Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts Michael Popok & Karen Friedman Agnifilo REACT to Breaking Legal News

Episode Date: November 10, 2022

The Midweek Edition of the top-rated news podcast, LegalAF x MeidasTouch, is back for another hard-hitting look in “real time” at this week’s most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this episode, co-anchors national trial lawyer Michael Popok and former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo analyze and discuss: The midterm election results with a special focus on abortion and a woman’s right to choose on the ballot in 6 states, and the DOJ’s monitoring of voter intimidation and fraud in 26 states; post-midterm election actions by state and federal prosecutors arrayed against Trump; Trump’s appeal of the NY trial court’s appointment of an independent monitor over most aspects of the Trump Organization’s business affairs; a federal judge allowing Bannon to remain free post-sentencing while he pursues his appeal; and a federal court’s dismissal of Lt. Col. Vindman’s civil conspiracy and KKK Act claim against Trump, Trump Jr. and Giuliani, and so much more! DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: LOMI: https://lomi.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

Welcome to the Midweek edition of Legal AF, where we'll be covering the most consequential stories at the intersection of law and politics at the Midweek. With your co-anchors, Michael Popock and Karen Friedman, Agnifalo, today, Karen and I will break down the Steve Bannon sentencing. We finally reach the time when Bannon having been convicted of two counts of obstruction of Congress and contempt of Congress is being sentenced by Judge Nichols Department of Justice has submitted their recommendations for his sentence. Bannon has submitted his and now it's up to Judge Nichols to decide at the next hearing. We'll also talk in our second segment today about the SEC Securities and Exchange Commission

whistleblower, a now former senior executive of the Trump social media organization who is trying through a special purpose acquisition company to raise a billion dollars by selling their truth social to investors, how he has gone to the Securities and Exchange Commission has become a whistleblower and is now ratting out both the Trump organization and the SPAC company, DWAC, in its efforts to try to line the pockets of the Trump family. And then lastly, we're going to talk about the special prosecutor appointed originally by Bill Barr, John Durham, who has been allegedly over the last three years at a cost of $20 million of taxpayer dollars, investigating the Russian hoax investigation, trying to get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton and her campaign were involved with

the steel dossier, which was a white paper prepared by a former spooker spy for the British government, Christopher Steele, that laid out an elaborate case against Donald Trump in his involvement and co-option by the Russians. And Durham is charged, allegedly, with getting to the bottom of that dossier, how it was manufactured, how it ended up in the hands of the Clinton campaign, and how it ended up in the hands of the FBI for investigation purposes. He has brought three prosecutions. He has lost two of them already, including the one this week and Karen and I and especially Karen with her prosecutorial background are getting are going to get to the bottom

as to why John Durham just can't seem to find his way around a courtroom and win a trial. Karen can't seem to find his way around a courtroom and win a trial. Karen, how are you? It's a brisk autumn day in New York. I'm feeling great. What about you? Yeah, it's nice. It's nice to this time of year. You know, I love it. I love the fall. Get to put your sweaters on and yeah. Yep. Yeah, that's it. I got some sort of popaki and autumn hunting jacket on right now for those that are listening. But let's get down to why the people don't come here for our fashion sense. They come here to get to the,

say, thank God, they come here to get to the bottom of the most consequential stories at the intersection of law and politics. And let's kick it off. We spoke at length in the last couple of months about Steve Bannon finally being convicted by a jury in Washington in federal court for two counts of contempt of Congress related to his failure to comply with their subpoena to obtain documents that he had mainly after

he left the White House, but including before he left the White House. And related to his failure to appear before the Jan 6th Committee and testify. And, you know, he's a Trump, he's drunk, he's drunk the entire cooler of Kool-Aid, and believes strongly in Donald Trump, and everything Donald Trump tells him to do, Steve Bannon does, including not complying with the subpoena, and not appearing before Congress, then the federal judge, Judge Nichols, was having none of it, and the jury was having none of it, returning a verdict

in almost record time. Now, some people ask, why was it a sentence on that particular day, sent him to jail, sent him to the gallows? That's not our system of justice, and that's not our system of federal court sentencing. And so what what happens is there's usually somewhere between a 90 and 120 day period where the probation office, the US probation office, which is supposed to be the neutral evaluator

and investigator of all things related to the US sentencing guidelines, which is a body of law, body of statute that federal judges are required to use when they're issuing their sentences, when they're meeting out their punishment. And the federal sentencing guidelines, it's basically ultimately a chart. And on one side it tells you, well, this is the amount of money that was involved in the scheme, if that's the case. And this is on the other side is gonna be

if this person has ever been convicted of a crime before of these the first time offender. And there's other factors, what we call mitigating factors that can go into that, that can either raise the score and therefore the sentence resulting from the US sentencing guidelines, or it can lower the score, it can depart, it's called a departure,

a departure from what the US sentencing guidelines set as the amount of potential sentence for the crime that was committed. And each side, besides the probation office and the defendant participates in that process or is supposed to and provides the probation office with answers to their questions. And the probation office prepares a report

that report goes to the federal judge. Both sides, the prosecutor, in this case, the Department of Justice prepares its own sentencing memo and the defendant, because that's the way our democracy works and our system of adversarial justice works and do process works, the defendant, in this case, Bannon, gets us to submit a memo. Well, we've seen both memos now. The Department of Justice has said to the judge, jury has spoken, jury has convicted.

And if you look at the sentencing guidelines, there's only one way to go. And that's up to the highest level that the sentencing guidelines are recommending, and the probation office is recommending, which is six months in jail and $200,000 fine in the Department of Justice said the reason the fine should be so large is because Bannon has refused to cooperate with the probation office to provide them with any financial information to allow them to properly calculate a fine. And therefore, he's basically abdicated and he's conceded that he should get the highest fine. So it should be six months and $200,000. Well, that's it, Judge. And sentence. But

that's not what Bannon has asked the court to sentence him to. We have the Bannon sentencing memo, which came in just on the 17th of October. And Karen, why don't you tell our listeners and followers and viewers what is Bannon's proposal about his sentence? So before I get to that, I want to just say that when a federal federal just to add to what you were saying about federal statutes. So federal statutes have a mandatory minimum and a mandatory maximum. And so the sentencing guide, so the maximum here that you could get, because these are misdemeanors is one year, up to one year.

