Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump and Fox had HORRIFIC WEEKS and Jack Smith ROLLS ON

Starting point is 00:00:00 We've got two big trials in the fight for democracy set for this April and big news in both of those cases this week. First, in the Dominion $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox in Delaware Superior Court, most of Dominion's motion for summary judgment filed against Fox was unsealed with text messages and emails from executives all the way to the top to Rupert Murdock and hosts of the most popular shows on Fox were released and it shows a concerted malicious effort to boost ratings at Fox by intentionally spreading election disinformation. We'll talk about Dominion's motion for summary judgment and the implications of these messages. Second, in the E. Jean Carroll Federal Civil

Starting point is 00:01:02 Law suit in the Southern District of New York against Donald Trump set for trial in April for defamation and civil sexual assault, a motion filed by Trump lawyer Alina Habba, and interestingly not Trump's other lawyers, including his new lawyer, Joe Takapina, this motion seeks to exclude evidence of other women accusing Donald Trump of sexual assault and excluding evidence of Donald Trump's own statements and recordings where Trump brags about sexually assaulting women. We will discuss what we think Judge Lewis Kaplan will do with respect to that motion. And it's not good for Donald Trump or Alina Abba. A theme on today's legal AF, how mega Republicans want to bury the truth and lie to you because sunlight is the biggest

Starting point is 00:02:00 disinfectant to fascism and mega propaganda. So to that end, we must also talk about how former Vice President Mike Pence is seeking to avoid Jack Smith-Sapina to appear before the federal criminal, Grand Jury in Washington DC investigating 2020 election interference by Donald Trump on the grounds, pencil edges of the speech and debate clause privilege in the United States Constitution. In essence, Pence is arguing that he should be treated as though he was a United States senator, not a vice president, and as though his observations about Trump's attempts to overthrow our democracy constitutes legitimate legislative work of a United States senator. If you are saying to yourself, what that is the legal version of what we are going to be or the non-legal version of what we are going to be explaining to you

Starting point is 00:03:05 also, just such a cowardly, cowardly person also. The terrorist group, the proud boys, they want to subpoena Donald Trump at their current seditious conspiracy trial taking place in federal court in Washington, DC. I mean, heck, the leader of the proud boysate, Tario, was hanging out with Trump at the White House on December 12th of 2020, just like partying there in the White House and probably doing much, much more. There's also a numerous, numerous litany of other connections between the Proud Boys and Trump and Trump's inner circle.

Starting point is 00:03:41 So we're going to explain what we think about this subpoena and what will federal judge Kelly do who's presiding over that case and finally portions of the Fulton County special grand jury report were released the non-important section the less important sections basically the introduction conclusion and section eight and section eight said that introduction, conclusion, and section eight, and section eight said that witnesses who committed perjury should be indicted. Those were the sections that were released, the other portions of the report, which actually contained the names of the people who the Special Grand Jury recommends be criminally indicted. Those were not released by Judge Robert McBernney to protect the due process rights of those who the

Starting point is 00:04:26 Special Grand jury recommends being dated. So what do you expect the gaslighting fascist coward, Donald Trump to do? Well, he claims, thank you very much, Special Grand jury for exonerating me when the exact opposite is true. Every single thing that disgusting individual does, that traitor does is just a complete and absolute lie. And we will tear those lies to shreds here on Legal AF. That's what we do. Ben Micellus joined by Michael Popak Donning, a new set of records today.

Starting point is 00:05:03 Michael Popak, How are you? Lyshredder, Michael Popak, Ben Micellas. When we started this show, it was all about investigations, arrests, and process and procedure. And now it's all about prosecutions and trials, trials, trials, just what we wanted to be. And the efforts by fascists, the efforts by these Maga Republicans to avoid testimony, how can they try to skirt out of it?

Starting point is 00:05:35 How can they try to obstruct? How can they try to stop the process because they are terrified of the truth. They are terrified of our legal system because when the truth comes out, you know, you see things that happen like with this Dominion Summary Judgment that was filed, which, look, we knew that Fox was engaged in horrific, horrific conduct, right? That's not a massive breaking news alert, foxes, a propaganda network. But when you see how the fascist sausage is actually made, there was something about reading these messages,

Starting point is 00:06:20 Popak, that viscerally made me want to puke. Because as you see, and it was also because, pop up that viscerally made me want to puke. Because as you see, and it was also because then you see occasionally the clips of these, you know, these tuckers and these handiies and these Laura Ingraham's, and like you know that they are propagandists. But when you see also how shallow, how callous, how opportunistic that these individuals will destroy our great democracy

Starting point is 00:06:54 for a few extra bucks is something that is just so vile, so sickening. And I hope, frankly, that dominion doesn't simply win. When, you know, I hope there is greater and broader action that is taken. And I hope that by highlighting what is actually taking place,

Starting point is 00:07:19 a movement to shut these fascist downs can take form. And people may be saying, oh, that's pie in this guy. Nothing's going to happen. Stop with the defeatist attitudes because here on LegalAF, here with the Midas Touch Network, we don't have defeatist attitudes, okay? We work, work, work for our democracy.

Starting point is 00:07:38 I understand the pessimism and there's a lot of reason to feel pessimistic when people want to bring you down. But we fight for freedom here on the Midas Touch Network. We fight for democracy and we expose the truth. And so I'll just read to you some of these messages that were in this summary judgment motion. And then Popeye, if you could break down also like just even what is a motion for summary judgment? Why is it rare that a summary judgment motion would be filed by a plaintiff in a case like this? Usually, it would be brought only by a defendant in a defamation.

Starting point is 00:08:20 So for a plaintiff to say, it is undisputed that liability has been proven. Let's go to damages is rare. And then I also want to get your analysis, Popok, regarding what you think the judge is ultimately going to do with this summary judgment motion, regardless the case is set for trial before Delaware Superior Court judge in April. But here are just some of the messages. Can I ask a question?

