Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump and Co-Conspirators CORNERED by Federal and State Prosecutors

Episode Date: July 20, 2023

The top-rated legal and political podcast Legal AF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this midweek’s edition, Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo, discuss: 1. Jack Smith’s special prosecutor’s sending Trump’s lawyers a “target letter” outlining new crimes against him and inviting him to testify to the DC grand jury, as a precursor to an indictment surrender, arrest and arraignment Number 3 for Trump, in the coming days; 2. Updates in the Mar a Lago criminal case against Trump, including the Judge considering when in 2024 to set the trial and her ruling on a motion for protective order filed by the DOJ; 3. the Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel not waiting for the feds any longer, and indicting 16 Michigan republican party operatives and leaders for state crimes for their serving as “fake electors” to keep Trump in power, with jail time of up to 100 years cumulatively for each crime charged; 4. A federal judge denying as “frivolous” (and therefore, sanctionable), Trump’s motion for new trial and/or to set aside the jury’s findings and verdict, and reduce the jury’s award in the E Jean Carroll sexual abuse, and defamation case; 5. another federal judge issuing his opinion denying Trump’s efforts to delay his Stormy Daniels-hush money coverup criminal trial in NY State court and keeping the case in State court and on track for the scheduled March 2024 trial date, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! EIGHT SLEEP: Go to https://eightsleep.com/legalaf and save $150 on the Pod Cover! POLICY GENIUS: Head to https://policygenius.com or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch 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 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 MAGA Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We just left the quiet place. Knowing now that Jack Smith went to Merrick Garland last week to get sign off for inditing Donald Trump and others again. This time in the District of Columbia for a series of crimes including KKK-like crimes for voter fraud, obstruction, and other things related to the big lie and Trump's desperate effort to cling to power while toppling our constitutional republic in his lust to stay in power. Trump's lawyers got the target letter on Sunday they've been treading, leading in the next few days to indictment, surrender, arrest, and arraignment number three for Trump if you're scoring at home. Rinse, wash, indict, arrest, arraign, repeat, Tangym, laundry's repeat, tangim.

Laundry's coming up for Trump. Speaking of a multiple indicted former president, we have updates this week with Judge Cannon presiding over the Mar-a-Lago criminal case against Trump and Nauta, or as I like to say, for Nauta, with other co-conspirators likely to be indicted in the near future. Time to set a trial date in the case as mandated by the federal speedy trial act and the 6th amendment. The people demand a fast pre-primary and election trial will can and give it to us as she's focused on finding room on the increasingly filled up Trump trial calendar in 2024. State Attorney Generals are doing their part

for democracy and to bring the traitorous rabble to justice. And we're not just, and they're not just sitting idly by watching the federal investigation and prosecution of Trump. There are state law violations that need to be addressed and defendants brought to justice. First Arizona's AG, Chris Mays, a former Republican, now a Democrat, declared last week that she was well on her way to criminally investigating Trump, Giuliani, and others in their attempt to interfere with

the integrity of the Arizona elections. Not to be outdone, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, one of the first to refer the fake electors in her state to the feds, has found a way to thread the needle, file charges in her state against the Republican leadership and operatives for their crimes being fake electors, all while staying clear of Jack Smith's investigation and prosecution of Trump, a genius path forward for all attorney generals in the battleground states to follow. And staying on the Trump on trial criminal home game, another federal judge in New York has ruled once and for all

that there will be no delays in the New York State, Stormy Daniel's hush money cover up trial of Donald Trump, and letting the world know that the Manhattan DA and the prosecution of Trump will happen in March 2024 with a state court jury presided over by Judge Mershon. Finally, things look just as dim for Trump on the civil front. As his frivolous efforts to have the federal judge throughout the jury's verdict finding him to be a sex abuser and to favor of E. Jean Carroll and awarding her $5 million of damages

as backfired because instead of winning the motion, it just gave the judge an opportunity to declare him a rapist and provided him with another opportunity to lay out over 50 pages all of the evidence against Trump. And why Trump was not vindicated by the jury at trial that he didn't even bother to attend and finding that the jury awarded her proper damages, all in the proper exercise of justice. You may not believe that we can do it, but we're going to cover all this and things we haven't even thought of yet on the midweek edition of LegalA app with your anchors, Michael Popock and Karen Friedman at Nifolo, Karen, two years ago when we joined forces.

Did you think we'd have a rundown like that to discuss, including your old office, the Manhattan DA, and three separate indictments of a former president. I mean, I gotta use every one of the sponsor's products just to stay on my toes for this episode. How you doing, Karen? I'm good. I'm good.

If I had kind of a busy day running around, I actually was on CNN at 7, and I ran from CNN home to do this live at 8 and I was worried I wasn't going to make it, but I still have all the CNN you know make up and all that stuff that they put on you. I don't have any CNN make up on. Well I ripped the fake eyelashes off because they drive me crazy when I got home and I changed my clothes when I got home. But I was like cutting it this close to see if I can make it from being on at seven. But I was never ever going to miss doing this live for sure. I love I love that you're a contributor on a major network. And this

is your home court. This is where right? This is where you got started. I see a lot of people. I saw it chat earlier. Somebody said, Oh, I heard all of that on another competitor network. And that person's a contributor to X, Y and Z. I'm like, we got contributors to X, Y and Z. I'm going to be on with Karen Friedman Knifelow in about 30 minutes. But as I asked, it was only half and just, did you ever think that two years into this, we be, I'd be doing a run down like that with justice being served against Donald Trump. It's crazy actually, I can't believe it. I mean, when we first started talking about this,

never in a million years, sometimes they were, do you remember when we were like, what should we talk about? What should we do? Should we have a guess on? Should we, it's just crazy, right? We were looking for things to talk about, and now there's so many things to talk about.

We have to kind of call so that we don't have too many of the public. Curate. We have to. Yes. I got a big pile of the guy to everybody, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, let's start where everybody I think wants us to start, where I want to start you do too, the target letter.

Because we know only good things come out of a target letter. As you rightly predicted, Karen, and we discussed a few episodes ago, there was this quiet, there was this quieting, the calm before the storm. Wasn't that much activity going on at the Grand Jury of witness here and there. We already knew that Jack Smith had told witnesses that they were not going to be able to continue or postpone their June testimony. He wanted things wrapped up in June for a reason. And we speculated at that time that this would be a very good time for him during this week

we haven't seen him grabbing a sub over its subway, which he likes to do to troll the former president. I'm just a lunchpale guy. This is an everyday thing. I'll have the ham and Swiss up, we all love that. But there was that moment where we didn't hear or see much, not much going on in Mar-a-Lago, very quiet over the grand jury. You and I thought, this is a perfect time to make a presentation to the attorney general. And just to map that out, he is an independent council, but he has to go finally and make his proposal, his recommended

indictment to his, to ultimately his boss, the attorney general of the United States, Merrick Garland, who has to do thumbs up or thumbs down. If he says thumbs down, like, nah, I don't think you have, you don't have it. You know, like Alvin Bragg did a few years ago when he was presented with some things about a Donald Trump. Now, you're not there yet. Go back, get better evidence, get more witnesses, come back to me. If he does that, then he's got to make a report to the Senate's Judiciary Committee. But if he says thumbs up, like the presentation, good luck.

Go get your indictment, gentlemen and ladies. Then, you know, that's it. That's all he has to do. And the presentation, good luck. Go get your indictment gentleman and ladies. Then, you know, that's it. That's all he has to do. And that presentation, you know, picture it. It's a, it's a conference room with the Department of Justice. It may just this binders are handed out all of the evidence that they've developed. Basically, their opening statement is provided. There's a PowerPoint slide show.

And they, they walk through the elements of the crime, the evidence they have to support it, at least at the indictment stage and beyond because they're not just interested in getting indictments for indictment sakes, they want to get convictions. And so they're making their case to their boss and that happened because we know that happened because the target letter came out. That is the last shoe to drop before the actual indictment. And we know that because we've seen it already. You know, we've seen this show.

We've seen it up in Manhattan in its own version with the state court prosecution. And we've seen it in federal court for Mar-a-Lago. So here's how it's gonna work. Target letter, and I want Karen, you take the first shot at what we think is in the target letter as to the crimes. Target letter listing potential crimes, not all the

crimes, not the indictment. Doesn't mean he can't charge other things ultimately, that the indictment can't be broader than the target letter, but it tells the person you are the target of a criminal investigation. It also had a lovely invitation to Donald Trump to come in and testify to the grand jury this week. Spoiler alert, he's not going to be doing that. And they dropped it on Sunday. And the timing of that, which I did a hot take on, was not, I don't believe, done by accident. I think it not only was done because they're ready to move for the indictment this week have him surrender arrested and arranged by let's say Monday Tuesday next week

eerily similar to what happened with Mar-a-Lago Thursday Friday Monday Tuesday, you know getting the secret service and the and the federal marshals involved this will be a DC district of Columbia arrest and surrender home court of fanatry, the Department of Justice, not down in South Florida. As we know, that's going to happen. But the, um, the timing of it was right on the heels before the Department of Justice briefcases under their arms binders under their arms marched into judge cannon's courtroom down in Miami for her to set the trial of the,

which we're gonna talk about on the podcast today, of the Mar-a-Lago Espionage Act and obstruction and conspiracy case. And I believe that that was a signal. They didn't wanna do it after, because they wanted her to know, you are not going to be the only federal judge that's going to have a defendant named Donald Trump in front of her or him this

week. There's going to be another sort of keeps her a little more honest although she's done some interesting things we're gonna talk about already as we await her setting the trial date but I think that was strategically timed and it was also masterful because this Department of Justice did not leak the target letter. They had to calculate and gamble that Donald Trump would not be able to keep a secret and that between Sunday and Tuesday, he was going to do something on social media. And boy, were they right, he did, because that's how we learned about the target letter. Now after that, there's been other good reporting that's gotten even

more detail about the target letter from insiders. But the initial, you know, we all found out about it the way everybody found out about it. Because Donald Trump, not the Department of Justice, told the world that he was the target of a of a criminal investigation, justice he did at Mar-a-Lago. So that's the framework for where we are. Now I want to turn it over to my colleague and former prosecutor to talk about what we think are the crimes that are at least listed in the target letter, understanding that the indictment could be much, much broader, Karen. I want to start with what is a target, okay?

