Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts REACT to midweek legal BOMBSHELLS - Legal AF 9/21/22

Episode Date: September 22, 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 discuss: an update on the Mar-a-Lago document scandal including the Special Master’s first hearing and the status of the DOJ’s 11th Circuit appeal; the NY Attorney General filing a new civil fraud suit against Trump and some of his children after a 3 year investigation; Trump’s long time auditor turning over Trump’s private financial records showing fraud and violations of the Constitution’s Emoluments clause to the House Oversight Committee; E. Jean Carrol’s new federal civil lawsuit against Trump for rape and sexual assault under New York’s new Adult Survivor’s Act; and so much more. SHOP 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 with your co-anchors Michael Popock and Karen Friedman Agnifalo. Today we're going to cover the stories that are most critical for you to know at midweek at the intersection of law and politics. We're going to start with a critical update of the Mar-a-Lago top-secret classified national security documents that were obtained by the FBI and executing their search warrant. And where we are with the special master, Judge Deerey Handpicked by Donald Trump, who had a status conference in Brooklyn, New York yesterday attended by both sides, the Department

of Justice and the Trump lawyers, and also an update on where we are with the 11th Circuit and the Department of Justice's motion for stay to have the appellate court do what Judge Cannon, the trial judge would not do, which is to stay aspect of our order related to national security. Then in this all Trump parter show edition of legal AF, we're going to talk about a announcement that's going to be coming later this morning. We're recording earlier today later this morning from Latisha James, the New York Attorney General, who has a special announcement at 10th 30 this morning concerning her three year old investigation into the Trump family concerning loan fraud, tax evasion, and other frauds related to the operation of their

business. And Karen and I are going to do a healthy bit of season speculation as to what that announcement is going to be. I have a pretty good idea. I'm sure Karen does too. And I think our listeners and followers will be thrilled by the announcement today by Tish James. And then we're going to talk about Trump's former accounting firm, Mazar's, who in a settlement it reached with the Congressional Oversight Committee, not the Jan 6th Committee, but the Oversight Committee started to turn over the first tranche of financial documents related to Trump and the Trump organization to the oversight committee.

And when our listeners and followers hear the categories of documents that are going to be turned over, which will then become public record, I think it's going to make people's hair stand on end. And again, a good day for democracy. And then we're going to end today's podcast talking about a new law in the state of New York related to adult victims of sexual crimes and their ability to bring new civil suits within the next year. And a case being brought by E. Jean Carroll, the former writer, journalist for L magazine, represented by friend of the show, Robbie Kaplan, who's already been on record this week as saying that

as soon as she can file on the 23rd or 24th of November, a new case against Donald Trump related to rape, she's filing that civil case. And we'll talk more about that. Karen, how are you? I'm good. Good morning. Nice to see you. Good morning.

This is like the, it's early for Halloween, but this is like the Trump haunted house horror episode. Everything, Trump, everything going really terribly wrong for him. Even if some of our listeners and followers think it's going a little bit too slow, the wheels of justice turn slow, but they grind really fine. Let's talk about how that grinding is happening today, kicking it off with Mara Lago. So we got a handpicked special master, a Eastern district of New York federal judge, Judge Raymond Deerey, who holds a status conference, brings all the lawyers up from Florida or wherever they reside,

up from Florida or wherever they reside, uh, to his chambers or his courtroom in Brooklyn yesterday. And let's just say the Trump lawyers are getting a lot of headwind from Judge Deerey about their position that maybe the documents are declassified. And this is much to do about nothing. This is just a, a document storage case that's been criminalized by the Department of Justice. How did that go over with Judge Deary in the courtroom? Karen. The quote that everybody is reporting on is he said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You know, because what he's saying is Trump is saying, look, we may have declassified some of these documents and so therefore we don't turn them over because they could be subject to attorney-client or executive privilege, but yet they won't swear to it in court,

they won't put it in writing, they just go on TV and say these things. And so on the one hand, this judge wants to do exactly what the DOGA is appealing in the 11th Circuit, which is, okay, let's just start with the first 100 documents that you're looking at and let's hand them over. And he's signaling that that's how he wants to do this pretty clearly. And it makes no sense. But Trump says, no, no, hold on. We can't take DOJ's word for it and they have to prove that they are still classified, right? And he's saying you can't have your cake and eat it too. Interestingly, the judge did say that it's going to be Trump's burden to prove that he or establish that they are declassified because it's a civil case, right?

And he's making this argument. If it was criminal, it wouldn't be his burden. So I think he's going to very quickly say to the DOJ, okay, here's your 100 documents. But what I found really strange about it is that normally special masters, and I don't know your experience, but my experience is special masters are usually a lawyer in private practice or a retired judge, and they report to the judge overseeing the case,

right? They will do the review, but then they will say, Judge, this is my recommendation, and this is where we are. This is a very strange process because he's not retired. He's a sitting judge on senior status. He has these meetings in his courtroom wearing his robe. I mean, it's like an ancillary court proceeding. So is he a special master? Is he a federal judge? So if he says, for example, I'm going to take these documents and just start with the first hundred classified and hand them over, does that control? Or does he have to go back to, because he's a federal judge sitting,

ruling on a case? Or does he have to make a recommendation to judge canon who then will make a decision? Or because the 11th Circuit now has a pending request from the Department of Justice, do they control? So I'd love to hear your thoughts on the process and the procedure of who's going to make these decisions. Yeah, I think it's a very good set of observations

and I think the Trump's, Trump lawyers were too smart by half when they coalesced around Ray Deerey. I think they thought they had to have a federal, former federal or current federal judge as part of their list for the special master because they knew the Department of Justice was going to have like a really austere panel of federal, former federal judges that they were competing with. And so they, they had to pick they were competing with. And so they,

they had to pick the one, I would have thought they would see they can't pick a Trumper because all the Trumpers are like 40 years old or younger and they're all sitting as, as judges. So none of them are already retired or close to it. So that was out. So then they had to go back to the, you know, the Republican picks from like Reagan. I think this guy was Reagan or George W or George push and hope for the best. And they picked Ray Deerey because he had once got burned by the FBI in the Carter page, search warrant issues when he was on the FISA court. However, what they miscalculated from the first hearings, my review of the first hearing, is that Ray Deerey was

going to be Ray Deerey, who has always been known as a no nonsense gentleman, gentlemen judge much cut out of the same cloth as Jack Weinstein, Karen, if you have a practice in front of Jack Weinstein in the Eastern District, also in the Eastern District, a couple of mavericks who practice law and practice being a judge the old fashioned way. And, you know, as an example, when the lawyers for Trump were jumping up and down about, we got to slow down this process. It's going too fast. And his response was, we're going to do this with what I call responsible dispatch. I mean, that's a great turn of a phrase.

