Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts REACT to most important legal news of the week - Legal AF 8/27/22

Episode Date: August 28, 2022

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok (back from his vacation), the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF x MeidasTouch is back for another hard-hitting look in “real time” at this week’s most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this episode, Ben and Popok analyze & discuss: The release of the DOJ’s search warrant affidavit and Trump’s likely prosecution for obstruction and violations of the Espionage Act ; the recent filing made by Trump against the search warrant and why it doesn’t matter; developments in Fani Willis’s Fulton County grand jury criminal investigation of Trump and others, including the likely testimony of Mark Meadows, Sydney Powell, Lindsey Graham and Governor Kemp; two recent conflicting decisions —one in Texas and the other in Idaho — about the Biden Administration’s efforts to permit hospitals to use abortion when medically-necessary and the future role of the Supreme Court; and the appellate court ordering the release of the legal memo Barr had prepared to reject the Mueller Report findings against Trump; & so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: AG1: https://athleticgreens.com/LegalAF GET MEIDAS MERCH: https://store.meidastouch.com Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A redacted copy of the FBI, Appadevid, that was filed with the search warrant executed on Mar-a-Lago, is released to the public. A lot of redactions, but definitely some bombshells to report. And instead of doing anything before the magistrate judge who signed that warrant, Trump filed a number of bizarre motions in a new case before a federal judge in the Southern District of Florida even did a midnight

filing essentially on Friday night. It's a motion for judicial oversight that he filed on Monday and he hasn't even served the motion yet. Now let's turn to Texas where a Texas Trump appointed judge made a ruling that will prevent women from getting life-saving medical care in emergency rooms where the standard of care would require an abortion. Meanwhile the Department of Justice got a key win in federal court in Idaho where women were permitted to get emergency care if they needed it under federal law, M. Tallah. Then we turn to George, where Governor Kim is trying to quash a subpoena for him to testify before the grand jury, basically saying he's too important to testify.

And after the Court of Appeals, the 11th Circuit directed the district court to ask Lindsey Graham what specific topics he was claiming he was immune from answering under the speech and debate clause. Lindy's Lindsey Graham's response everything everything don't ask me any questions then let's talk about the DOJ release of this memo relating to bill bar's decision not to prosecute Trump. The most consequential legal news decision not to prosecute Trump. The most consequential legal news, explosive legal news this week, and really Popoq, the question right now is not if Donald Trump will be indicted, but when he will be indicted, this is legal AF Michael Popoq and Ben, my Celest Michael, how are you doing this week? I'm doing great. I'm going to rename this episode, the wheels of justice turn slow, but exceedingly fine. And Donald Trump is under a massive wheel of justice

that is just grinding him and pulverizing him at every turn, whether it's things going on in Florida and the federal judge, Fawney Willis in Fulton County or anywhere else we're going to talk about it all today. But for those that have been loyal listeners and followers of this show, she come as no surprise what's happening and that it's happening at this particular moment in time as we turn to the fall. Popo, you're right. I mean, we've been telling everybody and one of the benefits of listening

to Legal AF, not just one episode, but following it through is that all of these developments have been percolating for quite some time. You know, even this development of the search at Mar-a-Lago, you and I have been talking about it in January when the 15 boxes were taken in January of 2022 was one of the things we featured here on Legal AF. We talked about how that was a violation. There could be a referral to the DOJ. Obviously the DOJ was tight-lipped on their investigation

until the search warrant was ultimately executed on August 8th, but we now know from seeing the affidavit and the portions that were released, that the DOJ, the FBI, really gave Trump every shot in the world to try to return these records. And Donald Trump's not just holding on to these confidential top secret,

sensitive, department, and information because he likes it, right? Like, I think that's what's sometimes missing in their reporting. He's not holding it on because he wants to just frame it. This information is national defense information. That's what's clear as we read this information. This is the type of stuff that gets spies killed, that gets Americans abroad killed.

This is some of the most top sensitive information so much so that you have to view the information in sensitive compartmented information facilities called skiffs. And you can't just, you know, where there's no broadband or Wi-Fi because the foreign, our foreign enemies are literally paying billions of dollars to try to access this information, which as we read the warrant that was released in the portions that were unredacted, we see that this was like in random rooms and pine haul when Donald Trump finally gave back the 15 boxes, not because he wanted to, not because he was not because he was caught with records that he wasn't supposed to have. They found all these documents intermingled

that were top secret national secret information. And they were horrified. And they made the NARA, the National Archives, made the recommendation and referral to the DOJ. So what happened, Popeye? So the affidavit in support of the search warrant under rule 41, federal rule, criminal procedure 41, which sets forth the procedures for getting a warrant. Remember, there are three documents. There's the affidavit, which is the declaration

of usually an FBI agent who states why there's probable cause. The second document is the warrant. The warrant sets forth the areas to be searched and the specific crimes for which there is probable cause. And then there is the return and the return lists the documents that were obtained in connection with the search. And the return is given to the lawyers or the person who's had their premises or or dot or whatever searched or their phone searched or whatever it is. And so we already had the search warrant and we have already seen the return. And now the issue is over the affidavit. Now who are the individuals requesting that the affidavit to be unsealed? Well, you would think it would be Donald Trump because he was whining about it on his

social media platforms. Unsealed it, release it to the public. Well, Donald Trump never filed any motions at all. Zero, zip, zilch, no pleatings before magistrate judge Reinhart asking that these documents be unsealed. The only people who asked for the documents to be unsealed, who do this in every case of a high profile nature, was the media. And so what ended up happening was because the media requested the judge Reinhart unsealed the affidavit because it had this public purpose. The government had to respond and the government had to say, look, we can't reveal a lot of

this information. I want to let people know. It's very rare, very rare that the affidavit is released at all. You go back to the Rudy Giuliani search warrant case in 2021. He asked that the affidavit be released there. The New York federal judge Oatkin said, nope. I'm not releasing the affidavit. We don't release affidavits pre indictmentipement. But because here it was a former president, the public interest was so high, magistrate Judge Reinhardt last week basically said, look, I want you to go back government, redact the portions that you think are confidential and release the rest to the public, which the government did. The government made redactions.

Judge Reinhardt granted in full what the government requested be redacted. The government made redactions. Judge Reinhardt granted in full what the government requested be redacted. The government sought to redact, to make confidential sources and methods, confidential informants, citizen witnesses, other information that would be subject to grand jury, what's called rule six E, pre-indipement grand jury information, standard stuff that would always remain confidential.

Trump didn't challenge that in any way. The judge granted what the department requested and then we got the affidavit. So Popeyes, now that we've seen the affidavit on Friday, we know that there were a number, a number of bombshells in there, but you want to break down what was most, what you found to be most interesting, most informative, and why this is going to make Trump be indicted. Yeah. We have a fourth document that got filed, along with the redactions, the Department of Justice and its counterintelligence senior attorney, who actually went to Mar-a-Lago to look at documents as early as January and signed what they're calling an exparte memo that accompanied the redaction to explain not to the judge, I don't think, but to explain to the world

what happened and the crimes that are likely to have been committed, gave me a lot of detail, gave you a lot of detail that we're gonna share now about the nature of the investigation and what was in the boxes and why the Department of Justice made the momentous decision, historical decision to execute a search warrant on what they refer to as the former President of the United States, Donald Trump likes to call himself the President of the United States,

but they referred to him as F. Potus in all of their filings. What I learned was the following. One, the primary focus of the investigation, putting aside the sexy title of the Espionage Act, is obstruction. And and the obstruction which you and I and other legal commentators were guessing about two weeks ago about well which which obstruction are we talking about? Are we talking about obstruction about an investigation not related to these documents or are we talking about obstruction related to these documents and it's clear from the filing made by the Department of Justice along with the redacted Black affidavit, is that the focus is on obstruction by Donald Trump himself and those around him related to these national defense documents.