So the Department of Justice defines a target as a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him to the commission of a crime, and who in the judgment of the prosecutor is a putative defendant. Okay, so the purpose of the target letter is to afford the person, the target, an opportunity to testify before the grand jury, and it means that the investigation is nearing the end. And it's in the Department of Justice manual, this, what a target letter is. And I think it's important to just kind of remind ourselves of what this is, right? It's a person who the prosecutor or grand jury has substantial evidence linking them to the commission of

a crime. Okay, that's how much more serious does it get? This is the Department of Justice telling Donald Trump we have substantial evidence, okay? Linking you to a crime. You don't have to send out a target letter, but they typically do in cases, especially with Donald Trump, because they're going to want to say to him, they want to take away the argument for him to say, oh, I didn't get a chance to make my case to the attorney general or to Jack Smith, or I didn't get to testify before the grand jury,

even though we know he's not going to. This gives him the chance to do it so he can't make that argument and claim that he's the victim again, yet again, because that's his whole MO that he fundraises off of. So to answer your question, what do we think the charges are that the DOJ has substantial evidence linking him to?

And now we haven't seen the target letter. However, there's been reporting by multiple news sources. In the New York Times, we're recording this right now at eight o'clock on the 19th of July, Wednesday. And this just came out, I think it like 647 on the 19th. So just an hour, a little over an hour ago, this came out, this article. And it talks about the various charges that at least there are three at least in there that we think are in there. Okay, so really quick. Number one, deprivation of rights under the color of law, under 18 United States Code 242.

And this is a crime that includes not only acts done by federal or state or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of the officials' lawful authority while they're purporting to act in the performance of his or her duties. So, persons acting under the color of law, you know, what does that mean? That could be any official, etc. And it's not necessary that the crime be motivated like as a hate crime. And it's punishable, you know, by up to a lot of time,

up to life, depending if there's like physical injury. So it's really, you know, what does this mean? You know, what is a deprivation? What is under the color of law? You know, what exactly does that mean? And the New York Times is saying that they think it's actually 18 United States code 241 is really the charge that they think is going to be here that he's going to be charged with and it's a conspiracy where two or more persons

conspired injure, oppressed, threaten, or intimidate any person in their free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege. And I think really what they're saying is it has to do with voting. That's what the experts, the legal experts are saying, that it makes it unlawful for two or more people to agree to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States in their free

exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution. So it could be voting. It could be counting ballots It could be the fake electors, you know that it's that it's the The electoral ballot. So that's where we think that is going to land. And that charge came as a surprise to a lot of people. They didn't know that that was going to be in there. The two charges that they knew that we all sort of suspected was conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 USC 371. That's like a general conspiracy statute. It's two or more people who conspire

to commit any offense against the United States. So, you know, we'll see what exactly the theory is going to be here, but clearly it has to do with, you know, the electoral college and both the states and pens and trying to defraud the American people of the legitimate person who Joe Biden, who they voted for. So it's a very broad statute and it can include any conspiracy for the purpose of obstructing the lawful function of any department of government. So the counting of the electoral votes, you know, trying to prevent

Mike Pence from actually counting the electoral votes. And there's another, there's another charge, the third charge that that people are calling tampering with a witness. And I think the reason they're calling it that it's really obstruction of an official proceeding. It's 18 United States Code Section 1505 that includes tampering with a witness. But I don't think anyone thinks that that's going to be a charge that he's tampering with a witness in the grand jury or a trial. It's more the official proceeding being, again, Congress when Mike Pence was there to certify the election. So those are the three charges that it looks like are in there.

And we'll see, I don't think those are the only charges. I think that includes those three charges and it really gives the theory of where they're leaning and what they're signaling to Donald Trump. So go ahead, Popoq. No, no, I'm listening. Yeah, yeah. So that's what I think we're gonna see here. I think that we've heard reporting that Trump was surprised, that the sweeping nature of the charges, which I don't know how he could be surprised, given the fact that anyone

who watched the Jan 6th select committee hearings knows the sweeping nature of the criminal enterprise that is Trump and his people who are, you know, who are. That's right. Go ahead. No, no, it's true. Like, how can you be surprised? They're not. They're, they're, I agree with you.

They're not. This is a disinformation campaign that they're continuing to run. Like, well, we know about all the witnesses and the evidence. So we don't even know why we're being indicted at all. I've actually saw reporting that said a version of that, which was, we always thought he'd be an unindicted co-conspirator. Like, are you F and kitten me? I mean, all you got to do, you don't have to watch legal AF.

You, you should, but you don't have to. You just, I mean, anybody that's watching this closely can reel off two dozen major witnesses, including lawyers against Trump, which is what I call that group, Operation Coconut, which is what the Department of Justice and Jack Smith calls it, because I think it's a contraction for co-conspiratory nuts, coconuts. You can't list the witnesses and think about the subpoenas that have gone out for documents in the case that just we know about from being sort of inside or outside as to follow this thing closely and come away with it with I didn't think I was going to be indicted at all. Are there other witnesses? Are there other documents? No idiot and

No, we don't believe you. You know I I mean, that's just them whistling in the grave you are. They know they're cooked. I mean, Mark Meadows cooperating with the federal government. If that wasn't the nail, the final nail on the coffin, I don't know what it is. Rudy Giuliani, the more he says, I didn't get a target letter. I didn't flip on Donald Trump, which is what he's been reported to say the last two days. That usually means that didn't flip on Donald Trump, which is what he's been reported to say the last two days. That usually means that he did flip on Donald Trump and he is going to be getting a target letter. My theory on Giuliani is that they basically scared the crap out of him in meadows and

they'll do it with others. It says, hey, you see this indictment that we're that we're filing later this week? The first draft of it had your name in it. And the next draft and the next superseding indictment is going to have your name in it. Now sit in that chair and stop screwing around or you're going to be a defendant along with Donald Trump because we saw this car and as you know, from being a prosecutor and me being a criminal defense lawyer in in in part that the fact that the indictment that was filed in Mar-a-Lago, if that's going to be the template for Jack Smith's team in his next indictment, we know

what he did. He kept it really, he colored within the lines. He kept it really straight. He only brought Trump and one other Coke and spiritor. He could have made it more sweeping. He could have had six Coke and spiritors. He could have had many more counts in there, but he says, you know what? I don't eat that right now. I'm still working witnesses and I'm still working. This is me. This is the universal symbol for working. I'm working witnesses and I'm working evidence. And as soon as I get

that all lined up, people will then be on one side of the line or other. They're either going to be unindicted Coke and Spiritors or they're going to be indicted Coke and Spiritors in the next indictment. Same thing here. The fact that the target letter centers on, and I want to talk a little bit more about those claims, centers on those three criminal statutes, two of which no surprise whatsoever, two of your friends Karen, Norma, I sinned and Dania Perry, and I did a hot take on this one.

And they're great. Whatever they send out, their model prosecution memo within days, Trump gets indicted. It's like clock, it's like washing your car, and there's a rainstorm. And they're great because as former prosecutors like you and them on the federal side, they laid out, okay, you know, using the JAN-6 committee originally. Here's the count for conspiracy to defraud the United States. Fine. Here's the one about, you know, obstruction of an official proceeding, which is of course

the certification of the election in Congress. They hit those two perfectly. The one that's coming, and this is why Jack Smith is the real prosecutor and he gets paid the Medium Bucks because he came up with a different theory using a body of law developed after Reconstruction of the United States when freed African Americans were being intimidated by the KKK and other groups to stop them from exercising their constitutional right to vote. And as the Supreme Court has said,

including most eloquently by Thurgood Marshall, every person is entitled constitutionally to a fair ballot and have their ballot and their vote counted. And the way that they can do that, the way that Jack Smith can then use that and stretch that around this case, that claim that developed to stop people from voting. And yes, there are a lot of the case laws about

ballot stuffing, phony ballots, shoved into ballot boxes or the equivalent, other types of phony votes are ballots, but we have a phony ballot and a phony vote, if you will. And that's the fake electors in seven states that met clandestinely in basements and in rooms near but not in the state house and signed their names with, I don't know, Quill Pens and Waxeels and turn them in to the National Archive and then sent them, tried to deliver them to Congress for Mike Pence, awaiting Mike Pence. Here's a version of one from Michigan.

We're going to talk about soon and the indictment that's happened there. Look at all those people's names. Those are all Republican operatives and leaders, some of which are on the national committee for the Republican Party and this close, two P's in the pod with Rona McDaniels. That's that group and that happened in seven other places. So that fake electors, that the attorney generals are now going after in their home states, they're in a way a fake vote. It is a fake vote. So it's perfect.

No one ever did fake electors before. So no one ever thought to use that particular statute like Jack Smith to embrace it, to encompass that as a series of crimes. There's other, there's other intimidation of the vote, though, that we know about. We know, you know, going after know about. We know, you know, going after vote counters like Ruby Freeman, right? And Shea Moss in Georgia. And we know now from reporting that they're trying to find the Feds or trying to find the videotape for what really happened in that Fulton County Stadium in vote counting with intimidation efforts by people that were supposed to be poll watchers, but were really vote interferers hired by Donald Trump in his campaign.

I saw a mini version of it, a number of years ago, when I was a poll watcher for the Democrats in Miami when Obama ran the second time. And I saw what could happen when the Brooks brother mafia, these, you know, crew cut kids and, and dockers and, you know, blue button down shirts show up and try to stare down the election officials and stop or throw out votes along the way. Oh, that vote, oh, that person doesn't vote in that precinct. Oh, he doesn't have the right voter ID. Oh, you're not allowed to take an

electric bill when you are in some states or something else and get those votes thrown out. That intimidation factor is also part of that particular statute. So again, not the indictment. That's not what got delivered on Sunday night. However, it got delivered to Donald Trump. It is just to put them as you said, Karen, on notice that you are no longer a subject. You're not a witness. You're a target. You want to come in and talk to us great. What happened last time with Mar-a-Lago just around this out is that that led the prior council now departed of Jim Trusty and well, do I have it in Corcoran?

No, I have it in Corcoran was still there. Jim Trusty and Evan Corer, asking to have a meeting with Merrick Garland and not even Jack Smith. Let's have a meeting with Merrick Garland, who's not the guy that's pushing the buttons on the prosecution to see if it can and Merrick Garland took the meeting. And then he met also, they also met with Jack Smith. There was that very fast series of meetings, but like two days later, the indictment came out and then we're off and running. So maybe they'll try for another meeting this time led by Trump's current lawyers, There was that very fast series of meetings, but like two days later, the indictment came out and then we're often running. So maybe they'll try for another meeting this time led by Trump's current lawyers, which

are Chris Keiss, a Florida lawyer based in Coral Gables, actually, his office within 50 yards of where my law firm is located. And Todd Blanche out of New York, who was in a two person law firm. Chris Geiss, I think, is in a one person law firm. This is who Donald Trump has presenting him. And they'll maybe they'll try for a meeting. Who knows? But that's not going to stop the indictment. Now we said last week, I thought last week was indictment week, what do you think? You think indictment is Thursday, Friday with a rainment, a rain are under arrest next Tuesday to give everybody time to do the security?