And that means back off, I think the timeline is fine. I'm running things here to your question of who's running things here. I think that the special master is similar to a magistrate judge underneath a the trial judge that she hasn't completely abdicated her responsibility to be the judge on the matter with jurisdiction, although there's been a fight over jurisdiction and that if the Trump lawyers don't like Judge Derey's special masterwork, there's gonna be an opportunity for them to file some sort of objection, some sort of objection to his report and recommendation or whatever comes out of his special masterwork and fight it out, a back with Judge Cannon. But I think Judge Cannon's a little bit of a pickle because it's really hard for a lawyer, a judge who's been a lawyer for 12 minutes

and a judge for five minutes to say that Judge Deerey, who's one of the lions of the bench, did something wrong. And so I think she's in a hard place by also picking Judge Deerey, but I think ultimately, Canon makes the final ruling. The special masters makes his recommendations or her recommendations, much like a magistrate judge. And then we're going to have to see we're going to talk about the 11th circuit.

What I found interesting in the courtroom is this box or this painting themselves into a corner that helped by Judge Deerey that Trump's lawyers are apparently embarked on. And I mean, I mean the following. They've acknowledged in the courtroom and their papers to Judge Deerey that their client, Donald Trump, is likely to be indicted or could be indicted. And they've said, Judge, we can't reveal now what's classified and not classified. That's for our defense. And they are basically saying, I think, that he has a Fifth Amendment right against self

incrimination. And if the affidavit or the sworn testimony would have to come from Donald Trump, and I think they're loathed to have their client who was staring down the barrel of a federal criminal prosecution, putting anything in writing and any kind of statement for fear of waving his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. And the judge is like, well, you can't have your cake you need to to, which is it? I know you say he has the power to declassify, but has he? I know you say he has the power to say certain things are personal to him, but has he really? You can't have your cake and eat it too. I think the way he set this up,

saying the government has made their prime aphasia case, the burden is on you, Trump lawyers, to come forward with some evidence that shifts the burden back to the government. Otherwise, it's the end of the road on that particular issue. And let me get to work in reviewing the documents that I have to get to work in reviewing at least these top 100 documents. They didn't get into in the status conference. The intricacies, the fine points of what's up at the 11th circuit, which is can classify documents, more classified documents, ever be personal records. I'm sure the answer to that is no. Can

classified documents ever be covered by executive privilege? Who owns the classified documents? Is it the departments that generated them, which is what statute says, or is it somehow the president who's the recipient of them? These are not the only copies of these things. Everybody seems to forget, these are not like the only copies of these top secret documents. It is a copy. Somebody else, like the department that generated them, has the other copies of these things, also under lock and key, if they're top secret. And so the question is ownership who owns these things and the power of the president.

I also find it remarkable both at the 11th Circuit and in Judge Dierry's courtroom. The president Trump, former president Trump, is relying on a case involving the National Archive and Bill Clinton. Because when you read that case, do you know that case, Karen? No. This is the one where Bill Clinton apparently throughout his presidency for his own personal use recorded into a tape recorder. His thoughts, his hopes and dreams and thoughts and prayers because he was going to use it for his memoir

when he left office. Well, somewhere along the way people discovered this and the media discovered that he was recording these things and they pushed for them to be declared presidential records and released to the public. And there was a battle over it. And the National Archives took the position that these were personal to Bill Clinton. They were never intended to be presidential records. This were his personal musings. He literally kept it a sock drawer in the White House that they were never intended to be

presidential records. And therefore they weren't. And that's how the court came down. They're relying on the sock drawer recordings of Bill Clinton to say, yes, same thing here. Trump wanted to take all these top secret documents as his personal records and the Clinton precedent should apply. If that's what they're relying on, I think that's pretty weak T and even the 11th Circuit. Now, let's turn to the 11th Circuit. I don't want to hear your view. We don't know the panel yet. We don't know which three judges and probably two Trump appointees are going to be listening to this motion for stay. Let's talk about what you took out of the papers filed by Trump and the Department of Justice to the 11th Circuit. So the 11th Circuit is going, as you say,

the 11th Circuit is largely Republican and they are going to, the chances of them getting at least a Trump appointee or a Republican panel is great since the majority of them are Republican. And the way it works when you appeal in the 11th or anywhere is you don't get, you get a random three judge panel that will then listen to your appeal and, and see how it goes. And so I, I'm actually quite confused about, and I would love to hear your thoughts on this,

on how that's going to work, because the Department of Justice is both working with the special master and appealing to the 11th Circuit at the same time, right? They say, we're just asking for a very modest request, I think is how they put it. A very, very small favor. We're not asking for the very modest request, I think is how they put it. A very, very small favor. We're not asking for the whole kit and caboodle.