But the sentencing guidelines is what you were saying within that, you come up with a calculation about what should this particular defendant get within the mandatory minimum and the mandatory maximum. And so, you know, they have aggravating factors, you know, things that put you on the higher end and mitigating factors, things that put you on the higher end and mitigating factors, things that are on the lower end. And when people first get arrested, the media often talks about what's the person facing? Are they facing two years, 20 years, 150 years, depending on the crime? But then often when the person is ultimately sentenced, people are disappointed and they think, well, how come they were facing

all this time and they get a much lower sentence that they can often be disappointed in that. But it's because a lot gets borne out throughout the course of the trial and the evidence that happens at the trial, as well as what you were saying about with probation. You know, you learn a lot of information that will inform the judge about whether it should be too much or too little. And I think here the DOJ recommended six months and not the full year. I mean, technically, ban in because he was convicted of two misdemeanors could get a year on each that could run consecutive to each other. That would be two years. But the only thing that would make a sentence appealable would be if the judge abused their

discretion. And I think the DOJ made a calculation here that in a typical case like this and other contempt cases that two years or even one year could be viewed as an abuse of discretion in six months is much more in line with the more common, what's more common in these types of cases. And all of the factors that go into the mitigating and aggravating factors in the sentencing guidelines. But as you said also, he, when Bannon refused to cooperate with probation and tell him what his finances were, he said, I can afford to pay any fine imposed. And so I think for that lack of cooperation and that smug remark, I think that's why the DOJ is recommending that it'd be a $200,000 fine.

Now, Bannon asked for probation. He just wants straight probation and to delay imposing sentence until after he's appealed this conviction. He says in his submission that the legal precedence were outdated and that prevented him from offering a defense. And even the judge in this case, Judge Nichols said, acknowledge that these were outdated old case law and that he was bound by them.

And Bannon's lawyer seized upon that language. And I think that's going to signal to the Appellate Courts who might look at that. And I'm a little bit nervous about this conviction because there's a 40-year-old case that Bannon cites. It's United States versus Lika Voli. And Lika Voli limited the circumstances a witness can give, uh, at trial to refuse complying with the sub-Sapina. Likavoli essentially said some basically that, um, that, uh, intent isn't an, that intent

is not an element, and so therefore, advice of counsel does not apply. I'm sorry, motive is not an element and so therefore advice of counsel does not apply. I'm sorry, motive is not an element, just intent and therefore advice of counsel does not apply. And but what Bannon said was, Lika Voli is relying on a Supreme Court case, United States versus Sinclair, which has since been resoundingly reversed. And so basically, I think that there is going to be a scenario here where this conviction is vulnerable because he's going to say that the law here is outdated and potentially changed the law. I do think, however, if they have allowed that in as a defense, if the DOJ had allowed it in, I think that would have been resoundingly rejected

because it was so clear that he was trying to hide behind this. And it's clear that the advice of council here was kind of tongue in cheek. Like nobody really believed that he didn't have to comply with it. In fact, in fact, his lawyer was, you know, Castello was speaking to Trump's lawyer, Clark. And, you know, Clark kind of came out and said, no, I told you that you have to follow the law. Like, don't hide behind this. So I think it's a bogus advice of council defense, but I worry that by keeping it out

and by not allowing him to present that defense that this potentially could be a conviction that is vulnerable on appeal. I don't know what do you think? I'm less concerned about that. You could be right. I think that Judge Nichols, you know, it was an interesting comment at the time it was made, which was done outside the presence of the jury in motion practice that you and I call motion in limine or motion to limit evidence or defenses or strike defenses. All this is all the hand-to-hand combat that's done before a trial actually begins

in which the defense tries to shove as much through this small pipe as they possibly can to put as many defenses up on the wall in front of a jury and the prosecution tries to have the judge on the wall in front of a jury and the prosecution tries to have the judge as the gatekeeper, which the judge ultimately is, not allow in such things because it will prejudice the jury, the jury, will be confused and the jury's mind will be blown by information that they shouldn't be receiving. I think the judge, even though he seemed to be slightly I think the judge, even though he seemed to be slightly insecure about the application of the lick of Voli versus U.S. in 1961 case, he did remark that it is binding precedent in the District of Columbia Circuit from 1961. I mean, we have plenty of old cases that are still what you and I and other lawyers

refer to as good law, just because they're old, doesn't make them bad. You wouldn't know that from this US Supreme Court that we're dealing with where they're revisiting cases every two years because they have the numbers and they want to try to change the law. But generally, cases, I've cited cases from the 60s, 70s and 80s that are still good law because they become sort of bedrock principles, what you what we call

horn book law or black letter law. They become literally so indisputable at a certain moment in time that you continue to refer to them. And I think Lickavoli fits that bill. The fact that it's old doesn't mean that it's quote unquote outdated. That is vocabulary that the defense would like us to use, which I refuse to adopt, just because it's old doesn't mean it's outdated, like much like me. I'm not outdated either. So, look, the law that the judge had to apply, because there's been no other, in 50 or 60 years, there's been no other precedent set in that jurisdiction, is that a party facing a prosecution for contempt of Congress cannot use that he relied on his advice of counsel

as a defense to defeat criminal intent or what we call men's rea period. And so you may have relied on your counsel. And Bannon says he did, evenello, to tell him that based on his review of the Justice Department internal memos, you, Steve Bannon, as a one-time member of the West Wing, even though you were it at the time you did all these other things. You were already a podcaster by the time Jan six rolled around that somehow those memos that applied to people like meadows who were part of the West Wing and the inner circle

of the president at the time of January 6th. I'll apply to you. First of all, I think that is a that is a misapplication, misinterpretation, and misapprehension of the law by bad and lawyer, perhaps intentionally, in order to give his client cover. So one, I don't think that was a good faith reliance to say, I've looked at the Justice Department of Memos and you client, they apply to you. I don't know how they could possibly apply to somebody that was years removed from the White House at the time the bad things the Gen 6 Committee wants to ask you questions about happened. That's one. Secondly, look of always on the books. And I don't think the DC Circuit, which is the same circuit, who 50 years ago issued the decision, is going to slap Nichols and say, you were wrong for applying lick of Oli.

It was on the books. And it's something that he had to apply is law, law of the case, law of the jurisdiction. Now, what will the Supreme Court do? Sure. I'm sure that Alito and Thomas and maybe somebody else is going to be like, here's our opportunity to reset the issue of when you can rely on counsel when you're facing contemptive, contemptive Congress.

And maybe they make new law and bad and is the recipient of it. But I think that Nichols has to go forward with set and sing. I don't think he'll find, and this is the standard, that the appeal that bad and has started is likely to result in a reversal. I don't think Nichols sitting in his chair, based on his circuit that he reports to, even looking at the Supreme Court's composition, is going to think that the appeal by Bannon is likely to result in a reversal. And that is the first step. If the judge, the sentencing judge doesn't find that, then he denies the motion to stay

the sentencing. So I think he denies the motion to stay the sentencing, or the request to stay the sentencing. I think he sentencing is banan. I think he using the guidelines as the Department of Justice noted, it comes to six months. I think the judge adopts the six months, maybe he shaves off a month and brings it down to four to five, which is exactly what Ben and I said it would be two or three months ago. And then he hits him with the full fine because he did nothing, Ben and did nothing in

his sentencing memo or in his lack of cooperation with the probation department to try to argue for a lower number. So I think it's $200,000. I think it's five to six months. And then the entire thing, the sentencing and the conviction that can go up on appeal with banning. And if he somehow is successful in making new law

and having the Supreme Court reverse course on Likavoli after all of these years, and he's the recipient of that, then he'll get a reversal. I just think Nichols has to go forward, sentencing him appropriately, finding that there's no grounds to find that he shouldn't be sentenced right at this moment and let the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and and the US Supreme Court, they decide to take the case, take it from there. I'm always surprised in federal court how they much more than at least New York State Court, they judges and courts will limit defense, the defenses, will limit a defendants what they want to put forth.