Well, so, you know, there's been reporting that there's one more witness who's testifying on Thursday. And so that'll be interesting to see if, you know, they vote if they take a vote right after that, or if they wait because again, it's unclear. Trump said that he has until midnight tomorrow, but of course, this comes from Trump to decide if he wants to test find the grand jury. If that's the case, then they won't vote tomorrow.

They'll wait until after midnight tomorrow. They could vote Friday, you know, or they could vote next week. But we do know there's one more witness going in on Thursday into the grand jury, but I just want to say one quick or ask you really a question about this, about what you were saying about 18 USC 241 about that charge. You know, so first of all, it requires two or more people to conspire. And so do you think that there will be another person on, this is like more of a question that I'm really interested to see. Oh yeah.

There's going to be another person. Right. So is there going to be another person charged and who will that be like Eastman or others for example. And you know, or they're just going to say co-conspirator number one, you know, like will there be like a one not? Or yeah, yeah, exactly. So I think it's both, I think it's both.

If that was a question to me, I think it's both. I think there's gonna be a series of unindicted co-conspirators who would, they I'm sure in discussions have warned that they are going to be next if they don't cooperate more fully for the superseding indictment. I'll take Eastman

and Giuliani at their lawyers at their word because they have no incentive to lie that they did not get a target letter. Look how quickly, this is who you know who the future targets are because they're all popping out of the woodwork saying, I didn't get one yet. You don't have to get like, well, that's true, but true, but the. of this department has been, they've been doing them, maybe only for Trump. But you're right for somebody who's not Trump, a non-Trumper, they don't have to. They just do it the old fashioned way, which is you're indicted. So one, yeah.

Yeah, because criminal defendants are not, nor criminal defendants are not generally invited into their own grand jury to testify. That's true. Yeah. And so one other question I have about this charge, and again, because it's kind of comes as a surprise to everybody. And so I haven't really had a chance to digest it.

Is what will the theory be? Like, who did they oppress and intimidate? Is this like intimidation of pens? Or, you know, like, in other words, you know, was this both chambers and their privileges were being, you know, taken away from them because they couldn't, you know, certify the vote in the electoral process? Or was this to deprive the 81 million voters of their right to have their, so, so it's going to be 81 million victims? Like that's unprecedented. That's unprecedented.

Well, that's that set of statutes that he's that statute he's talking about. The Supreme Court has determined that the electorate at large without anyone particular person can be can be the injured party. It's like the biggest class action of all times. Right, because by God forbid, they were successful. But it doesn't matter whether they were successful.

The fact that they tried it is enough, and that's the conspiracy and that's the crime. But what they were trying to do was to divest you in me of my lawfully cast ballot. And I'm entitled, and you're entitled, and everybody, all 14,000 people in our chat are entitled to have their ballot and their vote and their enfranchisement, honestly counted. And it wouldn't be. It would have been completely

taken away from us by the flipping of votes, right? This vote flipping. And also the intimidation, just to round out the, I think this is a multi-headed hydra when it comes to the facts that would support this unique claim. Fake electors easy, that's easy. Fake is a fake ballot, fake voting, fake electors, which underneath it all disenfranchises 80 million people, right? Or actually more, whoever, because it throws off the vote, it makes fraudulent the vote count for everyone, even if you voted for Trump because you didn't he didn't really win. Okay, that's one, two, it's the intimidation and the interference by Donald Trump because he's named personally

in this as the defendant pick it up the phone and calling Arizona and Georgia trying to flip votes, right? Let's take 11,758 Georgian votes and let's flip them or get rid of them. I'm going to intimidate you, Secretary of State. I'm going to threaten you on the phone with potential crimes, which we know this is the fascist dictator playbook, right? We're going to put you in jail if we ever get back into power. That he's doing it again,

and we'll talk about it at some other time, and I've done a hot tick on it that's coming out, about what this group will do, the shadow government, this government, and exile, if they ever get back into power, including jailing their opponents. But they were threatening Rafford's purger, the Georgia Secretary of State

and other election officials there in an Arizona and in Michigan and in Wisconsin and in Pennsylvania to try to flip votes. They didn't have to flip them. You don't have to stuff the ballot box. You can just be hovering above the ballot box with the votes to stuff them and you've now committed the crime. That's another factor of this intimidation, vote fraud statute, which the more we talk about it, Karen, the more perfect and elastic it sounds to wrap

around all of Trump's conduct with all of these co-conspirators. I know. I don't know how everyone, you know, myself included, how we all missed it. It's such a brilliant, you know, such a brilliant charge. And, you know, Jack included how we all missed it. It's such a brilliant, you know, such a brilliant charge. And, you know, Jack Smith is great. This is perfect. It's like a perfect charge for really what they did. Yeah, not bad for a crackhead, to paraphrase Donald Trump.

I mean, I love that he goes to such depths of being evil, you know, to attack wives and husbands and children, prosecutors, their families, judges, grand jurors, calling people crack heads. I mean, it's just disgusting. How is he, even if you liked the guy originally, and you voted for him, how do you believe he has fit for office? And now he's just dying the death of a thousand cuts, which is every one of the things you and I are going to talk about on the pod and we're coming up next at not one, but two more criminal cases. We're going to talk about Mar-a-Lago and what is going on with Judge Cannon again. I never thought I'd say that phrase,

but I am in the in the court room about setting the trial and a protective order, which we'll talk about what that is, that she had to put in place, but only she found a way to avoid doing it, at least at the first go around. And we'll talk about Donald Trump's failed attempt. Thank God to get his case moved from state court with Manhattan DA's office leading the charge and Judge Mershon in the state court in Manhattan to federal court where the federal judge make it is ruling to just today about that But first before you break now I gotta do a sponsor break All right, go ahead do that do your do your thing. They will do a sponsor for you break

I just that someone in the comments asked can they send can we send jack Smith Subway gifts certificates and the answer is absolutely not he is not permitted to receive any gifts ever That's that's a number one rule for any prosecutor. So I just wanted I wanted to it's a great It's an excellent gesture, but you cannot he he can't accept it. And he won't accept it. Don't set him soon. Don't but, and one day maybe Subway will be our sponsor.

But today we got a great group of sponsors. And here we go. My old mattress would overheat while my partner and I were laying in it together, making for a terrible night's sleep. I'm so excited to say that this episode is brought to you by eight sleep. Summer is reaching its apex, and there's nothing worse than tossing, turning, I'm so excited to say that this episode is brought to you by 8-Sleep.

Summer is reaching its apex and there's nothing worse than tossing, turning, or sweating in the night because of summer heat. The pod cover by 8-Sleep will keep you cool all night all the way down to 55 degrees Fahrenheit so you wake up fully refreshed. The pod cover by 8-Sleep fits on any bed like a fitted sheet. The pod cover will improve your sleep by automatically adjusting the temperature on each side of the bed based on your and your partner's individual needs. It can cool down and warm up and adjust based on the phases of your sleep and the environment that you're in.

I love 8 sleep because we spend almost half our lives in bed. So improving our sleep routine habits and overall sleep quality should be a priority for everyone. I love the temperature control and that my partner and I can set our side to each of our likings. I also love the gentle vibrating alarm each morning. I wake up feeling refreshed after a great night sleep, allowing me to start the day off right. Eight sleeps technology is incredible, while temperature is the biggest game changer, the pod cover has other amazing features. For example, thanks to the pod's sleep and health tracking,

you can wake up to a personalized sleep report for each morning that offers insights on how certain behaviors, like late night exercise or caffeine, impact your sleep and overall health. The pod cover by eight sleep truly provides the ultimate sleep experience. I've never experienced sleep like this. And the pod's cooling technology has been a lifesaver this summer. Invest in the rest you deserve with the 8 sleep pod.

Go to 8sleep.com slash legal AF and save $150 on the pod cover. That's the best offer you'll find, but you must visit 8sleep.com slash legal AF and save $150 on the pot cover. That's the best offer you'll find, but you must visit 8Sleep.com slash legal AF for 150 off. Stay cool this summer with 8Sleep. Now shipping within the US, Canada, the UK, select countries in the EU and Australia. If you have a family like I do, you know how much you'll love once depend on you. In a worst case scenario, you wouldn't want them to worry about money. Policy Genius was built to modernize the life insurance industry. Their technology makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from America's top insurers, and in just a few clicks to find your lowest price. With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policies that start at

just $25 a month for one million of coverage. Some options offer coverage in as little as a week and avoid unnecessary medical exams. Policy Genius has licensed award-winning agents who can help you find the best fit for your needs. They work for you, not the insurance companies. That means they don't have an incentive to recommend one insurer over another, so you can trust their guidance. Policy Genius is for parents, caregivers, and anyone else who has people who depend on them.

They simplify the process of getting life insurance so you can protect the people you love. There are no added fees and your personal details are private. No wonder they have thousands of five star reviews on Google and trust pilot. Your loved ones deserve the financial safety net. You deserve a smarter way to find and buy it. Head to policygenius.com or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com. And we're back back on live. All right, now that I've gotten my rest with one and got my insurance needs satisfied by the other sponsor We're done with our sponsors. We're moving on with all of the rest of our content for today's show

Let's start with the other criminal indictment of Donald Trump. It's so hard to keep track of I'm gonna need a bigger pop-up porter board, but a Mar-a-Lago we had a hearing Just the other day and it was supposed to be for two purposes. One, the judge was supposed to have a CEPA hearing, a confidential information procedures act hearing because the way you present this kind of case of SB and OSH act against anybody, including a former president, is you have to have a very methodical and structured way of handling the documents both between the two sides, the prosecution and the defense, how they're going to do it at trial with witnesses, and that type of thing because these things are top secret and classified.