Let me be clear. I don't think we've ever been anything but clear on this podcast. from potentially compromised, the most sensitive, national security information and the national security of this country by taking and retaining two dozen boxes containing almost a thousand top secret classified documents and information, including, and not to put too fine a point on this, including documents, as you said, that get people killed. And are the result of clandestine operations and the result of the application of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and act from the 1980s that a judge oversees. They already

determined from the first batch of documents that Trump decided to have pulled from his grip, not even voluntarily, in the first wave, that there were special intelligence SI in the box. There was human clandestine source information, what they call HCS. There was no foreign NOFORN, meaning not to be released to a foreign national, and other information that it was created by the spy community, human intelligence, human assets around the world that Trump decided to take for whatever reason. And when they saw in their in their first wave of documents that he finally returned in January, the existence of all of these commingle documents that were unfolded, unclassified, mixed with other

papers, they scared the crap out of the Department of Justice and the National Archives. So you have two obstruction charges that are potential that are being revealed in the affidavit and the supporting material along with the affidavit. One of them is obstructing the National Archives in their federally protected work and required work and the Department of Justice who gave Trump 15 months to get the documents back.

This is where criminal intent, Zeno Karen and I had a little bit of a debate on the Wednesday show about criminal intent. And I know her focus was, well, it's always difficult to prove intent. I don't think so in this case, because the Department of Justice shot, you know, gave him a warning shot 15 months ago and said, return

all the documents that you have that we consider to be national defense or classified or otherwise. And he spoonfed them and then even had one of his attorneys in the meeting with the counterintelligence Department of Justice official who certified that everything that was quote unquote classified or national defense had been returned, which we know now is a lie, but Trump having been put on notice directly by the Department of Justice, the National Archives and the FBI that these documents needed to be immediately returned and having retained them, that is part of the criminal case, the other aspect that was interesting then from what's

now been revealed in the affidavit, even under all the black lines, you know, all the things that were revealed, is the extent of the level of civilian witnesses unnamed that are cooperating with the Department of Justice concerning the improper illegal document retention by Donald Trump. And it's not one because the phrases the adjectives used are multiple, the voluminous amounts of civil, civilian witnesses, right? Witnesses that are outside the government that are cooperating with the government that can of course cannot be named for fear of threat or intimidation by this president and all those around him. So I learned that obstruction is really the focus that's the obstruction related to the actual document retention and proper document retention by Donald Trump and those around him that

they're talking about nuclear secrets being in the box and the highest level of human clandestine intelligence that as you so eloquently put it gets people killed if revealed. And the thing that was the go moment for the government to go to the special to the the the magistrate judge to get the search warrant was the holy shit moment, if you will, is when they went through the boxes and realized that had all of this intelligence in the first batch of 15, and then they pulled, and for whatever reason, the Trump organization voluntarily pursuant to a subpoena without fighting it, turned over the surveillance video for the cameras out in front of these various locations, the

pine lounge, which is some hallway leading to the bedrooms of Mar-a-Lago for Melania and Donald, the office of 45 or whatever that bedrooms of Mar-a-Lago for Melania and Donald. The office of 45 or whatever that is in Mar-a-Lago. I guess that's where he stores all his crap. The basement, the basement doors. And when they got the surveillance videos, they understood that not only was Trump illegally retaining these material, but he wasn't even protecting them. All sorts of people before and after scheduled meetings with the government were going in

and out of the rooms. Now it's time. Now that's the go period to go to the federal judge and convince them which they did. Now, having filed all of that, there's a time clock that our followers and listeners to be sensitive to. The Department of Justice, as we speak and for the last two weeks, reviewing these 11 categories of documents. I have no doubt. Popok, they reviewed every document. Oh, it's done. It's done.

It was done that it was done that week days three. They reviewed every document. The three day weekend, they were done. They know exactly what's inside. So now you have Johnny come lately, F. Potus come lately and his illustrious legal team who file not an emergency motion to stop anything, which is what, you know, Karen and I talked about it Wednesday, like, what did you even file? Not an emergency motion to get the judge to put a halt to the continued review of the documents

by the Department of Justice, but this kind of, you know, lack of days of call, half hazard, poorly researched, so poorly researched and poorly argued, motion, that the judge looked at them in the first hearing and said, I don't even know what you want me to do. What are you asking for? And how does this relate to Judge Reinhardt, magistrate Judge Reinhardt, and what he's doing, what do you want? Why are you here in my courtroom? Always a bad sign for an advocate when a judge says, I don't know what you want from

me. And why don't you rebreathe it? And as you said earlier at the top of the podcast, they they submitted 12 total pages, which is in the world of briefs is pretty brief. And in the 12 pages, what you and I have read and we'll put up on the screen and have it available. All they said was, we need a special master and there's been special masters before and Rudy Giuliani had a special master about all his documents and you have the power to do it. And we can't ask Judge Reinhart for it. And, um, but in there, this is the most devastating thing because once again, they, they, they wrap themselves around their own axle, then, did you see in the motion where they, they are starting to assert that Trump

had the right under privilege, attorney client privilege or otherwise to keep the documents. How is that not an admission that Trump knows the documents that he took with him, which is the crime that's being prosecuted? In nowhere in any of Trump's filings, does he say the following? I didn't have top secret, sensitive compartmental information. I'm innocent. Okay, they don't say that. You know, what they're beginning to argue is that the presidential records act, because his lawyers are just horrible. And they've argued this on TV too. The presidential records act has no criminal penalties

at all. A president can do anything a president wants to do commit any crime. And they like sight. Nixon. But Popak, when I see the lawyers, the for Trump go on and they say, the presidential records act has no criminal penalties, I'm like, just all you have to do, there's a lot of redactions in the affidavit that was released on Friday. But what was not redacted, one of them was statutory authority and definitions. And it lists what the crimes are. 18 USC 793 E, whoever having an authorized possession of access to or control over any document or information relating to the national defense, which information the possessor as reason to believe could cause could be used to cause injury to the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates delivers transmits

or causes to be communicated deliver or transmitted or attempts to do or causes the same to any person not entitled to receive it or willfully retains the same fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it. $7.93 E, that's the S.B. and Ajax right there. What other laws are at play here? USC 1519. That's a big one. That's the big one.

But don't leave that one. So I think that's the key to the prosecution. Not even. I said it. No, I'm saying I don't want to bury it in the other three. I think based on the new, if you asked me what's what's your takeaway, Popuck? The takeaway is I think the focus of the investigation is 1519, which is a 20 year penalty does not require any kind of classification or top secret and deals with obstruction. It was passed under the Sarbanes Oxley Act. secret and deals with obstruction. It was passed under the Sarbanes Oxley Act. It's worse for him and easier to prove for the government. That's the point. The reason I think that

is the key in the heart of the prosecution and the other two that you cited while important just to feet or deflate his argument about, you know, they're really good at anticipating the next move in a chess game. Unlike these idiots who are barely playing checkers without throwing the board over, the lawyers for the Department of Justice anticipating that Trump would try to say, because in conversations with him and his lawyers for 15 months, they heard the arguments already about magical one making things unclassified. He took work home, whatever they said to, they killed it with the two other prosecutions about what you said, us being Ajakt and the unlawful retention of national defense documents. That removes classified versus not classified from the entire investigation.

But the heart, the thing I think they get, they get them on quickly with a 20 year penalty unlike the misdemeanors of past, you know, mishandling of top secret information is this obstruction charts that you're about to agree with you. But I slightly disagree with you. But you're right. But let me explain to you where my disagreement is, you know, obstructions always used by the government and situations where criminals are trying to hide their criminal conduct. And so of course obstruction is the

is the focus at this stage because Trump has been obstructing up into this point. And we know he's obstructing by reading the unsealed portions of the affidavit that was released on Friday because it lists what happened. It talks about how after Trump left the office, trucks came in, they took the boxes, you hauls, they shipped the boxes tomorrow, logo, the National Archives go, hey, we're missing like top secrets. So they reach out to Trump in May of 2021. Finally, after all this effort to get it back,

they basically get Trump to ship back 15 boxes. There's all of this kind of dispute between January and like April and May of 2020 and June. And June because one of the things that Trump is arguing also there is executive privilege over these documents. And then Nara finally gets a legal opinion and goes, these are not executive privilege documents. First off, Biden has holds executive privilege. You don't and these are national security. Don't belong to you. You can't just say executive privilege documents are our most top secret documents, but