And we're just saying, can you just give us those 100 documents and lift this injunction so that we can continue our investigation, national secrets and national security and everything is implicated. And we need to see what's in those where, what was in those missing files. And we need to basically do a damage control assessment on whether it's the assets foreign assets

or nuclear secrets or I don't know, they're saying it's so, so, so classified and secret that even this, this attorney trustee who has top secret clearance they're saying that's not even high enough for you to get a copy of these records. So they're signaling that these are the absolute most super secret codes and information that our nation has. And so therefore it's so serious. you cannot put any limitation on our ability to go forward and conduct an investigation. And what they said was, what the Department of Justice said was saying that these things are, are, are, you can proceed with the National Security Assessment Judge Cannon, but not

a criminal investigation. You clearly don't understand how we do our work. You don't realize that they are totally linked together and this is one investigation. This is not separate. And so therefore, having this threat of potential contempt of court hanging over us is is a democracy, like the sort of damacly is hanging over us, but dem of damically hanging over us, but democlean or however you would pronounce the word that they wrote in their brief, that it's going to chill the investigation and chill anyone from doing the work necessary because for fear of potential liability. And so it really, you really have to allow us

to proceed on these grounds. And, but they didn't file a full appeal, right? This was just a, this was just sort of a, they still could, in other words, appeal judge cannons entire ruling when they, when they submit their fulsome appeal, but this was just a kind of emergency request to appeal this portion of the ruling so that they can continue on with their investigation. And my question to you, Popok, is, let's say, the 11th Circuit, who I think ruled on Saturday night, right? I mean, have you ever seen a judge,

have you ever seen courts rule on weekends? And wasn't there ruling on Labor Day recently in this case? Like these judges, the federal courts here are treating this as highly, like no other case I've ever seen. But my question to you is, look say the 11th circuit says, sure, you can go ahead and use, continue on, you know, carry on Department of Justice. Won't Trump just run to the Supreme Court and want this just go to the shadow docket there? In other words, I just don't see anything happening quickly. Do you? Yeah, you know, it's hard. I think first, let me let me answer the question by setting up a

predicate. I think that the Department of Justice's arguments while I completely agree with them do have a bit of incongruity. It has, they have a couple of positions that are not completely lined up. I give you what I'm talking about. They talk about these are very highly confidential top secret documents, at least the top, at least the hundred of the 11,000

that are the first cut for the special master to review. But as you said, Julie Epstein, the lawyer for the Department of Justice came out and said, even James Trustee, the lawyer for Trump, who has a top security clearance from another case, his clearance may not be high enough. And others in his law firm who need to look at them

may don't have security clearance at all. However, at the same point, they have taken the position that they, and that they have, and they've taken the position, of course, that they need to continue to investigate. That's what the appeal or the stay motion to the 11th Circuit is to continue to investigate using those documents that they're not hamstrung and gagged.

They continue to talk toged. They can continue to talk to witnesses. They can continue to see where the evidence takes them as any normal investigation would be and not be running in place for this time period until November when when these special masters done with his particular review. But the other problem is they're okay with the delay. They're okay with Trump's lawyers ultimately seeing these documents with top security clearance. Certain of their positions are not completely consistent

with, oh my God, these are nuclear secrets and nuclear codes, but we're gonna let Jim trust he take a look at them in the review process. They are kind of bending themselves into a pretzel in order to expedite the process so that they're not further delayed and doing things. I don't think they would normally do. Like, they're like, okay, a special master. We're going to put all these on an electronic platform and we have five vendors ready and

whatever lawyers on the other side are ready to have top secret clearance they can review it. Which also put the Trump lawyers in a weird position because on one hand, they're saying that maybe these things were declassified. On the other hand, they're saying we have to have top secret clearance to review them. Well, which is it? Are they declassified? Or do you have to have to have top secret clearance?

The 11th Circuit is going to review Judge Cannon's original decision to have everything go over to the special master and What the ruling could be We're okay with what Judge Cannon did. Thank you very much. We're done here for now And then the the Justice Department I assume will just continue with the process and not take an appeal or they could say no Judge Cannon You are wrong on the application of executive privilege. We think the special master can do the top level review, but shouldn't be also deciding whether executive privilege applies because that's not something for a special master to do and certainly not something that applies here. So there's going

to be guidance out of the 11th Circuit. If Trump doesn't like the result of the 11th Circuit, I agree with you. He'll try to take an appeal to the Supreme Court. I think Clarence Thomas is the duty judge over the 11 circuit, which bodes well for the Trump group. And then Clarence Thomas is going to have to decide whether he's going to shadow docket this and make his, going to make his own decision as the duty judge. He's going to refer it over to the court. And then the court's

going to have to decide if they have the numbers to just do it without full briefing. I think the days of the shadow docket when it comes to Trump or sort of dying. I think this, this Supreme court who's worried about its legitimacy, who, and I know they're worried about their legitimacy because they keep saying out loud that they're not worried about their legitimacy, like Roberts recently, they are worried about their legitimacy because they keep saying out loud that they're not worried about their legitimacy, like Roberts recently. They are worried about it. So to do like another secret, low briefing, no briefing, no oral argument, not during the regular term related to Trump, I think is a problem for them.

And I think even the Trumpers on the panel on the bench know that. So to answer your long wind away to answer your question, I think we're going to get a ruling from the 11 circuit relatively soon on briefing. I think it's going to be in September that we're going to get a ruling maybe the beginning of October. In the meantime, it's full steam ahead with a, a, a special master, Deary, who said he's going to get his work done by November, if not sooner, he's going to get his 100 reviewed very, very quickly, likely in October. And, and, and we're going to know the results of a lot of that. Although the results of the special master's work, it, the, is decided by Judge Cannon when she's going to release that. And my gut is that

she's already kicked the ball down the field until after the midterms, much like our chief judge in Fulton County, Georgia for Fawni Willis, who has said point blank, I am not releasing the results of this special grand jury until after the midterms because I don't want to October and November surprise. I think Kat is going to do the same thing. Even if she gets this review, I'm not sure she releases it to the public. She may allow the DOJ to move forward with the 100, but she I don't think she's going to release the results

until after the midterms. So listen, we got a lot to talk about, but not today. But I feel we have entered the world of Bizarro absurdity because we have, so let's play this out. Let's talk about, for example, empty files that are marked classified. They're empty. All it is is a file folder marked classified. How is that attorney client executive? That's nothing. It's a nothing, right? It's not a document. It's something that the Department of Justice needs to figure out,

what is it? Where was it? What was in it? What happened to what was in it? How is that even part of these hundred documents that we're trying to decide? Is it attorney's client? Is it executive privilege?