Starting point is 00:08:48 Can I, before you read off all of them and they're great, you've called them the Fox House. I'm not gonna go that many of them, because we need all of them. No, no, but I want you to put them. But let me frame it. The reason why these are important, and not just sort of interesting,

Starting point is 00:09:01 to find out how the on-air personalities or what Rupert Murdoch calls the big three Tucker, Hannity, Ingram internally. Why this is important in a defamation case is because in order for the plaintiff to minion voting systems to win here or smartmatic to win in Delaware and in New York, they have two cases. They have to pierce through the first amendment defenses that a media company immediately puts up under a line of cases under the Supreme Court New York Times versus Sullivan,

Starting point is 00:09:36 which gives normal reporters, normal reporting a broad insulation against suits like this, unless there is a showing of actual malice, a legal term that means you either know what you're saying or what you're promoting on your show is false or you let it happen with reckless disregard for whether it's true or false. So that's what all these emails go to, that they have established, this is what Dominion is arguing,

Starting point is 00:10:07 that they've established by way of these internal emails into the inner mind, the real thoughts, the transactional thoughts of these big three and others like Rupert Murdoch, that they actually never believed what they were reporting, that Dominion voting machines committed election fraud its machines had software that flipped votes from Trump to Biden. None of them believe that yet they let that go on the air time and time again.

Starting point is 00:10:33 These emails go to actual malice, which would defeat a first amendment defense. I'll tell you what I think is going to happen, but first I will tell you what my opinion is. If Ben, my cellist was the judge presiding over the case, and I got the emails and messages, I would grant the summary judgment here. I do not think the judge is going to grant the summary judgment. And this is probably a reason why I will never be a judge. I think what the judge will want to happen is to let this case go before a jury

Starting point is 00:11:10 because it is tinged, even though I do not believe this should be viewed through a political prism at all. This is objectively a fight for our democracy. Nonetheless, I'm giving you the perspective of the inner workings of the mind of a judge here. And I think what a judge would feel is if I granted the summary judgment with the first amendment defenses by Fox one, there's a likelihood it could eventually be overturned. 2. I mitigate my risk as a judge from such a bold decision like that. If I just throw it to the jury and let a jury ultimately make the ruling.

Starting point is 00:11:55 And then 3. There are those political considerations because judges are also in many cases elected officials in certain cases and they get promoted based on political considerations and We may like that or dislike that process, but ultimately I don't think the summary judgment will get granted Even though I think it should get granted. I think there are no disputed facts here when you see the messages that this was intentional and there are no disputed facts here when you see the messages that this was intentional and malicious by Fox. But let me, I want to get your perspective. I just want to read some of the messages, though, from Fox hosts and Fox executives. And this is what they were saying in text messages, emails at their depositions about Donald Trump and Trump supporters and the Trump supporters who were coming on Fox who they were platforming to lie.

Starting point is 00:12:56 Tucker Carlson, Sydney Powell is lying. Okay, that's what he said. Sydney Powell is lying. Tucker Carlson to his producer, Alex Fyfer, November 16. Laura Ingram to Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and text messages. Sydney Powell is a bit nuts. Sorry, but she is. Rupert Murdoch on November 19, 2020.

Starting point is 00:13:19 Really crazy stuff. This was in a deposition to the to Mead Cooper Fox News executive vice president of prime time programming. Do you believe as of November 6th that going on television to say that the election is being stolen would be a conspiracy theory answer? I agree that would not be based in fact at that point. This is Suzanne Scott, the Fox News CEO at her deposition question. You believe since at least the time that Fox News

Starting point is 00:13:50 called the election on November 7th, that Joe Biden was legitimately elected president of the United States, correct answer, yes. I believe that. And later in the motion, you see other messages from Susan Scott saying, early on in the process, we can't give these crazies an inch, but then they not only gave the crazy an inch, but they gave them the entire Fox platform. This is Steve Bannon to Maria Bada Roma. And

Starting point is 00:14:18 Bada Roma is one of the individuals who spread massive amounts of disinformation. This was Bannon talking about the plan. Here's the plan you need to execute, Fox. Quote, 71 million voters will never accept Biden. This process is to destroy his presidency before it even starts. If it even starts, we either close on Trump's victory or delegitimize Biden. That's the plan. Steve Bannon, that's November 10, 2020, uh, to Maria Barter Roma. Um, then you have Fox reporter

Starting point is 00:14:56 Lucas Tomlisson to Brett Baer. It's Dane who is the Fox's chief political correspondent. It's dangerously insane. These conspiracy theories and then Fox's internal fact check. Incorrect. Not evidence of widespread. Look, not no evidence of widespread fraud. Look, I could do 35 minutes or 40 minutes of this. In fact, I did. You could go watch the other video that I did where I read all of these messages. But as you go deeper and deeper into this motion, what you see is Tucker and Hannity were terrified that Newsmax were taking their ratings. They knew that the crazies were, that dethrum crazies. And this is what they call them, crazies. We're lying,

Starting point is 00:15:38 but that they had to platform to keep their ratings and to keep the audience there. So they decided that they were just going to lie and lie and lie again. And then when you see just like when they talk about their sources, what the lawyers for dominion were able to find out like with respect to like when Sydney Palo would be platformed and talk about the sources that she had, it was like from an individual who claimed that the wind, the wind, W-I-N-D would provide the information through a spiritual process. And that's how they got their information. And then that would be platformed on Fox as a source that told them

Starting point is 00:16:21 that information. I could go on and on and on, Pope. But I guess first, what do you make of my analysis of what you think the judge is going to do? And then let's get your overall perspective on this bombshell filing. Yeah, and the ones that I found, I mean, it's funny, you and I could both read 200 pages and two like-minded lawyers could find different things that you find fascinating,

Starting point is 00:16:45 that you wanna summarize for the audience. For me, the driving force in the emails and text messages where that Fox News was worried, as you said, about losing ratings, because once Biden won, all the eyeballs were moving over to CNN and MSNBC, and they didn't have a hook to keep their, their people, their people were less interested Fox viewers were less interested in hearing about a Biden presidency on a daily basis.