In state court, they're just much more lenient with, you know, you want to present a defense, you know, and they allow, they give a lot of latitude. I just... Although, Mershahn, Mershahn in the Trump Organization case hasn't, he's been very tight with what defenses he's going to allow the Trump organization to put on and it's told them that they're not going to be able to put on a lot of these crazy, you know, politics is motivating and the the animus of the prosecutor, the New York Attorney General in bringing the the civil suit or the criminal suit. I mean, he's not a lot, he's

not having any of that. Maybe you're saying in the criminal side, they're more, they're more liberal in allowing in the defense. Is that your position? No, I mean, look, Mershad is, this is a criminal case. And Mershad is a criminal criminal judge. And those are crazy defenses. I guess to me, advice of counsel is not a crazy defense. And, you know, personally, I'm surprised Castello was not a co-conspirator, like why he wasn't prosecuted because it was such bad faith here. But, you know, that's my, but look at all the crazies, Karen. You've got, I mean, it always brings it full circle. Jeffrey Clark, who himself is, is on the, is in the crosshairs of a possible prosecution. He's the one that wrote, as Trump's lawyer,

at the Department of Justice, wrote to Bannon, and told Bannon, don't you dare testify to Congress. We're asserting the executive privilege. You got Jeffrey Clark, who's this close to going to prison himself, is part of the reliance that Bannon had. I think Nichols will have none of this. is part of the reliance that Bannon had. I think Nichols will have none of this. Look, everybody was worried about Nichols

at the very beginning because he's a Trumper. He's a Trump appointee, not a Trumper. I knew him through white collar, defendant type lawyers, the practice in Washington, some of which were his law partner, and they said, I'll say what you want about the guy, but he is a ball's and strike person. He's not, he's not that political and he's certainly not somebody that, you know, you'd see it a Trump rally. And so far, that sort of been borne out in both this case and in other Jan six cases that he's handled. He's at a couple of places where I've

disagreed with his result, you know, one case in particular, he didn't think that the obstruction of Congress count that the Department of Justice was pushing for a certain defendant in the Janssick's insurrection fit. And he was one of a minority of judges that sort of push back hard in the Department of Justice's use of that count. But by and large, he's doing what a person in a black robe is supposed to be doing. He's weighing what a person in a black rope is supposed to be doing. He's weighing the evidence. He's applying the case law and the precedent as it sits today and You know, I think people should be pretty satisfied that he put on a good trial. Hopefully an error free trial that won't be reversed on appeal

speaking of trials And prosecutors that are not having a good day in court. Let's turn to John Durham, who people may recall, Bill Barr insulated from being immediately fired by Merrick Garland by calling him a special prosecutor, which he did in the waning days of the Trump administration. And he is so focused as the special prosecutor, much like Mueller had a defined purpose

and the late now Ken Star, who just died recently, had a defined purpose in investigating at the time the Clinton's. Here John Durham was charged with getting to the bottom of what we'd now refer to as the Russia hoax, which is based on the Christopher steel dossier, that alleged that it had done a white paper or a dark, deep cover story of Donald Trump and found him to be in cahoots with the Russians. Recall that the Office of Inspector General for the FBI had already done an elaborate

report in which it found that the FBI had overreached in its investigation and reached the wrong conclusions, had overrelied on the steel dossier, should have found it to be not completely truthful and should not have begun a prosecution based on it and heads rolled at the FBI as a result of that. Um, bar relying in part on the Office of Inspector General Report, but not agreeing with all of its conclusions, appointed John Durham, a former US attorney, pressed him into action as the special prosecutor, giving him all sorts of elaborate and unique powers as special prosecutor. He answers ultimately to the attorney general who was Merrick Garland.

And frankly, I think Merrick Garland made a decision, a prosecutorial, discretional decision, not to can Durham when he took office because it would look bad politically. You know, look bad politically for the Democratic president, the democratically appointed new attorney general to fire the special prosecutor in the middle of his investigation. The downside of that is that you've got this guy basically running a muck for the last three years for $20 million or more of taxpayer dollars and showing very little

in return for it with one caveat we'll talk about at the end of the segment. Two things the special prosecutor has been charged with doing. One is issuing a written report which would go to the Attorney General, now, Marik Garland, and he'll decide whether it's going to be publicly disseminated or not. So Durham is doing that with his team. And if he finds along the way, the people should be prosecuted, he's got the power

to prosecute them. So, he's brought three prosecutions in three years and he's basically done. One of them was Michael Sussman, who was a lawyer, a very well-known, what we call, K Street lawyer in Washington, who worked for a lot of political organizations, including Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign.

But has a lot of clients. I mean, he represented lots of democratic, mainly democratic causes during his career. And he went and visited with the General Council for the FBI. And he brought information that he believed was credible at the time that Donald Trump was possibly in close coordination with Russia, with Russia. And he brought evidence to the FBI General Counsel who we knew from other cases that there

was even computer traffic running back and forth between a server and Trump tower on Fifth Avenue in New York where Trump lives and works. And a Russian bank, the Alma bank, that was tied to Putin. And he brought that information. And why was he prosecuted and ultimately found not guilty by a jury, although his career is, you know, could be in tatters now because of the prosecution, because the Durham believed and prosecuted Michael Sussman for misleading the FBI general counsel about who his client was or if he represented any client, the argument was that Michael Sussman told the FBI General Counsel that he wasn't there on

on behalf of any particular client. He was there more as citizen Sussman and when he was in reality in Durham's words representing the Clinton campaign, which by the way everyone in Washington knew that Michael Sussman was also the lawyer among many others for Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign. So the problem in that trial is the same problem that Durham had in the trial that we're going to talk about next of Igor Denchenko, who's the actual career of the steel dossier putting it in the hands of the FBI. The same problem. A witness that Durham believe would be very favorable for the prosecution turned out to be very favorable for the defense, and that happened in real time in front of the jury. As trial lawyers, Karen and I will tell you, that's a terrible

event to happen to you while you're in a courtroom. It happened in the assessment trial, when the FBI General Counsel did not ultimately support Durham's argument that he had been lied to. And the General Counsel basically said, no, I think Michael Susman's a stand-up guy. And I knew he was representing multiple parties. And I wasn't really at that concern. That killed the case. Michael Suspin walks out the wooden tour and Jeffs and John Durham takes a loss. Now, John Durham decides, crap, I better do better at my next trial, so I'll be the lead trial lawyer. So he didn't even let one of his colleagues, one of his right-hand people, prosecute the case. He prosecuted the case and did the closing argument and and all the lead witness.