That's the point, or their at least national defense information. And so you have to protect them. Those protections don't go out the window just because under the sixth amendment, Donald Trump gets the right to a public trial. So one of them was about all of that and the procedures around that and the Department of Justice as they are required to do a filed emotion for protective order,

which is sort of what it sounds like. It sets the rules of the road and puts protections around the use and exchange of documents, it's really one way exchange. It's the government giving all of this top secret and confidential and classified information, you know, the 90 boxes of stuff that Donald Trump took with him and all those envelopes marked top secret and asked for the protective order they are entitled to in a statute that says, shall, upon request by the United States, the trial court shall enter a protective

order. You know, it's missing from that statute, anything that says, but first, they got to go on Bended Knee and beg the other side for some sort of terms and conditions and try to come up with a resolution of that before they go to the judge. Doesn't say that, but the judge, when she got the protective order, decided to reject it without prejudice, meaning it can be refiled because there wasn't a meat and confer, a conversation between the two sides to resolve some open issues. Now, the DOJ and their filing in the motion for protective order said we tried to get them on

the phone. We said, hey, how's your calendar for the 14th of July? We got to get this thing moving. And they said, 14th of July is no good. How about next week? And you know, as if, you know, their hair is not on fire with a criminal prosecution. And the government said, screw it. This is my artist rendering. We'll file the motion because we are entitled to the protective order. It's a shall, not a may, not a may be, not a, it's up to the judge's discretion. Although, let's be honest, Judge Cannon's never met a shall that she hasn't converted into a maybe talk to the other side, I'll get back to you. And so we had that going on.

And then what we were all really on the edge of our seat with was the, there was full briefing between the two sides over setting the trial date. Now, last week, Karen and I talked about it. And Karen, your position was she's gonna to punt this as she's either not going to set it or she's going to punt this so far away in the distance that even you and I won't be able to find it in terms of a trial date. Now I thought ultimately she's got to set a trial date.

And under the Speedy trial act, as amended, Congress requires as part of a person, sixth amendment constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial that you set a trial date shouts another shell trial judge shall set a trial date unless there is just cause and there's other other reasons to have it continued In the interests of justice to some other period and if she does that and she doesn't do it within the kind of justice to some other period. And if she does that, and she doesn't do it within the, kind of the initial 70 days, and she continues it, or continues to continue the trial date,

she's got to go on the record either earlier in writing and say, why? We're not quite there yet. So they had a hearing. The government already took the position that the August date, which is the 70-day date out of the Speedy trial act that the judge set was too fast, sort of like Goldilocks

and the Three Bears. That one was too hot. Now, the government came back with, what about December, Judge? Doesn't December sound nice? Just an extra three months or so. It gives us time to sort through all of the security issues and the classified document and the SEAPA issues and all that, and then we'll have plenty of time.

The other side said, how about never? I looked at my calendar and never is good for me, Judge. Why don't you not set the trial at all, or at least, that the very least, push it out until after our client is elected president. They didn't quite say that, but that's really what they implied. And the government said, are you effing kidding me again, artist rendering? You got to set a date. And the date should be like before the primaries and the election season, not after.

You know, we don't buy your argument that we can't pick a fair jury in South Florida during the election season because Donald Trump happens to be a candidate who cares. There's no exception for that. And so that was the battle that was going on in front of Judge Cannon. And Cara, why don't you give our audience what the report has been, because of course, there were no cameras in the courtroom, about Judge Cannon, how she led them through this, not December, but I don't know about 2025. And where do you think the judge who is not yet ruled at the time of this recording?

Where do you think she ends up on the trial calendar? And then I'll tell you where I think she ends up. I think Judge Cannon is, I think Judge Cannon was stung by how widely she was panned and criticized when she appointed a special master, you know, and inserted herself in the search warrant process way back when, if you remember, she, everyone said, you're not allowed to even do that. You're not supposed to be a part of this process. And she was reversed and really kind of, you know, bench slapped by the 11th Circuit and a lot of people have criticized her and accused her of being pro-Trump and I think she's very aware of that image and doesn't want to do that and as a result I think she's

going to do things that you can't really criticize, you can't really appeal, but in the end we'll accomplish the same goal, which is basically doing Trump's bidding and allowing this case to not go to trial. So, for example, with the little things, right, like Walt Notta needed, you know, it wasn't ready, and so they, they something was supposed to happen July 14th or June 14th, so they put it over to the 18th, you know, just those little four day periods here and there, as you said, that that Jack Smith laid out all the efforts that they made to meet and confer, right? To, and first of all, as you said, this is a shall, she has to issue a protective order, number one. And number two, there is no requirement in the law

necessarily to meet and confer, but it is standard, that's what you're supposed to do. And so that's what you're supposed to do. And so that's what the government was doing, and Jack Smith was doing, and even offered, and they put this in their motion to meet over the weekend, because, you know, the lawyers couldn't possibly do this, and they said, no, no. And, you know, that's, again, they're trying to delay. This is a delay tactic. This is not discretionary. So there's no reason why they couldn't meet and confer. And by the way, the word's meet and confer is a phrase.

It's a legal phrase. It's a term of art. It's something that mostly in civil cases, but apparently in some criminal cases when it comes to things like discovery and motion practice, it's something that judges ask parties to do. They're supposed to meet and talk to each other and confer and see if you can come to agreement and only go to the judge if you can't come to an agreement. So that's what meat and confer is.

And so the government was like, we tried, you know, we, and they laid out all the efforts and judge canon is once again saying, you know what, I'm not going to do this protective order. And therefore things can move along quicker and things can keep going. I'm going to deny it without prejudice, which means you can refile it. But what does that do? That delays things again, right? That is again, putting things over just a few more days. And so when you finally

when you get to this trial, she's not going to not set a trial date at all because what's that going to do? That's going to get her criticized again the way she was the last time. She doesn't want to be criticized. So she's going to do this in a way that she can't get appealed. She can't get really criticized because she's going to set some date, but it's not going to be, you know, she's signaled in court that the December date, although she picked the August date, right? She picked the August date had no problem doing that. And when the government said, okay, but we'll be ready in December and we're going to bend over backwards to give all the discovery to point, you know, to not just give it over, but to also point to the defense attorneys where all the relevant, admissible, you know, everything that they're going to use at trial, everything that's relevant,

they're going to digest it for them and give it to them with a bow so that they, you know, basically do their work for them. And we're going to do everything we can. We're going to fast track their top secret security clearance because, you know, they have to get that. And, you know they have to get that and and you know so they're gonna do all of that and they said but we can be ready in December and she signaled you know yesterday to know that that seems too soon as well so I think she's going to she's either gonna set a date that's before the election. But I think she's going to set a date, but I'm not sure she's going to set a firm date. I think she's going to hedge a little bit and maybe allow for, well,

let's see how this goes or maybe we could change it. I mean, I don't see her pushing this case before the election. And I think Jack Smith is clearly, you know, he sent this target letter this week knowing that he's going to be before her. And I think he's, you know, gunning for the other, for the Jan 6 case to go first, you know, in DC with hopefully a judge that won't allow the defense attorneys to play games like this and push this out. Well, let me put those two things together. I disagree with you just slightly, but professionally and respectfully.

I think she's going to set a trial date. I think the trial date that she's going to set is not. Yeah, I said that. I said she's going to. Okay. I think she's going to set a trial date that's not what you just said. That's where the disagreement is going.

Okay. She's not going to go all the way, because even though she criticized the Department of Justice in the courtroom for saying December would be okay, she also criticized the other side for thinking that November at election time was the right time. November of 2024 was too far out for her to. So here we go. Trial calendar. We know there's a March 2024 trial in New York State Court, Manhattan District Attorney's Office on the Stormy Daniels Hush

Money cover-up case, which we're going to talk about in the next segment. That's March. December is out for the judge. November, the following year out for the judge. A good place to put this would be February before the March trial, or let's say April of 2024 after the New York trial, but well before the election. I think she is sensitive to reporting and other, and other pressures that people, the people, you know, like us, Bart, we want a resolution of this one way or the other before voting happens. Primary who cares, he's going to win. News flash, he's going to win the Republican nomination. No matter how many times he's indicted, no matter how many times he's arrested, surrendered and arraigned this guy because

he controls the 30% of Republican party that's MAGA. And that's all you need to beat seven or eight or other people up on the stage, like he did last time when he was one of 12, but he was the most well known of the 12. He's going to be the nominee. The primaries don't really matter to this guy. So the fact that it falls primary season for those that don't follow it as closely as we try to is January. It's the first primary. So campaigning is in December and January starts the primary season and it rolls right through, you know, up to, you know, there's a little bit of a cooling off-berry right off to the November. One way or the other, one or more of these trials is going to happen while he's also the

candidate, the nominee, and going through the primary season. So that can't be the concern because otherwise you would just say, well, that's it. We're in the box of the presidential election season because he's the nominee against Joe Biden. So he gets a free pass in the criminal justice system to take to taking a seat in a trial. That isn't the law, that can't be the law. And I don't even think Judge Cannon, who maybe in the deep recesses of her mind is running for the Supreme Court Justice seat if John Trump ever got elected, but she's got a boss and it's the 11th Circuit. And even the Supreme Court as right, Maga Wing as they are, when it comes to presidential

process and Donald Trump, they've ruled against him almost every time. So I don't think he can count on his Maga right wing to bail him out if it gets up that far on an emergency fast track. So there, I think it's going to be February or April of 2024 for the Mar-a-Lago. But of course, in the portfolio approach that Jack Smith is using, he's not putting all of his eggs in the in the Eileen Cannon basket because he's got he'll have on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, whenever next week a new federal judge, hopefully one that we can really trust from from moment one in DC in the home court advantage place, where the jury pool is much more favorable to

the Department of Justice and against Donald Trump than some of the Trumpers that may reside in the upper regions of the northern part of the southern district of Florida. Because as I joked on the hot take that I did on this, and having lived in Florida in that area for 20 years, I know the more north you go, the more south you are in Florida. Meaning the northern part of the state

is like the southern part of Georgia. And you can think about the voting patterns there. So, Canon's doing weird things. in a meeting, the northern part of the state is like the southern part of Georgia. And you can think about the voting patterns there. So, Kat is doing weird things. I'm not even sure. I looked at the local rules again. I try to find her online rules for her own, what we call chamber rules. I'm not even sure making the government meet and confer with the other side was even appropriate.

I tried to find it. I was flipped through pages to, you know, kind of prepare. And I looked up my, you know, my own practice guys. I don't really see that. I think, however, the Department of Justice bought this problem because they listed in there in a footnote in their motion for protective order that they tried to meet and confer. And the other side had objections, but they wouldn't tell them what they wouldn't tell us what it was. And so we said, let's have a phone call and they said, no. And so please make them talk to us in the judge.