Starting point is 00:17:13 So they needed to create and gin up a fraud, which will and they just use dominion voting machines, a company, a voting system, a company's nobody's ever heard of and smartmatic who literally had one precinct that was their client in Los Angeles County and they decided that they were going to sacrifice this company, club them to death on national television under the guise of quote, unquote reporting. And no one ever believes Hannity, you know, Ingramham and Tucker Carlson are reporters. And we'll talk about the difference in a minute and why they don't get First Amendment protection. But it was apparent, I'll give you the one example

Starting point is 00:17:53 that I think you hit on your heartache, I know I did, is one of their Fox reporters, she fact checked a tweet from Donald Trump attacking dominion voting systems, the plaintiff in this case and said it said on her own fact checking, there is no evidence of dominion voting systems having committed any fraud. So you'd think, okay, that's a good thing. Fox did that. No, Tucker starts the email, the rest of the big three and say, please get

Starting point is 00:18:26 her fired. She needs to stop now tonight. And because she's killing the ratings. And that is, that's it. The mask is off. This is the MO. This is the modus operandi. This is the motive for attacking dominion and not caring about the fact that they were, they were shutting down this poor company who did nothing wrong other than they needed a foil for their ratings. And you see just more of that over and over again from a summary to answer your initial question. I agree with you. Although Eric Davis, the judge here who sits on Superior Court, yes, there is a feeder

Starting point is 00:19:02 program where the Superior court judges often want to go one level up. It's seen as one level up, prestige wise, and go sit on the chance to record of the Delaware. That's where that's the main business court. We're all the huge corporate battles happen, the Twitter cases and Elon Musk. It's really up the street at the chance to record. So a lot of them want to go there or they want to go to federal court. But if he wants to go there, right, it is political. But I think that Fox News is in deep crap because they were unsuccessful in their ability to keep these email secret all the way through trial, fortunately.

Starting point is 00:19:45 We had, we had spoken last week or two weeks ago about whether Eric Davis in trying to protect the due process and the rights of all the parties was going to keep a lot of this out of the public domain prior to trial. The answer to that is no, and not everything was released to the public, but a lot was, which you've referred to. And the standard for summary judgment is there has to be an undisputed factual record, undisputed facts that support the claims, in this case, defamation, libel, and the like. Usually issues like actual malice, which is the element, the new element, that the plaintiff has to prove in this kind of defamation, which I don't have to prove if I'm just sewing my neighbor for defamation,

Starting point is 00:20:32 because of the status of who people are. But here they have the extra burden plaintiff does to prove actual malice. Usually that's not able to be resolved on summary judgment, and you've got to go right to a trial. But here it's pretty compelling. Now they could point, we're going to see the opposition papers in the next few weeks, because Fox gets their say as well. And they're going to point, I assume, to counter facts that are now in dispute over the same emails.

Starting point is 00:21:00 You know, excerpts from the other parts of the deposition that aren't being cited to throw into the mix, at least suggest to the judge that there are issues of material fact in dispute. Therefore not right for summary judgment. Let's get to the trial in April. And it is very hard for a plaintiff on these types of issues. But look, if there's not a lot of counter facts on, you know, what 91 year old Rupert Murdoch said to the head of news for Fox about this is wacky stuff. Giuliani's crazy.

Starting point is 00:21:34 Why are we platforming them? That's pretty damning going towards actual malice. And I'm not sure you need much else. The other interesting thing about all of this is that their argument is we're just reporting the, we're just reporting the crazies. We're not in bed with them. And that's not what other courts have found already. The court of the, one of the appellate courts in New York in the smart mad at case, a very

Starting point is 00:22:00 similar case against Fox News said, no, you're amplifying. You are promoting every time you have an ad that says coming up next, watch Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell, Tara Partt, Dominion Voting Machines, the fraudulent company. The difference is if you and I are watching, I'm just throwing out a random one, you and I are watching NBC Nightly News. You can fill in the blank for any of your mainstream nightly news. And, you know, Lester Holt says, you know, today there was a press conference involving Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell at which they claimed that Dominion Voting Machines was

Starting point is 00:22:35 a fraudulent company whose software flip votes from Trump to Biden. Okay, that is probably protected, likely protected because there's no actual malice. If the next thing out of Lester Holtsmouth was, and I agree with that, I believe that that is probably true and that there's a lot of other fraud going on that needs, we need to get to the bottom of that's the difference. And that's what Fox News is personalities in their info, news, attainment do every show. And that is why they should not enjoy ultimately the protection that a New York Times, Washington Post, Phil and the blank enjoy because they're not there as reporters.

Starting point is 00:23:19 They're egging on their guests. They're selecting the guest with a viewpoint. They're putting them on and they're leaving the impression that this is actual factual news. And they're allowing this poor company and fill in the blank for the company, could be any company to get bashed mercilessly and defamed on national international television, because they're worried about their own ratings and losing money. That, ladies and gentlemen, is punitive damages. That is actual malice, and they're going to lose. Now, the question, if Fox News isn't

Starting point is 00:23:50 already in negotiations and discussions with the plaintiffs after the filing of the summary judgment, they better, they better hurry up and get in there because if they think they're going to do better in front of a liberal leaning Delaware jury, reminding people Joe Biden is from Delaware. Okay. The Delaware court system is skews and the jury skew liberal Democrat. It has a huge African American population. That jury is not going to be friendly to Fox News. And it could easily be, I knew people like us to talk about our practices.

