney started it off, set the tone by saying, our nation cannot only punish the foot soldiers who stormed our capital. Those who plan to overturn our election and brought us to the point of violence must also be held accountable. And in this specific January 6th Committee hearing, they really zeroed in on Trump's knowledge, his notice, his intent, his premeditation, his involvement. Some of the powerful moments, for example, I thought was when they showed that deposition testimony of the Republican National Committee Chair, Ronna McDaniel, who in video testimony said that Trump and John Eastman called her

to ask her to arrange for fake electors to meet to rehearse the process of casting the fake votes. Basically, a dry run of the coup. And this was one of the examples, though, where Trump himself, rather than throwing an Eastman under the bus or a Giuliani or a Sydney Powell or a fascist pillow guy This is one of those other moments and a new one that we learned about at the hearing where he directly Interjected himself in it one of the other parts that I thought was particularly Dastardly was this moment of Jason Miller bragging to Mark Meadows the chief chief of staff, former chief of staff to Trump, about firing up the base on extremist websites, the Donald.win website. And there

were comments on the page about gallows don't require electricity. Patriots will be armed to the teeth. And if filthy, comedy maggots try to push their fraud through. There will be held to pay. Our lawmakers in Congress can leave in one of two ways, one in a body bag, two after rightfully certifying Trump, the winner, I mean, horrific and horrible statements like that. And then you have the timeline of when Trump was aware, when emergency operations around 119 alerted Trump. He's told right away from then until 4 p.m. He's staying at the White House, watching what is happening, doing nothing, and behind the scenes you have Nancy Pelosi essentially functioning

as the president of the United States, calling governors and the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense and Pence and trying to coordinate a response. One final comment that I'll make is I saw Steve Scalise there in the background and some of these other mega Republicans who have had the audacity recently to blame Nancy Pelosi and their ultimate gaslighting fascist propaganda scobles style BS they were there Watching Nancy Pelosi lead and how dare these maggot Republicans say where was she? She's to blame. I mean these people are some of the most despicable despicable frankly people out there losers

Despicable dangerous pop up. What was your observations from this hearing? I thought the January 6th ninth session pulled it all together as the liability and criminal culpability of Donald J. Trump. The takeaway both from new video testimony, new video evidence, new evidence that was presented, and a playing of older evidence that have been played in the eight other sessions, but now pulled together in one masterful presentation with a couple of audiences that we've talked about before, the people, the people are the audience, the people of democracy. The Department of Justice is being provided a road map, a road map that leads directly to Donald Trump. What I took away from the final session and this presentation was the following. The Donald Trump knew and acknowledged the loss

to Joe Biden, that he knew and acknowledged that he had lost all of his legal challenges, that he knew and acknowledged that he had an armed militia ready to help him, that he knew and acknowledged that the crowd was armed and dangerous when he pointed it at the Capitol, that he is the president that nothing to protect the Capitol once informed. Neither did his secretary of defense, neither did his acting attorney general, that he wanted Trump wanted to go to the Capitol as the siege began. The Capitol police and the Secret Service diverted him. He was angry that he couldn't go to the Capitol, not to stop it, but to continue to pour caracene

on the flames of discontent, to foment discontent, and insurrection. That's all that he would have done standing at the Capitol. Thinking about this, we're going to talk about co-equal branches of government today and remind people about that. Here's one to talk about co-equal branches of government today and remind people about that. Here's one head of a co-equal branch of government that wants to travel to the other co-equal

branch of government while it is under attack, not to put a saloon on it, not to stop it, but to continue it. He saw the riot and did nothing about it for all of those long hundred and so minutes. And he told people around him, this is from the final session, that he thought the reaction of the people in laying siege to the Capitol, in attacking and trying to kill members of Congress. Congress was appropriate. He received in treaties and refused them from Fox News, from Hannity, from even Don Jr. to stop the violence and did nothing. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the closing argument against Donald Trump.

And if the Department of Justice doesn't think it has enough, it didn't think it has enough before. It certainly has enough now. The other takeaway for me on the Jans on the final hearing of the Jans six committee and some new information. We had heard about how leaders were handling the situation in the trenches, but to watch Nancy Pelosi and also, and also the Senate leader do two things simultaneously, protect the institution of the government and their elected function under

the Constitution to secure the peaceful transfer of power by getting back into session and counting those votes while video, not just of Congress people being brought through tunnels and other escape hatches to get away from the murderous mob. But I don't know if you saw then some of them had homemade gas masks and bags over their head because they feared tear gas and bear spray and all these other things. At the same time, they're focused on their constitutional obligations. They, not the president of the United States, is getting the Secretary of Defense on the phone, the National, the National Guard on the phone, the governors of the surrounding states on the phone, the capital police chief on the phone, the police chief for the surrounding Maryland and Virginia areas on the phone to get troops on the ground to protect the Capitol and protect the elected officials. They did that, not the president of the United States, who instead, like a giant infant,

but a dangerous one at that, an infant with his finger on the nuclear button is sitting in the dining room, railing against Mike Pence, supporting and cheering on the people that are trying to burn down the Capitol. First time since the 1800s, while he sat there with his thumb up his backside in the dining room doing absolutely nothing. He likes to call himself the president of the United States today. But then he certainly was the president of the United States on January 6th. And he had an obligation whether he liked it or not, he had an obligation to protect a co-equal branch of government. And he was derelict in that obligation and that constitutional duty.

And for that alone, we'll revisit at another podcast. I'm going to revisit the issue of the 14th Amendment, whether he's disqualified under Article 3 from ever serving office again, and whether people should be filing those kind of lawsuits now against them based on the evidence presented on Gen 6. Well, I think they absolutely should. I think he absolutely should be disqualified. And it's not dereliction of duty at this point would be putting it lightly. He was the center of it, as Liz Cheney said.

It wasn't just the omission, it was the commission, and he was the leader of it. He was the one who ordered. He was the one who encouraged. He was the one who supported the violence, the trying to burn down of the Capitol building, and the just embarrassment and humiliation that our country faced internationally and here as well. As you have these mega extremists wearing Trump shirts, literally defecating and urinating on the floor of the Senate and the floor of the House and in our great Capitol building. And that is what the Magda movement is. I mean, these individuals violent, defecating on the floor.