So there's almost an invitation by the Department of Justice. I don't know if you caught this in the protective order, Karen, the Department of Justice said judge order them to tell us what the objections are on a date certain. And the judge was like, you know, you guys are talking enough. Go talk and then refile. And look, they could have refiled like today or this week and they likely will.

The last time that Canon, the last time that Canon did something like this, where she denied without prejudice a piece of paper that the government filed, the government never refiled. Just to remind everybody, the government had a list of 82 witnesses or so that they did not want Donald Trump to have contact with at all except through counsel, you know, that kind of thing for witness tampering purposes. And that was something that that, uh, uh, a magistrate judge had put special conditions on

Trump's release. We're going to see a new set of special conditions on Trump's re-release from Liberty, from being in jail and in custody when he's arrested again. But there was a special condition there about no contact. And the magistrate judge ordered the lawyers for the Department of Justice to give the other side the list. Tell them who you develop it. The other side said, oh, we want to have, we want to have a way in on that. The judge said, no, no, no, the Department of Justice prepares the list and that's your list. So they had the list, but the Department of Justice made a decision and it wasn't really clear from the order they needed to do that to file it in the court.

And they wanted to file it under seal because they didn't want the whole world to know about it. And her first line in her order was, I don't even know why you're filing it. Why are you filing this? Just give it to the other side. You don't need to file it yet. If there's a violation of it, then you can file it. I'm not, I might be, and the minority here, I'm not sure she was wrong there.

And the federal government, the Department of Justice, never refiled. It's been a couple of weeks. I think they just did it the other way, which is says, all right, Judge says we can just send it to the other side and not put it on the federal docket. Okay, and I think that's what they did. I don't think they haven't done anything with their list of 82 names. So listen, there's a ways through this. We're gonna get an order.

One of us, you, me, or Ben, or all three of us are gonna do a hot take on it. It's coming probably tomorrow or Friday. She's gonna set the trial date. And if they don't like the trial date, justice managing expectations here. And we did it last week, Karen, you and me. There's very little they can do,

the Department of Justice with the appellate court, if she sets the date, because the trial judges, except under an abusive discretion standard, which is a very low standard, or very high standard to overturn a judge, has the right to set her own docket in her own courtroom, and it's not gonna be overturned. So we may not like the date,

but that's gonna be the date. And if she wants to then continue it, like you said, Karen, if may not like the date, but that's going to be the date. And if she wants to then continue it, like you said, Karen, if something happens along the way, all I know I said February, but February's not going to be good now. There's been some other problems. So under these findings on the court, I'm going to push it off until October. She could do that. There are cases that I found when I was doing research for a verautech in which a judge on a speedy trial act continuance continued the case 1400 days. That's 4.5 years on a case that should be going to trial

like really, really quickly. I'm not sure that's going to happen here, but I'm just giving some outside boundaries here of what could happen. So that's where we are. And we just checked the docket. Salty just checked the docket on this live podcast. And she is not rule. By the way, salty, I could have told you that I practiced down there. There's nobody doing anything at nine o'clock at night in Fort Pierce. They roll up the sidewalks and the clerks are home for the judge. She's home. Maybe tomorrow, but she's not a midnight late night worker.

Trust me. That's why she became a judge. So why don't we move on, Karen? You want to talk about our one of our favorite judges? Oh, salty. I hope you have the photo of Yoda in a cowboy hat. Al Hellerstein. Thank you.

Al Hellerstein, senior judge, Southern District, New York, he's the one that got the case assigned to him, a Clinton appointee, when the Donald Trump throw more sand in the gears of justice, Justice Karen, you outlined, said, you know what, here's a good idea. I don't like Judge Mershon in State court because he was the judge that was really mean to Alan Weisselberg.

This is Trump's artist rendering. My CFO would put him in jail for five and a half months. I don't like him. And he was the judge presiding over that mean jury that convicted my company of 17 counts of tax evasion. And I don't like him and I want to get away from him. And he donated 50 bucks to Joe Biden and his daughter is a political consultant on the Democratic side. And I don't like the way his wife looks and whatever else crazy other stuff he said.

And so they wanted to get away from him. So they said, well, let's go to federal court. Federal court's better for us. Let's see, which I'm not sure in Southern District of New York, federal court is better for you. We're 90% of the judges were appointed by Democratic presidents, but he got the lottery wheel came around and he filed his little notice of removal, which is a document you filed to one page

that says you cite the statute for federal jurisdiction that you believe exists and they had one shot federal jurisdiction that you believe exists and they had one shot federal officer jurisdiction. I was a federal officer when I was involved with the payoff of the Stormy Daniels hush money cover up a fair which happened when I wasn't president and Michael Cohen did it for me who wasn't in the White House and but it's still presidential because I say it is. And I have, I might have some federal defenses. I don't know quite what they are yet, but I'll come up with it, but you better, but I need the protection of the federal court. I mean, this is basically what they wrote, one page.

And that immediately, for that moment, takes the case into federal court. And then the other side, in this case, the Manhattan DA files, what's known as a, a motion for remand, which is to remand the case, send it back to the state court. Now, I never really left the state court. In fact, the federal judge, Hallerstein, said to judge, Mershon, and one of his rulings a couple of months ago, you got this judge Mershon, you continue to set your trial date and do all your stuff over there while I make a decision over here about whether there is appropriate federal officer jurisdiction to bring the case into federal court. And there was a hearing on the 27th of June in which, which I was surprised there was even like evidence being put on there was the Manhattan DA's office put on evidence

and put on a little mini trial about the indictment and about the hush money and the cover up and the books and record fraud and the other sides led by Susan necklace. The lawyer for Donald Trump felt compelled also to put on evidence. So they put on the chief legal officer who would blew up in their face for Donald Trump and that hearing looked terrible for every, for the, for the defense. And the judge said, yeah, I'm probably not going to take this case into federal court. I'll get back to you with art with my written opinion. And now we've got a 50 page written opinion. Karen, what did Judge Hellerstein say about Donald Trump's being a federal officer, doing things under federal color of the office when he participated in the story meeting Daniels

Cover up hush money affair with Michael Cohen and whether he has federal defenses at all because you got to have all three of those things To have federal jurisdiction for this guy you got to be a federal officer You got to do bad stuff, but under the color of your office as President and you got to have federal defenses. If you don't have those three, cherry, cherry, cherry, jean, no jackpot, you don't get to go to federal court. What did Judge Hellerstein say about that? Yeah, I mean, he rejected the argument resoundingly and he said that, you know, Trump has failed

to show that the conduct charged by the indictment is for or relating to any act performed by or for the president under color of the official acts of the president. Trump is also failed to show that he has a colorable federal defense to the indictment. That's a quote I just read from. And you know, of course, Bragg was pleased. And this is exactly what he said in the hearing last month that he was skeptical of Trump's argument and he signaled that this was how he was going to rule. He said it's very clear that the act that the president has been indicted for doesn't relate to anything under the color of office.

And in fact, if you remember the Manhattan D.A.'s office in their motion, they threw that back in the defendant.A.'s office in their motion, they threw that back in the defendant's face. The defendant himself had said in their papers and the brag quoted him. The defendant had said, oh, this was personal. This is nothing to see here. This is just a private lawyer doing something for Trump and a private personal thing. Then how can that be under the color of law? Heller's denigred and sent it back to Judge

Mershant. So this is going to be in state court. And unless a federal judge says, hey, can I go first? I think that this case is going to go in March. Judge Mershant is not one to allow Trump's delay tactics to work. He knows that that's what Trump does. And if he says the trial is going to be March 24th, it is going to be March 24th. He won't allow any excuses.

So like I said, the only thing I think that could potentially bump that will be if a federal judge asked, you know, can we go first? Yeah, the quote that I love from Hellerstein because I think it it was buried on page like 49 of 50 But it completely summed up his entire probably he could have led with that if he was a meaner judge He would have led with this line I've seen it done and by the way before I get to it. This is just another example. Well, there would have led with this line. I've seen it done. And by the way, before I get to it, this is just another example. Well, there's two in this, this, this edition of legal AF tonight where Trump's strategy backfired and gave the judge in, in the E. Jean

Carol case, we're going to talk about next and here, an opportunity and 50 pages or less to lay out all of the evidence against Donald Trump in excruciating detail for the American public to see one more time now written by federal by two different federal judges. If they, I don't know, that was there. If they calculated that that could happen, but it happened. And so here's what hellerstein said, and I quote, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter, the Stormy Daniels cover up,

was a private personal item of Trump, a cover up of an embarrassing event. And then he ended with, hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to the president's official duties. He could have led with that one, right, Karen? That's the whole case. That's it. That's why you don't get federal, you don't get federal jurisdiction. And all the other things like the defenses that he said, oh well, the second crime, because this is a unique New York statute that you know well, that requires that the cover-up

be also in furtherance of another crime. It doesn't have to be an indicted crime, but another crime could be state, could be federal. And they said it's state election law and federal election law, because the cover up, which was paying stormy Daniels $130,000, but doing a round trip through Michael Cohen, then the lawyer and the chief fixer, and then paying him back under the cover of a legal retainer or legal engagement letter, like he was acting like a lawyer and not just the conduit for the cash, which is what he was. And then they gave him enough because they, because because it was $130,000, they added $50,000 on top of it, then they grossed it up to double that.

Then they put a bonus on top of it for Michael Cohen's purposes. And then they listed it all in $35,000 payments month after month after month to repay Michael Cohen and reimburse him and give him a bonus on top of it for doing the cover-up for Donald Trump, all through Alan Weiselberg, the CFO, who went to jail for five and a half months for other reasons. And so this, how do I know all that? Well, I knew it from the indictment, but I really know it because Judge Hallerstein wrote it in his opinion based on the evidence that was presented to him in his review of the record, which Donald Trump

forced him to do in order to rule that he was, he was going to go back to state court. All of us that got this, I mean, I know you, you thought there was like, I know, 2% chance. I thought there was a 0% chance. I think Ben did too, that this was ever going to get sucked into federal court. But the fact that they went for this, they like swung for the fences from the defense just to get a 50 page order back at them, which basically laid out, like I said, for the American people so exquisitely and painstakingly in detail about what Donald Trump did and the cover up that he did in advance of a jury being picked in March.