Starting point is 00:24:25 I've seen juries as a trial lawyer, visibly and physically manifest their dislike for a party. By the way, they lean away from the lawyers in the jury box. They fold their arms during arguments that are being made. They roll their eyes. And you know, if, if Fox News thinks they're coming into some sort of friendly, maga, right-wing platform, they're not, this is a jury that is, that is not going to be their friends and

Starting point is 00:25:01 could hit them with a lorry. They think that's why the, I don't, I want to pick it up, I'm them with a lorry. They think that's why I don't want to pick it up. I ask you a question Ben. A lot of the focus of the public statements made by Fox by their press people focuses on not on the liability, but on the damages. They just think the damages are too high. Like how could this little company suffer

Starting point is 00:25:19 2.7 or 1.6 billion dollars worth of damages? Ha, ha, ha. You know what? If the jury wants to nail Fox News on a punitive damage model for a company that currently has $5 billion cash on hand as, as if it's last reporting to the SEC, one of the ways you do it is you make, you write a check for $1.6 billion that Fox has to, has to sign and cash. No doubt about it. And look, I mean, Dominion's economic model actually

Starting point is 00:25:50 seems to me to be fairly normal. I mean, they are a company that has a lot of contracts with various municipalities. They were a thriving company. It will be easy to bring in an economist who was going to show where they were headed and where they are now and that their name will forever be tainted because these Republican areas can't really hire dominion anymore like they used to. They'll be able to show the business loss that was caused by these conspiracy theories

Starting point is 00:26:27 and that it really destroyed the name of the brand. It embroiled them in something because as Fox admits, they platformed the crazies. They said we're not gonna give the crazies an inch. News Mac started giving the crazies, a platform Fox says, oh, we're not going to give the crazy's an inch. Newsmax started giving the crazy's platform, Fox says, oh, we're going to lose our viewers. We need to platform all of this disinformation. And it's basically what the Republican parties become as well.

Starting point is 00:26:59 You know, the Republican, it's like the primary process, right? You know, if you look at Fox versus Newsmax, you almost think about it in terms of a Republican primary. So if you're a Republican and there's a candidate, let's call them Newsmax candidate and you're the Fox candidate and you go, I'm going to lose this election unless I believe in QAnon and unless I become an election denier and I have to call insurrectionists political prisoners you're confronted with a test of leadership and it actually should be a very easy test because for you to get better ratings or more money or Win an election should not require you to be a disgusting fascist trader. You should look at Adolf Hitler and you should look at Mussolini and you should look at Kim Jong-un's

Starting point is 00:27:56 and you should look at the quest for power of despicable tyrants and despots and say that is horrific. That is bad. You shouldn't look at that and go, is horrific, that is bad. You shouldn't look at that and go, you know, that's a power. Hmm, that's a little bit interesting. And the problem, the systemic problem that we've always had recently though, that is being confronted, I think as Democrats are starting to get more vocal,

Starting point is 00:28:22 as the exhausted majority pro-democracy communities waking up, as we have more independent media though, is that you had this instinct by large media networks to then kind of both sides it and say, well, here's a perspective, and here's another perspective. And this is a conservative, and this is a liberal perspective, versus calling out, whoa, whoa, whoa. That's some fascist, crazy disgusting stuff. That's what needs to happen. It's happening more about it now.

Starting point is 00:28:54 I will not give you the political lecture here on legal AF, but we will give you the legal one, which is this trial is something we will be watching very carefully and giving you detailed reports on another trial that we are covering very carefully here and continue to give you detailed reports on is one that's also set to go to trial in April. This one is in federal court in the Southern District of New York. It's E. Jean Carroll's federal civil lawsuit against Donald Trump for defamation and sexual assault. That's before Judge Lewis Kaplan, the presiding federal court judge there. And this week, the big news was that Alina Habah,

Starting point is 00:29:40 who I guess is still on the legal team, you know, last week we were saying they brought in a new lawyer, Joe Takapina, who started making various filings in that, in that proceeding. And Alina Haba seemed to be sidelined, but I guess Alina Haba wants to flex whatever here, flex her muscles here and show that she's able to still file things. But she filed this really bizarre motion, which I think is going to be rejected fairly, fairly quickly. And it is to exclude evidence of other women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual assault

Starting point is 00:30:19 in the past as well as to exclude Donald Trump's own statements. And for example, audio recordings where he brags about sexually assaulting women, grabbing their genitals without consent, how he just kisses them and he can't resist and he uses these horrific terms. And also Donald Trump's general kind of statements about women over the years as well.

Starting point is 00:30:48 The argument in what's called a motion in limine filed by Alina Haba. And again, what's interesting too, and you pointed this out, Popak, and the hot take that you did, is that Joe Takapina is not on this motion at all, but this is what's called a motion in limine, or a motion to exclude information at trial, with the idea being, you can't unring the bell once a jury hears information. And so, even if the information may be relevant,

Starting point is 00:31:18 it is a test regarding its ultimate and missibility to balance the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial nature. And so in this motion, Haba argues that the prejudicial nature of all of this, the other women in the past outweighs the relevance to the jury. Popak, maybe break down a little bit. What these allegations are against Trump and what you think the outcome of this motion will be. Yeah, let me start with the return of Alina Habba.

Starting point is 00:31:53 I thought she was buried in the crypt as radioactive, one because she just went before the grand jury with Jack Smith to testify about her involvement with Mar-a-Lago and the documents and the searches there. And he's going to try to rip the attorney client privilege away from her on those issues, which is pretty bad. And of course, she got sanctioned for a million dollars, along with her client, Donald Trump, for filing meritless bad fate things. And she's in and over her head as we've reported in the past in going

Starting point is 00:32:25 up against Roberta Robbie Kaplan, the powerhouse lawyer, trial lawyer extraordinaire for E. Jean Carroll. And I thought all of that. And the arrival of Joe Takapina, not just as co-counsel, but he was identified as lead trial counsel. And that's what they reported to Lewis Kaplan. And that's what he considered himself to be fighting with Robbie Kaplan and the judge over that DNA evidence or testing related to the now well known black coat dress. I'm thinking Joe Takapina all day long, right? No more Alina Habba. Now you and I have been co-councils in other cases with other law firms.

