Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts REACT to Trump Search Warrant Hearing, Trump CFO GUILTY & MORE

Episode Date: August 21, 2022

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, 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, Ben and Popok analyze & discuss: Fani Willis’ Fulton County (Atlanta) Georgia criminal probe of Trump, Giuliani as a criminal “target” of the investigation, and Lindsey Graham’s attempts to avoid testifying about his calls to the Georgia Secretary of State to influence vote counting; the aftermath of the Trump Mar-a-Lago records seizure, the release of the supporting search warrant affidavit, and Trump’s “legal response”; Trump’s CFO’s guilty plea on 15 counts of tax evasion and what it means for the continued prosecution of the Trump Organization; a federal judge in Florida rules against DeSantis’ “anti-WOKE” law against businesses; more Trump lawyers go in to speak to prosecutors and investigators, & 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

The hearing to unseal the search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago. We will bring you inside the hearing and the details that emerge from it. Trump claims he is going to file some sort of fourth amendment motion pobac. I don't even think Donald Trump knows what the fourth amendment is, but whatever he's about to file is certainly doomed to fail. Speaking about doomed to fail, Rudy Giuliani spent about six hours before the Fulton County grand jury in connection with Fony Willis, the district attorney over in Fulton County or criminal investigation into election interference.

And Lindsey Graham can't delay his reckoning before that same special grand jury. He tries to delay it and stop it and stay in at least the district court for now says Lindsey you gotta show up stop lining stop complaining. Alan Weiselberg the CFO of the Trump Organization, Michael Popak, please guilty to 15 felony counts out of the Manhattan DA's criminal prosecution of Weiselberg, and guess who's on trial next? The Trump Organization set to go to trial in October and Alan Weiselberg's guilty plea

necessarily did in fact implicate the Trump organization and will take you behind the scenes of that plea deal. And finally another legal law for Ron DeSantis in federal court. His bill to stop what they labeled in this legislation uncomfortable conversations about race. In other words don't promote diversity. Don't talk about racism. Well, the judge in that case, compared his legislation to the upside down world from stranger things and granted the injunction,

stopping the enforcement of that law. The most consequential legal news of our time, Michael Popock, Ben Myceles, joining you live. Michael Popak, how are you doing this weekend? I am very alive and I can't wait. It's like every day I get up and hit my phone and my pad to see what's going on in the world that we can bring to the mightest mighty on legal AF

and you and I are ready to go. Absolutely, let's get right into it, Michael Popak. Let's talk about this hearing that took place in the Southern District of Florida, the Magistrate judge, Judge Reinhardt, who's been the subject of all of the right wing extremist mega threats. I mean, Judge Reinhardt was doing his job right now two Mondays ago. Actually, the Friday before that, the search warrant was executed two Mondays ago, but that Friday before August 5th, he received a affidavit that had a declaration from FBI agents establishing probable cause that he found that

Trump had all of these national security records, top secret, secret compartmental information, sensitive compartmental information that was being kept at mara logo. We've learned now about all the efforts that have been made by the department of justice to try to get these documents informally. We've heard about processes to get them formally before the search warrant that Trump lawyers even signed a false declaration stating that they turned over all of these documents. a false declaration stating that they turned over all of these documents. Reinhart signs the search warrant. The search warrant is executed as search warrants are executed every day. Probably cause determination. The warrant lists the areas where the search could take place.

The search takes place. A return is given to Trump's lawyers. All the processes that are supposed to be followed are followed to a T. That's how Merrick Garland rolls. And we know what little we do know is that top secret, sensitive, compartmented information, the highest degree of confidential information and top secret information was indeed found there. That's one of the things that was listed of documents that were found.

And so in this hearing, this was a hearing by that was initiated, at least that to be hast of, the Department of Justice because Donald Trump and everyone was saying, hey, we want you to release these things publicly, you know, show it. And so the Department of Justice said, okay, while we were trying to keep it confidential pre-inditement to protect the potential subject of a criminal investigation, you, if you're going to release it, we should release the documents that would normally be released in due course. And that is, you know, the warrant and the return. But what we shouldn't release are documents that would never be released pre-inditement.

And that is the actual affidavit that would otherwise give the information of who the confidential informants may be, the names of the FBI agents, sources and methods, things that could compromise and investigation. So Popak, they go into court this past Thursday. And guess what? And this hasn't been reported on that much. Donald Trump's team doesn't file anything. I mean, it was the media who filed the motions media on both sides saying release the affidavit because the media is

always going to go into these hearings and say, we want as much information as possible in the government will have to give the reasons why certain information is going to be protected. But all those lawyers, the Christina Bob, and you remember Christina Bob went on this week and Laura Ingraham and Laura Ingraham said, but you didn't even file any motions. So why are you even saying this to me when you went in there? And if you want these documents to be released, why didn't you follow file the document saying that the document should all be released without any redactions,

whatsoever. And actually a surprising thing happened at the, at the hearing pop up that I think the judge went a little further than many people thought he would go. Many people just thought the judge was going to say, um, the entire affidavit should remain unsealed. And of course, we'll release the other documents that have already been made public. The warrant and the return has already been made public. So that really wasn't what was in dispute. But the actual affidavit itself, the judge said, you know what? Some of this may be able to be released to the public. Government, go back, redact the portions that you think are definitely confidential. Come back to me next week, show me your redactions and I'll determine what if anything can ultimately be released.

And the Trump organization did not and Donald Trump and Trump's lawyers filed nothing in response. They didn't object to any of the potential redactions. And so really it's on the government right now to return these documents. That's the prize you Popeyes. Anything about this hearing stand out to you? Yeah. So Judge Ryan Hart is a magistrate judge. He sits underneath another judge, but this is the type of level of judge that handles matters like this. And I think our listeners and followers should know that this didn't even elevate or escalate to the actual article three appointed judge.

This is being handled as all subpoenas are handled and execution of subpoenas by a magistrate judge. This is being handled as all subpoenas are handled and execution of subpoenas by a magistrate judge, one that has a very fine reputation leading into this particular thing. I think Ryan Hart in his ruling or in his ruling from the bench yesterday about unceiling. He's leaning that way obviously and having the Justice Department propose what blackout, what reduction is going to be on the document. It's because of the historic nature of the subpoena and its execution against the former president having never been done in 230 years of this democracy. And sensitive to that, he believes, and he set it out loud in the courtroom, that the

public is entitled to as much information as they can get about this precedent-setting event, the searching for these, not only the documents, to be clear, the affidavit said that there's probable cause and the judge agreed with it, that Trump took classified information with him and that a crime or crimes have been committed. That's in the affidavit we know as well, or we'll be in the affidavit with the backup for that, and those three acts, including the Espinox Act that you and I,

and Karen and I have talked about last three episodes, are in play. None of them require classified classification of the document to be in play. It's only if they're national defense documents or they are government documents and or presidential records. And they're being mishandled. You have probably violated one, two, or three criminal statutes. So the Department of Justice argument goes. So I'm not surprised. I think I did think that they would keep, he's certainly going to keep the confidential informant redacted and under black a black line.