you're conceding, but you're conceding that you have them if you're saying it's executive privilege. But here's the thing, Trump could have filed in May of 2022 and injunction or challenged executive privilege in court. He didn't file anything in May of 2022. That's how arrogant and cocky and just, you know, criminally minded he is. And then you go from the May of 2022 to June where the top counterintelligence official shows up, Jay Brad shows up. He's assured that they've returned the documents. Jay Brad says, well, put us, you know, put a lock, whatever that room is, lock it, secure it. Number one, while we continue our investigation, but they told Brad that they've given all the

documents back in June of 2022, which we know not to be the case now that the governments, we've seen the return of the warned and the return of the warned shows that there was top secret sensitive compartmented information obtained. So we obstruction is the focus to the extent that that timeline that I just gave shows the obstruction and the lies and the deceit and it's a no brainer. It's almost stipulated liability at this point based on the time frame that I gave. But the other statutes that I gave Popeyes Espionage Act and the other one 18 USC 2071, which is willfully and unlawfully concealing removing mutilating

or obliterating, and retainer, those documents, that statute though, those come into play now, particularly in focus, because the government's got the documents back And then and then there is a footnote here though in this In the affidavit as well that does talk to the point that Classification for all those crimes we listed is not an element of it notice I didn't say classification once it's stealing national defense information So it doesn't belong to you and not returning it and then to put a finer point Popeye say classification once, it's stealing national defense information. Absolutely. It doesn't belong to you and not returning it.

And then to put a finer point, Popeye, what you said about what Donald Trump filed, Donald Trump did not file anything before the magistrate who's hearing these issues relating to the search warrant, the magistrate judge who signed the search warrant. That's Judge Reinhardt. Instead, earlier this week on Monday, Trump filed a new lawsuit, a new case before Judge Eileen Cannon, who is a Trump appointee, appointed by Trump 2020 Federalist Society since 2005, but still a judge like Eileen Cannon has like hopefully has dignity and respect who's like, I'm not going to just let people just file whatever freaking documents they want to

file in my court. But there two weeks late, after the government's reviewed it, Trump says, Hey, can you provide a special master? And for those asking, what's a special master? We talk about a lot of legal. AF, it's just an independent retired judge or a or a retired lawyer or a practicing lawyer who just reviews the documents and prepares reports for the court says these are privileged, these are not privileged. But Trump did that, like it's basically a moot point at this.

And then when you've read the most recent filing that Trump made, because the judge, as you mentioned in that other case said, am I even entitled to hear this? Like why aren't you filing it in the court before Judge Reinhardt? Because all Trump would have to do before Judge Reinhardt, if he wanted special master is just ask for it there. And right away the day the search warrants executed what your lawyer would do is go into court and say to judge Reinhardt A. Can we please get a special master? While it's been while it's while it's while the nine if you and I had the case. We would never take this case. During the nine hours of the search, we would have already been an emergency application to the court in the Southern District of Florida,

arguing about quashing it, you know, doing everything that he did two weeks later. Okay. In the wrong court, with the wrong judge, with a judge that is even questioning her own jurisdiction over the issue as you pointed out. But look, you and I just to bring it back home. When we talked about this two weeks ago, I said and you, you said that Trump asking to have this thing released was all bullshit that he knew that if this ever got released in any kind of unredacted form, it would be terrible for him. And just look at the media reports, mainstream or otherwise, since, yes, since two days ago, since the unredacted, mostly unredacted, affidavit was released, it has been terrible for Trump. Terrible. There's

not a legal commentator worth his salt, former department former DOJ former FBI who hasn't said that that he that Trump is in mortal peril because of the affidavits release and what it indicates about the scope and Muscularity of the prosecution and he never wanted that released and and to say to have him saying his papers what if that released and to say, to have him say in his papers, ah, the, the released blackened, redacted affidavit and makes more questions than it answers. I mean, I mean, I mean, here's the thing, they, they, they, they, they then cite the Rudy Giuliani search warrant case. And guess what? If you just picked up and read that case, which I did right after because I'm like, that

doesn't sound right to me. We covered up the judge. We talked about it here. Yeah. The federal judge in New York, when Rudy Giuliani said, release the affidavit, the judge didn't even release, like, redacted and unredacted portions like, like, Judge Ryan hearted. There the judge said, you don't get a copy of the affidavit, you know, you know, go away. And in the Giuliani case, it was a whole set of different issues. The government had asked for the special master, not Giuliani. Giuliani said,

give me all the documents back, which the court denied. And there where there's an attorney client privilege claim, there is usually the standard protocol would either be like a taint team that reviews the records before or you have a special master because it involved a lawyer. And here in this case with Trump, there is no, Trump hasn't even argued. When you look at the motion or whatever he filed, there's no claim of attorney client privilege. He just randomly says privilege. And here's the thing too. The motion that Trump filed, he's like, yeah, let's call this an injunction. You can't do that.

Like you have to file a, you have to file a motion, it's a motion, you have to file an emergency motion with prongs with elements have to establish irreparable harm. You have to establish a, a probability of success on the merits. You have to show the immediacy of the harm with declarations like the way there's an affidavit that goes with a search warrant. You can't just go willy nilly. I'd like to mention today. I'd like to just type a junction today. And maybe maybe a little special master, how about a little special master judge? So I think he's going to get laughed at a port there. I just think the judge is going to deny it and say

I don't have jurisdiction. I think judge Ryan R. But we don't know. It's a Trump appointee. Is the one talking about, I want to talk, I want to talk about that. Give my Florida perspective. And this is sort of a nuance perspective because a lot of times, including on this podcast today, we're going to talk about Trump appointees and non-Trump appointees as hand, as shorthand for how we think the rule is going to come out. That doesn't often work in Miami. Those that are, there's a lot of Hispanic justices, judges who get appointed, as most people know, Miami in particular is 70% Hispanic. Many of them are, you know, and I practice down there and I have friends in the judiciary,

some of which I supported, some of which I didn't when they ran for office. But usually if they're a Republican, they're just members of the Federalist Society, they're not overly political in Miami the way they are in other places around the country. In Texas, if you and I tell somebody that's a Trump appointee, we sort of know how the ruling is going to come out. That doesn't often work in Miami and in South Florida because of the other cross issues related to ethnicity and being Hispanic or not Hispanic and all that.

So right now, she's been making some good rulings and she's running a very tight ship and I'm not sure whether who she was appointed by is going to matter if she laughs them at a court. Well, here's the problem. if she gives Trump the relief. Everybody's watching those dockets, right? We're all watching that. And so if you could just show up in her court and basically write a love letter and and

have the letter be treated as a motion and and then a judge says, okay, looks like he wrote me a poem and based on that poem, I'm looks like he wrote me a poem. And based on that poem, I'm gonna give you the relief that you request. Don't you think that everyone's gonna be citing? Hey, I guess when we file for injunctions, we don't need declarations in your court anymore. It would create a free-for-all situation in her court

where it would just look like there are no rules. There are no, and everybody would take advantage of the system if that was the case. And as Trump's trying to do there, but yeah, that motion's not going anywhere. And so really what happens next, hope, here is that, you know, the government's conducting its investigation.

Oh, one more than I wanted to mention, though, about Trump's motion for judicial oversight. Again, a made-up title for a motion that it doesn't really exist. He hasn't served the documents. I mentioned this at the top of the show. And so when they filed the motion on last Monday, what they did is rather than serving the Southern District of Florida's person who accepts service, right? Everyone you see in the movies where there's the process server who goes in and has to serve it.

Well, the rules require service occurring in certain ways. You can't just email, if I had a case against a big corporation, for example, right? I can't just email a lawsuit that I file to like some random executive VP at the company and go, you've been served because I emailed it to you. That's what Trump's legal team did. They basically took the document after they filed it. They didn't serve it on the government the way it's supposed to be. Instead, they emailed it to Jay Pratt, who's the top counterintelligence official.

And so here you go. Here's the document. And Jay Pratt, like, didn't respond to it because he's like, what the hell are you? I'm not that guy. I don't I don't do that Why are you sending this to me? So he didn't respond and then on the 25th The Trump lawyers call Jay Pratt and go hey, so are you gonna accept service? They don't even call him the day they send it to him and then Jay Pratt's like No, that's not what I do just serve who you're supposed to serve if you're filing it.