I mean, what the hell is going on here? This is the United States of America. And Donald Trump is the most anti-American. And that was with the most anti-American, humiliating horrific day. And the fact that Magga Republicans still try to refer to these individuals as political prisoners, it's horrific. But getting to the point at the end of the hearing where the January 6th Committee in a 9-0 vote ordered that Donald Trump be a subpoena that they would issue a subpoena and issued

the subpoena to Donald Trump. Now the balls and Donald Trump's court to respond to the subpoena. And he could respond or not respond. I mean, we've seen different people who have been subpoenaed have different approaches. Steve Bannon did not respond. Peter Navarro did not respond. And Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress on two counts, one for not showing

up for his deposition, the other for not producing documents. He awaits sentencing, which will be covered on a future episode of legal AF once he is indeed sentenced Peter Navarro's trial set within the next 60 days for contempt of Congress. Undoubtedly, because of the rare circumstances that involve a co-equal branch dispute, even though Donald Trump certainly did enact like a co-equal on that day. Presidents and the unitary executive doctrine and presidential powers and executive powers under the Constitution have a lot of potential defenses in the normal course against being subpoenaed, even former presidents, as I mentioned, unlike the dispute involving

the Mar-a-Lago search records, there it's the executive branch saying we want our own executive branch documents, and Trump, a former president saying you can't have your own executive branch documents, executive branch. It gets slightly different where it's a co-equal branch, subpoenaing a former president, and a former president asserting an executive privilege saying, I don't have to tell you that, whereas I still may have to cooperate with the current

executive branch or have to cooperate with the current executive branch. But the assertion of executive privilege Re is all about confidential deliberative communications that the executive has and it's waived when there's crime fraud that it's involving your engaged in criminal conduct and it's waived when you say the things. So when you write books about it and when you write letters like Trump did to Benny Thompson, when you talk about it at rallies, you don't have any confidential privilege because you've disclosed those facts publicly. committee is going to do very expeditiously, is they are going to pursue and compel all

of the appropriate remedies to try to get Trump to testify. His objections aren't going to be well-founded, and they're going to make the referral. The question becomes, is Merrick Arland going to prosecute? Remember, the January 6th committee is not a, they don't have the ability to indict. They can make a criminal referral. For example, they made the criminal referral when Mark Meadows did not show up, but the Department of Justice there decided not to take

the criminal referral and actually prosecute Mark Meadows. And you can say, why the hell did they do that? My own belief, and I think it's being born out, and I talked about it when that happened, is Mark Meadows is facing significantly greater legal jeopardy than the misdemeanor contempt of Congress charges, which carry with it less than one year of prison sentence if you're convicted, and I think they're holding it against

Mark Meadows or holding it over his head to say, we've got you here, we've got you at the Mar-Loggo search, we got you on actually aiding and abetting the insurrection, we got you on the fake electors scheme, we'll let you off this one right now, but you got to cooperate here and there. Undoubtedly, that's what they are doing. But, you know, I think ultimately,

the ball's gonna be in their courts, what they're going to do, whether they'll pursue a criminal referral. And to me, it'll just be one of the many types of crimes they can charge Donald Trump with, but they've got him, what we're about to talk about the next topic, like they've got him, like with a bullet proof case at this point, regarding the Mar-a-Lago search records and the search documents. And now we're learning additional information there that Trump ordered employees to move those records after Grand Jury's subpoenas were sent back in May of 2022.

And so they've got certain cases that Trump can face 20 plus years in prison for. But Popeyes, before we go to the next topic, what do you think will happen with the subpoena being issue? I think, I think, Merrick Arlin has got to prosecute that case. I think he has to. I think he has his own reasons that the Department of Justice has to go after the Mar-a-Lago

documents and prosecute that or investigate that. Let's remember, we're still in investigation mode. They have a file charges against Donald Trump. Yet this whole fight with Judge Cannon through the 11th Circuit and the US Supreme Court on two different appellate issues that we're going to talk about next. Let's let's remind everybody the reason this is so extraordinary is because Judge Cannon has interfered in a way no other frankly district court judge would ever interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation pre indictment. That's what we're talking about. He has not yet been indicted, but, but, but it's not going to be a trade off. It's not a zero sum game. I don't think I don't think Merrick Arlen's going to be like, well, I'm already got him dead

or rights in the Mar-a-Lago thing. So I'll let him walk on the Jan 6 thing. He's got to enforce the laws as they are written. And the Jan 6 committee's authority has to be respected and Congress and contempt as a doctrine has to be respected. And I believe he will he will not give favor or privilege to a former President of the United States. And he will do exactly what he's done with banning and the

other one. I mean, yes, he made a prosecutorial discretion not to go after a couple of the other ones. I think hoping he would get them to flip. But here, this flouting by Donald Trump, I just don't think he'll have any choice. And I thought it was interesting, Ben. I'm sure you caught it, maybe on the brothers podcast, you know, Trump has been flip-flop in like a fish on a boat, you know, caught on a boat about whether he will or will not, will he or won't he testify at his first reaction was well, it's too late.

So I would have done it earlier, but it's too late. Well, why is it too late? The Jansick's committee is still in power until after the midterms and after the swearing in of the next Congress. So it's not too late and that's not a defense. And then it's like, no, I'll do it. I'll definitely go, I'll go live. I'll go live.

You know, he'll make it some sort of rally press conference. He'll be found, he'll probably be found in contempt while he's actually giving his testimony. If we know, if we know Trump and nothing that he can say will help him in all of the criminal matters for which he faces Jeopardy. This is the problem with Donald Trump and his lawyers. He thinks he's the smartest person in the room

despite the, you know, one in 85 record in the courthouses of America, and that the longer, and you and I have clients like this, like, I know I have, they think the longer that they talk in a deposition, in a meeting, you know, the longer they talk, the better it is for them. They'll eventually convince everybody in the room of their position. And Donald Trump suffers from that malady. And he thinks, if I can just get on a microphone, and I don't, you know, and I'll talk to the Gen 6 committee and to the American people, my followers, that'll help me when I find a side I'm going to run, if he decides he's

going to run it all. But the reality is he's in a whole nother world. He's in legal jeopardy, criminal jeopardy to have his liberty taken away from him. And rightly so, he has no lawyers around them that have any cajonas, no balls, he respects none of them to take advice. And the advice would be stop tweeting, stop talking, stop making new evidence, stop creating, as I tell my clients, I can't when they come to me, I can't do anything about the facts as they existed that have already been developed. Don't make any new facts while I'm handling this case. That impact the case, right? All new snow, pure snow, no bad facts being made now.

And we have that conversation because you know, they're still in business, they're still doing things so you wanna make sure that they're safe. He will not take that advice. So he constantly, as you said at the top of the show, generates new evidence that can be used in all of these cases for no good reason.

I mean, it really is a new definition. We're watching a new definition of insanity. I mean, he really cannot control himself in creating new causes of action and criminal charges against him. It's almost like he has a mental disorder, not one that will disable him from being a defendant. None of these cases, thank God.