He's going to keep certain means and methods of how they collected information, certain surveillance techniques. You know, maybe they have a, who knows what, some sort of electronic device within Mar-a-Lock. Those kind of things, I think, are going to be understandably redacted. But some other connective tissue, connect the dots that's in the document that's in the affidavit are going to come out, whether Trump likes it or not. I know he likes to talk about it on social media that he really wants it out. I don't see in any way, shape or form, how this helps him or the cause to portray himself as an innocent man. And and then finally, the thing that was really

comical was not only to watch his lawyers, I put them in quotes, Christina Bob and Alina Haba, whoever else they're using down there in Florida for these issues, go on, go on national television, right wing national television, and basically throw their client under the bus because they don't understand how to defend a client in this area. Christina Bob saying on Fox News that, oh, don't worry, the classified information was behind a wooden locked door near the pool. And there was a limited number of people that had access to that.

The reason that the reporting is, the reason that the FBI and the Department of Justice moved so quickly and did that so quickly and executing that search warrant is because they don't already obtained by search warrant. The surveillance cameras out in front of the door where that material had been stored and was concerned that people were going in and out of that room, you know, they weren't going in there to get pool equipment. They were going in and out of that room at a time when it was supposed to be in violet and secure while they were continuing to negotiate with the president, ex-president for the return of the documents. Once it became clear

that people were going in and out of the room, including lawyers and non-lawyers, and he was not turning over these materials. They went in and on the search warrant and got it and executed it. And Loan Ball found 11 categories of classified information within the records obtained. So I think Reinhard Stewart a good job. He's threading the needle of what the public needs to know to prove and give credibility and confidence to the Department of Justice investigation. While at the same time protecting those bits of information that should always remain confidential.

You know, when you think about what he's going through also, you know, because of the intentional doxing and lies spread by radical right wing extremist Republicans and their whole crew, for example, his synagogue where he goes every Friday night and Saturday to pray was shut down because of all of the anti-Semitic threats that it received. He's been the subject of numerous anti-Semitic threats simply because he was doing his job. And that's actually what Donald Trump and that radical right wing extremist intended speaking of the lawyers. You mentioned Christina Bob. You know, she also said, I'd have to check to see what's in there from a maintenance person. Like as though there's just like the maintenance janitor is the one which is who

she's referring to at Marlago, who's got the pool boy, the pool boy doubles as the top secret custodian at Marlago. So just be just, just feel safe then secure in that. So that's Christina Bob who went on, I believe Laura Ingram and said that. And you had Alina Haba who went on some one of these other radical right wing channels. And she literally said, I don't understand the law here. I don't understand what this area, you should not be going anywhere near. It's that 101 advice to lawyers and how lawyers should conduct themselves ethically. I mean, Popoq, there's lots of areas of law that you and I don't know. I wouldn't start representing that I can do wills and estates or even in a top national security level investigation. I tell the client, look, I could refer you to who the top person is. You're going to want to have these people here. I certainly would not be going on

television like Alina Habez and saying, I don't know what I'm talking about, period. Well, my favorite, well, the lawyers, and we're going to talk more about all of the lawyers around Trump, whether they're their, his current band of Mary defenders or the ones that were in the White House with them all being brought before various Prosecutorial and investigatory bodies Jenna Ellis being called in front of the Jan 6th committee about her role with Rudy Giuliani and Georgia and in other places Eric Hirschman He of you know, you're saying crazy things if you're not gonna turn over the reigns of power in a peaceful way to John Eastman and his fame and Jan sex. He's now going before the Department of Justice in one of their grand juries about the Jan six and the lead up to it and the attempted coup. And then you've got bad day for Trump, Pat Sipalone and Mark Philbin, two lawyers in the White House.

We know a lot of their testimony. Mark Philbin, two lawyers in the White House. We know a lot of their testimony. That's against Trump from the Jan 6th Committee has not only gone to the DOJ, but has now been contacted. So the reporting is by the FBI to give testimony to help them in the Mar-a-Lago investigation about why those 15 boxes went out the door of the White House and how that possibly happened. But my favorite went out the door of the White House and how that possibly, well, how that possibly happened. But my favorite shape shifting for the Republicans trying to defend Trump. And frankly, it's, it's not that outer bound of Republicans. A lot of them are remaining silent through the Mar-a-Lago thing. You don't see Mitch McConnell coming out with a statement.

You don't even see like Lindsey Graham saying much other than Bill released the affidavit. But you know, his normal defenders are sort of abandoning him. And he's left with this hardcore group of people he pays to be his counsel, whether they're qualified to handle that job or not. And I don't even know if he pays them. Well, right, right, right. He did. Well, they're builds and he signed a letter.

And then my favorite is all the different versions of why he's not in trouble for taking these boxes. So it went from, it was a FBI plant like an OJ argument that they planted boxes within his pool room. We know that's, of course, shit, it was homework. He took homework. You know, he's a normal guy. It takes home work with him, but this is after he left the presidency. So I don't really understand how that fits nor that he does work.

And then, of course, my favorite one is the magically declassified. He just waves a wand and everything he took with him, including information about foreign leaders like Macron and what was in the box about North Korea and just ridiculous. So that's where we are. And Mar-a-Lago. And you want to talk about the fourth amendment issue? Just ridiculous. Yeah. Yeah. So that's where we are. And Mar-a-Lago. And you want to talk about the chance of the fourth amendment issue? Yeah.

The other thing I'll talk about there about Popeye 2 is Rudy Giuliani's most recent excuse also. So you have Alina Habba. I don't understand the law. Christina Bob, it was kept in this room. And only limited staff could go in and look at our top sensitive compartmental information, which is, again, admitting to the crime. And then Rudy Giuliani goes on a radical right to be admits to the crime too.

And he goes, well, Donald Trump was doing the government a favor. He was actually preserving. He was acting as a custodian of records for these top secret documents at Mar-a-Lago. And so why are we even giving Donald Trump any difficulty here? He was doing everybody a big solid. That's what Rudy said. So those were, you know, where he's in trouble, if it's true, there's some reporting that senior advisors have already testified that when they treat like Philbent, his lawyer, the lawyer right under the deputy to Pat Sipalone, Philbent testified that he tried to broker a deal to get all of the documents back, including these 15 boxes, 11 categories from Trump on behalf of the National Archives.