Starting point is 00:33:07 Have you ever, I'll ask you a question, have you ever in your career where you've been a co-counsel, had your, one of the lawyers that your co-counsel with file a document on the court record and drop your name from it? No. Never. Never. And that's my point. Right, it's never, right. So the fact I want to make this, this is where the insider stuff we like to talk about. Joe Takapina is nowhere on the motion

Starting point is 00:33:34 that was just filed. His name's not on there, he's not listed there. It's as if he just disappeared. Like we got to send out a search party and put him on the back of the milk carton. Where's Joe Takapina? Because I thought he was the lead trial lawyer for a case that's going to trial in April,

Starting point is 00:33:48 but you can't tell from the motion. It's almost as if they're saying, hey, I got to file a meritless, bad faith motion. It's a loser. Let me look around. Oh, I got the perfect person for this. Alina Habba let her file it. And when I read the 21 pages

Starting point is 00:34:03 in which they're trying to do two things, well, three things. All the crappy stuff he said about accusers that have come out that have said me too, we've been sexually assaulted and attacked by Donald Trump. And it's not just the two women that we're going to put on the board now. It's not just the reporter for people magazine and a business woman who sat next to Donald Trump on an airplane. We'll talk about them in a minute. But he talks about, he had talked about on the campaign trail, all the other people that came out, the Playboy models, the, you know, Miss America pageant contestants, you know,

Starting point is 00:34:40 people on celebrity apprentice, all of it, you know, it's like Tiger Woods, you know, dozens and dozens and dozens of women came out. And he would talk about them on the campaign trail in recordings. So they want to bring those recordings in and all of his BS denials and macho, you know, lies on the campaign trail. So that, of course, that's exactly the kind of stuff that would be really, really interesting to a jury to hear about whether his behavior here and his denials here against E. Jean Carroll, in which he calls her a con artist, a fraudster, not my type, as he ever done anything

Starting point is 00:35:15 like that before. Is this a pattern and practice of his that the jury should hear about? The answer to that is yes. So you have the presidential speeches. The next thing that the Trump lawyers want to keep away from the jury to that is yes. So you have the presidential speeches. The next thing that the Trump lawyers want to keep away from the jury, which is exactly what should go to the jury, is the acts, the now infamous access Hollywood tape that was that was done in the early 2000s, but didn't get disclosed until just before the second presidential debate

Starting point is 00:35:42 in 2016 with Hillary Clinton. And that's the one with Billy Bush, where they were in a on a hot mic. They didn't know about in a in the production truck at which time he just starts talking. And I want to talk about the deposition where he where, um, E. Jean Carol's lawyer brings this up to him and what he says to her and her physical appearance next. All that thought, he and Billy Bush are just sitting shooting the breeze. And he says, yeah, when you appearance next, all that thought. He and Billy Bush are just sitting, shooting the breeze and he says, yeah, when you're a big celebrity, you're a big star like me,

Starting point is 00:36:09 I just like kissing beautiful women. I just go up and kiss him. I grab him and kiss him. You can get away with that when you're a celebrity. Sometimes I just grab him by the P word. I mean, this came out and this became, if everybody doesn't remember, we'll put a clip somewhere on the Midas Touch Network

Starting point is 00:36:26 where during the debate, it came up and he said, oh, locker room talk, I never did those things. That was just me, you know, shooting the breeze or whatever he said. That actually pissed off understandably so, at least two of his victims. And they've come forward and those are the people,

Starting point is 00:36:43 Natasha Stoynoff, the reporter for People magazine whose testimony under oath in a video deposition in the case here says that when she was covering a puff piece for People magazine on Donald Trump and Melania's one year anniversary in Mar-a-Lago, see it's all coming together now, while Melania was out of the room Trump put her up against the wall, tried to forcefully kiss her and said, one day, you and I'll be in an affair together. Crazy stuff. She wrote about that crazy stuff in the puffed piece in People magazine. She also claimed that she saw Melania Trump sometime after that on the streets of Manhattan, on Fifth Avenue near Trump Tower.

Starting point is 00:37:22 And that Melania said to her, and I'm going to do a terrible Melania accent. Natasha, why don't we see you anymore around Mar-a-Lago? Like she was the reporter, the beat reporter for the Trump family puff pieces and she wasn't there anywhere because she got sexually attacked. And and that conversation Melania hired a lawyer not to stop people magazine from running the story about her husband putting Natasha up against the wall and kissing her. She said, I don't remember meeting anybody like that on the street. So typical Melania, Melania, you know, faint praise, dams, Trump, right? Forget the part about the husband sexually assaulting somebody.

Starting point is 00:38:00 I don't remember meeting her on the street. Well, fortunately for Natasha's, a story off, she had a girlfriend next to her who overheard the conversation. So there you have that. The second person who's going to testify or at least going to try, and this is what they're trying to preclude her from coming in a trial is a business woman who was upgraded, unfortunately, from economy class to first class on a flight back in 1986, Jessica Leeds. She said that 20 minutes into the flight, Trump pulled up the center armrest and

Starting point is 00:38:34 started molesting her sexually, started touching her breast, trying to kiss her. And she told people contemporaneously at the time, including her then boyfriend, about what happened. So, you know, that's another badge of honesty, badge of truth that shows that they're telling the truth. And of course, Trump hates that. He doesn't want another person coming in just like E. Jean Carroll, the other fascinating thing or not, the fascinating things around. We should clip that post-production disgusting thing.

Starting point is 00:39:04 Is that in the deposition where Donald Trump was confronted with these, the testimony of these women by E. Jean Carroll's lawyer, Robbie Kaplan. He doubled down on the comments and made it sound eerily the same. For instance, when he brought up Jessica Leeds and about the comment about appearance, Donald Trump looked at Robbie Kaplan, a female lawyer and said, in effect, I don't think you're very attractive either. I'm not attracted to you either. Don't take that personal. So, you know, he was trying to, that was in retaliation for an earlier question that he didn't like from Robbie, where Robbie said to him, this

Starting point is 00:39:50 comment here about being a star or being celebrity and you're able to kiss women against their will, you consider yourself a star, you're able to do, yes, I consider myself a star celebrity. And then to pay your back, he decided to attack her looks and her appearance because that's who Donald Trump really is. All of this might have given him a little giggle with his lawyer out in the hallway during a break, but it's going to be up on a giant screen in video in front of a jury in New York, who's going to have to decide whether he really did these things. When he went after Natasha Stoinoff, the reporter for People magazine back in 2016, he said eerily almost the exact same things that he says about E. Jean Carroll now. He said she was a liar, which is exactly what he said about E. Jean Carroll, Khan