Did I declassify it? I don't even know why we care if you declassified it. Since that's not an element of the crime. Yet here we are arguing about whether or not he declassified it It's so stupid and I don't understand why a judge is allowing them to co-opt this conversation to say It's your burden to tell me whether or not you declassified who cares? It doesn't matter Don't tell me if it's declassified, right? I feel like I totally agree with you. Good. I mean,

I was just going to say the one thing Trump is really good at with his insane lawyers is he controls the conversation. He has led us all into this world of, you know, and the judge and can in and everybody else about focusing on what he wants to focus on. And, you know, and the judge and canon and everybody else about focusing on what he wants to focus on. And, you know, I was looking up James trusty because, you know, I've heard you and others say he's a real lawyer, you know, as opposed to like Alina Habba and all those other people. And Popoq, do you, you're a real lawyer? You have a law firm, you practice law. Does your law firm have a logo? In other words, like a tagline logo? Because I've never seen that before when I looked him up. Do you know what you want to know what his tag,

the his law firm, if for a law, his tagline is? No. Hands on, this is part of his letterhead, okay? Look up the letterhead. I know that I know this law firm, by the way, but go ahead. So their tagline logo is hands-on council gloves off litigation. I mean, yeah, I've seen that. We had one when I was at my old firm in Miami, ours was a local knowledge global perspective, something that's a gloves off litigation. I mean, we're't you. We're going to take you to court.

You know what's it? Yeah, I, you know, it's interesting. That firm, well, I don't want to talk about that firm. I know the firm. I know, I know the lead lawyer on the firm. He doesn't practice in that area. Practice is in a whole nother area of the law having nothing or two with insurrectionists and presidents.

But yeah, I mean, all these, you know, Alina Hava has the same thing on her website. If you go on her website, it's like patriot litot litigator, you know, I idiot would have been the third thing I would have put up there. We'll talk about Alina Hava when we turn to the EG in Carol case. But you know, look, you're right. He, he, he uses these lawyers who will say anything and do anything. And then when he gets the luck of the draw and gets a judge

cannon who he can lean around by the nose because she's not experienced because you know she doesn't have what judge Deary has, which is 30 years of experience on a federal bench making really hard decisions at a very sophisticated level. She doesn't have that. I'm sorry. I was once a 12 year lawyer. So were you Karen? I know what I knew as a 12 year lawyer, and I know what I know is a 31 year lawyer, and they are completely different. And she was not, she was bare, I was saying she wasn't qualified. She was barely qualified to take the bench. She never had served as a judge. Most federal judges frankly come out of the state court system, at least serving as magistrate judges or as appellate

judges or something. Usually in Florida, that's the feeder stream into the federal court system is coming out of the state court system. And I've seen, and I know a number of my friends have become federal judges through that, through that process. So listen, we're going to rather speculate more. Let's, let's, let's watch the 11th circuit and report on it. Let's watch the next move by Judge Deerey and the next filing by the Trump team. And, and there we are. So why don't we move, if you don't mind, Karen? Let's move on to the hot off the press's announcement by the New York Attorney General, Latisha James, at about an hour or so after we're recording this. She's already announced the press conference so that the media would be ready.

And let's you and I, I don't want to call it speculation. I think we got a pretty good idea that her special announcement is not going to be that after a three year investigation into Donald Trump and his family into their business dealings into civil fraud related to loan fraud, loan inflation, tax fraud that she's walking away from it and deciding in a year when she's up for election in November that she's not, she's not going to file the lawsuit seeking penalties against the Trump family. Do you think that's the announcement, Karen? I do think that's likely the announcement, Popeyes.

Yeah. Well, I said it the other way. So what do you think she announced it when she stands at that podium at 1030, what do you think, Tis James' announcement's gonna be? So I think, so the way I've always looked at this investigation is, is what is, when you're looking at what's the value of real estate and the answer always is,

it depends who's asking, right? And so for Donald Trump, when it comes to paying taxes, everyone wants your real estate value to be the lowest possible. So you undervalue it because then your taxes are lower. But if you're going to take out a mortgage and you want to take out as much money as you can from it or you're going to sell it, then the appraisal will be to make it be as high as possible. And that's that is is potentially, you know, that's that's something that happens, anyone who's involved in any kind of real estate. But it looks like that, uh,

Tish James has finally got enough evidence to be able to bring a suit against him that he was doing it fraudulently. And so I think that is what her announcement's going to be. It's going to be that she's gonna do a big sweeping lawsuit against Trump. I know you wanted to say indictment. I know, I know. I'm still learning to speak a different language.

Anyway, so, so, you know, she, I was in court once by the way recently in InFederal Court and I was calling witnesses to the stand and I kept saying, you know, The people call to the stand blah, blah, blah, blah. And, you know, and my husband who came with me because I'd never been to federal court before and he's a federal practitioner. I'm like, can you just sit in the audience and, you know, be my, just be my security blanket. He was texting me, you know, sweetheart. Remember you, you represent the plaintiff, not the people. And I was like, oh my god, judge, I'm so sorry. Anyway, you just get so used to saying something.

That's a cute story, by the way, all the way around. It's a true story. Anyway, so I think that's what's going to happen. It's just going to announce this lawsuit. Look, Michael Cohen, who is often on Midas Touch and on the Midas Media Network, he has basically provided evidence to everybody that these, he's made, that there have been false statements made

by Trump and the Trump organization. And I think that they finally have, I think they finally are gonna have what it takes, what the other thing I will say is this is yet, this is the final nail in the coffin on the criminal case. Because as everyone knows, Alvin Bragg, or Sy Vance and then Alvin Bragg was investigating Trump and the Trump organization for this is very thing.