So he tried to broker a deal for his client, Donald Trump, with the National Archive. And apparently the reporting is that that senior aids have already given testimony that when they went to Trump and said, you got to give it back to the national archive. He said, they're not theirs. Those, those boxes are mine. Well, that sounds like willful intent for the violation of a criminal statute to me. Well, we covered this Pope. I remember Trump did give back a ton of boxes. He gave back 15 boxes, another 15 in January. And then his lawyer signed a declaration sometime in June saying, we've given you all the documents back. And then of course, we know from the surveillance footage that that was not the case. That's false. And there's likely someone also on the inside

also telling the FBI that it's false. And these are, we know from the return, these are the highest degree of classified documents that should just not be there, period, and imperil our national security. And so Trump says he's gonna file a fourth amendment motion and Trump has no clue what he even means when he says he's gonna file a fourth amendment motion. Now, the fourth amendment says the following,

the right of the people to secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Apparently Donald Trump got the idea to file this fourth amendment motion in his mind after Christina Hobb, or Christina Bob went on the Laura Ingram show. And Laura Ingram called out Christina Bob for not objecting to the government making redactions to the affidavit. That's purportedly where

it stems from, but the response has nothing to do with the fourth amendment in that regards. The idea of the redactions is not a fourth amendment motions. That's a privacy, confidentiality, kind of national security issues that would have to be addressed in the redactions. The issue in the fourth amendment is challenging the warrant for their not being probable cause and for their not being an actual valid search warrant that issued. Here we know there was probable cause. It was supported by an oath or affirmation. It particularly described the place to be searched and the locations. It specifically described the things to be seized

and a warrant was issued from Judge Reinhardt. Now, what Trump ostensibly would be thinking about filing something would be under the federal rules of criminal procedure. And that would be rule 41, which deals with searches and seizures. And as you look at this, specifically subsection G and subsection H, it relates to motion to return property, a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return or H, which is a motion to suppress a defendant may move to suppress evidence in the court where the trial will occur. Well, there is no trial yet. So it wouldn't be a suppression motion. It would be a motion under subsection G motion to return property. And here the

property doesn't belong to him in any event. And setting aside that it was a valid search ward, the property at issue is top secret property and you're splitting hairs. He'd be admitting to the crime. If he, I don't know when his motion, it'd be an admission. So it's the dumb, not only is it going to be denied, but it is actually an admission. And then they kind of move the goal posts again. And they said, well, actually what we may want to do is bring in a special master.

And we've talked about the concept of a special master on this podcast before a special master is an independent impartial third party, usually a retired judge or a very renowned lawyer who bills a lot of money, who's hired, but who's appointed by the judge to review usually like troves and terabytes of documents, because all of the attorney client and other privileged documents are so kind of inextricably intermingled in it that you want to try to remove the taint. So the idea is the government shouldn't even be able to really look through it because even by reading it, they may come across privileged information. They're not supposed to see,

but hope that really wouldn't apply here because there really is a finite universe of documents in these boxes that are top secret. There's no executive privilege as we know these boxes, but these this property belongs to the United States government. So the very task of having a special master doesn't seem to make sense or even if one were to be appointed, it would be a very limited role and very quickly resolved what's what. And also it would have to have someone that has top secret sensitive compartmented information clearances because of the nature of the document.

Yeah, so I agree with it. Fourth amendment is not the right motion for him for the reasons we've described. The special master, I see the reason he wants to do it, but I think it backfires because it'll just be a catalog. If the special master's role is to separate out the 11 top secret categories from the other things that could arguably be unclassified or mementos that he legitimately could take or some paper that is somehow legitimately his and not a presidential record, which is very, very difficult. But if he uses a razor and he's able to find that, I don't see how

that report back to the magistrate about the cataloging of what he found that can implicate the president in a crime is going to help Trump. Oh, you're right, Mr. Trump. It's only these sets of documents that they can use to prosecute you under the SB Nage Act and to other statutes for mishandling presidential records and classified material. So I don't get that either. And in the meantime, the FBI and the Department of Justice is going through the boxes and they're reviewing the boxes.

Because as you noted, any suppression or any argument that the materials that were obtained during the search war can't be used against the president, that that awaits the time of an indictment. They could use this information with the grand jury. They're reviewing it right now. I'm sure by today, they already have a pretty good sense of what exactly was stamped, not stamped, and what categories they're in and what they read. And a line prosecutor working with the grand jury is deciding whether any of these documents are going to come in to try to indict the president. Then if they're used at trial against an indicted Trump or others, then we reached what you wrote, what you talked about in rule 41, the federal's criminal procedure about suppression. But everything that we know from

reporting and reading about what's transpired of Judge Reinhardt, Magistrate Judge Reinhardt, he's going to lose the suppression hearing, he's going to lose any attack on the scope of the search warrant or its execution. Yeah, the search warrant couldn't be more textbook valid search warrant, search warrant, like that, or signed by federal Magistrate judges every single day. it judges every single day. And, you know, the fact that you have these radical right extremists wanting to defund the FBI, repeal the Espionage Act because a valid search warrant was executed to because probable cause was established that documents were in a place they didn't belong, which threatened our national security.

You know, I don't want this to devolve Popok into discussing the Hillary Clinton emails because they're so completely different situations. And she was the secretary of state at the time. And it wasn't like she brought back documents after Secretary of State to Chapacua and goes, ah, these are mine. And I'm going to do whatever I want with these records. She was the sitting secretary of state at the time. It was hyper politicized, whereas the only people have politicized this issue right now is Donald Trump's the one who's politicized the valid execution of the search warrant. And I'll tell you what, when it came to the Hillary Clinton thing,

nobody was saying, you know, from our side, Hey, from the side of pro democracy, we need to destroy the FBI. The FBI needs to be defunded. We need to remove all of the laws. We need to know the issue was go about it in the normal course of your procedure, actually, right? Don't deviate. The issue was

COVID, comi deviated from what standard protocols were. So it was like that's the investigation. Take place here. We want just an investigation to take place like it normally is supposed to take place and Republicans are the ones who are anti rule of law. You know, when I find fascinating about all this, it's almost like the Republicans woke up and just realized that we have jurisprudence, we have courts and we have laws. They always seem shocked. There's an espionage act. There's a law on the books about, uh, mishandling top secret information. There's a magistrate judge that, that issue subpoenas.

I mean, this, this ridiculous clutching of the pearls every time they learn something new about our judicial system or our, our, our system of government. And then of course, it doesn't help that every time Trump needs a lawyer, no legitimate lawyer with any kind of credential will touch this with the 10 foot pole. There is a list. You and I could make it of the top 20, top 50 lawyers that practice in this area that Trump is now waiting into, this criminal area. You and I could write it in about 10 minutes. Not one of those people is willing to put his reputation and credibility for this president. So he's left with, it's not even the second tier,

it's like this lower level you've never heard of. They they don't have clients at the level of Trump. They don't practice in these areas on a regular basis. They admit they don't practice in these areas on a regular basis. It's like hiring a med mal lawyer to help you navigate a very sophisticated political election dispute issue or criminal charge. It's just not done. And when it's done, it's at your own risk. But he doesn't on purpose because he doesn't care whether they go on national TV and understand anything. He just wants them to politically advocate his position, which usually makes no legal sense, but he wins the news cycle. I mean, I know people are concerned, oh, you want another news cycle with some crappy, who cares? Eventually, he's either going to be indicted by this department of justice for one of the things we've already talked about already on all these episodes, or he's not. And if he is, then he'd better get ready to spend it in a seemingly long time in a courtroom

being tried for one of these multiple crimes. Yeah. And the only thing I would disagree with you there, Popeye, he doesn't win the news cycle. What he does do, though, is by putting these people who have no clue what they're talking about to spread the lies in front of his base and at least gives the base another talking point when he shoots someone on Fifth Avenue to basically say, oh, he didn't shoot someone that was just bullet falling from the air and landing on landing on. You made a very good point earlier, which fits in with your sort of adoption with an