This is not, this is the gang that can't shoot straight when it comes to the defense of Donald Trump. And we're better off because of it. I was going to go unless you had something else on hellerstein. I was going to move on to Eugene Carroll. No, it's a perfect segue to Eugene Carroll because in yet another 50 plus page ruling yet another judge, Judge Lewis Kaplan laid out for the American people in excruciating detail exactly what it was like the summary of the trial. Have you ever I've never read a decision. It was like he was

trying to talk to the rest of us, you know, giving this huge decision where he summarizes and lists part of the transcripts. He's quoting from the transcripts, he's saying, he's listing all the areas. I didn't even make his steal your thunder. I'll turn it over to you to frame this. You can't steal what I graciously give you. Go. You take it. So hold on. Actually, I'm going gonna give it to you for one second.

Okay, no problem, I know what's going on. All right, so let me lead on this one one. Sorry, my family just walked in the door. I apologize when I had to tell them that I'm podcasting. So I'm gonna turn it over to you. I act nifalos, biagnifal a couple of we're live everybody. All right, so so here, let me just run it down in the carnal carnal rejoin in progress. This was another opportunity, as Karen said, for the judge, because Trump invited it to outline all of the evidence

that was presented to the nine person jury in New York, which Amos had convicted, should have been convicted, a judged, rendered a verdict in a civil case that Donald Trump committed sex abuse and defamed E. Jean Carroll, who the jury believed and found on the weight of the evidence was sexually abused and assaulted and battered in a New York dressing room, department store dressing room in 1996. And the judge was very focused on because he has eyes and ears and he reads the papers and he knows that Donald Trump has been on some sort of weird And he knows that Donald Trump has been on some sort of weird, I've been vindicated tour, claiming that the jury, because they didn't check the box of rape and only check the box of sexual abuse somehow vindicated him. And the judge said, well, let's start with that.

The judge said, in New York, we have a very unique penal code, a very unique criminal code. And that criminal code requires, unlike most states, that a penis go into a vagina against will in order for there to be a rape. If it's anything short of that, if it's a finger, another body part, some other instrumentality, then that could be sexual abuse, but it can't be rape. The judge said, but it was effectively rape in the common parlance. In other words, Donald Trump's is rapist. That's what the jury found. And the fact that we gave them on the jury verdict form, which is the form that is listed, that's given to the jury to cycle through in a decision-making tree,

how to render their verdict. That form is not just something you rip out of a form book, that's developed by the lawyers. So Joe Takapina and Alina Haba had just as much say into what that form would look like as the lawyers for E. Jean Carol Robbie Kaplan, and the judge reminded them of that, hey, I used your verdict form. And we put on that verdict form, is it rape, sexual abuse, or forcible touching? Those are your three choices. And if you find one of those three choices, then you will, you have to conclude, jury, that E. Jean Carroll prevails on her claim that she was battered sexually by Donald Trump and then go down and award her damages.

And then if you find that and you want to award her punitive damages and then do the same for defamation. And the jury returned the verdict. And the only reason they didn't check the box on rape, the judge reminded Donald Trump and the world is because there was a little bit of contrary evidence about whether his penis went inside or his finger. Finger definitely evidence came out, the other evidence was a little bit split. So that's it. But the judge spent the first part of the order saying you're a rapist, Donald Trump. And in the common parlance, everybody would assume that you're a rapist and then went through all of the evidence that was presented.

None of the evidence that Donald Trump put on, because he didn't put on any evidence, he made a point, the judge, of saying, you didn't even bother to show up at your own trial, let alone testify at your own trial. There were two outcry witnesses, which are very unique witnesses in the law, especially in criminal law. Outcry witnesses are those witnesses that are nearby who hear the person who's being attacked or struggled. In this case, it extends to people like Lisa Bernbach, the author and Carol Martin, the TV news

caster who were called on a phone by E. Jean Carroll moments just after the attack, the sexual abuse, the rape in the department's surdressing room. And that person who hears that because it has such a high degree of credibility, when somebody says something still in the moment of the attack, the judge made sure that noted that these were two outcry witnesses, and then mentioned the access Hollywood tape, in which Donald Trump said without with with with impunity, he could grab a woman in her genitalia,

and two other witnesses who testified about his MO of cropping, grabbing, and sexually attacking people. And based on that, the judge concluded, you know, we may not have led off with what I'm sorry if we didn't lead off with what this motion was about. Donald Trump had filed a motion to try to get a new trial, arguing that the jury had gone too far, that the jury was confused by the evidence and didn't understand the charges that were the instructions that were given. And in any event, the amount of money, the five million, should be reduced by the judge in an act in the law we call remitted her.

There should be remitted down to a lower number. The judge said, the, the, the verb, I'm not taking away the verdict from the jury. This is a jury process. We respect the jury process. It would, there was nothing that was a miscarriage of justice that requires me to throw out the result and start all over again. And they were within every one of their rights given the evidence that was presented to award the amount of money that they did. In fact, many of us thought the award was too low. I thought the award was too low.

I was going to ask you to define remittor. I was like, that's a new word for, you know, legal, remittor, remittor. Yeah. Yeah. Whenever you ask the judge to lower or change the damage amount that's been given, you'd ever ask him to raise it. You can though, you can actually ask him to raise it if you're the, the plaintiff. They didn't do that. They said, well, I will take the five million. Of course, now in the second case, what, why don't you talk about what you observed from the judges rulings now that you're back and then kind of tie it to the next case, which is coming up on the Trump on trial trial, trial, docket, which is a $10 million or punitive damage case. And what do you think

this means for the remember, they're still pending with this very same judge you wrote 59 pages of scathing analysis calling Trump a rapist He's also continuing he's considering The motion to dismiss the defamation claim that Trump brought against E. Jean Carroll because He's not a rapist. So you've got talk about what do you think's gonna happen with that ruling? Because that's the same judge and then what do you think goes on with the trial and the punitive damage $10 million about that follows? Yeah, look, so the, this decision, some of my favorite highlights were, you know, when Judge Kaplan said things like, you know, your argument is frivolous, you know, I love

that he said that about that about what he was saying about the whole rape thing. And I also, that it's not rape and it's ridiculous and offensive. But calling him, that it's a frivolous argument is just one more kind of dig to Trump. And I think this was, I thought that the decision was great. I think this was, I thought that the decision was great.

He also called Trump out for not appealing anything, like the jury verdict, the sheet, or the jury instructions. All he appealed was really the damages. He kind of called him out on that, right? That you didn't appeal anything else here or you didn't make a motion here on anything else. And he also just said that, you know, look, the jury in this case didn't reach a seriously erroneous verdict, and it's not a, quote, miscarriage of justice.

And so, you know, he denied these motions. And I think, look, this is his way of signaling what he's going to do in the next case. I think the next case is a slam dunk, you know, for E. Jean Carroll. It's, you know, when they, when E. Jean Carroll won goes, right? Because there's already been a finding here that he, that he raped her or sexually assaulted her. And, you know, there was a discussion about, you know, Trump said in his motions that, you know, that, that it was in his motions that there wasn't any inserting anything anywhere. It was just touching of the breasts.

And the judge says, no, that's not what the evidence was. And I think part of this motion was to lay out the facts clearly so that in E.G. and Carol one, it's like he found these facts, right? Not just that the jury found them, but now the judge is finding them. This is what was what was found. This is what the decision was. This is what the instruction was. And now it's just going to be a matter of finding of damages. I mean, first of all, he's going to throw out Trump's counter claim against EG and Carol. It's completely offensive, you know, that he would say, her saying that now is

defamation, because what he said in this, he set up his decision for that in this decision when he said, look, the common term of for rape is, you know, any sexual violation when somebody inserts something, you know, if you're a woman and you have something inserted against your will, you know, forcibly into your vagina, you know, what one, it's not rape because it's not his penis, you know, a finger is not rape, it's rape, you know, that's what most people when they talk about it. So just because New York is one of the only states that hasn't caught up to the times and has this very narrow specific definition. In common parlance, you know, and E. Jean Carroll is a woman, she's not, you know, just a lawyer or, you know, a New

York lawyer who's steeped in the law, you know, to her, she was raped, she was violated horrifically, and so I think it's going to be very clear that he's going to find that, you know, he's going to dismiss that motion, you know, he's going to do, he's going to dismiss that, you know, he's going to dismiss that motion. You know, he's going to do, he's going to dismiss that complaint, I should say, that counterclaim because it's absolutely frivolous. I think he could even get sanctioned. I think it's going to be a rule 11 sanction for bringing that. It's in its harassment of E. Jean Carroll and by bringing it at all. And I think the damages in this next case, given his repeated claims, his repeated defaming

of her that he's been doing not only the day of the verdict, but every time he's asked about it or any opportunity he gets after that to talk about it, he continues his defamation. I think the bringing the counter claim against her, I think that would also be grounds for further punitive damages. I don't know if he dismisses that if he would then allow that evidence to come out before the jury to kind of show, look at what he did. He's continuing his defamation and harassment by bringing that, but I think he's going to get hit hard. Yeah, I agree with you. I think there's two levels of sanctions that could come by calling it frivolous and denying

the motion to reduce the damage amount or set a new trial. The judge is inviting Robbie Kaplan for EG and Carol to file a motion for sanctions. He's already open to it because he's already made the first finding. It's frivolous. If you can't file frivolous things in federal court, you shouldn't do it in any court, but you certainly can't do it in federal court without repercussion. So that's one, and you're I'm right on board with you, that this is the guy the judge is going to be deciding on the motion to dismiss the case. Brought, like you said, in retaliatory fashion in a way to chill the First Amendment rights of

E. Jean Carroll. We've all seen the clip that he's relying on where on CNN, the reporter turned to her and said, Hey, E. Jean, when you heard the jury return the verdict and they return the verdict of sexual abuse and didn't check the box for rape, what was going through your mind? And she quite honestly said what was going through her mind? What was going through her mind was yes, he did. Yes, he did, which is exactly what she told Joe Takapina when the trial was over and he went over in some sort of weird, macdatomist gesture to shake her hand and she said, you know, he did it.

I know he did it. You know, he did it. You know, she's allowed to say those things and the judge sort of I know he did it. I just didn't know if I couldn't, I couldn't feel the difference between his finger and his penis. Right. I'm not, I, I'd never go there, but it's okay. We're, we're now there. So the, the, um, the, now, whoof, I, now I'm a shade of red. I've never been before. And I'm, but okay, here, I got it back. So, so, okay, we recovered the, um,

So, okay, we recovered. The judge sped and spilled a lot of ink in his 50 pages, 59 pages. To basically say, yes, you are, Donald Trump. Federal judge says so, you're a rapist. You're playing, you know, you're playing word games and splitting hairs, which there's no, this is a distinction without a difference. You are for all intents and purposes in the history books and forevermore branded by a federal judge, a rapist. Now let's move on.