If this turns out to be the lawsuit, this was the very thing that they were doing. And it was a joint investigation, right? It was with Tish James, the New York Attorney General, who has civil jurisdiction, along with the local Manhattan DA, who has criminal jurisdiction. They joined forces because there's a civil aspect to this and a criminal aspect of it. And in life, whenever there's a prosecution pending, or I'm sorry, an investigation,

criminal investigation pending and a civil investigation pending, the criminal always goes first because that's the more serious. And the fact that, and they were working together and it was joint. And so the fact that this basically means that Alvin Bragg has given her permission

to file her civil suit, I think is the final, and I know he didn't have to give permission, but since they're working together, I'm sure he did, because I don't think she would do this without his, at least consent and knowledge and blessing. And so I think this signals, at least to me, that case, I know I'm last to the table on this because everybody else thinks the criminal case is dead. And I kept hoping, you know, I'm very idealistic and I kept hoping against

hope that, you know, maybe it's not dead. But I finally have come around and agree with everybody else that the criminal case is completely dead. And here we go. Who do you think, who do you think the law so it's going to be against, Popok? Yeah, so I'll go back to a couple of things that you commented on. I think there's speculation in the media as it's definitely, of course, Donald Trump, the Trump organization again with a civil case.

And I want to talk about what the civil case means or could mean to Trump's financial empire in a moment. And at least one child, because everybody likes to, you know, everybody in the Trump world likes to talk about him being some sort of mastermind business owner of some sort of major company. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's nothing more than a fan,

what we call a New York a family office where all the executives have Trump's face and last name. And in this case, the question is, which of the children signed the most loan documents and the most forms with banks and lenders? Which one was dumb enough to put their John Hancock or Donald Trump Jr. Eric Trump or Ivanka Trump. So let's do it by process of elimination. I don't think Ivanka Trump was signing loan documents. I don't think I think she's the smarter of the three if you listen to

Michael Cohen, he he having a lot of experience agrees with that. I think you're left with Eric or Don Jr. I just get the sense that Eric was brought in first to do the interview with Tish James a year ago and took the fifth like 500 times. People forget that. I think Eric, who is sort of the, competes with Don Jr. to be the fraydo of the crime family there, that he signed the most documents at the most interaction with lenders. It's always the quiet one, right? It's always the quiet one that commits the crime or the civil fraud. I think it's going to be Eric, maybe Don Jr. I don't think it's going to be Ivanka. In terms of the civil penalties here, people that think, oh, and I'm with you. I don't think it's going to be Ivanka. In terms of the civil penalties here,

people that think, oh, and I'm with you, I would have liked for there to have been a criminal prosecution related to these same facts, not just a civil, a civil souping file, but let's not, let's not undermine and poo poo, um, the power of the suit and the impact of it blowing a hole in the battleship that is Donald Trump's financial empire. And I'll tell you why. If she is successful in front of a jury in New York, this is going to be a loaded, a jury in New York in getting a judgment against Donald Trump and some of these children for fraud. What does that mean? Well, the judge then can, I don't know if it's a jury, maybe it's a jury, jury slash judge will award fines, millions, could be millions of millions of dollars of fines, could be discouragement, meaning

taking money from them that was illegally gotten, improperly gotten, and taking it off of them. That could be tens of billions of dollars and to go into some sort of victim, victim compensation fund. It could be limitations. This would be the judge's role on the Trump, the Trump's ability to be the head of any corporation in the state of New York, and they like being in New York, and they like having those corporations or operating a business in the state of New York,

which will then just hasten his move down to Florida. And lastly, it has an impact on his, all of his real estate and relationships with his banks, because I know, I know for a fact that within every loan document that Trump has signed, there is a provision that says he has to disclose if there is a claim of fraud against him or his organization. And that will give the lender, whether it be Deutsche Bank or any of the capital one or any of these other public lenders who are public about having a relationship with Donald Trump to be able to call the loan

immediately and or sometimes personal liability, what's called recourse loan against Donald Trump. So for people to think this is nothing because it's civil, it could have a tremendous impact on his and crater his financial empire because of the domino cascading effect of a civil fraud judgment against him and what it means in the ability of the lenders to collect their money quickly. Do you think it's possible that the suit is more than one kid, maybe several of the kids in hopes that at least one flips or I mean, maybe, maybe, I mean, I'd look, she spent three years investigating this. You were right.

It was the tip from Michael Cohen, the testimony of Michael Cohen at Congress that led to this. But, you know, she didn't rubber stamp anything. She spent three full years. It's like Alvin Bragg and Tis James has office spent two and a half years on the ban and build the wall state indictment. They're not rubber stamping anything. So could she have found evidence enough to bring more than one charge against Trump kids? Maybe. Certainly, there's definitely going to be one Trump kid, you know, and then we'll have to see and, you know, we'll do an update to this podcast

off of the 1030 announcement because within an hour or so, we're going to know exactly who is indicted and then we'll pick it up with the weekend edition with Ben Masalas and me. But that's that's where we are. Anything else to add on the on that before we move on to our next uh our next segment. All right. So let's see if we're right. Yeah, we'll see if we're yeah, I know. Do you imagine she gets up to the podium and says, you know what? I'm giving him a pass. I'm giving him a pass. This James is not giving Donald Trump a pass in an election in an election year. She's up for reelection in November. There is no way she's going, sorry, my bad, I don't have enough evidence. Let's move to another devastating event in Trump world against their financial

empire, which has gotten very little coverage, is that there is another committee in Congress, the oversight committee, not the Jan 6 committee, that is looking at two aspects related to Donald Trump. They're looking at the violation of the Presidential Records Act and the National Archive issues at Mar-a-Lago, and they are also looking at his financial misrepresentations, and whether he was compromised because of his refusal to release his tax returns and other things because he didn't reveal. Things related to money that he made while he was the president that he shouldn't have made. Because of owning the Trump hotel the old post office in Washington because of foreign dealings that his organization had business dealings with foreign. dealings that his organization had, business dealings with foreign countries who were trying to curry favor with the then sitting president and measures, which was an auditing and accounting