But one that generates new cases all the time. And you wanna get to what's going on with more? We're gonna talk also popuck about what happened in the E. Jean Carroll matter as well where after he was ordered to sit for deposition What was the first thing he did there? He sent a social media post where He created another cause of action for defamation, but we'll get to that. But going to what happened really, Popak, the same day as the January 6th Committee

hearing was taking place, the Supreme Court denied Trump's application in the Mar-a-Lago search case with respect to the classified records that he stole. It was assigned originally to Clarence Thomas, who was the supervising Supreme Court judge over that circuit, the 11th circuit. Clarence Thomas, as we talked about, on, we made that prediction. It seemed like a fairly easy prediction to make on the last podcast.

He referred it to the full court, the full Supreme Court, and the full Supreme Court just denied it. It was an unsigned opinion. It was about one sentence long, Terce, just saying it's hereby denied. And there what Donald Trump was requesting of the Supreme Court was that the Supreme Court partially vacate the motion for partial stay order that the 11 circuit granted. So I'll break that down. The 11th Circuit granted the Department of Justice's emergency motion that was pending their full appeal of Judge Eileen Cannon's assertion of equitable jurisdiction. And what the Department of Justice said to the 11th Circuit basically is like, it takes a long time

to appeal what Judge Eileen Ganon is, how wrong she is. But we need those 100 classified records back because our national security interest is on the line, and we need to pursue our criminal investigation. So 11th Circuit, get us those records back and take those out of that special master process. That is nothing to do. The special master should not look at that.

Trump should have no right of access it through the special master process. Give it back to us. And the 11th Circuit granted the emotion for partial stay. And said, of course, they said it's self-evident that Judge Eileen Cannon is completely wrong here. And that Judge Eileen Cannon should not have made that order regarding the classified records. But as we'll talk about in a second, that same logic would apply to all the remaining 11,000 documents that Donald Trump had also stole,

which is still subject to the special master process. But Donald Trump then ran to the Supreme Court and basically said to them, hey, look, Supreme Court, we should, the special master should still be entitled to get those classified records. Sure, maybe the Department of Justice can also have it back,

but give it also to the special master, because one of the things that Trump wanted is Trump wanted to look at the records. He wanted to look at it and he wanted to try to derail the Department of Justice's investigation. So that's why he had asked the Supreme Court to do that. And Donald Trump's basic argument was that the 11th Circuit, it's a ridiculous argument, but his argument was that the 11th Circuit, by the way, the panel was two Trump judges

and one Obama judge who made that percurium or unanimous decision that granted the Department of Justice motion for stay. But Trump's argument was that the 11th Circuit, they were completely wrong. They never had a pellet jurisdiction. And with the Department of Justice argued to the Supreme Court and what the 11th Circuit hinted at and they wrote, and they go, no, this whole crazy mess happened when Judge Eileen Cannon asserted jurisdiction and she shouldn't have asserted jurisdiction.

And because she's sloppy and doesn't know what to do other than to help Trump, she doesn't get the benefit of the doubt of how horrid her order is. And the 11th Circuit has a pellet jurisdiction, whether it's what's called pendant jurisdiction, which means there's an inextricably kind of intertwinedness between the injunctive relief and the special master process, which courts of appeals are obviously allowed on an interlocutory basis or before a final judgment to make rulings on injunctions, that therefore they're allowed to grant the motion for partial stay, whether you view her whole order as an injunction, which it seemed the whole order was an injunction. That's one of the

areas where the 11th Circuit has a pellet jurisdiction, or whether you view it as what's called the collateral order, which means after she does what she did, you can't really unring the bell because if Trump gets to see these classified records and derails the investigation, you can't unring that. The investigation is destroyed. And that's an area where the court of appeals can traditionally get involved in. And the Supreme Court denied Donald Trump.

So one of the things that the Department of Justice pointed out, though, too, that I thought was, you know, really embarrassing for Trump and their brief is like, they're like, Trump didn't even address the factors that you're supposed to address. Like, if you're asking the Supreme Court to intervene, you have to make a showing that the Supreme Court would find that this would be the type of case that they would grant Sir Shiari for and that the entire court would review.

Trump doesn't even brief that element and Trump didn't even brief the element of irreparable damage and irreparable harm. He didn't even brief it. He just talked about jurisdiction and he's wrong on jurisdiction. This is the Supreme Court agreed. See you later. Popo, anything you want to add there. Yeah, I do. If I don't have anything to add, it's just bottles will leave the podcast. All about as I've said before, and we've said before, Trump's lawyer is trying to get their hands

on the hundred classified documents. It's a sad commentary that he doesn't even know what's in his own desk drawer and what he took with him. And he has to be told that through a special master. And the reason for that, why does he wanna know what's in the hundred classified? Why is he trying to do an emergency

application to the Supreme Court and lose again for the third time on documents before this Supreme Court? Why? Because if he gets his hands on him, he may try to do something with them in terms of trying to quash a future indictment, trying to suppress, make an argument to some judge like Canon that makes no sense. He has to see them in order to make these a ridiculous ass-in-line type arguments. So that's what this whole fight was all about. And it's what it isn't about is the full appeal

because on the same day, back to my WFWTF, on the same day, the Department of Justice, because they can do two things at one time, the got that order and then immediately filed their brief, their appellate brief, to overturn the entire decision of Judge Cannon from soup to nuts, the entire thing. No special master, get the F out of the criminal investigation, district court judge, you have no role there. You had no jurisdiction there. And good day, this should go back to the magistrate, who is properly supervising the subpoena process. And we should move forward in our investigation. And the precedent that they are worried

about setting is the reason that they're arguing to what I think will hopefully be a favorable panel of the 11 circuit. Remembering that that 11 circuit panel will not be the 11 circuit panel that ruled in their favor, the two Trumps and Wano Bama, on the original narrow appeal, giving them the access to the 100 documents

and the criminal investigation not having any, not being stalled or stopped by the federal judge. We'll get a new panel, a special merits panel that has national security clearance. That's already been announced. It will know who that panel is after full briefing on the 17th of November before oral argument. Usually that full panel is announced right before at oral argument, which the which the Department of Justice, of course, has asked for. On this scotus rejection, we were

we were accurate in our prediction that Clarence Thomas wouldn't have the balls to make the ruling on his own, although he is empowered to do so, just as every justice who sits over a certain circuit has that power. And the one reason I just wanted to say why I was confident of that too is that because Trump was saying the 11th circuit did not have a pellet jurisdiction and the 11th circuit tends to make rulings that are favorable in the views of Clarence Thomas. They tend to be a right wing court by challenging their appellate jurisdiction and basically calling out the 11th Circuit, like Trump's basically like, the 11th Circuit's a bunch of idiots.