Starting point is 00:40:38 Ardors liar. And he said, basically, look at her. She's not my type. He said, I look at her in her dreams or something like that. It was almost identical. So, you know, we all know why they're trying to keep this stuff out. Now, the only balancing that Judge Kaplan's going to have to make here is whether as you laid out then, whether the, what we call the probative value, the relevancy that it goes to the heart of

Starting point is 00:41:05 an issue is outweighed by unfair prejudice to the defendant. In other words, it'll blow the jury's mind. But I think they lose that balancing test. I think Lewis Kaplan rules to allow this in. He may give an instruction to the jury around these issues so that they understand how to process this information as the trial or effect. But when you read Alina Habba's filing, whatever that is, she not only is it really short on case law because most of the case law goes against her in this area and her analysis of

Starting point is 00:41:43 the different rules is really pathetic. The primary focus is on a treatise, not on a series of cases. Treatises for those that don't do this for a living are like books and observations written by other lawyers about the law. Sometimes they're persuasive but usually judges are like, where's the caseload? Where's the caseload that you're relying on for this particular issue? And so she's got a beyond an uphill battle to win on any of these things. And I think Joe Takabina trying to preserve at least a shred of credibility in front of this judge who has eyeballs who sees the Joe's not on this motion is trying to get as far away and get behind a bomb shelter before the judge rules

Starting point is 00:42:25 against them. Obviously, this is something that Donald Trump, the client, wanted his lawyers to do. My interpretation is Joe didn't really want to do it. He and so he took the lawyer that will do anything for him and he made her file this motion. They're going to lose it. This case is going to trial. Leeds and stoydoff are going to testify. The access Hollywood tape is going to be is going to be played. And he's going to lose this case against E. Jean Carroll for civil rape and defamation. What about you Ben? I agree with you. Judge Lewis Kaplan has not made a single ruling in Donald Trump's favor, this entire case and not only that and ruling against Donald Trump,

Starting point is 00:43:11 unessentially every ruling has stated, you're trying to delay, you're engaged in bad faith practices, you're trying to further victimize the plaintiff in this case, stop it. That's what we see over and over again. I do not see Judge Kaplan in any way excluding this evidence, but we will keep everybody posted. They still have a lot to discuss on this episode of Legal AF. We got to talk about how former vice president Mike Pence is trying to avoid the subpoena by special council jack smith. We got to talk about how the terrorist proud boys have subpoena Donald Trump at their current seditious conspiracy trial, which is taking place right now. They took a brief break end of last week because one of the jurors was sick. And we got to also talk about this Fulton County special Grand jury report regarding 2020 election interference, the three portions that were released that is, but first, got to take a brief break from one of our sponsors. And here is your favorite Midas Touch brother delivering that message, Jordy Myceles. And now let's take a quick break to talk about our next partner,

Starting point is 00:44:22 Miracle Made. Did you know that your temperature at night can have one of the greatest impacts on your sleep quality? If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend that you check out MiracleMade's bed sheets. Inspired by silver infused fabrics made by NASA, MiracleMade makes temperature regulating bedding so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long. Using silver infused fabrics originally developed by NASA, MiracleMade sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at

Starting point is 00:44:50 the perfect temperature all night long so you get a better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with natural silver that prevent 99.9% of bacterial growth, leaving them to stay cleaner and fresh three times longer than other sheets. No more gross odors. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Clean sheets means less bacteria to clog your pores and fewer breakouts and other skin problems. Go to trymeracle.com slash legal af to try it today. And we've got a special deal for our listeners.

Starting point is 00:45:26 Save over 40% off and be sure to use our promo code Legal AF at checkout to save even more and get 3 free towels. And Miracle is so confident in their product, it's back with a 30 day money back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with MiracleMade. Go to trymeracle.com slash legalaF and use the code legalaF to claim your free three-piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymeracle.com slash legalaF to treat yourself. Thank you, MiracleMade for sponsoring this. And now back to the video.

Starting point is 00:46:09 Thank you, Jordy, for that. Can I say one thing about that before you move on? Jordy does the ads with our sponsors so authentically and so earnestly that I already have this stuff because I buy them to try them. I like I want to buy Miracleacle Made Again off of that last three. That's why, uh, Jordie's the, uh, Jordie Adman, my cellist. Let's get into the former vice president, Mike Pence, and his, uh, objection.

Starting point is 00:46:39 He's gone on a self-flagulating tour with mother this past week and talking about how the real... Did you just say mother? Yeah. The real important issues here, Michael Popock, as a Christian, as a conservative and as a Republican. And he calls his wife, mother, he does. I have a solemn obligation based upon those three things to stand before you all and say the most important thing here when I think about January 6th is the separation of powers argument embedded embedded in the speech and debate clause.

Starting point is 00:47:32 They almost separated his they almost separated his head from his neck speaking of separation. Michael Pope, here's the thing. Here's the thing. Here's the thing. As a Christian, as a Republican and a conservative, here's the thing as a Christian as a Republican and a conservative. Here's the thing. If you want to be had me, if you set up, if you set up the gallows, if you set them up outside, and you say kill mic bence, kill mic bence, what I'm

Starting point is 00:48:01 going to have to do is say, are you a Christian? And are you a Republican? Because if those two things match, I will say, take my head, take the head of my family members. You are a Republican. And this is important in our constant. If it's a rally, I'm there. If it's a Republican rally, you know, I'm there. Any chance for me to do my Mike Pence impression on.