firm for 15 years for Donald Trump already six months ago is on record to the New York state system as declaring that nothing in their financial reporting on behalf of Donald Trump can be relied upon. It's completely unreliable, which is a remarkable thing for an accounting or an auditing firm to say everything that we did for the last 15 years is basically untrustworthy and you can't count on it. That led the oversight committee, which is led by a Carol Maloney out of a, a congresswoman Maloney out of a district in New York that covers Manhattan, who will not be back after

the November election, because she lost the primary to a fellow Democrat, Jerry Nadler, who heads the judiciary committee. He's now going to be the one that's going to win that pre-sick, that district in New York. But until she's done, she's chairing this oversight committee. And they just got the first trunch of documents from measures directly in which they're going to turn over, listen to this, documents that indicate that between 2014 and 2018 that Donald Trump made false false representations about his assets, incomes, and liabilities. So in other words, they're saying amazers don't give us everything. Just give us the documents that indicate that the president of

the United States committed fraud related to his assets, income, and liabilities. And amazers didn't say, we don't have any of those documents, they don't exist. They said, okay, States, committed fraud related to his assets income and liabilities. And mazers didn't say, we don't have any of those documents. They don't exist. They said, okay, we'll turn those over. That's a remarkable admission by the auditor for Donald Trump at those documents exist. They're also turning over, have turned over now this week to the oversight committee. All documents related to the old post office deal, which became the Trump hotel, which

he's now selling. And the question there is whether he violated the emoluments clause of the US Constitution because he made money off of being the president of the United States. We know the answer to that, but we're going to see what it says in the measure's documents about that. And lastly, another breathtaking, heart-stopping set of documents that measures is turning over. It are all documents concerning from the period 2017 to 2018

about Trump and the Trump organizations business dealings while he was president with foreign countries, meaning the grift, he made money, you know, whether it was a Kushner or the kids or a deal that was signed in India or a deal that was signed in Dubai or Saudi Arabia or all these other countries that wanted to curry favor with Donald Trump and signed on the dotted line for hundreds if not billions of dollars. Wasn't that an improper violation of the Amaluments clause in other federal law related to that? And measures is turning over those documents. Now, Donald Trump has been very quiet about all this. He's not, you don't even hear him jumping up and down on social

media. So the oversight committee not only gets them, but they're going to be public documents that the media can use for investigative reporting, that prosecutors can use for their prosecutions, that attorney generals around the country can use. So this is another knock on wood, point to the flag, terrible day for Donald Trump and his financial empire. What do you think about mazers? Turn it all this stuff over.

What do you think the Oversight Committee does next? Wow. This one, as you said, kind of blew my mind a little bit because it's not really covered. And I think it's astounding. The admission that Mazers is basically making by saying, you know, on the one hand, Mazers originally, when they cut ties with them, says we can no longer stand by some of the representations that we made. We can no longer stand by some of the representations that we made. We can no longer stand by the numbers. But this takes it one step further,

because they reached a settlement with Trump and the Oversight Committee reached a settlement with Trump and Mazers. And that Mazers can exercise their independent judgment in determining which documents are responsive or not. And as you said, it really, it's anything that indicates that the, that there was false, inaccurate or undisclosed information about his assets incomes or liability. So there's a lot of overlap with his james in a way, right?

And, and what she, and what she's looking at, but this is, this is everywhere. This isn't just New York. This is all his properties and all his assets. So I think it'll be, this is definitely one to watch. We'll see what they do. You know, the oversight committee could hold hearings after they get these documents, they could publish a report. I mean, it's very interesting to see, there's a big development,

I think, and this will be definitely one to watch. So I agree with you. Yeah. And the other thing, just then we'll leave it. We'll go talk about EG and Carol and what she's doing now against Donald Trump under a new law in New York. But the last comment on the oversight committee for now is, and to answer a question, I know that we'll come up in our feed and our Twitter is, what happens to the oversight committee for now is, and to answer a question, I know that we'll come up in our feed and our Twitter is what happens to the oversight committee now controlled by Democrats

if in the November elections, the Republicans take the House. The answer is that oversight committee will end its work and the Republicans that will take over will not continue the work. So, we've got a problem with timing here because it is already almost as you can tell by the sweater I'm wearing, it's almost October. And so they're running out of time to get these documents reviewed. They can't take their sweet time the way the Gen 6 committee is doing, even though because Gen 6 committee's almost done, they've got one more hearing scheduled for late September and then they're going to issue their report in October. And they're going to be done, you know, by the

time December rolls around before the new Congress comes in in January, Carol Maloney, whose this is her last swan song, it's going to have to hurry up here and get a report, at least an interim report published. Yeah, or, or, or if in November, they learn that they're no longer going to be in power. They have until January to basically dump all these documents out into the public and let the New York Times or somebody else do, you know, yeah, they're going to do that. It's three months. It's three months. But we got to like kind of move this along here because she's not going to have a lot more time to get more documents and more things in this in this period. Let's move on to E. Jean Carroll because it's important to our listeners and viewers is important to you and me.

It's a new law change in New York, and this is the first public plaintiff under the new law. And let me frame it and I'll turn it over to you. And it touches on a couple of people. Friend of the podcast, Robbie Kaplan, who you and I talked about, about things that she's been involved with. We did a nice interview of her about three or three or four months ago, is the lawyer for E. Jean Carroll. E. Jean Carroll was a writer for L magazine. 20 years ago, she claims that when Donald Trump was just Playboy failed businessman Trump, that she had an encounter with him in the dressing room of a department store in New York of all things, in which he physically assaulted her, sexually assaulted her, and then to add insult to injury or injury to injury when he was president.