amendment to my what I said. It's that by talking about these things, whether it's like you were a little hesitant about bringing a Hillary for the moment, not because it wasn't relevant, but because you didn't want to put it in a moral equivalency or put it on the same playing field, because it's not, you know, trumps up here beyond my screen and the issue with Hillary is not even, it's apples and bowling balls. It's not apples and oranges and by talking about it, but you're right, it gives the media, you know, the really right wing media and even CNN and others, you know, like, like you said, they don't dive into the story. He files a crazy motion, that

crazy motion, which has no legal merit and will go down in flames a six months hence is given the same equivalency as the defenses, the law and everything else because there's no analysis hence this podcast. Exactly, which is why you got to break it down. And when we do bring up topics like I mentioned Hillary, it's important to actually delve into the facts. And I bring it up to to arm you with the facts. So when you hear some right wing stupid talking point, you know, the easiest pushback

of someone brings up Hillary is also to say, so I just want to get this straight. You believe she should be locked up, right? I mean, even though, even though you're ignoring all that, you believe she should be locked up. So you're saying that Trump did the same thing, but he shouldn't be locked up. And then they'll go, well, she wasn't investigated. And she goes, it was, what do you mean to us? An investigation? It was the most significant investigation in the history of investigations over while she was secretary of state, while she was in a position of power to have access to the information, whether she used a private email versus using her actual secretary of state email, and she fully cooperated.

There was no issue of obstruction, like there is obstruction charges here. It's completely apples and oranges, but we need to be empowered with the facts, though, to push back on right wing disinformation. And speaking about right wing disinformation, some of the biggest purveyors of that Giuliani and Lindsey Graham are having to show up before the grand jury, special grand jury out in Fulton County Pope, so Giuliani spend six hours before the Fulton County special grand jury, he tried to give every single excuse not to show up at this special grand jury. He, you know, he claimed, he helped issues, he claimed he couldn't travel, even though he was found traveling to other places. The judge said, find a way to get here, take a bus, take a car, you're going to show up. And so he shows up, spend six hours there. What do we know about Giuliani's grand jury testimony? It's secret. So we don't know much, but what have we been able to

glean? Yeah, well, first of all, right before he testified, because it, you know, once the, once he was, once Giuliani was out of moves with his lawyer, Bob Castello, he couldn't delay it any longer. Judge said, as you said, you know, what, then drive to Atlanta over a couple of days, if you can't fly, because you had some heart stint surgery on it, which by the way, now miraculously, he was able to fly. But in the testimony, right before it, Fannie Willis, as she was, I think, obligated to do, told Bob Castello, the lawyer for Rudy Giuliani that your client is not only a witness, is also a, what she referred to as a target of the investigation,

a federal criminal term, but we all know what it means. It means that he could be and likely could be indicted, and that his lawyers should know that before he testifies, and he should know that before he testifies. I know she didn't want to be caught, I don't think, with her pants down, where she announced after his testimony that he was a target, and then, you know, he had some Fifth Amendment rights that he could have asserted that he didn't do because he was a target. And then, you know, he had some Fifth Amendment rights that he could have asserted that he didn't do because he wasn't aware.

He's in so much political jeopardy, I'm sorry, legal jeopardy in terms of criminal prosecutions. That, you know, he has to take the Fifth Amendment basically to most questions because if it's not implicating him to something in Georgia, it's implicating him something in the Southern District of New York or in any or the Department of Justice with their grand jury or someplace else. So, you know, he can't sleep at night because there's so many different indictments, possible indictment routes against him. Although the day he testified,

there is a reporting that he may get a pass from the Southern District of New York if the reporting is correct. On the Ukraine, foreign failure to register as a foreign agent in interfering with the Ukraine, the American ambassador to Ukraine, and having her removed. So he may not get prosecuted for that one. But of course, he went in. Many of what he probably said in response to questions was taking the Fifth Amendment. I'm sure that he tried to pick, because really can't help himself,

as we've seen on on television and a media and on the Borat movie, because Rudy can't help himself, as we've seen on television and a media and the Borat movie, he just can't help himself. He likely tried to answer some questions, some of which might have actually hurt him, because I think he's lost his ability to reason properly and have proper legal judgment, especially about his own cases. So we'll have to see the results.

He walked out all, you know, they were all gentlemen and ladies in there, and I appreciate it at the time. He was, he arrived back in JFK and as he was seen being pushed by his lawyer, he had a wheelchair off the airplane so they're continuing that issue. So we'll have to see. It's not a great thing that Rudy Giuliani after fighting so hard how to testify before this grand jury. And now let's transition to Lindsey Graham, then. Yeah. So Lindsey Graham in the past few weeks really past few months, since he was served with us,

subpoena from the special grand juries, tried to avoid it on the grounds of the speech and debate clause. And the speech and debate clause in the constitution, let me just read what the speech and debate clause in the Constitution. Let me just read what the speech and debate clause actually says. So we're kind of on the same page about just what the law is. And so it's founded Article 1, Section 6, clause 1, and it says, the senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their services.

They shall in all cases accept trees and felony in breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses and then going and returning from the same. And for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place. So that's the part of that article one section six clause which before you move on generally means that when they're doing legislative things and things related to legislative things, they can't be questioned outside the House or the

Senate and they can't be brought into a court to talk about it. That's the dividing line. Right. And so if there is legitimate legislative activity, like fact finding, even if it doesn't actually happen on the floor, the courts with the Supreme Court case in Gravel found that, well, that's still legitimate legislative activity. So Lizzy Graham's argument is, when I was calling Brad Raffinsberger and telling him to throw out votes and to change the elections, when I was actually engaged in, I was just

asking questions. Lindsay Graham's arguing, I was engaged in legitimate legislative activity in my role as a senator. And I was fact finding just to determine what were the laws in Georgia, right? Even though I miss out Carolina, even though I miss out Carolina, Senator, I was interested to know what's going on in your state of Georgia. So I was asking questions and Brad Raffin's burgers testimony was no, it was very clear. The implications and what he was saying was on behalf of Donald Trump, he wanted me to change the results of the election and to throw out validly cast ballots and Lindsey Graham said, no, no, no, no. And so ultimately, what the judge,

the federal judge said Lindsey Graham filed a motion in federal court. First, he filed it in South Carolina. And then the parties agreed and stipulated that it would get moved to Georgia. And then the federal judge in Georgia basically said, Lindsey Graham, look, the questions that you're being asked, even if you claim that some of them may result in a speech and debate clause issue, many of the questions have even nothing to do with the speech and debate clause whatsoever. I mean, these are purely political things totally outside. So even if you were right about the speech and debate clause of industry, which I don't think you are, I don't think you're right about that.

