Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Accidentally Reveals Plan Once SCOTUS Hands Him Loss

Episode Date: November 12, 2025

Trump figured out that he’s been had at the US Supreme Court and is likely to lose all of his Tariffs, and spent the wee hours of the morning throwing his own DOJ and his Solicitor General John Sauer under the bus and blaming them for the likely incoming loss. Michael Popok explains that the 12:37 am posting of his “truth” about the case is a confession that he is likely to lose as he scrambles to not refund hundreds of billions to the American people who have paid his tariffs with higher pricing. Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Boarding for flight 246 to Toronto is delayed 50 minutes. Ugh, what? Sounds like Ojo time. Play Ojo? Great idea. Feel the fun with all the latest slots in live casino games and with no wagering requirements. What you win is yours to keep groovy. Hey, I won! Boarding will begin when passenger Fisher is done celebrating.

19 plus Ontario only. Please play responsibly. Concerned by your gambling or that if someone close, you call 1866-3-3-1-2-60 or visit comixonterio.ca. get no frills delivered shop the same in-store prices online and enjoy unlimited delivery with pc express pass get your first year for two 50 a month learn more at pceexpress dot ca it took him two weeks but donald trump woke up from his stupor realized he's going to probably lose at the united states supreme court about the thing that holds up and props up his inhumane administration tariffs despite what all of the people around him, all of the enablers trying to tell him that he's going to win. He now knows he's going to lose and he woke up at 1237 a.m. in the morning and he posted on Truth Social,

his own personal truth. And through his Solicitor General John Sauer, who was his criminal defense appellate lawyer under the bus, he says the Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers. And we're going to lose apparently as a result of it. on Michael Popak. Nice to see Donald Trump is joining planet Earth to realize what every other legal commentator,

including myself, told him two weeks ago is that the hearing went terribly with Trump appointed judges and others and justices and others all attacking the plan as an illegal, unconstitutional power grab of the power reserve to Congress to do tariffs and taxes.

Here, let me read to you. from the 1237 a.m. rant, and I'll try to unpack it for you. The U.S. Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers by who? By his own Department of Justice Solicitor General John Sauer, apparently, in his briefs, in his oral argument. The unwind in the event of a negative decision on tariffs, that goes to a question asked by Amy Coney Barrett, which spells trouble for the Trump.

I'm going to play that. I brought the receipt on that in a minute. The negative decision on tariffs would result in an unwind of more in an excess of $3 trillion. It would not be possible to ever make up for that kind of drubbing. Again, he admits in his social media post the thing that kills his legal argument, that this is revenue generating. Was he not listening to John Roberts and Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett? if the use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to set tariffs on 200 countries, which is a congressional power, is revenue generating, and that's the purpose of it. And he keeps bragging about the trillions of dollars that he's obtained through it for the American people,

for a dividend, for this, for that, then it's a tax. And if it's a tax, it's only in the power of Congress can't be given to the president. That's the point. but he keeps bragging about the money, thinking that's helping him. He says, that would truly be insurmountable, a national security event, possibly non-sustainable. You know what's non-sustainable? His presidency. But here you see he's woken up and figured out he's going to likely lose.

Who can I blame? Let me look around. Oh, good. John Sauer, my lawyers, once again, throwing his lawyers under the bus. I'm smiling because I know he's going to lose. I'm reasonably confident that they don't have the five votes to say that a president of the United States under Article 2 powers or under this delegation statute can do taxing by way of revenue, by way of tariffs for revenue. I knew that. I'm glad you're here.

I might as touch on Legal A.F. Let's unpack and dissect all of this. Now, during the oral argument, I caught and I talked about in prior hot takes a bonehead move by the solicitor. General John Sauer. So I sort of agree with Donald Trump that they were giving them the wrong numbers. John Sauer in his briefing and in Donald Trump in public statements, which are referred to in the briefing to the Supreme Court, said, the economy was dead and now it's alive. And Donald Trump raised trillions of dollars all through the tariffs, right? But if tariffs are revenue, then revenue are taxes and you lose. That's what the Supreme Court just says. We're trying to tell

during oral argument. And Donald Trump thinks if they have the right numbers about the unwind, about the dollar amount, that would help him. It actually kills his legal position. Now, let me play you what I think Donald Trump is referring to, which is Amy Coney Barrett saying, suppose you win to the lawyers advocating against the tariffs.

How would we unwind this? Would it be a total mess? Let me play that clip. And then if you win, tell me how the reimbursement process would work. Would it be a complete mess? I mean, you're saying before the government promised reimbursement, and now you're saying, you know, well, that's rich. But how would this work?