Like that's how offensive his motion was. They're a bunch of idiots who took the case that they shouldn't have taken and he kind of put, he wasn't helping Clarence Thomas help him, I'll just say, which there's probably no way to do that but it was such a poorly written brief. There's probably no way to write it because it was so frivolous to begin with, but that, that to me was ultimately the final analysis. Well, when I said on Wednesday, it was a little bit differently. I said, I didn't think

he had the balls having lost eight to one on a recent case, which I'm going to talk about a bit at the Supreme Court, related to records on similar type issues, and given Jenny's, Jenny Thomas's obvious inter, inextricably intertwined involvement in trying to overthrow our government, I didn't think that even Clarence Thomas would have the balls, the cajonas, the brass, to make this ruling on his own.

He could have. There's no, nothing that Justice Roberts could have done, own. He could have. There's no nothing that justice Roberts could have done. Chief Justice Roberts could have done to stop it. That is the power of each Supreme Court justice assigned to a circuit, but even I didn't think even Thomas would do that. And frankly, when the one line, as I joked out a tweet, it fit neatly within a tweet, the one line rejection of the state emergency stay application. There were no, even though it was unsigned, meaning it was the decision of the entire court,

there were no dissents. Sometimes Alito and Thomas will jump off sides and write a dissent. I would have granted full briefing on this issue because the panel, the Supreme Court was so confident that there was no law here that was being properly exercised. The 11th Circuit had done the right thing that they didn't even ask for further briefing. Remember, the application was filed by Trump's people. Clarence Thomas gave the Department of Justice one week to file their brief. And that's it. In a normal appeal, there's three briefs.

There's the opening brief, there's the opposition brief or the apalee brief, and then there's a reply brief, and usually there's oral argument at this level. Supreme Court looked at it and was like, now we're good. We're good on the papers, and we are just going to say, denied, and let's move on. I thought maybe they would even grant full briefing, but they did not. And nobody grants, nobody issued a dissent to say, oh, it was over my objection.

I would have, I would have briefed this thing. So that was interesting. And maybe for the reason that you said that Clarence Thomas is protective over the 11th circuit because it usually rules in his favor. And let's break out a little legal AF law school episode class right now about who covers the other circuits. So the ones that matter anyway.

So the 11th circuit is Clare's Thomas, the fifth circuit, which you and I talk in an inordinate amount about is covered by Sam Alito, which is another reason they keep trying to find ways to bring things up through Texas and other courts in the fifth circuit because they know they've got a favorable justice in Alito. He also covers New Jersey, which was his home court.

He literally was a judge in New Jersey before elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court. So some people might be saying, well, where are the moderate justices? Where do they? What are they responsible for? Well, the second circuit which covers New York, which is going to have a lot of Trump issues because of the suit in New York is Sotomayor, the ninth circuit, which is your home court in California and the Western States is Kagan. And the federal court, where a lot of the federal appellate court, where a lot of interesting issues between states and governments and states, that kind of thing is Roberts.

And then the newly- the newly-seated Justice Jackson, Katangi Brown Jackson, she has the first which covers New England, the New England area. So there are places, but you could see when Trump's lawyers are trying to find the path of least resistance, there's soft underbelly of the federal court system, they try to go where in Alito or a Clarence Thomas or maybe a Gorsuch or a Kavanaugh sit, and that's why we have those things.

So I thought all of that was interesting in the lack of briefing. Just a reminder, everybody, we're talking about Trump as the biggest loser. He's lost a couple of times at the Supreme Court, even with a right wing Supreme Court, when it comes to documents. In January, he lost eight to one. We're scotus, refused to block the turnover of records from the National Archives to the Jan 6th Committee. We forget that. That was in January of last year, you know, this past January. And he lost eight to one. The one was Clarence Thomas, which gave you when I pause and concerned about him looking at this current document fight. But as recently as 2020, and this is going to tie into another segment we're going to do today about the New York Attorney General and things going on in New York, the

Manhattan District Attorney's Office sought his financial records. He ran to court in New York to try to stop it. The second circuit, which is now, as I've said before, is covered by Sotomayor, ruled against him, requiring him to turn over the documents to the, or how the documents turned over to the Manhattan DA's office, then headed by Sy Vance. He didn't like that. So he took an appeal, another application emergency to the US Supreme Court. And in full briefing, Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts had this very pithy phrase that sums it all up. He said as to Trump that no citizen, not even the president is categorically above the common duty to provide evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.

That's Justice Roberts Robert's writing for the court and it was a seven to two decision with Thomas and Alito in descent. So he has lost every time Trump tries to take a document issue ultimately to the Supreme Court where he thinks it may be a favorable body for him because he's appointed so many of them and now has the majority. He has lost and not lost by a little lost by a lot. And so our predictions are, I'm going to make one here. I'm sure you'll agree, but you'll tell me the predict. We'll go through the motions of all of this motion practice and a pellet practice now with the

full blown appeal by the Department of Justice and Trump will file on this, and then there'll be another brief on the 17th of November and oral argument. But he is going to lose at the Supreme Court level on the fundamental issue of to whether Judge Cannon as a district court judge can interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation

and have any special master or any denial of documents to the prosecutors or the FBI or have to force them to jump through any hoops or force them in any way to inhibit their discretion to conduct the investigation in the prosecution as they say, see fit. That's going to be the new law on the books, courtesy of Donald Trump. It may just take us another, you know, three months, four months, it's not going to be next year. It's going to be, you know, probably, well, it's going to be next year in the sense of where the calendar is going to, is going to change, but it's going to be relatively quickly that we're going to have that, that now third precedent against Donald Trump and future Donald Trump's

by a US Supreme Court. Well, look, which just happened in New Mexico. I mean, when Johnny Eastman tried to get the federal judge there to assert equitable jurisdiction, like it wasn't a close call, the federal judge was like, no, I'm not asserting equitable jurisdiction. There's no irreparable harm and Denai, Johnny, Smyn's request. These are not close call issues, which is what makes what Judge Eileen Cannon did just so offensive.