But assume you are, you still can't use that one phone call that you claim is protected or the two phone calls you claim are speech and debate clause protected things where you can't be questioned to shield yourself from all the other questions that Fawni Willis has and that default in county special grand jury has like what were you doing with Trump? I mean, Trump was running for a political office. What was your relationship

with him? What was your discussions with him? That has nothing to do with legitimate legislative activity as a senator. So we can ask you those questions. Um, Lindsey Graham tried to stop the testimony, the judge ordered that he shows up in front of the grand jury on Tuesday is when Lindsey Graham supposed to go in front of the grand jury this upcoming Tuesday. Lindsey Graham filed a motion last week saying, stop, stay it, stop it. I need to be able to object all the way to all the different courts of appeals and let me not have to testify. And the judge basically, it was a pretty scathing ruling,

would you say, Popeye, with the best thing? Yeah, absolutely. You know, the judge was definitely even offended by the arguments that Lindsey Graham was making and just the whininess. It was, it was almost also kind of trolling Lindsey Graham too. It's like, just show up and answer the questions you're supposed to ask.

You're not above the law. And even if the speech and debate clause applies to just a certain section of the questions, you don't have general immunity to testify because you're a senator. So that you laid it out perfectly. Let me just fill in some blanks. The judge, United States District Judge Lee Martin May, she's also handling the related case of representative congressperson, Jody Heiss. She already ruled, because I guess Jody comported himself better and his pleading

and motion practice was better. She sort of bent over backwards to say, look, you might have some speech and debate issues. I may even go, this is what the judge told Heiss. I may go and sit in the hallway while you're giving grand jury testimony so you can run out and I can make immediate rulings. I think she was being a little facetious, but she was that interested in certain things. the fake electors scandal. And she basically said, yeah, I could see some of that certification, maybe being part of your legislative function, but the rest doesn't sound like it, so we'll have to pick through these issues one question at a time. Graham, based on two phone calls, you're right, the judge has had it with Graham, and basically he's not extending that same courtesy or assumption of of of of of innocence, if you will. In fact, in her order that we've now,

you and I have now read, she said, you're sort of missing, I'm paraphrasing, you're sort of missing the point, Senator Graham, because if it's true what's being alleged against you, that you made of two phone calls to Raffinsburg or the Secretary of State to try to get him to avoid properly or any type of abs to try to get him to avoid properly or any type of absentee or mail-in ballots, you've crossed the line and that's a crime and that

is a proper focus of a grand jury in this case. And there was two standards that had to be met for Fawli Willis to win that motion. And the first one is to prove that it was there was extraordinary circumstances were present to require Graham to testify and a special need. And the judge addressed both of those. She said there was only three participants to the phone call. Raffensberger, his assistant and you. Raffensberger and the assistant have already testified. We know their end of the conversation. We don't know your end of the conversation. And you've tried, she said, to avoid talking about it or being coy about talking about it in the press. So we don't know your side of the story.

And so there's only one person that can give it. And that's you. She also went on to say in the order that she envisioned, you know, this is again Graham playing with the loaded dynamite here. The judge started to speculate about the types of questions that could be asked. And those speculation questions were actually I think worse for for Lindsey Graham because it put in everybody's mind that he could have really participated in a criminal conspiracy. She said, for instance, questions about potential communications and coordination between Senator Graham and the Trump campaign would be fair game. His knowledge of other groups trying to interfere with elections would be fair game.

And things like that. Her speculating, I was actually worse for Graham because he's thinking, God damn it, I only made two phone calls, but who knows, we don't know the other levels of his involvement. And now it looks like Fawney Willis may get it if At first a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit, which is Florida and Georgia report to the 11th Circuit Which we've talked about at length in prior podcast and it's three judges on the 11th Circuit who are gonna make the ultimate decision I assume before Tuesday on some sort of emergency application as to whether the speech and debate argument or what I've heard referred to as the sovereign immunity defense of Lindsey Graham, which is basically I'm a federal sitting senator and you're just a

low state prosecutor. I'm using one of your voices for some reason. I don't think sovereign immunity is a proper defense here for what's being alleged in any event. So we're going to see quickly what the 11th Circuit does, which skews right wing. So you know, I think it could go who knows. We'll have to see what happens with the 11th Circuit and then maybe a fast track to the Supreme. And the mean in the meantime, Fawney Willis, like a locomotive, continues to prosecute or advise her grand jury to try to reach a point of indictment. And if Giuliani is a target, let me end my spiel on this.

If Giuliani is a target, and it's been announced that he is, I don't see how Donald Trump does it ultimately become a target as well, given that Giuliani was not a rogue. We'll talk about Weiselberg later. It wasn't a rogue agent just doing things for his own. He was doing the bidding at Trump's behest, which would I think link back to him. We'll have to see. And when I think was really smart, though, Michael,

about what this judge did, I think the judge realized that on appeal, it is actually possible that the 11th circuit, which definitely skews to the right and even the Supreme Court, if it goes there, could find that the phone called a Brad Raffensberger fell under the speech or debate clause. I absolutely think it doesn't.

I think the district court judge thinks it doesn't. Brad Raffensberger thinks it doesn't, but rather than delay and slow this thing up, the judges ruling basically said, look, Lindsey Graham, even if you're right that those calls fell under the speech and debate clause, all the other questions have nothing to do with those types of activities. So you still have to testify. And when you show up, Lindsey Graham, assert your objection when you're asked the question, say, I object speech and debate clause. And then we can deal with the objections once they come versus you being a fascist chicken shit and not even showing up in the first place

to Even testified to even know what the questions are going to be in a way with the judge is saying You're speculating what the questions are sit there get the questions We'll see if the questions raise those issues and then we can address it at the proper time You don't just basically get to say hey, I'm not showing up because I am a senator. So that's what's going on there. Let's talk about what's going on in New York with Alan Weisselberg pleading guilty

on 15 felony counts, accounts that directly implicate Trump. I want to talk about what went on behind the scenes there. Also want to tell all of the Midas mighty, all the legal efforts, go check out store. MidasTouch.com now store. MidasTouch.com now. Popo, have you seen our new RoVember gear? Our new RoVember gear. We have this. What is that? We have RoVember. What is that? It's Vnex. RoVember pins. The RoVember gear is selling out like crazy. This November, it's not even called the midterms anymore. It's called Roe Vember. Get your Roe Vember shirts and V-necks

and pins while supplies, supplies last and check out all the other great Midas Touch merch at store. MidasTouch.com. That's store. MidasTouch.com. And today's program is also brought to you by athletic greens, the health and wellness company that makes comprehensive, daily nutrition really simple. And with so many stressors in life, it's difficult to maintain effective nutritional habits and give our bodies the nutrients it needs to thrive. Busy schedules, poor sleep, exercise, the environment,

work stress, simply not eating enough of the right foods can leave us deficient in key nutritional areas. A G one by athletic greens is the category leading super food product that brings comprehensive and convenient daily nutrition to everybody. This is why I love athletic greens. Before athletic greens, I would go to the supermarket and I would pick out the different gummies and the pills and I would assemble them and I would take them all and I would think they would work, but I'd feel tired. I would not

be getting all of the nutrients that I thought I needed in the day. It was definitely not working. And then I found athletic greens. It tastes great. It's affordable. It's cheaper than your cold brew habit less than $3 a day. And that one tasty scoop of AG one, I just take the green powder, I put it in my cup, I shake it up, I drink it. It tastes great. I do it first thing in the morning, and I'm good to go for the day. And that one tasty scoop, it contains 75 vitamins, minerals, whole food, forced source ingredients, multivitamin, multimineral, probiotic, green, superfood blend, and more and one convenient daily serving. Michael Popak is drinking his AG1 right now, the special blend of high quality, bioavailable