This isn't the same thing happened. So Igor Denchenko is sued because because he supposedly lied to the FBI about the same this Russian dossier or this what's could now call the steel memo and how it got in his hands and how it was created and what he told to the FBI. He was sued for lying, prosecuted for lying to the FBI. Problem is, the lead FBI agent that Durham put up on the stand said that he was not misled effectively by Denchenko, case over. And it got so bad for Durham that he had to treat the witness as what we call a hostile witness, as if he were the opposing lawyer,

the opposing party's witness, the defense's witness, and start grilling him in front of the jury to try to get him back on track, and that only made it worse. So we'll talk about what happens next. This case has been terrible from the beginning. Durham feels he's got to justify his existence by bringing these crazy cases in federal court wasting everybody's time. And now he's over to, and before I turn it over to Karen Ferck, her commentary is a former prosecutor. Let me tell everybody, 85% of federal prosecutions that go to jury trial,

85% result in a conviction. So for him to lose to, back-to-back, federal jury trials on the prosecution side, I've seen the statistics. It's a 2% chance that that's going to happen. It's basically, so he should have won at least one of the two with a 98% probability. He lost both and just shows you the weakness of his whole investigation writ large in a court of law. Karen, what do you think about him as a prosecutor and the case in general? Well, when you put this on our list of things to discuss, I said to myself, Durham, is he still around?

I thought that guy was long gone because, you know, there's nothing there there. Like, he has turned over zero. And so I was just shocked that this is even still going on. And I think, you know, this case was was what you just said. It's it's absolutely there was it was like he was running on fumes, you know, trying to trying to justify his own existence and bring a case. I mean, because there's no case here, you know, it made no sense whatsoever. You know, half the cases, half the charges got thrown out by the judge at the end of the prosecutor's case because he couldn't make out, you know, he didn't meet his burden that a crime was committed,

you know, at one point, he was charged with talking to a person, but he never talked to the person, he emailed with them and the judge said, you know, technically it's a true statement, you know, he didn't lie to the FBI. He, he didn't speak with him. He emailed with him. And so he threw that out, you know, things like that. Just, just not making any sense, but then the charges that did go to the jury. You know, they acquitted him of, I think it was four felony making a false statement charge.

And, and, you know And the evidence was very slim. As you said, the FBI testified that they didn't rely on it, or that it wasn't false. And so Durham openly attacked the FBI and kind of put the FBI on trial at this trial. And wanted to, it's like that he used it almost as an opportunity to, I don't know whether it's Trump or Bar or their followers, you know, as an opportunity to kind of put out there, they're, they're right, you know great against the FBI, which just

sounds like it's just something out of Trump's playbook. And it's just really a shame that it came to this. And the defendant here was crying at the end because his life was, you know, these prosecutions, you don't, you can't prosecute someone unless you know you can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And anytime politics enters a prosecution, I think Jerry's can see right through that. And Jerry's usually do the right thing. And this is just so clearly political. And here they did, you know, they they acquitted. And, you know, it was just a very, very tough prosecution. Durham had to prove

a negative beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's always a loser, you know, he had to prove that Dinchanko and a guy named million never met or I'm sorry, never had a call and never met. And so he would use the absence of phone numbers and call logs to prove that these calls didn't happen, but everybody knows that people talk on things like what's happened, signal, and that's not gonna show up in a call log. So that was not any evidence that's gonna get you show up in a call log. So that was not any evidence that's going to get you

to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And there's also proof that this million guy traveled to New York the day before Dan Chenko was supposed to meet with him in New York. So it was just certainly not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And I was surprised that Durham would bring a case like this. But, you know, it's funny that you had the take that he took over the reins of the trial and, um, and did it himself because the last one was lost.

And I'm sure you're 100% right. My initial reaction when I saw that was, he knew it was a, this is just my, like my, you know, I was a prosecutor and I always give them the benefit of the doubt. Perspective, I was thinking, oh, he probably knew it was a loser.

So he took one for the team. He didn't want his people to blow him, you know, to do it. He's giving him way too much. Way too much, you know what? 100%, I're giving him way too much. Way too much. You know what? 100%. I agree.

I'm just telling you what I initially thought. And then when I looked at the case and I read about it and I thought, you know, not at all, it's exactly what you said. And he's like, I'll get it done. No one else can get it done. I'll get it done. But I hope he's done. I mean, I know he has to do a report, but it's ridiculous.

Well, to your point, he made it political in front of the jury. He spent an inordinate amount of his closing argument. So much so that he was chastised by the judge in the case. He spent a judge, a trenga, a federal judge also in, in DC that we haven't talked much about. So I don't think he's been much involved. But Jan sex, but he's been a considerable amount of his closing argument in front of the jury talking about politics.

And you know, he, he did it in the way that was, you know, he thought he was being crafty. He was saying, you know, Dan Chenko is saying that the FBI was politically motivated or that Trump and bar my boss or politically, my former boss was politically motivated, but nothing could, you know, this is the old, you know, me thinks you doth protest too much. The more he said it, it's like when somebody says, you know, this is not about the money. You know, it's exactly about the money. Or this is not about family. Oh, it's exactly about family.

Anybody that says that out loud, that's a tell. And the jury, you know, the jury's take a lot of flak. Not from this show. I think you and I have been in front of juries and understand jury science and jury result. Think it's the best system out there. As complicated as cases can be, juries reach the right result empirically. We've been studies that show they do time and time again, and certainly they're better than the alternative, which is no juries, or some sort of artificial intelligence program that spits out a verdict when people's liberty is at stake.

And juries can smell, and I know you'll give me an example of this, if you can't, Jerry's can smell a phony, a mile away. And they are very good receptors of information in a courtroom, especially about authenticity, and about somebody pulling their chain. And I think they found Durham to be inauthentic. And the Mori said it wasn't about politics. The more they read that as, this is exactly about politics. He said, he's in front of a DC jury, which I didn't know, I don't know the exact jury composition because I haven't gotten all the statistics yet about it, but how to be leaning to the left, if not center left of their political leanings. And I'll try to get a breakdown for the next podcast

of the composition of the jury. So the more he said it was in about the politics, I think the more they thought it was, he started meandering so much in that end of his closing argument that the judge had erupted with, it's time to wrap up Mr. Durham. So, you know, things did not go well from him from the very beginning.

The Danchenko was this close to getting the case dismissed. I think at the start of the case, they brought motions to dismiss that before even opening statements and certainly before deliberations of the jury, the judge, and then right after the close of the prosecution's case, and the judge said it's a very close call about dismissing the case before it even goes to the jury any further, but I'm gonna let it go to the jury.