And frankly, when it happened, why it was so shocking. And it was like, she literally just violated the law in the most insane way, so flagrantly, and judges do it. Like, it's not like that's unique to Judge Eileen Cannon, but they're usually smarter about it and how they do it. I was like, really, you're just going to like avoid all of the law and stop the Department of Justice from engaging in their own criminal investigation. Anyway, we will keep you all posted on that. And we've got to go to what happened in New York with New York attorney general, Tish James, who filed a motion for preliminary

injunction against Trump. As you like to say, WTF, I mean, a lot of action taken place here. And what she said in her filing and in a related press statement that you made. Trump is engaged in ongoing criminal conduct and ongoing fraud. We need injunctive emergency relief. Court step in right now, a point and independent monitor, I always say in a twist of irony. It's kind of like a special master to review all of Trump's filings to make sure that he's not engaged in further fraud involving his submission of financial records. And in addition, we also became aware, what the motion says, that on the same day we brought the New York Attorney General's office brought the $250 million fraud lawsuit against Donald

Trump that Trump created a new entity called the Trump Organization, number two. And so we at the New York Attorney General's office and Common Sense would demonstrate where worried he's going to transfer assets from Trump one to Trump 2, which is a Delaware company, Trump organization 2, and tried to avoid disgorgement or an order by the jury to take the unlawful money that Trump gained by engaging in his fraudulent conduct and tried to transfer assets to this other entity to avoid having to be accountable. And one of the other things that Tish James mentioned in her order is that Trump and his adult children are trying to avoid service and they're ducking service, like the little

babies that they are. And it's no offense to babies because this is certainly lower than babies. Most most babies are at least cute. Apologies to all babies out there. And to serve them by electronic service was the was the request that was made. Popeye, anything you want to add there about New York AG's filing?

Yeah. So we we talked in the past podcast about how powerful a set of tools the New York Attorney General has it at her disposal. They're really unique. Most states actually don't give this level of power to their attorney general. But on the New York books, we have, you know, I practice in New York, the executive law 6312, which we referred to colloquially as a 6312 action, is, you know, should bring a chill down, anybody's spine that is facing the other side of it,

because the attorney general has tremendous power is given a sort of a pass on certain things that normally a party would have to prove in a courtroom. For instance, she filed this injunction, and we'll talk about the substance of the injunction. And normally, if you and I have a client that's seeking an injunction, there's at least three, if not four elements that have to be met. I joked on a podcast on Wednesday that with Karen that, you know, most of our careers is talking about, you know, what are the elements and how do we satisfy them for something? You know, that drives, that's an, that drives our careers in law. But she, she gets a pass, the attorney general in the state of New York,

because they only have to prove two elements for an injunction, much less or standard than a normal litigant. They only have to prove likelihood of success on the merits. I'm likely to win when this case is all over and that the equities, the equities, the balance, right? We talk about the scales of just, the wheels of justice, this is the scales of justice, that the scales tip in favor, just slightly, could be a feather in favor of her position.

That's it. She doesn't have to prove anything else. She doesn't have to put up a bond, which is an amount of money that court sometimes take in before an injunction is set in case the court rules in the future that the injunction Was improperly or improved intently granted she doesn't have to do that at all So she gets you know a couple of things at her back the wind at her back when she comes into a courtroom like that You and I only have joke to podcasts ago that if she's gonna stand at her podium and that if she's gonna stand at her podium and appropriately pound it and say there's a massive

ongoing fraud and therefore we need a, and if the next word out of her mouth is a really fast trial, there's something missing and you and I have joked about where's the injunction? If you think there's a massive fraud being currently perpetrated on the citizens of the state of New York, including its banks and insurance companies and lenders and all of that. Then the next word out of your mouth better be and therefore we're seeking an injunction.

So I think she took some flack on that. I think that was a little bit of a hiccup in the strategy. I love Latisha James and everything she does in this case, but I think she should have brought that earlier, but she's able to bring it. Now, some courts just to bring up why I was a little concerned about timing. Federal courts in particular are very, very demanding about the timing of when you bring because you have to show a reprobial harm. If you're not bringing it fast enough, that's one of the other elements.

If you're not bringing it fast enough on the clock, the court can say, well, if, if it's so bad against you and you're suffering a reprobble harm, what took you 11 days to get here? She does not have that problem because she doesn't have to show as the attorney general a reprobble harm. So it's a, I guess I could give her some sort of backhand credit. I guess she could have sat for as long as she wanted to bring that kind of injunction. Now she brings the injunction. And I don't want to minimize. I get the irony comment about it's like a special master, but having been involved with cases where an independent monitor has been appointed

on the financial services side, it's not fun and an A into special master, because in a special master, it's an adversarial process where both sides get to have input and you have hearings and status conferences and the judge, in this case, Deere issues reports, you don't get any of that with an independent monitor.

Independent monitor is up your, you know what? Proctologist style, they sit in your office. All of the papers of your financial affairs have to go to them without any restrictions, without any editing, without any ability to advocate. Well, I know the spreadsheet on my financial position says, X, but let me talk to you about it. I mean, you'll only talk when you're spoken to. And it's only when the independent monitor wants that information. So that's a big deal and consistent with her argument that there's a continuing massive fraud going on

for an independent monitor to oversee all of Trump organizations and Trump's financial statements, financial position papers, all of his accounting ledgers before they go to third parties. Because remember, the argument here is that the fraud is on the banks, the fraud is on the lending public, the fraud is on insurance companies with the hyperinflated assets that aren't really existing. So the independent monitor is going to have to say, let me see what you're going to submit to Deutsche Bank, to Citibank, to whatever bank, Capital One Bank, whatever bank you're currently borrowing from. And what is the basis for your valuation numbers? What is the basis for

you saying that your financial condition is x, y, and z? Because the New York Attorney General is reminding the judge judge Ergaron that measures the 15-year auditing firm walked away from this client and said on the way out and firing the client nothing that we said in the past in terms of the client's financial position can be relied upon. So if you have an independent monitor being established by Judge Ergaron, it is a way to insulate further perpetuation of new fraud by the Trump organization by having it go through this independent third party that only reports to the judge. Now, we're still waiting to see what happens with the request by Trump to get a as far away from judge Ergorod as possible and transfer the case to the commercial

division. So when Alina Habba to bring her up again, you know, the pod's favorite lawyer and cartoon character, when she was reached for comment about the application, after she went through her normal hum, hum, hum, hum, hum, she then went into, oh, this is just an attempt to avoid having the case transferred the commercial division because, you know, the, no, it's not. It's an injunction and a request for an extraordinary relief

of an independent monitor because your client, including Donald Trump, they have reason to believe is continuing to commit fraud on banks, lenders, and the investment communities. Of course, Alina Haba, once again, loses the point. The transfer of assets thing is fascinating because, and here we'll break out another lesson on legal AF. There's a concept in the law that concerns fraudulent transfer of assets away from creditors

or future judgment creditors. The state of New York is a future judgment creditor, obviously, of a $250 million or more civil filing under 6312 of the executive law for fraud. And a lot of times clients facing this kind of potential lawsuit or in a lawsuit, you know, want to do something with their assets, you know, I've had without mentioning names, I've had clients talk to me, what can I do? And to be honest, there's very little you can do because if you transfer the assets away from the company, and the company here being Trump organization, setting aside Donald Trump himself and the children themselves,

which are personally liable, I would assume jointly and severally, all together with the Trump organization. If the Trump organization has assets now, because they funnel all of the money that comes in first to the Trump organization, and they're trying to deplete the assets of the Trump organization, number one, the original Trump organization by paying loans early, which the New York Attorney General commented in her filing. You know, they're spending the money to pay off all the loans that we say that were fraudulent, leaving little in the till in the bank for us to collect against. And now, on the day that I filed my lawsuit, your honor, they go down to Delaware.