ingredients and a scoop of AG1 works together to fill the nutritional gaps in your diet, supports energy and focus, aids with gut health and digestion. Hope I bring my A G one when I travel, I take the A G one everywhere. It's been like one of the biggest revelations of the past 18 months since I've been taking a G one and it's lifestyle friendly. So whether you eat keto, paleo vegan, dairy free or gluten free. It's for you. It contains less than one gram of sugar, no GMOs, no nasty chemicals or artificial anything while keeping it taste and good. So join the movement of the Midas mighty of the legal a efforts of moms, dads, rookies,

first timers and everyone in between. We're taking ownership of our daily health and focusing on nutritional products that really, really, really we all need that and also we can take it in the simplest manner possible. That's essential nutrition 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 and pop up and I negotiate that deal when we talk to age you one. So you're going to get a free one year supply of vitamin D. You're going to get five free travel packs with your first purchase. Here's what you got to do. Visit athletic greens dot com slash legal a that's ATH-E-E-N-S dot com slash legal a f visit athletic greens dot com slash legal a f

today again athletic greens dot com slash legal a f take control of your health and give a g1 a try Popeye tell us what happened in New York with this guilty plea by Weiselberg. Well, Alan Weiselberg this long time and only CFO for the Trump Organization, Donald Trump by extension, has been, was indicted a year and a half ago or more on 15 counts of tax evasion related to the Trump Organization, so conspiracy with the Trump Organization. And another entity we don't usually talk about, which is a subsidiary Trump uses the pay people called the Trump payroll company. And one count of personal income tax evasion all related to the same scheme to remind everybody this prosecution, not a future one against Trump.

The one against the Trump organization and al Weiselberg is focused on pardon me, tax evasion related to executive perks, housing, cars, tuition for private schools, that executives, including Alan Weisselberg and others within the Trump organization received, and for which no taxes were paid because those things are generally treated as income, even if they're not in the form of like a paycheck. If your boss gives you or your company gives you a Mercedes to drive around in and somebody's paying that Mercedes, it is income to you, should be declared as such by the company

and by yourself. Lyselberg didn't do that and didn't do that over 15 years or more with all of the executives within the organization. So that was what he was facing in terms of an indictment. The reason that Sy Vance's Manhattan DA is office before Alvin Brad came in last January tried to prosecute Weiselberg, who was obvious, was to pinch Weiselberg

to roll over on his boss and longtime friend, Donald Trump, to try to go as high up the chain of the executives at the Trump organization, most of whom have the Trump last name as they could. So you get guys like Matt Kalamari, who's like the COO and head of security, and you try to get a guy like Weiselberg, who's the accountant, and those were all the financial bodies you're buried. Well, Weiselberg, you know, he's 75 years old, he just turned 75 the week of the plea deal, which actually probably went into some of the factors here. And looking at up to 15 years in jail, he's a Trump loyalist and he decided not to roll over on Trump at all. And so the judge got very involved in a way that only maybe in California,

New York judges do, got very involved in pulling the lawyers together after he ruled two weeks ago that the indictment against Weiselberg would not be dismissed. He got all the lawyers in a room on Monday. And he said, what are your arguments in defense and in prosecution against Weiselberg? And the defense, I'll start with them, just added a new guy, who's a well-known guy in the White Collar criminal defense area named Nick Gravanti.

And Nick came in, I presumed to try to cut a deal. And what he tried to wheel and deal, it was like a pick one from Category A and one from Category B, he tried to argue for probation. And the judge, the reporting goes in the New York Times, at least, is that a judge said point blank, I am not giving probation unless he cooperates with the district attorney on Trump himself. So probation's out. And let me also tell you something else. This is the judge speaking as a former prosecutor himself, who worked in a district attorney's office,

who worked in the attorney general's office and all of that, including the Manhattan DA's office. He said to them, I also believe that white collar criminals should go to jail. So you should know that as well. And the hang-up appeared to be ben on Monday in this bargaining between the district attorney's office and the defense team was over the the type of cooperation if any that weiselberg was going to give and how many months would result and the prosecution said six months and you testify against the Trump organization and against Donald

Trump. He said no the judge broke her to deal and said how about five months and you're compelled to testify truthfully about the Trump organization about five months and you're compelled to testify truthfully about the Trump organization, but I understand that you're not going to testify against Donald Trump himself. Can the prosecution live with that? The prosecution said, you know what, a plea deal, a conviction, even if it's five months with a 75 year old is powerful messaging. And more importantly, when they go to trial against the Trump

organization, who's had no other ownership or leadership other than Donald Trump, its entire existence along with his children, they now have tremendous wind at their sale, their sale as prosecutors, because they've got the CFO who's going to take the stand. And he has to testify this way truthfully,, or he's not gonna get his deal, which looks like it's gonna be five months, but maybe only a hundred days serve, but he doesn't get that, unless he trusts, testifies truthfully

against the Trump organization, and says they knew it all the time, and here's how I know it. Now, he doesn't have to go against Trump, and everybody's hot and bothered about it. He's not gonna testify against Trump. They should have just prosecuted the guy and seen what would happen. But here they've got a guaranteed win against the CFO of the Trump organization. And they've got a tremendous help that, you know,

the playing field is now tilted in their favor, a guns the Trump organization and the continued criminal prosecution on these same tax evasion issues. Now, what does it do for Alvin Bragg? Ultimately, Alvin Bragg already led his two lead prosecutors who said they could in tight Trump right now, based on what they've seen. He let them out the door. And now he's wrapping it up with the CFO

without obtaining a, what we call you and I call a cooperation and immunity agreement. That's not what this is. A cooperation and immunity agreement is where the witness has to cooperate with the government, meaning roll over on somebody else, and we'll get immunity, criminal prosecution immunity, if they do so, for anything that they've done. It's almost like, we say, queen for the day, this is queen for a longer time. This is not a cooperation agreement and a immunity

agreement. It is a plea deal that requires truthful, compelled testimony against the Trump organization. It's very unusual. Most people in the field have seen this only rarely, but apparently this is what Bragg thought with the judge overseeing this negotiation, taking a very active role. He thought it's as good as his best day in court, potentially. And that's why I think Bragg took the deal. See, I see both arguments about whether this was a good deal or whether this was a weak deal and whether you should have just went to trial.

Ultimately, Weiselberg was never going to cooperate. The plea agreement does directly and necessarily implicate the Trump organization because what he's pleading guilty to says it's in the course and scope of his work at the Trump organization and says it was at the request and be hast of the Trump organization. So if indeed the prosecution of the Trump organization is what our priority is as opposed to spending resources on someone like Alan Weiselberg who

on someone like Alan Weiselberg who is not a whether Alan Weiselberg is guilty, not guilty, what happens to Alan Weiselberg in the future. At this stage is, I think we would all agree less important than making sure the Trump organization is held accountable now. He's not cooperating against Donald Trump. He's not specifically, you know, implicating Trump directly, but Trump is who runs the Trump organization, Donald Trump. And the trial against the Trump organization, Donald Trump is going to be called as a witness.