It seems to me like it could be a mess. So the first thing I'd say is that just underscores just how major a question this is, the very fact that you were dealing with us with quotas. There's no refund process to the tunes of billions of dollars or embargoes, but there is here. But for our case, the way it would work is, in this case, the government stipulated for the five plaintiffs that they would get the refunds. So for us, that's how it would work.

Your question, I take it, is about everyone else. We don't have a class action or anything like that. With respect to everyone else, there's a whole specialized body of trade law, and 19 U.S.C. 1514 outlines all these administrative procedures. It's a very complicated thing. There's got to be an administrative protest. There was a harbor management case earlier that this court was involved with in the United It's a shoe in which, you know, the refund process took a long time.

There were any number of claims and equitable relief. So it's difficult. Absolutely. We don't deny that it's difficult. But I think what this court has said in the McKesson case in 1990 is that serious economic dislocation isn't a reason to do something. Northern Pipeline, you guys stayed your decision for a while in order to let the congressional process unfold. There may be a congressional process here as well. You may be able to also be that this court could limit its decision to prospective relief under the John Q. Hammond's case.

There's lots of possibilities. So that got Donald Trump concerned, Amy Coney-Barrant, and Amy Cote-Barrant, is not with him. She is likely to side with the moderate and liberal wing against tariffs. Tariffs as a power of the president, I guess is the better way to put it. But even John Roberts, the Chief Justice, hammered John Sauer, the Solicitor General, who's now firmly implanted under the bus by Donald Trump during an exchange about are it, if it's revenue generating, isn't it a tax? And how can the president impose a tax on people without going through two houses of Congress?

Let's play that clip. But I mean, and I think this is a question for the other side as well. it's two facing. Yes, of course, tariffs in dealings with foreign powers. But the vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans. And that has always been the core power of Congress. So to have the president's foreign affairs power, Trump that basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of at least neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power. Let me say two things in response to that. First, the notion that these are, the taxes are all born by Americans that are not born by foreign producers whose goods are imported is empirically,

that's not, there's no basis for that in the record. It's actually a mixed. Well, who pays the tariffs? If a tariff is imposed on automobiles, who pays them? There's a, typically there'd be a, regardless of who the importer of record is, there'd be a contract that would go along the sort of line a transfer that would allocate the tariff, and there'd be different. Sometimes the foreign producer would pay them. Sometimes the importer would bear the cost. The importer could be an American, could be a foreign company. A lot of times it's a wholly owned American subsidiary of a foreign corporation. So it gets allocated. The empirical estimate's ranged from like 30 percent to 80 percent of like how much is borne by American citizens. I mean, it's been suggested that the tariffs are

responsible for significant reduction in our deficit. I would say that's raising revenue domestically. There certainly is an incidental and collateral effect of the tariffs that they do raise revenue, but it's very important that they are regulatory tariffs, not revenue-raising tariffs. And the way you can see this, I think, if you look at this policy, this policy is by far the most effective if nobody ever pays the tariffs. Now, of course it is. Donald Trump has been public about raising money through tariffs as revenue. He even had a speech around his inauguration in which he said that he wanted to form an external revenue service to replace the internal revenue service to tax effectively our foreign

adversaries and allies and use that money instead of taxing Americans through income tax. But everybody recognizes that a tax on goods is a tax, a revenue tariff on goods is a tax on the American consumer because it gets passed through to them. Everyone but Donald Trump, here's his speech. about the external revenue service. Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens.

For this purpose, we are establishing the external revenue service to collect all tariffs, duties, and revenues, it will be massive amounts of money pouring into our treasury coming from foreign sources. The American dream will soon be back and thriving like never before. Now, Donald Trump knows he's going to lose. There's no other way to put this 1237 a.m. rant that starts off with,

I love the passive voice. The United States Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers. By who? How about John Sauer, your solicitor general, gave the Supreme Court the wrong numbers? He really means the wrong argument. Now, I knew they weren't telling the old man the truth around him, because I saw the clips of people in his administration, like the Commerce Secretary, take to the airwaves and say, mark my words, that Supreme Court hearing was like the Super Bowl. He's going to win. Howard Lutnik said it.

Let's play the clip. Well, this is the Super Bowl. This was a Super Bowl of trade, right? Trade and this was it. The only thing missing was walk on and walk off music and a halftime show. I mean, this was it. And there were fireworks all the time. But think of some of these questions like Justice Kavanaugh says, imagine a meeting in the Oval Office with the president where, and this was his cross-examination of their lawyer. And he says, you've said he could embargo. He could cut off. trade with any country. And their lawyer said, I agree. He goes, imagine telling the president in the Oval Office, sir, you can blow up trade with this country? And he goes, that seems too much.