Starting point is 00:48:24 And you're doing facial too. People, the YouTubers, I'm there. Any chance for me to do my mic pens impression on all of them? And you're doing facial too. People, the YouTubers, will really appreciate it. You're not only channeling the voice and the timber of mic pens, but now you're doing, I don't know if you realize you're doing it, you're doing facial. You're like your little eyebrows and the way you're squinting, it's, it's, it's, it's,

Starting point is 00:48:41 it's a candy. So, so here's the most important thing about, to mic pens is to now claim that he is actually It's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's it's with Article 1, Section 3, clause 4 of the United States Constitution, his ceremonial roles as the president of the Senate to him makes him a senator. And therefore, the speech and debate clause which protects testimony for legitimate legislative activities, as it's been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court with the seminal case of Gravel versus the United States that that immunizes him from having to testify about anything leading up to the insurrection and the insurrection itself. So just if we look at Article 1, Section 6 clause 1, what it says, this is known as the speech and debate clause, this is what Pence is citing. The senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their services to be ascertained

Starting point is 00:49:49 by law and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases accept trees and felony in breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same. And for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place. It's really that last part of this clause. And for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place. But then we go to Article 1, Section clause four, which also says the vice president

Starting point is 00:50:28 of the United States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided. So Pence's whole argument, you read these two clauses together, I'm like a senator. And therefore the speech and debate clause immunity applies to me. Now, a few observations, number one, what? Okay, number two, I'll give you the legal analysis, though. Look, the speech and debate clause doctrine has been expanded over the years. It doesn't just apply to members of Congress, members of the House of Representatives, or senators. It also applies, for example, to their legislative aides. And it doesn't just apply

Starting point is 00:51:12 to statements that were made on the House floors and their respective chambers or the floors and their respective chambers. It also applies under Gravel versus the United States to legitimate legislative activity that takes place outside the House chambers as well. For example, like legitimate legislative fact finding would be an example or committee meetings that take place outside. Or there is a question open,

Starting point is 00:51:40 outstanding amongst legal scholars, would independent or informal fact findingfinding also be constituted under the speech or debate clause privilege. But in Gravel versus United States, they also made very clear that there are exceptions, statements that are made to the public and statements made to the press are not subject to the speech or debate clause privilege, also non-legislative activity, as well as illegal conduct, exhorting, cajoling, threatening people, that would not be legitimate legislative activity.

Starting point is 00:52:16 So there are exceptions to the speech and debate clause that are recognized in Gervell versus the United States. So here, my analysis, then I'll get yours, Popakas. As a threshold issue, number one, does Pence even get to claim the based on this quasi-legislative role for a vice president that he's even entitled to the benefit of the speech or debate clause? I think he shouldn't be,

Starting point is 00:52:41 but assuming that he is, you go to the second part of the analysis here, which is, when does the speech or debate clause privilege apply? To me, if it applies at all, I don't think it should apply, it should only be while he has that ceremonial role. While he's actually there counting the votes on January 6th, not to all other conduct. But then you get to another inquiry, which is that it only protects legitimate legislative activity and observations about ongoing criminal conduct

Starting point is 00:53:13 by Donald Trump does not constitute in my mind or in the mind, I think of any legitimate legal scholar who should care about these issues or who has a brain. That should not constitute legitimate legislative activity. Finally, statements made to the press and PR are not subject to speech and debate clause privilege. And Pence has written a book.

Starting point is 00:53:34 He's spoken to the press. And so I could approach it. I think if I'm Jack Smith from that angle as well, which is, hey, I want to ask you about your statements to the press. That's a recognized exception under Gravel. So, you know, so at the end of the day, do I think that with the current composition of the Supreme Court can pens possibly assert some variation of this? I don't think he should, but I think that special counsel Jack Smith with the scalpel should

Starting point is 00:54:04 try to really narrow it and say, look, even if think that special counsel, Jack Smith with the scalpel should try to really narrow it and say, look, even if you accept this premise, which we don't, it will only apply to this instance, but not all the conversations leading up to the insurrection, not the communications about unlawful conduct that Donald Trump was engaged in, not the press statements. And I think special counsel, Jack Smith's absolutely going to fight that and continue to fight that. But it just shows you the roadblocks and the hurdles and the complexity of the legal issues at play here because when you give people like a pens or a Trump, the keys to these really awesome powers that everyday

Starting point is 00:54:49 citizens can't make a speech or debate clause privilege claim. They can't make executive privilege claims. And people who truly hate our country like pens and like Trump can manipulate and use that in ways that are very harmful, not its intention. And how many times have we now said on this show and elsewhere, this is the first time that this has happened. It's because what is unprecedented is not that a former vice president is having to be subpoenaed

Starting point is 00:55:21 by the Department of Justice. What is unprecedented, let's not gaslight ourselves, let's not be gaslit, is that a former president tried to have a violent coup to overthrow our democracy, to terminate our constitution, and to declare himself a king or an emperor. So this isn't all a disagreement amongst conservatives and liberals. No, this is a fascist coup that was foiled thankfully and a need for a pro-democracy civilization to gain accountability. Popok. Yeah, let me focus on a couple of things in that. The other code section, we got to look at us three USC code, three USC section 15, which

Starting point is 00:56:13 is the Electoral Count Act, which defines what the vice president's totally ceremonial role is. Literally envelopes are opened up in front of him, and he nods pondronderously and then bangs a gavel and declares the total right arithmetic is done in front of him by a clerk and he just says Seems right. That's it. In fact It is so ceremonial so non-legislative so not being a legislator that even his own own lawyer, Jay Michael Lutick, Lutick, who is the, really conservative Republican father of many, many of the law clerks and even Supreme Court justices in terms of jurisprudentially.

Starting point is 00:57:02 He ended up being at the last minute a counselor to Mike Pence through his general counsel Greg Jacobs, when Eastman and Trump was putting, were putting tremendous pressure on Mike Pence to quote, unquote, do the right thing to implement the fake electric strategy and scheme to not certify the election on Jan 6 to put it off 10 days or more in order for state legislation, legislate tours, mainly Republican to, you know, come up with these fake elector certificates and send them in and throw it over to the House of Representatives, taken away from the will of the people and let the primarily Republican state legislation legislation, legislator, sorry, elect our president.