I'm not the person who gets served with these documents. And so then the government had to admit, did you see that Pope? I got the very bottom that the government Trump had to admit at the very bottom of the document, they go, we will promptly serve, we will promptly, uh, effectuate service. How do you not serve the people that you're suing? There had you email that they don't know how to lawyer the worst lawyers ever to be clear People that practice in this arena

regularly Know how to serve the government there is a defined way that you serve the government It's not hard. You know where to find them You just have to send the process server to the right door and you serve You serve the government. You don't serve the agent or the department of justice representatives We signed the paper, you know, you have to officially serve the United States of America But there's a way to do it and it's not that hard. So the fact that they spent three out of their 12 pages Complaining and crying to the judge about they couldn't figure out service

pages complaining and crying to the judge about they couldn't figure out service. Yeah, this is what look. If you remember at the very beginning of this motion practice, the two lawyers that are supposedly the brains in the operation, the one sitting in Maryland and the other one, Corcoran and the other one, they couldn't even argue the first day in court because the judge rejected that she's now approved it, rejected their motion for special appearance to appear in Florida, because they don't practice in Florida, because their papers were all screwed up.

Yeah, it's like it's to give people what that means. Like, you know, in the SATs, you get a certain amount of points for just writing your name. These lawyers failed to write their name correctly in a court, so they couldn't even appear. Which is even more dangerous because what that left on that first day of really important argument was one of the television talking head lawyers that he hires. You know, he's got these bunch that have spent most of their career on newsmax and Fox and are quickly finding out that arguments that play really well to the viewers on one of these right- wing channels does terribly in a

court of law, a cease and foul, but that's what they were left with. They were left with this person, this female attorney who has been to the lab, Christina Bob, who had like no experience, no, the other one, there's another one at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, who practices, who practices land, Lord, then it law when she's not representing a former president in the United States. She was the only one that was allowed to speak in court, right? Crow totally this show is where law and Graham goes, your lawyers, I know you're telling me that you want to unseal the affidavit, but your lawyers didn't say anything in court. So what is it that you are actually doing?

But we will keep everybody apprised of the developments there. And I do want to turn right now, though, too. We mentioned we're going to talk about, you know, Trump appointed judges, judges appointed by Democrats who followed democracy. And this is, you know, really disturbing ruling out of Texas District Court. Let me rewind a little bit and give you some background of the law and the issues at stake. So obviously everybody knows that Roe B. Wade was overturned in the DOBS decision. States like Texas have enacted total abortion bans with no exceptions in cases of rape or incest and you know other states have raised to kind of come down to the

radical right states with the most extreme versions of these abortion bans and we just see them all over the country and these Republican states is totally taking away a woman's right to choose. Well, one of the things that Biden did in his executive order is he told emergency room doctors that under a federal law called Emtala, the emergency medical treatment and labor act, the law that was passed in 1986. That law says if somebody shows up to an emergency room and needs life-saving treatment, an emergency room can't turn that person away. I mean how horrific was it that before 1986? Emergency rooms could turn people away. People could literally die if they didn't have insurance or, you know, the

emergency rooms could just turn them away. So under MTala, which is a federal law, the Biden administration through the Department of Health and Human Services, the HHS, sent a letter to these emergency rooms and said, even if states have total abortion, bands or abortion, bands, if a woman comes into the hospital and needs life-saving treatment, and the standard of care requires an abortion, you need to provide the standard of care.

You need to use your medical judgment to save the woman's life and not let the woman die. We just want to make you clear about that. We hope you're clear about that. If you're not, you can't let women die who show up to the emergency room, right? You would think that that's not a controversial position. Let's not let women die who show up to medical rooms

and let doctors use their, their standard of care. Well, that's not the case. So the state of Texas can pack in their AG, sued the Biden administration for giving that guidance. And they said, under Texas state law, under our total abortion ban, you can't tell us at all what, what, what, whether women should live or die who show up at the emergency room, you can't give that guidance at all to emergency room doctors. And so there was a lawsuit filed by Texas against the Biden administration. They

pulled a Trump appointed judge, Judge James Wesley Hendrix and Judge Wesley Hendrix agreed. And Judge Wesley Hendrix said that the guidance given that that's what it is. It's not like a law. It's guidance saying we're striking down that guidance that's given doctors do not follow that guidance because the guidance focused on the doctor's medical judgment. And it didn't balance the medical judgment against the state law, which prevents the doctor from balance the medical judgment against the state law, which prevents the doctor

from exercising the medical judgment. That's what Hendrick said was wrong with the guidance, which is a complete upside down world version to borrow that phrase from another federal judge, one out in Florida, who's been ruling pro-democracy rulings, a Obama appointee, I believe. It totally changes the dynamic of the supremacy clause, which means that what the federal government law, like Emtala, supersedes state law, and in this case, provide emergency treatment is a federal law.

So that's what happened out in Texas. And that of course is going to be appealed by the Biden administration. That's going to go to the fifth circuit. But the fifth circuit is a very radical right wing court. So I don't expect there to be any action there. You compare that to what happened tonight before before you, before you, we'll be comment on Texas before you move to Idaho, we, we, we set up the split in the circuits for the eventual split in the circuits. Very interesting fact about this judge, because as we said earlier, sometimes you can use

who appointed them as a predictor of outcome. This one's weird. So Judge Hendrix was actually originally appointed by Obama. He was going to be a federal judge under Obama, but it got blocked because of recesses in the leg in the in Congress, he never got his federal seat this federal Judgeship under Obama. He then when Trump came in He chose Hendrix which Obama had already selected to be his judge and the guy got confirmed 98 to one by the Senate It looked almost bipartisan because Obama already appointed him

I just put that out there because sometimes politics make strange bedfellows and not everybody You can't predict what their outcome. He's obviously acting like a Trump appointment now in Fort Worth, Texas where this decision came out so You know, I we're gonna set up now. You're gonna talk about Idaho. It's going to set up this conflict over the series of executive orders, guidance and policies that Biden and his cabinet came up with in the wake of the Dobbs decision about what Democrats and people that love democracy and a woman's right to choose can do in the short term and in the long term to try to ameliorate the harsh ruling of taking away a constitutional right of a woman to choose. This is but one example as you've outlined the HHS guidance about what hospitals can do in an emergency if they determine from a medical necessity, the woman needs an abortion. Supremacy clause, the paramount power of the federal

law and federal government over state, over issues in which they have taken complete, they've ousted the states, is gonna be implicated. And this battle between, and we're gonna hear about it more when you talk about Idaho, which criminalizes all abortion, no matter what the cause and the life of the mother be damned, what that's going to do with a Supreme Court that if they thought the US Supreme Court, if they thought they were going to have to make another abortion ruling for a long,

long time is exactly the opposite. They're going to get another abortion case, this upcoming term that you and I'll start talking about when it opens in October. And it's probably going to be Texas versus Idaho after you talk about Idaho. Yeah. And we could talk about the strategy. You'd say, well, there's a lot of total abortion bands in these radical rights dates. So why was it that of all of the states out there that the Department of Justice decided to file their first federal lawsuit against the total abortion ban as it relates to the provision of emergency medical treatment at hospitals and ER rooms? Why do they choose Idaho of all places? Well, even though Idaho is run by a Republican governor, it's actually in the ninth circuit

court of appeals and the ninth circuit court of appeals. I always forget that. I always forget that. No, no, I'm serious. When I think ninth circuit, I think where you said, I think California and some of the Western states, I forget Idaho, which is right wing as you're about to identify, sets it a relatively liberal appellate circuit. Exactly.

And so it's the ninth circuit you can think of as the exact opposite of the fifth circuit. And so even if the Biden administration had filed their version of the Amtala lawsuit in Texas, what they realize is it would go on appeal to the fifth circuit who would strike it down likely. And so the effort would probably fail anyway, you know, just because of the dynamic there.