He did dismiss one of the counts and took it away from the jury because he just having heard the evidence over the course of the case, and this is one of the judges' gapkeeping functions, just found that the prosecution had not met its burden on one of the counts about lying to the FBI and took that away. So Durham took on a lot of water in this case, you know, in the very beginning and then throughout. So the jury verdict doesn't come as a surprise. The next thing we're going to talk about on the next segment, the last segment for today, is we're not at a jury trial yet, but the wheels are starting to fall off of the Trump

social media investment vehicle, special purpose acquisition company deal and the Securities and Exchange Commission. We've reported a prior podcast that the attempt by Trump to line his pockets and that of his family with over a billion dollars by selling to mom and pop investors, $10 shares in a public company that is owns truth, that ultimately owns truth social, a social media platform that has just five million in total followers just to make a comparison. The Midas Touch Network has over two million people and that's just after less than two years. So just to give you some sort of, that's not a lot, especially when Trump had 85 million followers on Twitter. So, a company's not doing that great. But, you know, everybody wants a piece of Trump and all the Trumpers want to try to, like, buy, you know, buy and invest in Donald

Trump. And you can do that, you know, a sucker is born every minute as PT Barnum once said, and you want to flush your money down the toilet. You're more than free to do that. As long as the issuer, the public company and all the participants in that process are complying with criminal law and securities law as regulated by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. And the Securities and Exchange Commission has a program, the way every other federal agency has a program from the Department of Defense to the EPA to the SEC,

and they have a whistleblower program. And usually a whistleblower will get a lawyer and a law firm's are really adept. Some law firms are very adept at bringing these whistleblower claims. And if the whistleblower timely provides information to the SEC in this case, that leads to a successful enforcement action or criminal case, then the whistleblower gets two things. Basically gets immunity for the crime or the security law violation. It gets, they get protection if they're still working for the company from being fired because that'll be seen as retaliation. They get three things. And the third thing they get is up to 30%

of the amount of money in fines or other or other discouragement that the SEC gets from the party that the whistle is being blown against. So if there's a $50 million fine against Trump and the SPAC, the whistleblower can get up to $15 million. They purposely put a large dollar amount on the reward to incentivize people who are inside the company, who have insider knowledge in real time that the SEC won't know about to come forward and rat out their company, whether they're employed there currently or not. And so this is exactly what happened.

That program has motivated a former senior executive at the Trump Media and Technology Group, Will Wilkerson, who went to the Washington Post and also went to the Securities and Exchange Commission while he was still employed as the senior vice president of operations to tell the SEC that he had credible evidence, exactly what we thought, that the SPAC acquisition company had negotiations and discussions with the Trump media and technology group before the SPAC was announced.

What's the problem with that? The problem is that special purpose acquisition companies like this one, which is a DWAC, cannot know who their target acquisition company is at the time they sell their shares. That is the benefit they get. They're given a blank check. They get to collect money from investors. They have one year to make an acquisition unless the investors give them an extension of time. But they tell the investors,

we're going to invest generally in this segment of the market. We're going to do technology. We're going to do satellites. We're going to invest generally in this segment of the market. We're going to do technology. We're going to do satellites. We're going to do the environment. We're going to look at gaming. We're going to look at a sports team. Whatever it is, they tell the investor in generality what they're going to invest in.

But they can't know at the time that they take in the money, that they're actually going to acquire one particular company. That's a violation of the Securities and Exchange Commission laws because this is a way to do a short form or a expedited route to becoming a public company. That's why companies do this. You get to be listed on the NASDAQ or the New York Stock Exchange, but you can't know that you're going to acquire, because if you knew you were going to acquire that company, then you got to do a whole series of disclosures and securities filings to the investing public

that you are exempt from if you do it the right way. So Will Wilkerson goes to the SEC and says, I know for a fact, and here's documents and evidence, that the Trump Organization, the know for a fact, and here's documents and evidence, that the Trump organization, the Trump median technology group, 90% owned by Donald Trump, was already in discussions with DWAC, digital world acquisition corporation,

before DWAC sold it shares as a SPAC. That's a big no-no, and that could lead to a huge fine, and ultimately the delisting of the SPAC. That's a big no-no, and that could lead to a huge fine and ultimately the delisting of the SPAC, the Trump SPAC, from the stock exchange, meaning that after ultimately return all the money. So that's where we're at. What did you think about, hey, what do you think about whistleblower programs in general? And what you think about Will Wilkerson and what happened to him after it became a whistleblower, Karen. So key Tam cases, which are these whistleblower cases.

I don't have you for a brought one, Popok, as a lawyer on behalf of a client. Yeah, we're working on one now, we're working on one now with the Department of Defense. Yeah, so I've done one too. It's almost like being a private prosecutor and you build a case, and you bring it to a government agency, and you hope they'll take the case. And in this particular instance, as you said,

Will Wilkerson came to the SEC to be whistleblower. And the issue I had with it is, it's seen, my question is, would Wilkerson have brought the case if he wasn't retaliated against for not giving his shares to Melania? So the facts of this case, in addition to all the things you just said,

is that at one point Trump picks up the phone, you know, basically, and asked Andy Littinski, who, so Will Wilkerson was an executive at the Trump media, right, and tech group. And he was with this Andy Latinsky, who was a co-founder, and Trump called him and said to Latinsky to give up some of his shares to Melania. Trump already owned 90% of the shares here. And Latinsky basically was like, look, we came into a lot of money, or we're about to come into a lot of money.

There's a lot of money for me. I'm the co-founder. You know, I was involved in this. I don't want to give this money over. And PS, it would mean a huge tax bill that I couldn't pay. It's a taxable event. And Trump was like, I don't care, do whichever you got to do. So, you know, later on, So, you know, later on, later on, Latinsky was then removed from the board, and basically, you know, gotten to a lot of trouble. My question is, if that hadn't happened, if that whole balania thing had it happen, do you think that they would have come forward as whistleblowers?

Or, like in other words, again, as a prosecutor, as a person at the SEC, you're looking at the motivation of the person bringing the case, and their credibility. And I guess in this particular instance, they would need a lot of proof because I would say their motive is not pure. It's not because, oh, I want to do good. Their motive is, well, you wanted to take my money, so then I'm going to come forward.