I love the New York Attorney General's Office and investigators who figured out on that day, checking the filings that there was a new Trump org establishment of a corporation in the state of Delaware with a cross filing in New York. This is where they screwed up to be a foreign corporation operating in the state of New York, this is where they screwed up, to be a foreign corporation operating in the state of New York, foreign in the sense that it's from a state outside of New York. We call that a foreign corporation when it's from outside the state.

But in order to use a foreign corporation to operate in the state of New York, because you do business there, you have to register it. So they registered it as a Delaware Corp. Trump Organization too, doing business in New York as Trump organization. And that gave the New York Attorney General the perfect opportunity to not only go in and say, well, there shouldn't be any fraudulent transfer of assets. And let's stop that right now and do a freeze of any transfer of assets from the entity that we're suing.

But as long as we're here, let's talk about the independent monitor, which I think will be terrible for them. Here's the prediction. Ergoron does not. I think the administrative judge that's responsible in the state of New York for deciding whether this case stays or goes to Ergoron to another judge leaves it with Ergoron. I think Ergoron sets a relatively fast trial schedule and by the second quarter of 2023,

and in the interim, I think he's gonna give to the New York Attorney General because that's the power she has by statute, most if not all of what she's seeking against him, the Trump organization, in the injunction and independent monetary. What do you think? I would tend to agree with you, Pope Ack.

I think that, I think Angeron's gonna grant this motion for preliminary injunction. And look, this is the same judge who's already granted a contempt discovery order against Trump. He knows the games, he knows what they're doing. And I do like the fact though, that Tish James is being aggressive here. Could she have done this a little bit earlier?

Could she have done this concurrently with the filing of the case? Sure, but strategically, there's a few audiences and such a high profile litigation. There's obviously the court. There's also the audience of the public opinion. And so filing such a massive $250 million lawsuit and immediately moving for injunctive relief, there's a lot going on, you know, with those end against a former president. So I think that, could it have been five days or three days after she filed shore, but I think it was the appropriate filing.

I think she will prevail. We will keep everybody updated on that. Also, if you support independent media like this and you want to support it more, go check us out at patreon.com slash might as touch. P-A-T-R-E-O-N dot com slash might as touch. There's a number of different exclusive membership tiers from behind the scenes footage, exclusive podcasts. You can become an honorary

producer of the might as touch podcast and your name will appear on the podcast at the end as well for the might as touch brothers podcast and more head to patreon.com slash might as touch. In addition, today's program is brought to you by athletic greens, the health and wellness company that makes comprehensive daily nutrition really simple. With so many stressors in life, it's difficult to maintain effective nutritional habits and give our bodies the nutrients it needs to thrive. Busy schedules pour sleep, exercise the environment, work stress, or simply not eating enough of the right foods can leave us deficient in key nutritional areas. A.G.1 by Athletic Greens, the category leading superfood product, brings comprehensive and

convenient daily nutrition to everybody. Keeping up with the research, knowing what to do, and taking a bunch of pills and capsules is hard on the stomach and hard to keep up with to help each of us be at our best. They simplify the path to better nutrition by giving you the one thing with all of the best things. This is why I love athletic greens for me.

Keeping up with all the pills and capsules and gummies, and me trying to pick out what I thought was going to be the best. I was not getting the benefit, but here with one tasty scoop of AG1, it contains all those vitamins I need, 75 vitamins, minerals and whole food source ingredients, including multivitamin, multimineral,

probiotic, green superfood blend,, 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 those nutritional gaps in your diet, give you that energy and focus you need, and aid with gut health and digestion. It's lifestyle friendly. So whether you eat keto, paleo, vegan, dairy, free gluten free, it's for you and it contains less than one gram of sugar, no GMOs, no nasty chemicals, no artificial, anything. So join the movement of legal a efforts and to make it easy to join this movement, athletic greens in coordination with us is going to give you an immune supporting free,

one year supply of item in D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. Just go to athleticgreens.com slash legal AF. Again, simply visit athleticgreens.com slash legal AF, ATH, L-E-T-I-C-G-R-E-E-N-S. dot com slash legal AF, L-E-G-A-L-A-F, take control of your health and give A-G-1. A try, Popeyes, we talked about this earlier. Wait, wait, I have a confession to make. What's that?

Well, you were doing the A-G-1 ad, I had a piece of cold pizza. You had a piece of cold pizza? Yeah, that was I was so great and I knew how long the ad tech so I had a slice of cold pizza. Popo pop confessing. Popo, do you think Donald Trump though when he gets into his deposition, he's going to actually answer the questions, is he going to confess or is he going to take the Fifth Amendment? Trump was ordered by a federal judge to sit for deposition, this upcoming Wednesday in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. This was the case where while Donald Trump was the president, he had a press conference and during the press conference, he denied sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll in the mid 1990s at a high end

department story. He also made a number of derogatory and frankly defamatory statements about her while he was set to go for discovery in the state court proceedings. She shoot him for defamation in 2019. I think around November of 2019 in state court Bill Barr swoops in substitutes the United States government in place of Donald Trump arguing that it's within the course and scope of Donald Trump's presidency where he made the statements that was contested before the federal judge where it

was removed to federal judge Ka, who sits in the southern district of New York, Judge Kaplan ruled that substituting the United States government in place of Donald Trump was in proper, he made it on two grounds. One, that the president is not technically a federal employee under the specific statue, and two, it wasn't within the course and scope of employment to defame a sexual assault victim who you sexually assault the prior to the presidency if you accept the facts pled as true that was appeal to the second circuit court of appeals the second circuit made a ruling very recently which stated that they found that Donald Trump was technically a federal employee, but asked to the question of did the conduct occur within the course and scope of employment, they certify that question to the DC court of appeals, highest court in DC, saying that that court would know more how to answer that question.