What was your case about? You think you're defamed because she said that you were a rapist in her mind when the reporter asked her what her true feelings and authentic feelings were about the cherry verdict. I agree with you. That's going to be sanctionable. So that $5 million and 5.5 million that's been deposited by Donald Trump in the court registry awaiting the end of the appeal. And as soon as it's over and he loses the appeal, which he will, that money then gets directly.

There'll be a motion by Robbie Kaplan, the lawyer for E. Jean Carroll to release the money from the court registry and have it paid directly to her trust account on behalf of her client. The judge will sign that. There'll be no hearing and the money will go out. But add to that, whatever the judge tax on for sanctions, which are usually in the form of attorneys fees and costs incurred by the other side. So they put it once the judge awards it. He'll say, I'll submit your affidavit, fee affidavit, fee application,

show me exactly what you spend for all these events. And they will have a hearing on that and then I'll award that. And that gets tacked on to the judgment and we're often running. So that's what's going on with E. Jean Carroll. There's already a case that's been set for the trial of the second defamation case, which will now include him defaming her in May at the CNN town hall that he conducted in which he went, even though he got the jury verdict, he said to hoax, I don't know where it never happened. I would never rape her. I would never even go out with her. You know, she's disgusting or whatever he said. That's all defamation again. What do you do with a serial defamber?

You keep bringing the lawsuits time and time again, and this time you go for more punitive damages, and maybe an injunction against him ever talking about her again, ever, which is the power the court does have although it's rarely exercised, and that's what we have. So as you know, that's, so that's Eugene. We're now we're going to flip over to what attorney generals are doing around the country to go after Donald Trump and the fake electors in a way that won't put them in sort of harm's

way of what the federal prosecutors are doing. Because as I said earlier, state cases and state criminal cases often take a back seat and are preempted or at least big-footed by the federal prosecutors who are working in the same area with the same types of crimes. If you're, I tried to use air traffic controller analogy, the first ones that are cleared for takeoff are federal criminal cases. The next in line are state criminal cases against the same people. And then the last in line are state or federal civil cases. State probably even goes behind the federal civil cases. And that's, I mean, all the planes will eventually get out, get it, it will take off. But this trial docket, this Trump on trial, trial

docket is going to go along that particular path. And most of please, the sex might, our producer just put something up in the chat that we are out of the thousand, no, tens of thousands of not millions of YouTube channels that are live tonight. We meaning you, because otherwise, you just be Karen me and whoever else burst through the door. Uh, is number four, we're number four. Sometimes we're number two. Occasionally, we've been number one, but that's, I mean, thank you to.

We're the other three though. Well, it's usually like a cat, cam, like a cam looking at a cat, and then some sort of music video that runs all day, and then like soccer, which this is our competition, but they're not legal political podcasts. They're not, they're not doing what we're doing.

So I think we're number, we're definitely number one in that world. But we're only number one because of our audience and our listeners, our followers, the legal AFers, the Midas mighty. If they weren't here, I like talking to you, Karen. I'm not sure I would do it every Wednesday. Maybe, maybe I would, but I, but it, but it, but it, this is what propels us to bring our best to prepare to, to, to make an entertaining yet informative show,

that's hard. I mean, if somebody went up to somebody on the street and said, hey, would you be interested in a bi-weekly podcast talking about the intricacies of federal and state legal proceedings at the intersection of law and politics? I don't know if we'd get a great, you know, I don't know if that would come back great. I think it would come back like, yeah, don't do that show.

But we did it. You know, sometimes you just got to go, we're going to do it. And we're going to see if anybody wants to come along. And people have, you know, if you build it, they will come. And we sort of have lived by that mantra here on the Midas Touch Network. Let's talk about, and I don't, you know, shout out to the women in power who are in the Attorney General positions. We've talked about three of them on the podcast,

the Attorney General of New York, Latisha James, the Attorney General of Arizona, Chris Mays, the Attorney General we're gonna talk about now, of Michigan, Dana Nessel. I don't think it's a coincidence that these are the top prosecutors of their state and they're doing the right thing for justice and democracy. And I think Dana Nestle, the Michigan prosecutor,

who a year ago made a referral to then Marik Garland ultimately, ultimately became Jack Smith about all the fake electors in her state. She has 18 of them who got together in the basement of the Republican National Committee, well, the Republican committee of Michigan, not the national committee. And in secret, sworn to secrecy, signed, you know, blood oath, signed this document. We have a picture I put up here and claim that that was the legitimate certificate of electors for the state of Michigan.

You see it there. It's got all the frills and the wax seals and the ribbons and they were and they they mailed that in. Even though that didn't go through the secretary of state or the governor of the state, they mailed that in to there they are. It's not a it's not a motley crew. Many of them are in their 50, 60, 70s and 80s, so they know better. Two of them, one of them in particular is on the Republican National Committee. That's

how high up she is. And the other one was the co-chair of the Michigan Republican Party. So these were high level operatives and leaders in Michigan who got together and said, we don't care what the electors, the voters of Michigan said. Now we're back to the right, the everybody has the right to a fair ballot be cast and counted. They didn't want to do that. The Michigan voters spoke and their president of choice was Joe Biden. Not for this group of 18, they wanted Donald Trump and they conspired to get together. And there's the list right there. Right. So Mary Ann Sheridan, co-chair, leave it up for a second there. Co-chairman of the party from Michigan. And who's the other one? Michelle Lunggren. There's another one in there.

Maybe Salty can help me. That is the on the national committee. Friends with Rona McDaniels, who's the head of the RNC, niece of Mitt Romney. That's how far up all this goes. There's two 80 year olds in there and like six, 70 year olds. People are 70. There are 50, 60, 70s and 80s. Crazy, crazy. These are not kids, right, on a lark to try to overthrow democracy. So look, the point of this segment is that Dana Nestle gave her referral to Jack Smith and they were often running. However, she has the right as the top prosecutor first date to go after and protect the integrity of the election for all misogenders and to go after crime in her state, including the use of fake electors. So each one of them

has been charged with false statement, fraudulent election activity, conspiracy. And if you add it all up, they could get, you know, here it is. One count of conspiracy to commit forgery. That's the fake electric certificate, two counts of forgery. One count of conspiracy to commit uttering and publishing. That's of a fall statement. One count of uttering and publishing of fall statement can conspiracy to commit election law forgery and election law forgery. If you add all that up 14, 14, 14, 14, 5 and 5 years in prison, they're going away for

a hundred years in prison. And so what I like about Dana Nestle and what the better mouse trap is that she's designed is she has a blueprint here for attorney generals to go after the, some people in her state and stay clear of the federal prosecutor who could come in and put a cabosh for at least you know, and put a stay on her particular prosecution. She found a way to put a camel through the eye of a needle and say, I'm going to stay in this lane. I'm going after these 18 people. She could have went after Rudy Giuliani. She could have went

after Donald Trump. These are things that Fonney Willis, in Georgia, who's going to be indicted in the next two to three weeks, is looking at it because she's reached out to attorney generals like Dana Nestle and Jack Smith because she's trying to figure out whether it's worth it for her To broaden her Georgia prosecution and her conspiracy and Rico powers to encompass things like what happened in Michigan Understanding that these things did not these were dominoes lined up by Donald Trump that he needed to have fall all at one time He needed all seven. You know, it's like a, it's like an Avenger movie. He needed all seven jewels in order to destroy the world.

One wasn't going to do it. Georgia wasn't going to do it. Michigan wasn't going to do it. He needed all of them. And so there is an argument for that conspiracy, but that puts you on a collision course if you're Fawni Willis with Jack Smith. Data Nessil, turning general data Nessil's, doesn't.

And I think the other states, Wisconsin, Dana Nestle, turning general Dana Nestles, doesn't. And I think the other states, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, we know Arizona and Chris Mays has opened up because it's now public, her own criminal investigation. The issue with her is she had fake electors. She also had Donald Trump himself calling Rusty Bowers the Speaker of the House in Arizona, along with Rudy Giuliani, and do another stuff. I think this is just my observation. It would be better for the Attorney General to focus on the non-Trump defendants, the

non-Giuliani defendants, let Jack Smith have that, and focus on people and places and things within their state. What do you think about that, Karen? Look, I mean, it's clear that Dana Nessel viewed this as a federal election, federal fake electors. She made a referral to the feds and said, here, you know, a crime happened in my state, and I want you to do it. And it's clear she got tired of waiting, right? And she made the referral. She was hoping someone would bring that case.

And I think she needed to take care of what happened. She's not going to sit back and let people come in and forge, you know, lie on official documents to try and steal an election. You know, this wasn't just, these weren't just pieces lie on official documents to try and steal an election. You know, this wasn't just, these weren't just pieces of paper that were signed by people. And they didn't know what they were signing or anything like that.

You know, there's actual lies contained in this document. There's a quirk in Michigan law that's slightly different than other states that said, the electors have to sign the document in the state chamber, in the legislature. And they were sitting around going, but we're not there. Apparently where this happened was this was in the basement of the Republican National Committee where they signed the as document, but they instead knew

but there's this requirement that you have to certify that you did this in the legislature and, you know, so there's actually lies that are contained on these electoral certificates in addition to the signatures. And as you said, you know, these were people who knew better and, you know, it's important to not only hold the January 6th violent people accountable, but also the people who got us there, like these people who are willing to lie, you know, and get into a scheme, you know, with each other to interfere with

the peaceful transfer of power. And, you know, look, I love that she didn't cast the wide net and I love that she did it this way. But, you know, the thing is it's going to be interesting. It's going to be interesting to see how people react to Fannie Willis who is, you know, took, you know, this is, she's the Michigan state attorney general. That means for the entire state of Michigan, right? And her entire state, she's bringing this very narrow, small case on behalf of her entire state. Now, looks contrast that to Fannie Willis, who is not the attorney general of the state of Georgia.

She's the local DA in the Fulton County, which is just one county in the giant state of Georgia. And she's local DA in the Fulton County, which is just one county in the giant state of Georgia. And she's going to bring a several hundred page, we think, sweeping indictment, Rico, that's going to span the entire country, where she's going to not just charge Donald Trump with what happened in Georgia, but also with what he did in all these other states. And, you know, it's just interesting to see how two people who, you know, who are just in two different positions are taking an entirely different tack, you know, to this exact same issue.