I think people forget that. Like Donald Trump is going to be subpoenaed to testify in the Trump organization case. And he's going to do what he did with Tish James. He's going to plead the fifth over and over again when he, you know, and not testify when he's asked to, uh, to show up. And so I think Alvin Bragg does want a successful prosecution of the Trump organization. One stiff a successful prosecution of the Trump organization, one stiff and severe penalties against the Trump organization. And I think for Bragg, this is what I think Bragg's thinking, Pope, I think is it Bragg's thinking, I don't want the circus of the Trump prosecution.

I think that Trump is dead to rights in what's going on either with January 6th, what's going on in Georgia, to focus on some of these tax related issues here. You can get into kind of convoluted discussions over tax policy, and it doesn't relate to these fundamental issues where again, like Trump taking confidential secrets or Trump leading an insurrection or things like that. So I think Bragg's calculation is, look, let's secrets or Trump leading an insurrection or things like that. So I think Bragg's calculation is, look, let's get the Trump organization guilty. Let's impose very, very, very severe fines. That'll be a W for the district attorney's office when we get that, you know, when we

get that guilty people go, that was a great day in court, you know, Trump organization guilty. And then hopefully all the other prosecutors, you know, Trump organization guilty. And then hopefully all the other prosecutors, you know, we'll get Trump on those other things. You know, the issue with that though is, is that you have a duty as a district attorney to prosecute crimes that are committed. And that kind of political calculus that I think Alvin Bragg is running, you should be serving the ends of justice at the end of the day and not being scared and chicken.

That's how Donald Trump got away with all of this to begin with. But that's the, but that's the calculus. That's the tension, but that's the tension because I could also frame it just as eloquently as you just did as a political calculation as a legal calculation that he, his ultimate fish to fry is the Trump organization. He already has expressed at least internally, which is why he let pomerance and done the two special prosecutors walk out the door with a bombshell letter to the press about the fact that they thought they could indict the guy, but their boss Alvin Bragg would let them. He already

let that happen. He has expressed internally. So we've heard and not from Karen, I don't want anybody to get Karen in trouble. She's not whispering anything in her ears about what she's heard at the Manhattan DA's office, but we've heard through other reliable sources that he's always thought there was a problem with proving intent, criminal intent, by Trump on the tax evasion case, or even the loan inflation deflation issue that is the focus of Tis James's civil investigation at the New York Attorney General level, which of course Alvin's office is cooperating with. If he's already had it in his heart of hearts as a prosecutor, that intent is difficult

here for Trump not impossible but difficult and didn't believe two quality prosecutors who tried to make the case to him, then he's going to look at, I think, in this cycling through his options, is it important to me to get the Trump organization convicted? And if the answer to that is yes, does having Alan Weisselberg testify the long-time CFO against the Trump organization at a criminal trial, now that it's been revealed that the Trump organization is not going to come in for a plea deal. And I want to just touch on that for a minute. If that, if knowing that fact, which is also a fact, Trump organization said, forget it, we're not pleading, we're going to trial. Okay, what's my best chance of prosecuting the Trump organization?

Because the worst case scenario is he only gets Weiselberg and he loses the Trump organization as a criminal prosecution. And that's a criminal prosecution. And that's a terrible result. Then Trump can say, oh, poor Mr. Weiselberg got prosecuted and excoriated by the Manhattan D.A.'s office. He had nothing to do with it. You know, as opposed to Trump organization tagged

with criminal liability run by Donald J. Trump, the other issue that came up in the negotiations with Juan Martian, who's the judge, is that Nick Ravanti, the lawyer for Weiselberg, said, if I am able to get the Trump organization to also plead guilty, will that can that lead Mr. Prosecutor to my client getting probation? And they said, well, go find out if that's possible. And then we'll talk.

He went back and reported to the judge that the Trump organization is going to trial. They have no interest whatsoever in a plea deal. So now you've got the lawyers for Weiselberg just trying to figure out a way to keep the lowest amount of days and the judge laying down the marker in the negotiations. Five months, you testify truthfully, at least against the Trump organization and I'll bless that deal. Now we got to see what he does when he marker and the negotiations. Five months, you testify truthfully, at least against the Trump organization

and I'll bless that deal. Now we gotta see what he does when he's called the trial because if he deviates ever so slightly from giving truthful testimony and he starts taking it on himself and saying, oh, the organization didn't know, I did it myself. I'm rogue, I'm outside the scope of my authority

which doesn't help against the Trump organization prosecution, then you're gonna have the prosecutors go back to the judge and say, he didn't cooperate in the way, he didn't give the testimony truthfully that he was supposed to, because they've interviewed him. And so we, we, we're, the deal is off and let's, we want to prosecute him. So he's gotta be careful that he walks that fine line. What do you make of the Trump Organizer,

the report in the Times or other places that the day after the plea deal, the Trump through Weiselberg, a birthday party at one of the Trump buildings, which you make of that? There's no one in the, I don't understand it. There's no one in the Trump organization really isn't a real organization. I mean, did Eric Trump give him a cupcake? I mean, I, it seems like it's, it just seems like it's a Trump planted story to have bravado and act like it was a way when I agree with that.

There isn't a Trump organ. I mean, I understand it exists in theory, but at the end of the day, it's like Eric Don Jr. Ivanka, you know, Donald, you know, a bunch of other, you know, lackeys, but it's not a real like legit, like, it's not a group of organization with real structure. I mean, it's not IBM. No, no, no, no, no, but you're right. I think you're right on the money with the bravado, the false bravado thing. He couldn't post a photo of him high-fiving Weiselberg on his, uh, truth social. So this was the next best thing. Oh, he doesn't bother me. I'm throwing him a big party for a 70% birthday. That's

what I think was going on there. Let's turn Popak briefly to Florida as well with the federal judge there. Just even saying this law that DeSantis enacted is just sometimes like when Donald Trump has that thing truth social, I don't even like to call it truth social when it's because that's what it's called. And you almost buy into what they're saying by using the terminology. And so I like to just call it as failing social media platform. So even though this is called the Stop Woke Act, which is the dumbest thing ever labeled, like Democrats are focused on how do we get healthcare to veterans who are returning from toxic bird bits, right? Democrats are focused on how do we lower the cost and make education more accessible? Can we lower insulin caps to $35 and Medicare? But for all people in the United States, can we

lower the price of insulin? Can we lower, you know, the costs at a pocket costs of Medicare? Can we reduce student loan burdens? How do we actually help people? Can we improve infrastructure? The Republicans are focused on the Stop Woke Act. That is like their major initiative to fight their made up problems because the idea of pronouns and how people identify, so affects these Republicans. That's the main issue that makes them seething at the mouth when they wake up in the morning. And so there's, this is the legislation. DeSantis says, biggest bill is not how

do we help people. Because the other thing that DeSantis does he walks around with those infrastructure checks that Biden passed and that's like so that's one of the things he does and so he didn't actually pass any of his own legislation then he has the stop woke act which limits race based teachings in school and the way that private companies can carry out diversity, equity, and inclusion training and companies that have 15 employees or more, making them susceptible to significant civil lawsuits if they're accused basically of promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion training and making that mandatory to try to help promote equality in the organization. So that was what DeSantis's major piece of legislation is. Chief US District Judge Mark Walker, he blocked the employer portion of this law, saying it violated free speech.