So Idaho, as you mentioned, Popeyes has essentially a total abortion ban criminalizes it, which means that it has this chilling effect on emergency room doctors who don't know what they're supposed to do. Where are they going to get arrested if they provide emergency care? And the answer is likely yes, but they don't know, but it seems like they get arrested. And then the burden would shift to them after there was a criminal trial to try to come up with some sort of, you know, defense to justify it. But that would be in the context that they've been arrested

and now they're criminally charged. So the Biden administration and the Department of Justice, just think about the DOJ. Just think about the work that Merrick Garland is doing, though, right? Like, at the same time, Merrick Garland and the DOJ is prosecuting insurrectionists like 800 active cases or 400 of those have been resolved and 400 more will be resolved at the same time They're doing that at the same time, you know, there's the search warrant that's executed on Mar-a-Lago You know the Department of Justice is standing up at the same time the Department of Justice is filing criminal charges and the Breonna Taylor case The Department of Justice is here fighting in Idaho for a woman's

right to choose and for that right as expansive as it can be under the limitations provided by the radical right extremist court to make sure a woman who show up at the emergency room won't die. So this lawsuit was filed in Idaho by the Department of Justice and the lawsuit was against the state of Idaho. And the DOJ basically said, Idaho, your under the supremacy clause, your law, your state law, your abortion ban, as it relates to emergency remedical providers, is in conflict with M. Tallah, the emergency treatment and labor act and M. Tallahala the supremacy clause that prevails. So as your law relates to emergency situations, we're going to strike, we want the court to strike that down and we want the court to enjoy or stop you from enforcing that. Let doctors provide medical treatment. And there the judge, U. judge, Beeline Winmill, who was a Clinton appointee,

judge Winmill granted the injunction by the DOJ, meaning women who show up at the emergency room who would otherwise die can be treated by doctors. I want to get your take on a pop-up, but I just want to reflect just for a moment, just how disgusting and radical extreme these right wing Republicans are at this stage. I mean, it's just, it's not enough that Roe v Wade was overturned, right?

It's always even more, which is extreme and horrific. They want it so that women who show up at the emergency room who will die if they don't get the treatment will die. That's what they're and they're fighting to sue to make sure that women who show up die. But I do, I do a, an analysis much, much the way you just laid out on this pass Wednesday's podcast with Karen on this abortion. We're talking about another couple of cases. And I said, I'll say it again, there's a special cruelty that goes along with the right wing of the Republican Party about not caring at all about women, not caring at all, including those that are in distress, those that have been raped, those that have medical conditions that require them to abort. There's a special cruelty to say things like Ken Pax,

and the Attorney General at Texas, after they won their Texas case. I'm not, you know, winning is losing for me from a moral standpoint, but they won their Texas case, and he said in a tweet, because that's all they can do. Great day for Texas babies, women, and healthcare professionals. It's a terrible day for women. We're not talking about babies. We're talking about fetuses. But this is that special brand of cruelty where Republicans will leave women to their own devices to have to raise children ultimately that they would rather through a choice not do. And then it's going to be the Democrats and their social need programs that are going to have to step in

to help raise these children and make sure they're not in harm's way. And it really is disgusting and the more we talk about it, let's talk about Idaho for a minute because that victory there is sort of temporary. We don't quite know how this judge, and I love her name. It's win W-I-N-M-I-L, but it sounds like win mill. And judge win mill said, for now, under we're back to an injunction setting, I think we can wait, I don't see the irreparable harm.

I think we can wait to have full adjudication on the issue of whether the supremacy clause and federal law and the dobs ruling comes into play in analyzing whether Idaho's total and complete criminalization of abortion is going to be able to withstand the application of M. Tala, the federal law. I don't know what a ruling's gonna be. I'm hoping I know what a ruling's gonna be given the fact of who appointed her and where her sentiment seems to lie, but we don't know yet.

We have a clear ruling in Texas that's subject to appeal. Here, I'm sure there'll be an appeal related to it. And we're gonna have been, it may not be in October, but there's gonna be a caucus and a conference among the Supreme Court now with with Katana G. Brown-Jackson sitting in her seat rightfully about these cases. This will not be the only case where there'll be a split in the circuits about abortion because states, legislatures, and hospitals are making all sorts of bizarre decisions about women and their right to choose or their failure to have a right to choose.

That's leading to tremendous emotional, moral, physical impact on women. You've got hospital administrators trying to read statutes and Supreme Court decisions and law and getting it wrong and who's suffering the woman and this is gonna have to come back if Sam Olido thought when he wrote dobs that what happens in the real world Is if no concern to us? Good luck because you're gonna get at least a half a dozen cases involving abortion and what people are supposed to do with your decision in the next term And that's the way you framed it there is perfect to your decision, the state's decision. And would you refer to as, you know, these bizarre decisions and bizarre outcomes or these

cruel, horrific outcomes are state imposed decisions, not the woman's decision, not the woman's decision with her family and her doctor. It is the state's decision. It is people like Greg Abbott. It is people like DeSantis. It is people like Ted Cruz. It is these types of people who are the ones who don't even know what a topic pregnancies are, who don't even care to know what an economy is.

Even the women, even the Republican women in leadership, Marjorie Taylor, Green, Boba Bert, where are they? Where's Nikki Haley? Where are all the people that say they're the leaders of their party on this issue? They're falling in line behind this great win of the Dobbs decision. Well, and you know, it's part of this fascist cosplay combined with the hatred of women. And that's why we've been talking about November. We've been calling it Roe Vembre. You know, we say, Roe, Roe, Roe,

your vote here on the Midest Touch podcast. And I'll repeat it right here on legal AF that this is Roe Vembre. And when you put people like DeSantis and they say, I'm gonna be the person who's in charge of these decisions. And you can't go to an emergency room. Women are gonna take notice.

America's gonna take notice. And however I could be an ally in that, I mean, it's when I see stuff like going on in Texas, it's just, Let me give you an example and you'll talk about it more on the Brothers podcast. I'm sure you may have already, I do listen regularly, but sometimes I miss

your one or two episodes. Kansas, the reason things went well for progressives and Democrats related to abortion in Kansas is because, I don't know if you caught this, Ben, the overwhelming number of people registering to vote for the first time in Kansas since stops are women. And that's what has to happen from now until November for the, you know, there, there's new deadlines now because all the Republican state houses have limited the ability to register to vote because they don't want voters Because when you have voters the Republicans often usually lose so there are deadlines But we're only in August and there's still time in every one of the states that matters for people and women to register to vote

And that is really important. I know that's what the Midas touch Podcast and the Midas brothers are all about. And I'm, I'm standing right behind you. Let's talk about what's going on in Fulton County with Governor Brian Kemp and Lindsey Graham and some additional individuals being asked to not really be an ass, the peanut to testify before the special grand jury. Pretty please. Exactly.

I'll talk about that. We got also talking about this DOJ memo relating to bill bars decision not to prosecute or really bill bars reverse engineering the decision with some of the most illogical. If you obstruct and you succeed, it can therefore not be obstruction is essentially, you know, what these idiots in Buildbar wrote, but we'll break that down. Before doing that,

as you have you gone to store.mitustouch.com, go to store.mitustouch.com, get the top, might as touch gear. We're talking about, we got new shirts, RoVembers shirts, we got Ro, Ro, Ro,

your vote shirts, we got Convict 45 shirts, we got the new dark brand and sticker pack store dot might as touch that come you're part of the might as mighty movement. You're illegal AF or get the legal AF gear at store dot might as touch dot com pop up also our next partner is athletic greens. This program is brought to you by athletic greens. You may be wondering, Ben, what is this green drink that you've been drinking the entire podcast? It's athletic greens. It tastes great. It's a health and wellness company that makes comprehensive, daily nutrition really simple. And there's so much dressers in life.

So it's difficult to maintain effective nutritional habits and give our bodies the nutrients it needs to thrive, right? Busy schedules, poor sleep, exercise, the environment, work, stress, or just simply not eating enough of the right foods can lead us deficient in key nutritional areas. AG1 by athletic greens is the category leading superfood product that brings comprehensive, convenient, daily nutrition to everyone. And the key thing that you do here is I take this green powder, that's the athletic greens powder. I put it in this cup or whatever cup you like, I shake it up, I drink it and I'm good

for the day. And it tastes great. It's cheaper than a cold brew habit. And one tasty scoop, it has 75 vitamins, minerals, whole food sourced ingredients, including multivitamin, multimineral, probiotic green superfoods, and blend in one convenient, dally serving, and it's lifestyle friendly. So whether you eat keto, paleo, vegan, dairy-free, gluten-free,

it's for you, it contains less than one gram of sugar, no GMOs, no nasty chemicals are artificial, anything while keeping it tasty and good. So join the movement of athletes, life leaps, moms, dads, but I think most importantly legal AFers might as mighty members and take that essential nutritional drink. That is A, G, one and to make it easy athletic greens is going to give you an immune supporting free one year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. Just visit athletic greens dot com slash legal AF today.