They kind of punted. In other words, Trump tried to delay his deposition, saying, look, all these things are going on in the appeals process. I shouldn't have to be deposed until the court of appeal finally makes its final ruling on that course in scope issue because ultimately, if it is found that the United States government could substitute in in Donald Trump's place, that would result in the overall lawsuit, technically being dismissed because the federal government did not waive sovereign immunity regarding defamation claims, meaning you can't sue the federal officials for defamation, thus the case would ultimately be dismissed.

And so Trump said, don't depose me until we find out what happens. Judge Kaplan said, look, this is the federal judge in the case. You've been delaying, delaying, delay in this thing forever. The case is basically ready to go. We don't know how long the court of appeals is going to take. You got to sit for your deposition, buddy. You're not above the law. Sit for your deposition. He ordered Trump's deposition to take place on Wednesday and Trump's response to that was to go on his social media platform and basically make the same allegations that he had made, the defamatory allegations that he made when he was president,

but now he made it at a time where he's not president. He posted a statement on his social media platform, literally almost verbatim saying the exact same things. And so now, E. Jean Carroll doesn't even have to worry about what the court of appeals is going to do because he now defamed her again outside the course in scope. He's no longer the president, so he can't even assert that immunity anymore and in addition because of the New York adult survivors act E. Jean Carroll's statute of limitations, which previously elapsed a long, long time ago in the 90s, starting sometime in mid-November when the law fully goes into effect,

she'll have one year to actually sue him for the underlying sexual assault that took place, not just his defamatory conduct popuck, anything you want to add to that. Yeah, I don't even know where I mean, let's begin at the beginning. The fact that he would say aloud, she's not my type again. I never understand this comment, other than it is disgusting.

I don't understand the comment. It means you only rape people that are your type. I don't understand how he thinks that's gonna curry favor with the jury. Maybe if fun raises for him, it's another grift for him. It's funny that him pushing 80, commenting about a victim who's now in her 70s. First of all, we weren't talking about it when they were geriatrics. We're talking about it in the 90s when he was a playboy that was busy grabbing

the P word all around New York as chronicled by places like the New York Post and other places. And she was an editor for Elle magazine. I really don't understand how, why he would say these things, but it is another exhibit A. To your first question to me when we started the segment, does he talk at this or does he, as he interposed a some sort of Fifth Amendment privilege? He's not subject to criminal prosecution in the state of New York. Let me answer that question. That Karen Friedman, Agnifalo, our co-anchor and friend actually covered with me and her on our podcast in the midweek about three weeks ago.

New York's now would allow for a criminal prosecution to be opened up about a charge from the 90s, but there's not it's not a retroactive statute on the books. It was passed about five, six years ago, and it would not cover E. Jean Carroll and what happened to Hart, normally it would. So he could be he could be could be looking at criminal prosecution under the current New York statute, but not on the one that would apply to the time that it happened. So he doesn't really have a legitimate grounds to interpose a Fifth Amendment privilege, although he may try and that'll go back to the judge.

Some people might think, I'll just take the fifth, but that process is supervised by the judge in every case. And if after an evidentiary hearing and the judge hears the testimony, it decides that the person does not really have a legitimate fear of pardon me, criminal prosecution. Fifth amendment privilege is stripped away by the judge and he has to testify and he's compelled to testify

by the judge in the case. And we know this judge has had sort of enough, judge and he has to testify and he's compelled to testify by by the judge in the case and we know this judge has had sort of enough, you know, a hand under the chin here has had enough with Donald Trump and his delay and and and he pointed out, as you said, the dilatory tactics, the delay tactics that Donald Trump has been embarking on in every one of his lawsuits, including in this one. So, and then I was and then I thought it was strange, but frankly, but frankly, I'm getting tired of saying, I think what Alina Habba says is strange, as I said, she's our favorite cartoon character and lawyer. Her comment was, in her filing and in her argument to Judge Kaplan, her argument was,

we've already won. We've won at the second circuit. He's an employee of the federal government. It's like seriously, I mean, it's as if she fell asleep during most of her law school about how elements have to be satisfied before immunity protection is granted. She's half right.

I mean, she's usually too smart by half and so is Donald Trump. She's half right. Yes, the second circuit ruled, as you said earlier, Ben, that he is a, the president was an employee under what we call the West fall act, but it's a two prong, a two prong test in order to get immunity and have the US government step into your shoes and protect you from liability for what happened on your defamation case, not the other assault, sexual assault case that'll be coming soon against him at the end of November.

And in order to get the Westfall immunity, as we call it, yes, you have to be first found to be an employee and we're done with that subject to going to the Supreme Court on it, but we're waiting on the highest level court of the District of Columbia, the highest territorial court, municipal court, to rule on whether he was inside or outside the scope of his authority, the scope of his employment when he made those really disgusting to famatory comments about E. Jean Carroll. And the answer to that is he's outside the scope. He doesn't get West Falls statute immunity. And so no, Alina Hava, it's not enough that the finding of employer

or is already employee is already in your favor that doesn't decide the case. And the wheels of justice stop for no person. And that he has a civil case. And this is not the only deposition that just to explain, you know, a little bit how civil discovery works. There's been about a dozen or so depositions already taken or scheduled in the case. They've taken, for instance, the magazine editor for L magazine that was effectively E. Jean Carroll's boss presumably, I haven't seen, you know,

it's a private deposition for right now until it's filed with the court and becomes public. But I presume it was to corroborate that at the time that she was sexually attacked by Donald Trump as she alleges that she reported it to somebody that she in real time, which is a corroborating factor that goes to her credibility when you write in a diary in real time, when you tell a friend in real time, when you tell a boss in real time about the horrible thing that happened to you, it is part of the weight of evidence in your favor and as to your credibility. So they've testified. Press secretaries for Donald Trump have testified. testified, press secretaries for Donald Trump have testified. And so, you know, she's putting up her witnesses.

Donald Trump, I mean, I don't know who he has as a person to help him with his case. But you know, this is their opportunity to do discovery in their case. But he is going to have to now sit. And I think he's going to have to ultimately, whether he does it initially or under court order because he doesn't really have a legitimate Fifth Amendment privilege, he's going to have to tell the story, not on social media, not on fake tweets, but in a, but in a, the effective equivalent of a court of law sworn in under oath by a court reporter and give his side of the story.

And if he wants to deny it and he wants to say I was never a Bergdorf Goodman's, which is hard to believe, considering just so everybody knows, it is directly across the street and about a hundred feet away from Trump Tower. Bergdorf Goodman's, the department store, is a hundred feet away from Trump Tower.