I mean, I don't know. What is your thought on this? I'm not sure. There has to be more reporting from me about the connection between Will Wilkerson and Adam Lutivsky. Certainly, it demonstrates Trump's greed that 90% of a potential billion dollar company was not enough, and just to tell everybody, until the recent terrible, terrible press, even before the SEC whistleblower became public here, the stock price for the SPAC that owns the social,

truth social has been hammered. At one time, it was in six figures. It was $1,15 or $1,17. The basic increment in SPACs is each share is initially worth and you buy at $10. That's for every SPAC. That's just the way it's at. The unit price is $10. And then the market sets whether it's going to go higher or lower than that. Some SPACs go below the $10, meaning they're underwater and they quickly fold. And then you have the right. If you don't like, if you're the investor

and you don't like the company that's been acquired by the SPAC that you've invested in, this is back to how you're supposed to properly do this. The investor should have been surprised that Trump media was acquired. They should have been, as opposed to, well, of course, it was gonna be Trump media. That was what we always thought,

because if you always thought that's a violation of the SEC rules. So they so now having learned that it was the Trump social media was going to be the acquisition target and the and the one that be acquired, the investor has a choice and has a right. They can either cash in their $10 chip and get their money back or they can stay in the investment because it's not blind because it sounds blind the way I described it cash in their $10 chip and get their money back, or they can stay in the investment. Because it's not blind. Because it sounds blind the way I described it earlier.

The investor puts in money into a vehicle, blank check, they buy something and you're stuck. Maybe you don't like what they bought. But the investor has an out, under all spacks, they can get their money back. They get their $10 back. They don't get anything else back. So there's always like a run on some of these SPAC vehicles where, you know, you may raise $350 million or $400 million, but like 90% of the people take their money back and you're left with 30 or 40 million dollars, which

is still considerable, but not the original amount. Here, the stock price for the truth social, the DWAC, is still above the $10 unit price. It's apparently it's about $17. So the market, though, has hammered the stock down from the highs of $100 or more down to almost the unit price because the investors are watching the media and they see what's happening. I'm not sure to answer your original question. I'm not sure directly of the question of the connection between Will Wilkerson and Litvsky who was who Trump was extorting to try to give up his shares to turn it over to Melania when this thing looked like, you know, a billion dollar

pie in the sky event. And I'm not sure ultimately Karen at the SEC whistle blower level And I'm not sure ultimately Karen at the SEC whistleblower level, whether motivation matters. I've been involved with plenty of cases where the motivation of the person was obvious. You know, unless they're committing a crime themselves, like, oh, I'm about to go down from bezel-ment, so I'm going to go turn my company in for something they're doing wrong in another area of the company. And then you're like, but look, if it's pure information that goes to the violation of securities laws, and it's being delivered on a platter through in this case a law firm,

where they tie a ribbon around it, and like, here's this document, here's this document, here's this email, and here's this internal chat, and all of this proves it. You know, I think he's sad that that person satisfies the whistleblower requirement. It would be entitled to the payoff under the whistleblower's program of the SEC if and when they ever collect any money. And some of the payouts in these cases are astronomical,

$20 million, $50 million, $75 million to a single person for having gone to the SEC as quickly as possible because the timing of it is also important. If you bring stale information to the SEC three years ago, something happened. SEC wants to motivate people, incentivize people to come in quickly so that they can help prevent harm to the investing public in real time. That's the essence goal. You have to be the first in. It can't be public. Yeah, so yeah.

So when the rats to your point, when the rats, now seeing that this ship is going down, they're all now racing to the various offices like the SEC to be the first one in so they can get the payday, get insulation. But you know, Trump didn't care. He fired Wilkerson even after he became a public whistleblower, which is also a retaliatory charge that the SEC can bring against them. But Trump, they don't care. They do not operate by the rules of the road or the rules of the game at all.

They were like, well, Kristen went to the new Washington Post in the SEC, fire him. I don't care if it's retaliation. We'll deal with that later. The rules don't apply to the rules. The rules don't apply to Trump because no one's holding him accountable. They're just not holding him accountable. You know, we'll find out. We'll find out.

I mean, I, you know, there's another prosecution starting on Monday of the Trump organization here in New York. And, you know, the jury selection starts opening statement start. And, you know, if that's going to be some people are going to view that as as a prosecution against Trump. And I know I have a slightly different view than then, I've heard you and Ben talk about it, that this is a really big deal going after the Trump organization. And that this is a prosecution that means something. But I just really, to me, it's like ice and winter, this, you know, and what the case you just, we just talked about, the Trump social media and the SPAC and, you know, the, whatever the DWAC or whatever that company's called, to me, that's the new Trump org.

That's Trump org 2.0. You know, I think Trump knew a long time ago when they've got Alan Weiselberg. And I think they have some kind of side deal. Like, don't worry, Alan Weiselberg. You're an elderly gentleman. Don't take a fall. And we'll take the fall. I'm sorry, but don't give me up. And I'll make sure I take care of you in the end.

And we'll just let the Trump org kind of take the hit. Because who cares? We've got this whole other thing here that's exponentially worth, in his mind, this could be billions. These SPACs are he's a 90% owner of this huge of what he was hoping was going to be acquired by a SPAC. And I just think that I think that the Trump org, it's like, I'm sure when you get a recovery against somebody,

and you try to execute it, they've moved their assets around, change the names and give it away and scurried away all of their money. And it's really hard to recover. I think Trump's been probably doing that all along and would gladly walk away from, you know, the things that are in New York. And because I think he has sites much bigger. And that's what this case to me was significant about. And you're right, he doesn't think the rules apply to him and they don't because no one holds him accountable. I'm hoping after the midterms Fannie Willis brings in a indictment. I'm hoping after the midterms, Merrick Garland, at least in the Mar-a-Lago

documents matter, bring something. Finally, the DOJ is investigating Jan 6th, but nobody holds him accountable. And so, to me, yeah. Yeah, that's where you and I disagree, because I think we're coming up on two years since Jan 6th. It's the two years. Yeah. And which is not a long time in the world of prosecutors, and you know that better than me.

Faudi-Willis, Latisha James is on her third year of the investigation. John Durham, what we talked about at the top of the show, finished his third year and he's got three prosecutions to show for it where he's O2 and O2 and O2 basically in those. Justice, the wheels of justice, as I said in last week's show, they're really big. The circumference of the wheels of justice are really large, and it takes a while for them to turn. But when they finally turn and you're crushed under them, and I think we're moving towards Trump,

the chicken's coming home to roost. You've got the moral log, okay, which is not going, I don't care what he tells people, the false provato that he adopts at rallies, they are going terribly for him. He had a terrible week last week, and if you had a client that had a week like that, you'd take him, sit him on your knee and tell them,

this is going terribly for you, we've got to start making some adjustments. He's ordered today to testify in a case involving E. Jean Carol in a rape, a civil rape case and defamation case where he's sitting right now as we speak in giving deposition testimony related to that, which he tried to avoid at all ends. The same week he's subpoenaed by the Jan 6th Committee

to appear before them, and we know what happens from the ban in segment that we did tonight. If he doesn't appear in front of the Jan 6th Committee, at the same time that the Latisha James announced that she was seeking an injunction and to have an independent monitor put over the Trump organization and all of its financial dealings during the pendency of her trial.