And he compared the law DeSantis's law to stranger things and this is what he said in his ruling He goes quote in the popular television series stranger things the upside down describes a parallel dimension Containing a distorted version of our world walker nominee of President Obama wrote and then he said recently Florida has seemed like a first amendment upside down. Normally, the first amendment bars the state from burdening speech while private actors may burden speech freely. But in Florida, the first amendment apparently bars private actors from burdening speech while the state may burden speech freely. Hope, what do you make of this ruling?

Yeah, Mark Walker's a top-notch judge, not just because Obama put him on the bench, just his background. He's been taking on a desantis for a long time. In fact, he coiled references it in the quote, right, right around the passage, you just quoted, he went on to say, once again, this court is asked to pull Florida back from the upside down world. Once again, meaning he's already made other rulings, some of which have been affirms, some of which have been reversed by the 11th Circuit, where we're going to talk about next. And this one, the bill, if you look at it closely in a bet, I know you did, which is codified at Florida Statute 760.10, also known as Florida House Bill 7.

If you look at it, it says both in education and in businesses. And we're going to talk about the differences here, because this only goes to the provision that prevents businesses from giving diversity and equity training to its employees or requiring that as a condition of employment. If you look at it carefully, it says that it is a violation of that statute to subject a person to such training, including teaching them that the following about discrimination, that a race may be morally superior to another that a person

is inherently racist because of their background, that a person's oppression, listen to this one, Ben, may be because of their race, color, sex, or national origin. Talk about the upside down world. Federal law, and even Florida civil rights law, civil Rights Act Law, says that an employer has an obligation to have a workplace free of discrimination and harassment, and that if they have programs and policies and training in place, that gives them a defense, maybe even partial or whole, to a charge that one of their employees violated those policies and procedures and was discriminatory or harassing in the workplace. If they don't have those training in place or those programs in place that they can point to, type of training, because you'll be violating our woke,

and it's a stupid acronym, I won't bother to give any mileage to in the bill. The plaintiffs challenging it, brought by one of the public justice type law firms, they were three diversity trainers, what we call diversity trainers or employment trainers, who have as part of their subject matter material things about how racist and other thoughts and biases come into somebody to help

train and teach around these matters to to to for the ultimate goal of having a workplace that's not hostile as we like to call it in the law. And so they're saying I got to throw out everything that's proper about my teaching, which is based on psychology and research and years, it's been 30 or 40 years of this type of training. And we know it works and you're telling me I can't say it. That violates my first amendment right of thought and expression in the area in which I practice.

Now, DeSantis came back with, well, it's commercial speech. And the judge said, first, it's not commercial speech at all. This is just because they're selling their thoughts and their speech doesn't mean it's commercial speech. And under the strict scrutiny, which is the highest level of judicial review of something that violates a fundamental right and bill of rights, let's say, in here the first amendment, in order to pass, let's say, in here, the first amendment. In order to pass, it's very hard for a law to pass strict scrutiny. Judd said, strict scrutiny. This looks like viewpoint-based regulation. You don't like what they're saying, the viewpoint of expression. And you better come up with a really good reason why that is the part, you know, why your statute is doing that because, uh, and, and your policy goal of anti woke is in his, in

his quote, the judges quote, almost unintelligible. I don't understand it. I don't understand what you're trying to do and understand how you could avoid being it being a first and my fundamental first amendment violation. And it's also a violation of the rights of the employers to protect themselves and insulate themselves from employment cases under federal and even Florida state law by having these programs in place. The other issue, which is also before the same judge, I'm going to make this clear, he

issued the preliminary injunction against the attorney general and the human rights commission in Florida from enforcing this rule. He did not enjoy to santa's, but who cares? That's just a standing issue he didn't need. He ordered it is preliminary injunction, the attorney general for Florida and the related counterpart at the Human Rights Commission, not enforce the aspect of the law that deals with businesses. As to the one that deals with what you can and can't teach in education, K through 12 and at higher education, it's in front of the same judge, he did not issue the injunction there and said, I'll see you in trial in about eight or nine months.

And so that's interesting. Same judge assigned to the case, thanks the education issue, it may be a closer question, but on the business side, thought the first amendment covered it properly and it was violentive. Now we go to the 11th Circuit, three judge panel and possibly beyond to the US Supreme Court.

Yeah. And so because it's an injunction, you have to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits. And so the issue on the education version is we'll just wait for a full trial to take place and see what happens at the trial. So it's not ruling against the eventual permanent injunction and declaration of unlawfulness of this stupid letpiece of legislation on that basis. It's let's just wait a little bit later basically. But with respect to the part against these private corporations, it is so obvious right now the ruling is that there is this probability of success that I can enjoy the enforcement of this law right now and that by not inversion of what the first amendment ultimately is about. Michael Popak, we covered a lot today and want to say thank you so much for being here. I love spending these weekends to you. Thank you

to all the Midas mighty out there, all the legal a efforts making this legal a f podcast and simul cast on YouTube, you know, the top legal video podcast out there, period, there is nothing else in the world, Pope, I mean, I scoured to try to find any legal podcast that's simulcasts with more views on YouTube and combined with audio than this. And there isn't any. And it's because of great supporters like the legal AF community that's developed. So for all the legal AFers out there, thank you. One of the ways you can support this show and support independent media, independent journalism, independent legal analysis, though it's very simple. Subscribe to the YouTube channel right now. Just hit the subscribe button. That helps a ton. And if you're listening to this on audio, go to

the YouTube channel and subscribe there. For all of the YouTube listeners, go over to the audio. It's great audio listening experience as well. And it's simulcast on both platforms. And I think they're equally great, whether you're an audio listener or a YouTube. But to the YouTube listeners, make sure you subscribe on audio. It helps with the algorithms. It helps keep us in the top. So just go over to where you get your audio. Hit subscribe. Leave a five star review. Spend five, ten minutes today after the show doing that. It helps the show a lot. And everybody check out store.mightestouch.com. That's store.mustouch.com. We have convict 44, also known as convict 44, merch. We've got the Rovember shirts. We got Legal AF gear. So go check out store.mitustouch.com. Want to

give a special thanks to our sponsor as well. Athletic Greens, you could check out the mightest touch legal a f discounts that we offer you at athletic greens dot com slash legal a f athletic greens dot com slash legal a f and people ask do you really like the taste of it? Yes, I really like the taste of it. It's really good and it really really helps my day athletic greens dot com slash legal a f Michael Popeyes great spending time with you always Always been. This is, and a lot of things that we talked about today, we're gonna follow up as we always do, and cover the results next week about Lindsey Graham

and the results of Giuliani and what happens with the Trump organization. We'll stay on top of it, because we know that's what our listeners and followers require. The most consequential legal news of the week of our time, Ben Myceles, Michael Popak.

This is Legal AF. Shout out to TheMinusMighty.