Again, simply visit athletic greens dot com slash legal a F, take control of your health, give a G one to try. I promise you, you will enjoy the way this tastes. It's going to make you feel really, really good. You can tag me in any Twitter post. I'll retweet you with your a G one post, but this is some really, really, really good stuff right here. And I'm proud to have them as a sponsor.

Fulton County, Pope, I'm just tossing this one to you. I know, I know you love your 20-wheelless breakdown. I love my, I love my, I love my funny. And, and not to undermine anything that we've said earlier in the podcast about the Espinoge Act, the obstruction, criminal charges and the criminal peril that Trump is looking at, I still believe then the most likely prosecution of Donald Trump is coming out of Fulton County Atlanta, Georgia. I just, it's definitely the, I got to disagree with you there. At this point, the most likely one right now is out of the Mar-a-Lago search.

That's the home run. All right, but you're not letting me finish. So then, so then it was great because you answered the question I didn't ask. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that they're going to get the obstruction charge. I think they're going to get the obstruction charge, whether they go forward with it. I still think that the thing that knocks Donald Trump into jail and off the ballot, I still believe is Fannie Willis. Donald Garland has a whole set of political issues

that concern him rightly so about prosecuting the president. Doesn't mean he didn't do the search warrant. Doesn't mean he's not going to, you know, do whatever the judges tell him to do in terms of releasing things and making sure that it's set up well for the next shot. The funny will is doesn't have those implications, doesn't have those hurdles. She's the special advisor to a special grand jury that's also overseen by Judge McBernie in Atlanta. And she's not as, she is political. She's a democratically elected prosecutor. So I got a couple of predictions that you and I will have to tussle over. One, if you remember, seven months ago.

We're going to take that debate. We'll take that debate. That's all right. That's okay. Remember I also said he'd be indicted by December. I still got time on that clock. That was seven months ago. And that you think that the more perilous place for Trump right

now is that prosecution over the good part is whoever loses wins. It just means the Trump got prosecuted. I really don't care at the end. Make your point and I don't really care with you. I am 100% confident. The most likely one is now based on the search warrant. Wait a minute. What are you trying to say? You think the most light you think the funny willis isn't going to get an

indictment of Donald Trump? I think that them more likely easier grand slam is going to be the criminal statute cited as the probable cause for the search or an accident. But to be clear, I'm not debating you with that. I'm not saying I want to be clear. I'm not saying that's not a great case. As you saw from the my commentary, my color commentary on your presentation, you think funny. The other. I think the more perilous place for Trump to be is in the Fawney Willis prosecution. He's going to lose on the department of that. I know you too. I know you too, but we don't have to keep debating it. You're not going to convince me.

I'm not going to convince you. So I'm going to try to convince you but make it. Yeah, you're not. So let's go to, let's go to Fony Willis. Fony, in Fony Willis, we have, in her prosecution, we have at least two phone calls by Donald Trump himself as just to remind everybody, one of them, to Raffins Berger, the Secretary of State and his attorney general, not only telling them, help me find the 17,000 votes, but if you don't do it, you're looking at criminal peril. So that is the interference with election, direct evidence of the president making the phone call. He also made another phone call to Brian Kemp, the governor.

We'll talk about Brian Kemp's efforts to avoid testimony to the grand jury in Georgia. So here I've got direct evidence of Trump's participation in what is coming out to be a conspiracy to commit election fraud in the state of Georgia. In the Department of Justice, in case we'll talk about, mainly negotiations were those lawyers. But here I got a clear line of sight right to Trump. Governor Kemp, who's in a political dogfight of his own against Stacey Abrams in Georgia, would rather not testify. He offered first to voluntarily testify about the conversation he had with Donald Trump, this interference

conversation he had with Donald Trump, and do it in a, in a voluntary setting of coming in and giving testimony. But the negotiations broke down between the camp team and the Fannie Willis team over a number of things like camp one at the questions in advance. Fannie Willis said, no, camp one at the documents in advance. Fannie Willis said, no, camp one at all the topics in advance. Fannie Willis said, no, you come in as if you were coming into the grand jury, where we tell you the at the moment that you come in for a grand jury, what the topics are that we're going to discuss, and you sit down and talk to my team, we'll give you that courtesy, but that's the only courtesy we're going to give you.

When that fell apart, and they started demanding questions, so they'd be prepared, Fawli ran to the her boss, in this case, which is Judge McBerney, we've talked about in the past and said, I need authorization to bring in Governor Kemp. And Governor Kemp filed papers to argue under sovereign immunity on the governor. I don't get to, I don't have to testify and all these other. And the sovereign immunity is, I don't get to be sued, right? So she points out, okay, we're not suing you. We're just trying to ask you question. Right. And then he said, oh, and they should be able to get all of, uh, I should know the questions in advance and

all. And it, all right. So McBernie had a couple of things on the docket on Thursday. One of them was Kim's motion. And the other was a bunch of motions by the fake electors in Georgia to disqualify Fawney Willis again, because, you know, whenever they get a chance to take a shot at Fawli, they do it. The judge on the fake electors motion said, I'm not, I'm not disqualifying Fawli Willis. And at a footnote, he said, I don't understand. It alludes me, the argument that you're making, that because she's a Democrat and you're a Republican and all the targets of her investigation or Republicans, that that makes this a political witch hunt. Of course, all the targets of this investigation and the grand jury's focus are Republicans.

They're the ones that are alleged to have attempted to do the fake electoral scandal scheme and to have interfered with the election process. It's not the Democrats under this scenario. So of course, she's of one party and you're of another, but that doesn't mean this is a political witch hunt, motion to motion to disqualified tonight. On Kemp, he came back and said, everything the Fony Willis has asked for in our office is completely legitimate under a grand jury process. Witnesses to a grand jury do not get in advance to questions. Witnesses to a grand jury do not know the topics until they're sitting in the seat or just moments before. and as the judge McBernie said

It's a tried and true formula that's worked for grand juries in the state for years and we're not going to We're not going to change it. He took the ruling under advisement. He hasn't made his decision yet We'll hear about it next week and you know our report about it at the end of the week However based on the questions that he asked and his temperament on the bench However, based on the questions that he asked and his temperament on the bench, camp is going to be testifying in front of that grand jury. Now the other thing that came out, I don't know if you caught Ben, that goes to the timing of the release of the report.

You remember three or four episodes ago, we said that McBerney made it clear that he was not going to allow the special grand jury and Faudi Willis's work to be politicized by releasing it as an October surprise just before the November election. And if it got too close to the midterms, he was not going to release the report until after. He made it clear now almost in September where we are. She is not far enough along in her investigation, even though she's done 30 plus witnesses, to have the report ready from the grand jury anytime. So he's basically told the media and the public this report is not coming out until after the elections in November. So it's not going to be something that we can use in November.

It's going to be something that we're going to find out about probably in December or January. And McBerney is signaling that already. So that's what you have there with Brian Kemp trying to avoid. Yes, subpoena. Other developments as well, you have reaching out to Fonney Willis is reaching out to Mark Meadows, Sydney Powell. I just got a message literally right before we started recording this of Lin Wood. So all of those people have been approached. And just so people know the procedure, if an individual does not live in the state of Georgia, you have to initiate kind of two concurrent proceedings,

one in Georgia with this judge who's overseeing it to subpoena. And then you go to the state where the person resides, and then you have to get a local judge there in the jurisdiction where the person lives to order that they appear in a foreign or another state jurisdiction. So that's just the process.