At the same time that Fadi Willis is moving forward in her investigation, I'll take place after the midterms as agreed with the chief judge that she reports to, but she's not letting any grass grow into her feet. And I don't think any objective person looking at where we are now with the Department of Justice, Fawni Willis, Latisha James, and even your old office. I know that you have a lot of a lot of feelings about the wrong way that they're prosecuting the Trump organization and Donald Trump ultimately or not at all. But I don't think anybody objectively looking,

if you were a lawyer evaluating this for a client and this client, Donald Trump, a new client came to you one day and his name was Donald Trump. And he laid out for you, this is my record over the last 30 years of losing almost every case I've ever been involved with. I'm O and 80. And here's what's currently going on in my life.

He's one and 80. All right. What's the one, Cannon? No. Are you talking about the election cases? Yes. Yeah, but it didn't impact the election because the ballots were already counted. So it didn't matter. I'm just saying.

All right. So he's one. So look, you would do this. Do this exercise with me. You humor me. New client, your schedule, it tells you, new client coming into the caron, a one Donald J. Trump. Oh, never heard of them, but let's hear about it. Okay, tell me all about your past litigation history. I'm one in 80 and every time I bring you know what? You know what? But go ahead. Go ahead. No, I've never been. I've committed. I've committed this crime, this crime, this crime, this crime in this crime. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, the graveyard. So you listen as a lawyer, okay, tell me more about this. Tell me about the 80 cases. Oh, I'll start it with my my father, you know, committing housing fraud with the housing and urban development all the way through three bankruptcies with my casinos in Atlantic City to set to 60 cases about the big lie that Joe Biden really didn't win the presidency and all in the wake, all of these lawyers have now lost their bar license. That's a very nice diploma you have.

And all of this has happened to him, but nothing's happened to him. But you're not letting me make my point. That's okay though. That's a good lawyer. You're not making me make my point. And having now described all that, tell me about your current legal jeopardy

in situations Mr. Trump so I can decide whether to take your case. And then I describe Mar-a-Lago to him, not in the crazy world. I just show him the pleadings. Here's a plea. Here's with the Department of Justice, the set. Here's with the Supreme Court has ruled, which we didn't talk about on this particular show,

against me on my emergency appeal. Now, let me tell you about LaTisha James and her $250 million case against the Trump organization and the injunction. Now, let me tell you about Fawri Willis, everything is going on down there for me. So would you like to take my case? I mean, come on.

He surrounds himself with lawyers that aren't named Karen and Michael and Ben because he doesn't want to hear the truth. I wouldn't take his case for 10 other reasons that have nothing to do with his track record of winning or losing in court. I mean, there's an a million reasons you wouldn't take his case. He's worse client and the history of all clients. But what he has shown us is that there are different standards that apply to different people. And if any one of us had done anything that comes close to what he's doing, if I, when I had top secret clearance at the Manhattan D.A.'s office, if I packed up my boxes when I walked out that door a year and a half ago, which I did, and I took some boxes

of stuff with me, you know, I took my old manuals and my old souvenirs and photographs and whatever. If shoved in those boxes were 103 classified more than that because he had turned some over. If I had one class top secret sensitive compartmentalized information document shoved in my stuff. It was sitting in my apartment and that the department of justice or that the National Archives or whoever, Manhattan D.A.'s office found out about and asked me to turn it over and I said, oh, I look, I don't have anything. And then they subpoenaed me and I say, oh, I let me, I found a few things. So let me give it to you and I turn them over.

And then they execute a search warrant in my house and found 103 classified documents, many of them, top secret and then top secret, you know, need to know whatever. I would not be sitting right now talking to you on this podcast. I'd be sitting in prison like every other person, every other regular person, if I did anything remotely like that. If I had one document, I'd be sitting in prison and he had all of them and he obstructed and they still think he has more and they have not put the handcuffs on him yet and

You know and there's question about whether they actually will and that's my issue with this whole thing is there's two standards here There's the standards of you know of all the people who are being prosecuted You know all the soldiers who are being prosecuted for January 6 and they should have been prosecuted and those are all righteous who are being prosecuted for January 6th, and they should have been prosecuted, and those are all righteous prosecutions. But you know what, they were acting at the behest of a general, and that general was Donald Trump, and he needs to be prosecuted.

And until he is, until someone goes first and prosecutes him, I mean, to James, I give her a lot of credit because she is doing everything she can and bringing everything she can, but somebody's got to put the cups on them. I'm going to defend for the DOJ, to my former prosecutor, podcaster. think she can and bringing everything she can, but somebody's got to put the cups on them. I'm going to defend for the DOJ to my former prosecutor, podcaster. The more a logo thing just happened in June.

This is only October. You're already ready for the perp walk and they got delayed in their continued prosecution and investigation. The case. Morning, you need by judge cannon. You're only three months into the investigation. They haven't completed it yet. I have to remind everybody, he has not yet been indicted for Mar-a-Lago.

We're still in the investigation phase. They're allowed to investigate prior to bringing the chart. How can you brought charges within 90 days of a complicated case. We would bring you you know what there's two different standards You know a prosecution. There's violent crime and then there's non-violent crime where there's important people and not important people Yes, you could commit a horrific, you know a Murder the night before and get arrested the next day and guess what the investigation Continues while the person is in. The investigation continues for a year or two after that

and you develop a very big complicated case. But for my opinion, no prosecutor is going to put Donald Trump in prison while they're continuing his investigation. Just just my point, just my point. You made my point. I don't want to, I don't want to either. But I don't listen. Nobody,

my bonafides as a as a Democrat are unassailable. However, I know the ramifications of putting Donald J. Trump in a prison cell while they're continuing to investigate. And while it would bring a special pleasure to me personally, if that were to happen, it's not the system of justice that I defend. It's not the system of justice that I live in. I'm patient. If it take, you know, watergate, we knew what happened. You know, watergate took over three years before the first prosecutions rolled in, while Congress did its job, which of course only the Democrats were in a couple of Republicans were able to do this time around. It takes a minute to get these things done. And I don't want to live in it.

Almost two years. Two years is enough time to investigate. All right. So this is why people tune in. This is why people tune in because we don't agree on everything. Can I ask you a question? Well, no. You know what it is?

I guess the difference is your patient and you think there's going to be a prosecution. And if you're right, I agree with you. I'm skeptical. I don't know if anyone has the, you know, what's to do it. That's my concern. My concern is it's not about patients and it'll ultimately happen. My concern is, you know, they'll somehow,

someone will say, you know, the reason that, you know, that that Ford pardoned Nixon, you know, can't the country heal and move on. I worry that there's, there's a long history and tradition of, you know, treating ex-presidents differently. And I just worry, I worry. But so that, I guess, that's my concern is, is that, but can I ask you a question? Can I put in a request for you and Ben on the weekend to answer a question. So one of the cases that we covered was the E. Jean Carroll matter that he has been ordered to sit for a deposition. And one of the issues that we had discussed was can a president, at the time that he can be, can a defamation case be

brought against him? Because he was the president at the time and the United States substitutes themself to come in and be the defendant, and the defendant can't be not prosecuted, can't be sued for defamation. So that was one of the issues that we had discussed and that's a problem.