And she came forward with her accusations or claims against him. He made some very unkind defamatory statements about her and said, A, she's not my type. I mean, typical disgusting Donald Trump and B, that didn't happen and she's a liar. So Robbie Kaplan representing E. Jean Carroll filed a federal lawsuit in front of Judge Lewis Kaplan in New York in Manhattan Southern District of New York claiming defamation that she was the fame because it really happened to her that he really did you know, not to get too graphic that he did sexually assault her in the dressing room and that she has DNA evidence related to it in the form of address much like Monica Lewinsky with her now infamous blue dress and Bill Clinton. And the fight, which may disturb our listeners and followers who

remember who don't remember this, is that the the US government through the Department of Justice intervened in the case because since Donald Trump gave those statements during a press conference, even about personal matters, they made the decision that the proper party was not Donald Trump, but the US government. So it would be E. Jean Carroll versus the US. And if that's the case, and they're right about that, then they're going to apply sovereign immunity and say that she cannot sue Donald Trump for defamation because she can't sue the federal government for defamation. The reasons for all that we've covered another podcast that has to do with not Donald Trump,

but how the Department of Justice sees the future presidents and the protection of sovereign immunity as a right governmental immunity as a right that whether we like it or not, that's enjoyed by people that are employed by the federal government. So that issue is up on appeal to the second circuit, which covers New York, because Judge Lewis Kaplan, the trial judge rejected the government's position and ruled that the case of E. Jean Carol versus Donald Trump, not the US government can continue and set a trial date for this for February 2023 while we await to see what the second circuit is going to do. And they haven't pardon me,

they haven't ruled yet. That's the defamation case. But now we turn to a brand new case that Robbie Kaplan is going to be filing based on a change in New York law signed by our governor, HoCool, which is the Adult Survivors Act following on the heels of then governor, Cuomo's Child Survivors Act statute. Why don't you talk about what the Adult Survivors Act does because it does something very specific. And then we can talk about the case that E. Jean Carroll was going to file in the impact on the defamation case. Sure. So there's as everybody knows, there are statutes of limitation in civil cases and criminal cases, which means you have to bring a case within a certain period of time. And

in civil sexual assault cases, they are, they wanted to extend the statute of limitations because recognizing that over time, people might be able to find the strength to come forward where as they couldn't in the short window of the statute of limitations. So in 2019, they, with all the adults coming forward saying they were the statute of limitations. So in 2019, they, with all the adults coming forward saying they were the victim of child sexual assault, whether it was Catholic church or Boy Scouts or all of the different coaches and things that they said, look, I was a child.

I didn't have the strength to come forward and the Me Too movement kind of empowered people to come forward and admit that they were sexually assaulted as a child. The governor, as you said, Governor Cuomo of New York signed into law the Child Victims Act, which did two things. It both extended the statute of limitations for future child abuse cases, recognizing that they would need more time to come forward, but also gave a one-year look back window that said no matter when the sexual assault occurred, you have one year from this date to this date to bring your case. So the child, the adult survivors act, is very similar in that it did the same thing for adults,

meaning if you were sexually assaulted at some point, it both extends the statute of limitation for future for future lawsuits, but it also gave a one year look back window that says starting November 24th 2022 for one year. Any prior sexual assault case occurring in New York, you can bring that case and bring it civilly. And so that case, that's so so so so Robbie Kaplan told was was talking to judge Lewis Kaplan, which of course, the you know, the dual Kaplan makes my head explode when I'm reading these things. Wrote a letter to Judge Lewis Kaplan that was filed yesterday, electronically filed yesterday, and it basically said, hey, Judge, let me give you an update on where we are with discovery

on the defamation case. And the update is no surprise that that Trump is basically not responsive to the discovery schedule, you know, what gives boilerplate answers, the same boilerplate answer to everything isn't producing documents. You know, we said we're ready to produce thousands of documents as long as we can get a protective order, but they're just not responding, you know, they pretend to respond, but they're not, which is their MO in every lawsuit that they're involved in. And, Judge, we, although it's unusual to talk about a yet-to-be-filed case, because of scheduling and other matters, we thought we should let you know that on November 24th,

which is the absolute first possible date that we can file this because that's the date that the law goes into effect for filing this. We're going to be filing what's known as a related case, you know, and that's a term of art in federal court, whereas if you have a related case, local rules require you to tell the court about it, and at least the court can decide whether or not to put the cases together. So we're going to be filing a related case and so that you can at least know what we're doing. And it has to do with the under and it's completely intertwined with the defamation case in that in both matters, you have to prove whether or not it's true

that he raped her. Okay. She is alleging that Ejinkarel is alleging that in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman, which is a was a fancy department store. I don't even know if it still is in existence in New York. It's too fancy for me. So I just know what it is fancy. They're not a sponsor, but I'll tell people

that still exist next to the Plaza Hotel. Yeah, I love Berkdorf goodness, by the way. I haven't been in many, many, many, many years. Because it's very expensive, but it's a beautiful department store anyway. So it's a nice place, right? You're in a nice expensive place. I don't know what he was doing in there,

but that he, but he raped her in the dressing room. And what was shocking to me is, you know what, Trump's defenses. It's that she's not my type. Not I'm not a rapist. Not I would never do that. I would never sexually assault someone. I am offended and it's terrible and I can't believe anyone would accuse me of something like that. It's, she's not my type. To me, that if I were the, if I were the plaintiff's lawyer in that case, I would, I would drive a truck through that statement because that is just outrageous to me and it's almost an admission of how disgusting he is and what a gas lighter he is. So that's what the lawsuit is going to be about and that since they have to prove the exact same thing in both cases that these should be joined. Roberta Kaplan also said, by the way, that PS, I know in February, we said we weren't going

to, that depositions in the defamation case of Trump were not necessary. I have changed my mind and I would now like to depose him. And she said it's because he, his interrogatory and other responses and discovery were totally unresponsive. So now the only way to get these statements is through deposition. So stay tuned. This is going to be one to watch for sure. So Alina Haba, who's the lawyer for Donald Trump here, jumped up and down and, of course, objected to joining the cases together, of course, they don't want to put in front of the same jury a rape case, civil rape case next to a defamation case because

they they they rightfully believe it'll blow the jury's mind, which it will and and make them totally against Donald Trump. If having said statements like, I couldn't possibly have raped her because she's not my type didn't do it enough for him because he said that publicly. And that's part of the defamation case. Um, he loses. They know he loses in front of a Manhattan jury on defamation as long as the US, the, the appeal to the second circuit isn't successful. And it's E. Jean Carol versus Donald Trump. He loses defamation.