So how do we know that, you know, she's looking to depose or bring Mark Meadows and Cindy Powell rather before the special grandeur? Well, we can see these cases being initiated in the different states. And so that's how we know. But she's asked McBerney. She's asked McBerney for permission to go to the other states and he's granted it. And then, you know, Lindsey Graham, we've been talking about this kind of, you know, ping-pong

effort of Lindsey Graham not to appear. Lindsey Graham at first said based on the speech and debate clause, which basically says that legislators, members of Congress senators, in connection with the work that they do as senators or Congress members, they can't be questioned anywhere other than their jobs as senators and Congress members, meaning you can't, you can't investigate, they can't be questioned anywhere other than their jobs as senators and Congress members, meaning you can't, you can't, to investigate, you can't ask the questions. And they basically have an immunity as it relates to their legislative functions. And Lindsey Graham has maintained that when he tried to basically rat Raffensburgers

words, it felt like he was threatening Raffensburg and extorting Raffensberger to change vote tallies. Lindsey Graham's responses, no, I was just fact finding about the electoral process. Sure, I'm a South Carolina senator, but I just wanted to know your Georgia process. And when I was telling you to overturn the actual issue of the people, that was just part of my legislative functions. Just to see, you know, could you do it? Could you not do it? I'm saying it in that tone, but that's actually what Lindsey Graham is arguing. And that speech and debate clause argument is a very powerful argument, unfortunately, for in this case, because the law has given

a lot of deference that our senators and members of Congress are not supposed to abuse it and be complete criminals and do what Lindsey Graham, you know, apparently, you know, did in this situation. So Lindsey Graham appealed the district court judges are wrong. The district court judge remember Lindsey Graham filed a case outside of those state court proceedings. He filed a case outside of those state court proceedings. He filed a federal case. First he filed it in South Carolina. And then it got moved to the district court

in Georgia. And Lindsey Graham filed for an injunction stop. I don't, I don't want to testify judge make it stop. And there the judge said, you know, maybe there's a speech and debate clause with respect to this phone call that you may have had with Rappensberger. But clearly there's all this other conduct conduct which would not be legislative activity. Like, if you spoke to Trump about, you know, campaign issues, how would that be legislative activity? You know, when you have conversations with Trump about overturning the election and Lindsey Graham then appealed the district court's binding to the 11th circuit, which is where George is based.

The 11th circuit said that the federal judge needed to make a broader inquiry to Lindsey Graham about what other areas of questioning he's concerned about and then ask Fony Willis, what areas of questioning that she would want to get into. And Lindsey Graham's response, basically, is literally, you can't ask me any question. Anything I would have done, whether it's talked to Trump or whoever, was under speech and debate clause, is the argument. What a loser argument.

But he's making that argument. We'll see what the 11 circuit does. That was the recent filing by Lindsey Graham. I want to turn to this billbar memo, but I do. I said I was going to debate you a little bit. And it's a friendly, respectful debate that I want to turn to this bill bar memo, but I do. I said I was going to debate you a little bit and it's a friendly, respectful debate that I want to have. Let me tell you what. Let me tell you why I believe though that Trump is in far greater peril in the Mar-a-Lago

search warrant investigation. And it relates to what I just said about Lindsey Graham, right? As it relates to state versus federal officials, Lindsey Graham cites the speech and debate clause. In any investigation into Trump arising out of a local district attorney like Fony Willis, regardless of the merits of the case, one of the ways Trump is going to delay it and delay it for quite some time is on a separation of powers argument. Can a state DA prosecute a president of the United's former president of the United States? And that question is enough of a novel question where Trump will be able to, I think, unfortunately,

I'm just giving you the law on what I think the law is. You know, if you want to abuse it, if you have a criminal ex-president who wants to take advantage of it, to delay it, saying, look, I'm the former president, this local DA has no authority, and that will work its way up to the Supreme Court and take a lot of time. That's number one. Number two, as between Fony Willis and Merrick Garland, and who is a more seasoned prosecutor in terms of Donald Trump being in peril, it comes from Merrick Garland, and who is a more seasoned prosecutor in terms of Donald Trump being in peril, it comes from Merrick Garland by far, someone who's been literally the top prosecutor

like ever, like in our government structure. Bonnie Willis, we've already seen had a slight misstep with respect to the political fundraiser she lent her name to. It didn't have any significant impact. It was related to one of the potential people she was looking to subpoena where she was disqualified from where she was supporting his political opponent, but that was a misstep that Barric Garland wouldn't make. And then I call it the alcapone effect, right? Like someone like alcapone doesn't often get convicted of the murder. And that's just the way

mafia style prosecutions happen. You get convicted of the tax fraud. The other acts that lead you to be a murderer is the acts that ultimately lead to your imprisonment. And so to me here, as it relates to the insurrection, which was right in our face. Clearly, Donald Trump should be prosecuted for the insurrection. He inspired it. He caused it. He made it happen. We know how involved he was in the conspiracy behind it. We know he was involved in the obstruction of the certification results. We've seen January 6th, but because he could raise novel issues, no one's ever prosecuted that statute before. We have ample experience, espionage,

act prosecutions, right? Ample obstruction prosecutions, ample mutilation, concealment, prosecutions. And so they're intertwined in my view because the reason Trump hid these confidential information is actually the same reason that he led an insurrection. He's a traitor. He's a traitor to the country. That's that he led an insurrection. He's a trader.

He's a trader to the country. That's why he led the insurrection. And that's why he's keeping these confidential information. So to me, it's intertwined, but to get Trump, the case, the case that's imperiling him, the case that is so obvious, it's so clear cut because you read the affidavit, and as you talked about earlier, the obstruction case is already made. We see it. And the fact that the return, they got top secret, sensitive,

compartmented information, that's the case open and shut. You don't need as a prosecutor to make any more detailed arguments than he claimed that he gave it back. He didn't give it back. We told him to lock the room. He didn't lock the room. He told us we couldn't access the documents. They took the documents all over the place.

He shouldn't have had the documents in the first place. Guilty. That's all you have to show the jury. And it's imminent. The search warrant. They now have these records. You don't have to go through. You know, with Fawney Willis, Governor Kim is going to have to come, maybe they order Governor Kim to come back next year, you know, that's why I think imminent peril, I have no doubt it's the Mar-a-Lawgo search word. That's my debate. Brief, brief for bottle, ladies and gentlemen of the podcast. I'll make a brief. The Times, when the Records Act and the retention of national defense documents have been prosecuted in

the past, result in an exit ramp that's usually less than a felony and with very little time on the clock. Patreus, prosecuted under a similar but not exactly overlapping set of statutes, got like a misdemeanor to slap on the wrist. Sandy Berger, former Clinton advisor, White House advisor who had taken a document with him also did. They're going to prosecute him for this document retention issue. We keep talking about the highest level, the compromise of national defense and national security for the country and I don't want to underline

that or belittle that. But at the end of the day, the great weight of the United States government, if it decides to prosecute this president based on where we are right now, and just to tell everybody, just because the subpoena process has gone terrible for Trump, doesn't mean that the ultimate indictment and defense will go as bad, likely can, but we're looking at the very, very beginning of the movie, not the end,

to see the payoff. Funny Willis, on the other hand, doesn't have the problems that Merrick Garland has in terms of political inhibitions to stop reprasecution. She's already got 30 witnesses who have already testified to the grand jury. That's led to the identification of at least one target in Rudy Giuliani. He, the closest to the inner circle of Trump. There is a Georgia racketeering statute that's similar to the federal rico which would bring in Trump under a conspiracy statute

and unlike what's happened at Mar-a-Lago, even though it's been right under his nose in his bedroom, in his safe, in his pool house, wherever. There's very little direct evidence that's been disclosed as of yet, other than comments I've heard about Trump saying, mine, mine, mine, when it relates to the documents that puts him with the criminal intent necessary

for the prosecution. Lawyers are always involved, because as to paraphrase the Godfather, there's a lot of buffers between Donald Trump and the crime. He has a lot of buffers around him. He gets lawyers to sign affidavits and declarations under penalty of perjury and criminal prosecution that all of the documents that were top secret or classified have been turned over. He had that sign to in June by the guy. So there's a layer's a layer of buffers between him, which does have an

impact as Karen has outlined in a prior podcast on Wednesday, the ability to bring the criminal case. Funny Willis has none of that because she's got at least two phone calls directly by Trump to try to interfere with the election. So I don't want to say it's a lower hurdle for her. It isn't. And I agree with you, though, whether you call it separation of powers, or you talk about this, this interplay between the executive, the highest person in the executive branch and a lower level local prosecutor. But I think that actually plays in her favor because she's not impacted at all by any of these, at least for the prosecution standpoint, any of these issues. I don't think the end, if she indites him, he's gonna move to dismiss.