But he has since denied the sexual assault more recently than when he was president. And he recently made similarly disparaging remarks against E. Jean Carroll. recently made similarly disparaging remarks against E. Jean Carroll. So could that be, let's say the one when he was president is out. Does this revive kind of a new defamation? Is it like a second defamation? Yeah, we talked about it last Saturday. We said that we said that

Trump is busy making new evidence and new causes of action and claims against himself in a way that if he had lawyers that he relied on and trusted, they would never let him do. I said last week that one of the things I tell clients when they visit with me is I can't change the facts as they existed for the problem that you've consulted me about, but don't make any new facts after I'm engaged, right? All fresh snow, no dirty snow, which is what you brought me. And we'll deal with it.

We'll deal with the facts as they exist. But don't keep doing whatever you were doing. And, you know, what, if your inclination was to write an email or a letter or to make contact with this person, you know, I'll counsel them not to do that. Trump doesn't have advisors like that in his, that he, that he respects. And so he just committed another count of defamation against E. Jean Carroll two weeks ago when he said, I know I'm not supposed to say this, but I'm going to say it. She's not my type. As if a defense to rape, a defense to rape is the person wasn't my type.

But it's not even, but it's what's so ridiculous is he, he should have said, I'm not a rapist, you know, but he won't, but he won't say that. It's not, it's not, I'm not a rapist, you know, if she wore my type, maybe I would have thought like it's just he's disgusting. Well, he's disgusting. So to answer your point, he created a new cause of action that I'm sure Robbie Kaplan friend of the podcast you and I interviewed back when God it seems like a so long ago back when the abortion decision came out and draft She represents E. Jean Carroll. Well, hopefully we'll get her back on the podcast when she can speak more freely about the case But she's already it's you know the world is on notice, including Donald Trump, that on November 23rd, which is the first day that she is the lawyer for E. Jean Carroll, can bring a case under the new pursuance to New York's Adult Survivors Act for the rape

that E. Jean Carroll claims alleged to happened or in that department store across the street from Trump Tower back in the 90s, happened. She will bring that claim. In fact, she's deposing him today without having the claim in the case because, you know, she'll be able to, whatever she asks him about what transpired in Bergedorff Goodman's dressing room, which is where she claims it happened, it applies to her case for a civil rape, as well as defamation. So she doesn't need a second position. You can't take the fifth, right?

Because- I don't think we talked about the fifth, because as you said earlier, I brought actually, I gave you the credit. You reminded me that as of a certain day, As you said earlier, I brought actually, I gave you the credit. You reminded me that as of a certain date, New York allows prosecutions for old crimes, but this one wouldn't be covered so that the New York, so he's not the subject or couldn't be the subject because it's time-barred of a criminal prosecution, at least state, related to the alleged rape.

If he's not the, if he doesn't have a good faith belief that he's the subject or can be the subject of a criminal prosecution related to these claims, and he tries to take the fifth, then Robbie Kaplan takes it to a courthouse, which is a judge, Louis Kaplan, federal district judge in Southern District, New York, and the the assertion of the Fifth Amendment is improper because he doesn't have a good faith belief that he'll be criminally prosecuted and Lewis Kaplow will weigh the evidence and say, yeah, I think you don't really have a basis to assert the fifth answer the question where they'll have to have this whole debate about the assertion of the Fifth Amendment or he just comes out as Alina Haba his

lawyer keeps saying it all of her press conferences, he's going to deny that this happened. And he'll answer Robbie's questions, and he will deny that it took place. He'll say, I don't remember ever meeting her. Robbie will show pictures that are in the public domain of the two of them together. Maybe he'll be stupid enough under oath to say she's not

my type, which is not a defense, obviously, and all these other things. I just want to let everybody know, as you know, if you want a Google map, Google Earth this, the department store where she claims it happens is directly Catercordi, Cady Corner, and probably 200 feet away from Trump Tower, where he lives and works. So it's not like she picked some random, you know, I was in a dressing room in Santa Pei and Donald Trump came wandering in. You know, this is a place where the rich and famous shop where the rich and famous have lunch. There's a famous lunch place within Berkdorf's and, you know, he was known as a, let's be in his own words, a pea grabbing playboy,

who was a misogynist that could care less about women. So does anybody think he really couldn't possibly have done this in a dressing room in the 90s? And she has physical evidence. She has a dress that she claims has DNA on it. I hope that Robbie, that he's gonna sit for a deposition for hours, hours, hours. I'm sure he'll you know drink something like take a sip of water or whatever.

I'm hoping shil, I'm hoping she'll take that glass or that cup exactly. Thank you. Thank you. And get it DNA tested and then DNA tested against the blue dress That's so good and then if it is his DNA He's gonna it'll just be all that was so long ago. I don't I didn't remember it was of course it was That's very good. I hate to have you prosecuting me because you know He's gonna take that sip of water or throw out a he balls up all of his notes

to take that sip of water or throw out a, he balls up all of his notes, all notes, and they'll get this touch, touch DNA that they have now. I mean, I just hope that's, I hope that's what's happening right now. Well, unfortunately, we've reached the end of another midweek edition of LegalA F with Karen Friedman, Eknipolo and Michael Popak. We are going to be on the weekend with the weekend edition with my co-worker and founder by founding partner Ben Mysalis. If you're watching this during the live chat tonight Wednesday we're recording now really close in time to the actual live chat. If you're watching it with us, please subscribe, download, and follow the legal AF podcast

on the audio version. It really helps us. I know a lot of people say they get a lot of information from watching, but they like to listen to the podcast, the following day to really absorb it. And that helps support us. A lot of people say, well, how can we support legal AF?

That is one major way that keeps us on the air. We have merchandise, our producer, Adam Salton, we'll put up some graphics for some really cool. Now that the weather has turned long sleeve shirts with our new legal AF wheels of justice logo, they are U2SX shirts, they are great. I have one. I wear one. Some people have been asking, I don't know why, to have the autograph their shirt. Happy to do it. If it's sent to me, I will be happy to autograph it. I'm sure Kara would be thrilled to do that as well.

No, nobody's ever asked me for my autograph. we thrilled to do that as well. No, nobody's ever asked me for my autograph. So far, I've autographed a, I have some other legal AF merchandise that I said, actually I created. Here's a booklet, I have a mouse pad that I sent to one of our listeners and followers with an autograph to support us, which was really great.

But these are the ways to support us and the Midas Media Network in general. And we appreciate it and it really does. Keep us at the top of the charts and on the air. Shout out to the Legal Aieffers and shout out to the Midas Mighty and Karen Al. See you next week. you