And he's gonna lose, if they believe her on defamation, as you said, they're gonna believe her that he raped her also in the dressing room at the same time. And apparently, as I said earlier in the segment, there's DNA evidence that's sitting on a dress that she's kept all this time, which is not surprising. So I think a lot of victims of sexual crime keep these things

until they're ready to talk about them. And thank God for that because now there's independent evidence that can be used to corroborate, which means there's going to have to be an order by Judge Kaplan to take DNA from Donald Trump to compare it to whatever's on the dress. So look out for that. That's going to be another another mind blower and yeah, but you know what happens if it turns out to be his DNA,

well, he just said his defense goes from I didn't do it to it was consensual. Yeah. Right. But, but, but, but, but the earlier comments about I didn't do it. It's not my type is going to be hard to reconcile. He's got another problem. He's going into a battle here with Alina Habba as his lawyer, who's, who I don't believe is up to the test to beat Robbie Kaplan at anything, let alone in a court of law, knowing her, knowing her well. So they're, of course, opposing it. The judge right now is just saying full steam ahead in February. I think he's going to have to make a decision whether separating them is proper in a civil case or whether the interests of justice means that they should go together and for economy, they should go together as related cases. It's up to the judge whether he's going to do what's called bifurcation or not once the case is filed. Plus if it's no, if she

can't file till November, E. Jean Carol and Robbie Kaplan. And the trial is set for February. That's a very small window to complete what's called discovery, take depositions, documents, the DNA. I think that pushes the trial off from February as to some later date, which may not be to Robbie Kaplan's advantage because if the second circuit has a rule, they go forward with the case in February. Second circuit is maybe it's ruling by not ruling. They know that the trial is set for February. They're not buried somewhere. The second circuit knows what's going on. And so it's already, you know, we're proving it to October, you know, and if they rule that the US government is stepping in for Trump, then the case is real,

that case is over. But I don't think just to leave it on this note, I don't think the, the civil, what I'll call the civil rape case, the adult survivors act case, which is an intentional tort. I don't think that is going to be sovereign immunity. And the US government's going to step in and say, yeah, for the rape. Also, we're saying that that Trump had immunity. I think intentional towards intentional acts, intentional crimes is the limit of sovereign immunity. And I think that's another reason why Robbie Kaplan wants to bring it is because that would definitely be E. Jean Carol versus Donald Trump without the Department of Justice saying a word about it. What do you think about that? I think I think that if I think you're 100% right that there might be a there might be a procedural reason why these aren't joined because you're still waiting for the

appellate courts to decide on whether he can be sued or not. But I think substantively, I think the judge will absolutely join them because the defense to defamation is that it was true. And so you have to prove, she's going to have to prove in her defamation case that he raped her. So if you she's going to have to prove that he raped her in the defamation case and prove that he raped her for the, you know, for the adult survivor's act case, it's the same proof. It's the same case. So I think it gets, all things being equal, it gets linked together. You know, I'm curious why it gets brought in federal court. Why the adult survivors act as a brought in state court? I don't know what jurisdiction hook she's going to

have. Is it diversity jurisdiction? I don't know. That was my question. How would that even go to federal court in the first place? But we'll see. Yeah, I don't know. You'll have to look at what's called, you know, pendant litigate, pendant jurisdiction when you can bring in a state claim and it already sitting federal case. I mean, obviously they had, they had diversity jurisdiction to bring the defamation case. So I assume they have diversity jurisdiction to bring this case as well.

But we're going to follow it. Maybe we'll try to get Robbie Kaplan back on. She told us that we were her first podcasts. I thought Robbie would be such in demand. I mean, she is in the media, but I thought she would have done competitor podcasts to legal AF before, but she never had. It was her first podcast. And we'll try to get her back. Because I think now as our audience is continuing to grow as the Midas Media Network audience is continuing to grow. I think people that missed her the first time will find her to be fascinating. We talked about on the actually we were able to get her the day if you remember

Karen the day that the dobs draft decision was leaked. So we got to talk about that and and Alito's decision and what it meant if it were true. And we believe that we're true for women's rights in America coming from somebody that had argued at the US Supreme Court in favor of the equality, the marriage equality act successfully. So she's a very important voice in America, also a co-founder of the Hashtag Me Too movement and on the foundation related to that.

So we've reached the end of another hard-hitting, important midweek edition of Legal AF with Karen Friedman, McNifolo and Michael Popak. We've covered the update to the Mara Lago document review, including the 11th Circuit and Judge Deerey. We've talked about the New York Attorney General's announcement today of what we think will be the civil lawsuit against Trump and some of his children for fraud and what that means. We've talked about measures, a long time auditing firm for Donald Trump, disclosing documents finally to the oversight committee

of Congress related to fraud and other financial dealings of Donald Trump with foreign governments. And we ended it with our observations related to the new information that E. Jean Carroll, who not only has a defamation case against Donald Trump, related to a sexual assault that occurred, but is now bringing a new case under New York's Adult Survivors Act, alleging rape and sexual assault by Donald Trump 20 years ago, and what the impact on the federal lawsuit related to that. Karen, I'm breathless. I'm glad you're here with me. Couldn't get it all done without you.

Yeah, well so much to cover. It's an unbelievable. Yeah. And we'll be on the week. It's all Trump. It's all Trump. That's crazy. Yeah, we're going to change the name to Trump AF. I mean, it's just there's something. I mean, you can just do a show just based. It's a spinoff. It's going to be a spinoff. It'll be like you and Jordy or something like that and we'll just do all Trump all the time. I mean, that's what really our legal show has become. Yeah. It could be a full-time thing. Yeah. And as the legal AFers and the shout-out to the mightest mighty people know, we have a weekend edition that I do with Ben Micellas, occasionally Karen drops in. We do a we do a three on three on three, whatever it's called on our weekend edition of League of Legends.

Until next midweek, this is Michael Popuck and shout out to the Midas Mighty.