I applaud both of them. I think it's important that,'s important that the individuals are held accountable to fake electors. Fannie Willis chose to give immunity to her state fake electors and instead go after the big fish, which is Donald Trump. You could see prosecutors, it's an art, it's not a science, and you make choices. I think Donald Trump is the bigger fish, and I do think it is worth giving immunity to the fake electors, in order to get Trump. So I don't know if general nestle is going to do anything to flip these guys or get them to cooperate or what she's going to do. She's just going to continue her case her way. But I do applaud Fannie Willis for doing it her way too to get the bigger fish, right?

To get Donald Trump and his co-conspirators, Giuliani, Cheesebro, Eastman, all the people who we think are going to be in her indictment. Again, we don't know, but this is just what we think. And just let's just all remember why that's so important, because let's say if Trump wins the election, or somebody else wins the election, they can pardon Trump for any crimes that he's been indicted, convicted, or could be indicted, convicted, of or future, you know, or could be indicted or convicted of.

And, you know, people ask, well, can he pardon himself, you know, while in office, you know, that's unclear. I'm sure he will try if he is, if he is elected president. But, you know, look, he could also declare himself unavailable temporarily under the, I think it's the 25th amendment, where, you know, then his vice president becomes president for five minutes and let his vice president pardon him. You know, that's how he could get around that easily. Like, there's ways that you can,

you can, he can achieve that, but he cannot nor can any president pardon for a state crime. So it's very important that Fannie Willis bring that case and Alvin Bragg bring his case against Trump these state charges. And that general Nessil in Michigan brings those state charges against those fake electors because Donald Trump, again, has already signaled. He's gonna pardon everybody who's incarcerated

from January 6th, you know, his, he has a, he, he, he, he had his, his gang of, of marauders, you know, Marjorie Taylor Green and all of them who, who have now tried to call them patriots and heroes, they're going to try to pardon all these people. So it's going to be up to the states to hold people accountable for January 6th in case, you know, I don't think he's going to win the election. I pray to God, he doesn't win the election, but in the off chance, you know, that he does, we don't want, we don't want any pardons. So I think these are important cases.

Everyone's, you know, this takes a village and everyone's doing their part, right? It's, it's big cases, little cases. It doesn't matter. Nobody is above the law. Nobody should be able to do what people have done and get away with it. So a couple of observations from the chat. People are concerned about the weight of your books

on your bookcase. And that they need to be sure about this book. I know, I know, I know, I know. That's one, that's one, two. They're very concerned that on occasion, when I get really excited, I know, I know. That's one, that's one, two, they're very concerned that on occasion when I get really excited, I don't say attorneys general, and I say attorney generals.

And so they want me to know that that's the, and I agree with that, that is the proper pronunciation. Some people are very concerned when you and I don't split the load exactly like when you have to go off and do something or I do and one talks more than the other. So there's no, we have a private chat going where I'll be like, how far can you take this or bring in or no, no, no, no. Let's, on Saturday's, Ben breaks out into a hot take.

There's nothing for me to say in a certain segment. And that's just the show. I mean, sometimes we get more excited about one particular topic than the other. I like that one. And then somebody, um, people are also commenting about Faudi Willis. They have a lot of hope as we do in Faudi Willis and what's going to come out of her indictment and heart and to see what attorney generals are doing who are, who are not subject to any kind of federal pardon shenanigans by Donald Trump. But I also agree with most people that, and I'm sure you do, that as excited as MAGA is for Donald Trump to run for office again,

there's just not enough MAGA in the world to put him back into office. And every time we say things like, I trust the American electorate as I trust the jury system. And yes, Trump won one time in the whole time I trust the American electorate as I trust the jury system. And yes, Trump won one time in the whole time that we've known him for something. But he was up against, frankly, a candidate,

even though we liked her that had Clay Feet and had a Achilles heel in Clinton, and a lot of baggage that she was carrying there. And including trying to break the glass ceiling. So, that one, I think, was an anomaly, but I think I trust the electorate to do the right thing and unbalance. I just don't think he's making any new voters.

He may be, of course, he's vibrating with his existing voters, but he's not making any new voters. I don't think, and the polls say the independence are not following him, the women, if they come out and people who support women, come out in droves and vote the way they have in all the special elections that have happened around the country, including about abortion rights and women's autonomy are going to just be a tsunami that's going to sweep him, you know, I'm clearly way out of office. He'll never get sight of it again. So I like away all those things. We're lining up for us now. I like that Joe Biden and the Biden administration are getting out on the trail and they're talking to

people about I find it fascinating as solid as the economy is right now, and it is. Gas prices having dropped a considerable amount that helps people in their pocketbook inflation down, very low numbers, unemployment down, very low numbers, a stock market up for people that have money invested in there in 401Ks and otherwise, you know, all of the social programs that have been passed by him, the infrastructure programs, I defy anybody on this chat or who watches the show, not to look out their door or near their homes and see a shovel-ready project and construction going on around them. That's all coming down, trickle down, direct injection by Joe Biden and Biden economics. All of that, the chip manufacturing,

that's going on here in the United States, getting us off of oil, bringing Wi-Fi and high-speed Wi-Fi to rural areas. I mean, these are all the things. This is the reason we voted for Joe Biden, and it's all happening. So for people to say in a poll, other than the economy stinks, then you're not looking at the metrics, but then again, Joe Biden needs to do a better job with his crew and his surrogates to sell all of the things that he's accomplished from day one and make people feel good about re-elect again, which they ultimately will. Well, Karen, I want to give you the last word. I wanted to do one little plug for the network and for the mightest touch, merch store and

all of that. People ask all the time and they're doing it on the chat right now. Well, let me comment on something right here. I agree that Karen Friedman Eknifalo needs an emoji. I am not in charge of emojis. It was a shock to me that I was the first one they rolled out or after Jack Smith. I have, I don't need to lobby for it. It should just happen. So you should write your lobby for it. It should just happen. So you should write your local congressman, you should write to the Midas Touch people and make this happen.

I don't think I wanna go on next Wednesday if there's not a KFA emoji. I'm just gonna put it out there. I truly believe that. That's one, two, the way to support the show and the way to support the network and all that we're doing and the hot takes and the programming and the content that you've come to love and enjoy. I hope on the Midas Touch Network it's all free.

Everything I'm going to talk about now except for buying a t-shirt is free. Free subscribe on the Midas Touch YouTube channel. It's easy. You just hit click and you've now subscribed. You'll get the notifications for shows like this one when they happen. And then on podcasts, when we do the podcast format, we end up on all the podcast platforms. Go on there. If you watched us tonight, listen to us tomorrow and vice versa, go back and forth. It helps with the algorithm, the numbers, and that all matters. When I tell you where the number four live show on YouTube tonight, that matters.

It matters to us. It matters to our sponsors. It matters to our ability to continue to bring you that content. Everything I just said is totally free. Rate us, review us. I sound like an Uber driver. Leave us a five star review.

It helps. We read them. It helps, we read them. It helps us get better as a podcast. So you do that. And then if you wanna walk around town wearing one of our outfits, yeah, why don't we wear the Michael Pope shirt? But you walk around to have wearing something

with our logo on it or have it as a coffee mug or something like that. We have a store, salty. What's the name of that store? The Midas merch, Midas store, sorry, store. store.minestouch.com. I do good ads except when I got to do an ad lip. And there you have, now that is our current set of wears.

I will tell you, because I just got off a series of text chains with Karen and the brothers and all. There is new merchandise coming with a new logo that you can buy that Karen helped design. It's like a Karen, it's like a Times Karen KFA collection. It's coming this summer. I don't know exactly when. Stay tuned and it'll be available. You like them. I think you like them and you like the shirts that we have for everybody. So that's what you can do for us. Then new development as of two days ago, if you want to find us in podcasts on the Midas Touch Network, you go to Live,

there's little tabs across, you go to Live and then go down, or you go into videos, and if you go scroll down far enough, you'll find Legal AF and all of our library of content, including today's show is there. But Ben, Karen, me and others do hot takes every day, every hour, about every minute.

And you can go find also separated by your favorite content provider, Ben, Michael, KFA, Texas, Paul, uh, Michael, KFA, Texas Paul, Tennessee Brando, and I'm leaving out a lot of people. You can go there and there is our individual, like if some people say, I don't, I hate Popeyes. All I want to do is listen to Ben's or Karen's hot takes. You can go and there's a section just for Ben's hottakes and there they all are or me or Karen or vice versa So that's new go to playlists in YouTube might as touch channel scroll over a few ways

You'll see playlists and then we're all separated by our individual names and that just started so That's the plug for the show because that keeps this thing this big blue wheel rolling Karen, I love giving you the last word no people people in the chat. I'm not going to cut her off. You got the last word before next week. I have a show on Saturday with Ben. Karen hit it. First of all, I can't believe I actually made Popok blush. I don't think I've ever done that before. I have to remember my father and my stepmother, hi dad, hi Tony, are watching live. So I have to watch what I say if I bid popock blush

because my dad's watching. But I was a sex crimes prosecutor for many, many, many years and I think we just got used to kind of talking about things very openly. So I'll try to remember that, you know, going forward because, you know, I don't want to make pop-up blush. But, you know, I'm, as for the merch and the new merch, I'm trying to convince Jordi to get us a pink shirt because I think that would be great. So we'll see if we can get that. If we get enough grounds

well, if people want pink, maybe we'll get a pink a pink one too. Yep I just that sound I just heard is Jordy's head exploding. Not another color combination. I can't take it anymore. But look I think one thing people like about the show and those that have watched it from the beginning I think you and I are probably on Those that have watched it from the beginning, I think you and I are probably on, wow, let's see, you got to be on episode 130 together. And go back and watch the old ones. We always were very collegial, friendly. We like each other as people and as colleagues, as lawyers. But I think we're getting better at what we do at podcasting.

I mean, I barely listened to podcasts before I became a podcast host and a founder of a podcast. So, you know, there's a learning curve related to that. But I, yeah, we're doing great. We're walking interrupt us. The dog, but I will also, it's a compliment to the audience because they've been patient and they've been growing with us because, you know, I don't know how many of those people, some of them, some of our audience are new to podcasting too. And so, you know, this is that natural energy, authentic energy that we bring to this

because we like doing it. And we like talking to our audience and bringing this, these politically charged litigation matters to you, but at the one hour and 51 minute mark, we preach the end of another edition midweek of legal AF only on the Midas Touch Network. We'll see you next Wednesday, Karen and me Saturday with Ben Micellis. Shout out to Karen's dad, my mom, legal AFers and the Midas mighty.