You can go on Google Earth and go check Popack on that or you can go to New York and go check it out. So it is not beyond the realm that this event would have happened at Bergedorf, Bergedorf's where that he had been in burglars. So I think he's got, he's got to explain ultimately that it didn't happen. He doesn't know this person, even though there are photos of the two of them together. There's no video cameras back then, unfortunately, security cameras to rely on. But he's going to have to say it didn't happen. I doubt he's ballsy enough under oath to say this class disgusting thing he keeps repeating, which is she's not my type. Again, as if he only rapes his

type. I mean, I think things come into that courtroom ultimately like grabbing the pussy and the comments that he made to the to the reporter that came out right during his campaign. I know for a fact, because it's been reported that at least two other victims of his have already given testimony by way of deposition in the case, much like Harvey Weinstein and the parade of people that he victimized and sexually assaulted, that is part of the evidence basis here. So you have other women who say me too, that happened to me literally at the hands of Donald Trump, not which of course reinforces that E. Jean Carroll is telling the truth.

The interesting thing that he's gonna have to worry about is it looks like Robbie Kaplan, the lawyer, friend of the podcast, she's been on the show before, that she is going to take this deposition on Wednesday, even before she moves for a leave to amend her lawsuit to bring the civil rape charge. Now you only get one deposition generally in federal court. You get, it's usually seven hours by statute, by rule, unless you get more time with the judge from the judge. This is interesting, Ben.

What do you think? Why is Robbie doing it now? Knowing that she may not get another deposition of him. Is it because she's, you think she's gonna ask the questions that I'll support that case as well, while she's sitting there and she only needs what bite at the apple? What do you think she's going to ask the questions that I'll support that case as well while she's sitting there and she only needs what bite at the apple? What do you think? Exactly. More delay, delay, delay with Trump. He'll come up with some other excuse later.

If you can get his deposition, you'd get his deposition now. You can ask about all of the other questions. The underlying sexual assault necessarily is intertwined within the defamation case, right? Because truth would be a ultimate defense to defamation. So you're getting at the same conduct, no matter what. And the only potential thing to think about now is because he defamed her again, will that support another defamation claim to be added to this lawsuit or another cause of action? But we'll keep everybody posted there and we'll see on the midweek, legal AF as well, what

transpires. Now I just want to talk about though, we'd be remiss if we did not mention as the wheels of justice, starting a big week for justice, that the Connecticut jury in the defamation lawsuit filed by family members, think it was about 15 plaintiffs who were family members, who mostly all of the family members who were plaintiffs lost a loved one, a child, or a family member in the Sandy Hook school shooting.

I think there was one plaintiff that was law enforcement, who's as well, who were all defamed by Alex Jones. Alex Jones called these family members and their deceased children, members and their deceased children, crisis actors, based on his conduct, we heard horrific testimony at the trial regarding people threatening or even going to piss on the graves of children, people threatening to dig up the graves to try to prove Alex Jones's theory that it was defamatory statement theories, that this was crisis actors, people threatening sexual assault on family members,

all because Alex Jones spread these defamatory lies on his platform, The jury came back. So just to rewind just briefly for a second, Alex Jones, similar to the Texas case, because of his obstruction and failure to participate in the process of litigation, he was found in default, meaning he was already found liable and responsible going into trial. And all that trial was to determine where the damages of the plaintiff family members who lost loved ones.

And in the aggregate and the compensatory damages, meaning not even the punitive damages. In the compensatory damages, we were talking about somewhere near $1 billion. I think the final total came to about $9.65 or $985 million dollars. Lots of mega Republicans responded to the verdict by defending Alex Jones and saying that this verdict was a sign of the regime trying to silence people who they don't agree with politically. You go back to a few years ago, Maga Republican candidate for Senator JD Vance came out with public statements in support of Alex Jones, of course, Marjorie Taylor, Green, the head of the Maga Republican main influencer group, Turning Point USA, all put out statements in support of Alex Jones after the verdict.

Just goes to show you one justice being served, but also what we have to deal with in Maggary publicans, leaning in to support and go out of their way to support Alex Jones, even after this verdict and to spread more disinformation and propaganda that this involves the regime or whatever the hell that they are trying to spread and their continued effort to divide America and spread hate. That's the basic summary there. I don't think we need to go into it anymore, but glad that justice was served there. Now we go to the process of bankruptcy court where you think about what we talked about earlier in this podcast with Tish James

wanting an independent monitor to make sure Trump didn't transfer or doesn't transfer his assets. One of the issues that the bankruptcy court will be looking at is all of the places and locations where Alex Jones may have transferred his assets to whether it was family members and shell companies and offshore accounts and other things like that. It was believed that his net worth could have actually been somewhere close to $200 million or even more based on the profits that were made

by his despicable conspiracy-lating companies. And we will see, he claims he doesn't have any of that money. But we're already seeing, based on some previous hearings taking place in bankruptcy court of these unlawful transfer of assets. But we will keep you updated there. And that's what the plaintiffs' families are alleging the unlawful transfer of assets.

We will keep you posted. But the wheels of justice shorted turn this week, and while the wheels of justice move slow, they do move in the right direction. It doesn't mean that the wheels of justice won't occasionally hit roadblocks, won't occasionally hit the nail meeting rubber in the middle of the road. But if we continue to support our legal system, if we continue to support democracy, if we don't give up and if we continue not just to hold hope, but to actually put in the work.

system justice will ultimately be served such a pleasure and honor to be able to spend this time with you, Michael Popak, each and every weekend. Now it would also be the time everybody, if you want to support independent media like this, to check out the MidasTouch Patreon website that's patreon.com slash MidasTouch PAT, R-E-O-N dot com slash Midas touch become a patron of might as touch at one of the membership tiers there and get exclusive benefits. Check out patreon dot com slash might as touch support our sponsors. I really, really, really like athletic greens. I really drink it. You see me drink it during some of the episodes. I drink it every morning. It tastes great. It's cheaper than your cold brew habit go to athletic greens.com slash legal a athletic greens.com slash legal a f with all the work that we have. It is important that we also remember to never forget about our health

athletic greens.com slash legal a f and check out the Midas touch merch at store dot minus touchtouch.com. We've got a great legal AF wheels of Justice Long Sleep shirt. Go to store.mitustouch.com. We've got Rovember shirts, Ro-Row, your Roadshirts, Convict or Convict 45 shirts and more. That's store.mitustouch.com. Ben Myceles and Michael Popack of Legal AF. We are so honored to share this legal news and updates with each and every one of you, each and every weekend. The wheels of justice turn and we will keep covering the most consequential legal news. Until next time, shout out to the Midas Mighty. you