She's gonna, it's probably not gonna get dismissed. I'm not sure until he's criminally prosecuted and maybe indicted and then prosecuted, does he have a grounds for appeal? So does he get prosecuted between now and where is he more likely to get prosecuted for a major felony between now and the where is he more likely to get prosecuted for a major felony between now and the time of him running for office or being up as the candidate for the Republican

party. I'm still banking on 40 willis, but I would I'm fine. If it's if it's yours, I just think the one that is that could put the guy in jail and have not the department of justice cut the deal on a misdemeanor and a slap on the wrist is funny. Well, they're not cutting a deal for a misdemeanor. It's very, very different than the portrayal situation. Patreas is like not even, you know, not even close to the middle. That was eight binders of, that was eight binders of confidential and top secret information. He turned over to his lover so she could put in a book. So it wasn't nothing.

I'm not, I'm not saying it's nothing, but it's not the top secret, sensitive, compartmental, nuclear, nuclear, nuclear, potentially nuclear information, information, you know, and, but we will, we will see. I love this podcast. Sometimes I disagree with Karen and I disagree on occasion.

You and I disagree on occasion, but you know what? You know what? There's no loser because democracy wins. I'm not saying he'll look, I'm not here saying he's not getting prosecuted anywhere and it's a failure to manage expectations. I want to prosecute it. I think these are good cases in both jurisdictions. I just kind of side lean towards

funny. People will make a vote on that. And so let's talk pop up though about this DOJ releasing the memo relating to bars decision, not to prosecute Trump and why is it being released now? What's its origin about being released now and came from a public records request, right? That finally worked its way up and what are we what are we learning here and what is it related? So people might have forgotten this but back in March we have a judge in the in DC she was actually shortlisted at one point for the Supreme Court, Amy Berman Jackson, who had before her a petition or a lawsuit, to have the memo that Barr claimed he used to make the decision or impact his decision,

not to prosecute Donald Trump after the Mueller report was delivered to him. So, I have to remember this, Mueller did a year and a half or two year investigations spent millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars, and then delivered the findings, both the Congress and an written report in volumes, volume one, volume two, looking at things like whether Trump and his people were involved with the Russians, concerning obstruction, the election, and different things like that. When the one thing that the big failure, there were many of the Mueller report and of Mueller and his approach in general, is that he decided that it would be better

for the actual sitting attorney general, in this case Bill Barr, to make the decision without a recommendation at all. So he, Mueller at his team wrote hundreds of pages of detailed analysis of the evidence that had been collected and the witnesses that had been spoken to and the outline of all of the crimes that potentially could have been charged, but didn't have a section at the end, the final section saying recommendations from the Special and Independent Council. And even though, you know, the word on the street was

that Mueller thought there was, there was more than enough evidence to prosecute Donald Trump even then. He decided, because he's like a gentleman lawyer, that he'd let Bill Barr make the decision. Well, Bill Barr was a political hack decided that he would review the Mueller report, get a recommendation from his people, but that he'd already made the decision that he was not going to prosecute Donald Trump.

And so this memo that he either relied on or didn't rely on, it was either pre-decision or decision or it went to the discretion to prosecute or it didn't go to the discretion to prosecute, people wanted to see the memo. And the Justice Department first under bar, but then under Merrick Garland, you know, sometimes you and I talk about positions that Merrick Garland's Department of Justice has had to take for broader principles for the future of the department, even if they didn't necessarily agree with it

for a political standpoint, that sometimes puts them at odds with what you and I and our listeners and followers want that department to do. And here, they sided with Bar, and they fought against the release of the memo with the judge, and they made representations to the judge about what they of the memo with the judge. And they made representations to the judge about what they thought the memo was or what the memo was it.

The judge thought she had been misled when she saw the memo, what we call an in-camera review from the Department of Justice and ordered them to disclose it to the media and to the public in general because it completes the story of what happened. Also the evidence that bars testified and given that he made the decision not to prosecute,

not reliance on the memo at all. So the judge was like the memo is coming out. They took an appeal, the Department of Justice with Merrick Arland took an appeal to the DC Circuit, the three judge panel, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and that panel sided with Judge Jackson and against the Department of Justice and ordered the release of this memo. And now we get to see that the people that were working under bar in reviewing these volumes of Mueller report made the decision that they did not believe that there was enough evidence to convict this president of the things that were listed in the

Mueller report, understanding that all of these people were Republicans, they now work for Trump, they now work for Barr. That's what happens, Mueller, when you leave it to the next administration and the wrong party to make a decision about its president. You should have made a series of recommendations which may have tied bars hands and forced his hands to bring the indictment. But the interesting thing about all this is is bars on record is saying he didn't really rely on the memo at all. He had already made the decision from which is back to what I was saying earlier made a decision that he was not going to prosecute

a president. Paul Bach, that's a great summary there. I don't think I even have anything to add. You nailed the summary of what took place there. But I do want to add this everybody. Go check out store.mitustouch.com to check out all the mightest touch gear. Get your row, Vembers shirts. Now you're convict 45 shirts.

Get your row, row, row, your vote shirts. So many, so much great gear and merch and stickers and all the best stuff at the MidasTouch merch store. Get your legal AF merch as well at store.mitusTouch.com. Michael Popok always the best time of the week, spending it with you, talking about the most consequential legal news of the week. And I kind of feel like if you viewed legal AF episodically, you know, we we told everyone that winter is coming, if you will, right? And just as is coming, we just said, here's how it happens. Here are the dynamics behind the scenes. And it doesn't mean sometimes, you know, one investigation, doesn't move as fast as you think or something

else happens. There's a lot of variables at play, but we can track the movements of these things the same way, you know, almost like a storm tracker tracks the hurricane coming. You can kind of see the patterns. You see where they're going. It doesn't always mean. The hurricane's going to go where it's tracking, but you can definitely get the cone You get the you get the cones you get the little patterns. Exactly. You know, that's what we do here on legal app We break it down in far more detail than Anywhere else I think that's out there Thanks for making us the top legal podcast and the top legal podcast on YouTube by far

Make sure you hit the subscribe button will you Hit subscribe on YouTube and for all of the YouTube listeners, please do us a favor, big favor. Subscribe on audio right now wherever you get your audio podcasts, whether that's on Apple or Spotify or Google podcast or whatever your app used, go hit subscribe there and play these podcasts on audio also. One, you can get that information. You better understand it if you listen to it twice. It also helps with the algorithm and keeps us in top position in audio as well. And for all the audio listeners, go check us out on YouTube, please. Go subscribe on the YouTube channel, really the fastest growing YouTube channel out there right now for independent media Thanks to you. This is a movement. This is a family, you know, it's not just we're a network

I said this the other day Pope often I read the comments and there was one person said can you stop saying that Might as touch is the fastest growing Network because it makes it feel like y'all are some like like it makes it feel too rigid like we're a family. This is what the person that in the comment. I feel like when I watch League of Legends, I feel like when I watch your videos on YouTube that this is that this is a family and and that person was right. You know might as touch League of Legends, it's a movement. We're different than just media company. This is organic, this is because of you. We react, we respond to what you want. We try to deliver this together.

And this community is what's growing. And that's why I love spending these weekends with everybody too. To see new members of the community. To see some of the members who were there from day one, to see them meeting and exchanging ideas, like that fills my heart. Yeah, I wouldn't contribute my Saturdays and Wednesdays, because we have the midweek edition, to just the stiff media network. I do it because of my commitment to you and your brothers,

to what you're accomplishing, and to the growing loyal family members. I look at all the chat and I look at all the tweets and I respond to all those too. And I wouldn't do that if I was just getting paid by CNN to do some weekly commentary. CNN at this point is pretty much garbage. Anyway, thank you everybody for watching this episode of Legal AF, Ben Myselis and Michael Popock breaking down the most consequential legal news. We'll see you next time on Legal AF. Shout out to the Midas Mighty.

you