Can I put a tariff on them and do a little less? And they say, no, sir, you can't. And Justice Kavanaugh says, that seems like a very odd donut to me. I mean, how could you let that happen? It just didn't make sense. The justices were on the president's side. You're hearing it hear from me. President Trump is going to win this case. But of course, he wasn't the only one. You got Carolyn, who's the press secretary, said the same thing. Here's her clip. I'll tell you, the White House is always preparing for plan B. It would be imprudent of the president's advisors not to prepare for such a situation. With that said, we are 100% confident in the president and his team's legal argument in the merits of the law in this case. And we

remain optimistic that the Supreme Court is going to do the right thing. The importance of this case cannot be overstated. The president must have the emergency authority to utilize tariffs. Look at what President Trump has been able to do with the leverage and the power of tariffs. He's been able to sign peace deals all over the world and end global conflicts and literally save lives. He's been able to bring in trillions of dollars of investments into our country. In fact, this year alone, we are going to cut the deficit by $600 billion, namely because of the president's effective use of tariffs. And the president strongly believes that economic security is a matter of national security. And tariffs have a lot to do with that. And this case is not just about

President Trump. It's about the use of this emergency authorization for tariffs for future presidents and administrations to come. And we're confident and hopeful that the Supreme Court will do the right thing. But the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, put the final nail in the coffin on Sunday, which I think led to Donald Trump now waking up on Tuesday morning and posting all the people around me are incompetent. Here's Scott Bess at the Treasury Secretary getting played by George Stephanopoulos about walking into the trap, painting himself into the corner. Once he says the tariffs are revenue, he's dead legally from a legal argument standpoint. Watch the exchange. The president is also posting about tariffs.

this morning. He's saying people that are against tariffs are fools. We're taking in trillions of dollars. Is that true? We have taken over the course of the next few years, we could take in trillions of dollars, George. But the real goal of the tariffs is to rebalance trade and make it more fair. So is anybody shocked that Donald Trump is now blaming his Department of Justice? This, whenever he's caught in a trap of his own making, right? Whenever he, you know, doesn't shoot himself in the foot, he shoots himself in the head, no pun intended. He blames the lawyers around him.

It's Pam Bondi did it. It's Todd Blanche screwed it up. And now it's John Sauer, his Solicitor General. May I remind you that John Sauer, for all of his faults, and there are a number of them, And to all my inability to listen to him argue because of the rapidity and velocity in which he packs in words and his gravelly voice, it sounds like a combination of broken pavement and that he gargled with bourbon, putting all that aside for a minute. He was Donald Trump's criminal appellate lawyer that won the immunity decision. He was his criminal defense lawyer, appellate lawyer, that won the Colorado insurrectionist decision that kept Donald Trump on the ballot.

So, but Donald Trump flailing around looking for somebody to blame who, John Sauer, for me, the takeaway is he knows he's going to lose. And if he loses, here's what's going to happen. The Supreme Court's going to say, I believe, under whether you call it the major powers doctrine, no, sorry, the major questions doctrine, the non-delegation doctrine, strict, strict interpretation, originalism, whatever you want to call it, they're going to find that that the water's edge, the limit of Article 2 presidential power, even stretched out far under foreign affairs,

doesn't reach as far into the grab bag of powers of Congress to grab their fundamental core function power under the Constitution of tariffs and taxing. And that Aipa, the statute, which delegated a certain level of economic response by policymaking by the president, doesn't go as far as to give him the power to set tariffs worldwide. Then through, once they do that, once they throw them out,

they'll leave it to the government to figure out how to pay the money back. It goes back to the importers in America who paid it, who passed it along to the consumers. It's relatively simple. You give a tax credit. Give a tax credit to everybody, you know, of X amount of dollars, figure out the $200 billion or $300 billion that's come in, spread it out among the taxpayers,

and give everybody a tax, a tax, break. Donald Trump wants to give them a tariff dividend, which we'll never see, $2,000, $3,000, a Doge dividend check of $5,000, a health care dividend of $2,000. You've never seen these checks because they've never been spent. They've never been sent. But he can, through tax breaks and or refund checks, fix the problem to answer Amy Coney Barrett's issue. I just love that Donald Trump's has lost his mind at 1237 a.m. and decided to go after his own Department of Justice. We'll follow it right here. While you're here on Midas Touch, help them get the 6 million subscribers, come over to LegalAF YouTube, help us crack the 1 million

subscriber base. We've been around less time. And then go over to LegalAF Substack and help us there pay the bills, so to speak. If you like this kind of commentary, I do 40 videos a week at the intersection of law and politics along with my other contributors. Help us there and become a paid member on LegalAF Substack. So until my next report, I'm Michael Popok. Can't get your fill of legal A.F. Me neither. That's why we formed the legal A.F. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, morning A.F. What else? All the other contributors from legal A.F are there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews.

We got ad-free versions of the podcast and hot takes. Where? Legal A.F. on substack. Come over now to free subscribe.