Starting point is 00:57:51 That was the scheme. In order for that to work, Mike Pence as the, as the last line of defense had to go along with this. And so Mike Pence refused to do that and in and and to get some courage to get some gumption to get some legal advice. Greg Jacobs brought in at the last minute, this former well regarded Republican federal judge, Ludic, who told Mike Pence, you cannot do the John Eastman plan. It is unconstitutional. it is unprecedented. You will go to jail. It is that is a coup. And relying on that, Mike Pence said, I won't do your impression. Mike Pence says, this I cannot do,

Starting point is 00:58:35 I have a job to do. It's one thing and it's ceremonial and it is just to certify the tally made by the clerk of the electoral votes. And that's all I'm going to do. There's a lot around that that Mike Pence, not as a, as part of the legislation or legislator, he's not a legislator. He is not. He is a constitutional officer. He is the vice president and he has powers related to that. And he does have this other type breaking power, but that does not mean he gets the benefit of having, as you said, the protection

Starting point is 00:59:06 of speech and debate, which goes to allowing people who are making law and those that work for them to do so without being hauled into court or being examined by another branch of the government. You know, it kind of keeps everybody in their lanes in the co-equal branches of government that we have in this country, what he refers to as separation of powers, but it doesn't fit here when he doesn't, he's not serving in that role. I mean, I took a White House tour once and I got to see the White House, but that doesn't make me the president. And I don't have his powers.

Starting point is 00:59:40 And that's sort of where we're at with this. The interesting thing about it is most people that have a brain in their head, like Jay Michael Ludwig, who was the lawyer for Mike Pence, has said Mike Pence is wrong about objecting to the subpoena. Even his own lawyer says he is wrong,

Starting point is 01:00:00 putting up speech and debate and any other separation of powers, not to testify in front of the grand jury about the pressure that was put on him by Donald Trump as part of the John Eastman scheme and the fake electric scandal. The testimony that we already know from the Jan 6th committee that a secret service, a person, officer, tried to get and Mike Pence into a car and whisk him away from the capital and from his constitutional duties and he refused to get into the car.

Starting point is 01:00:33 He needs to testify about that. He needs to testify about conversations he had with Donald Trump about this coup in search of illegal theories. You like to call it. He has to testify about that. We've already had a dress rehearsal for these very same arguments with a real senator in Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham, when he was pulled in, in compelled to testify in Fulton County for Fawney

Starting point is 01:01:00 Willis and her special purpose grand jury that we're going to talk about a little bit later today. He also threw up speech and debate. At least he had a colorable argument that he is part of the legislature and he is a senator. Now, the judge didn't buy the argument that he has this blanket speech and debate clause privilege immunity, which is what Lindsey Graham was saying. He said, no, for certain of the things you did, the phone call to try to find ways to throw out properly cast mail-in ballots in Georgia, like all that stuff and other conversations you might have had with the Trump campaign and the Trump officials, you're not, you're not, you're not making law. You're not part of, of, of the legislative process. You're outside of that. And so go testify. And

Starting point is 01:01:46 on question by question basis, the judge said there, I'll be available to decide whether the speech and debate clause is applicable. He took that up to the to the 11th Circuit and the US Supreme Court and they said what she did was fine. This is how it's going to come out with Mike Pence. This is going to be a loser argument that's brought in front of first barrel howl, at least for the other couple of weeks, while she stole the grand jury chief judge until she's replaced by seniority by the next judge, Jeb Bozberg, who's also a Democratic appointee

Starting point is 01:02:19 by Obama, so we shouldn't worry too much. And if he doesn't like the result there, he's going to take it to the DC court of appeals where he's not going to have a favorable audience either. And if he doesn't like it, he's going to try to get the right wing majority of the US Supreme Court to rule it as favor. We have a lot of trepidation about the US Supreme Court in most matters and for good reason. However, when it relates to presidents and vice presidents testimony and power documents,

Starting point is 01:02:47 they basically have cited every time with the Department of Justice. Now, we'll have to see has this thing plays out. But based on the precedent of Lindsey Graham and how that worked its way through, the court system, Pence is going to lose. Pence is going to have to testify. He doesn't have that privilege. They'll have a fight about executive privilege. Maybe they have a fight about attorney client privilege,

Starting point is 01:03:06 although I think he's now waved that in a number of ways, but he's gonna testify, and it's gonna be in the next four to six weeks. Yeah, I think that Pence is gonna fight it. It's gonna go to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. He'll probably be talking about an emergency application filed before the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court's gonna do

Starting point is 01:03:32 what they previously done, which is gonna make everybody really upset at the United States Supreme Court, though, because they're going to give a period of time where they're going to stop the testimony of pens from taking place, while they receive briefs stop the testimony of pens from taking place while they receive briefs from the Department of Justice as well as from pensis lawyers. And then ultimately they're going to

Starting point is 01:03:51 make a determination there. And I think that it's going to look a lot like the ruling that we saw in Georgia, which is going to be ask certain questions are okay, certain questions, you know, try to avoid, and then Pence can make certain objections at that point in time, and then Pence will try to drag it out again. Ultimately the Department of Justice is going to get what they want, but these are one of the tactics of coward, traitor, fascist. There's no other way I can say it like, this is very cowardly. It's just cowardly, cowardly, cowardlyly because even as a reporter as Pence, why wouldn't you just voluntarily want to tell the truth? You wrote a book about

Starting point is 01:04:33 it. Why not just go under oath to help our democracy? And then I do the impression of Pence, though, where Pence says, well, the really big thing here is the separation of powers. I should know. No, no. You know, and then when they go, oh, we love our Constitution. No, you love manipulating the Constitution. You love that the Constitution can be malleable based on your interpretation. If you don't like that, the second amendment says a well regulated militia.

Starting point is 01:05:04 Let's just pretend that it doesn't say that. Let's just read the right to bear arms. Let's take out well-regulated militia. Then let's say the right to bear arms means that everybody gets an AR-15 regardless of any training. Check the box. That's what we get because of the gun lobby. Let's just manipulate the Constitution there.

Starting point is 01:05:23 Wherefore states rights here until we actually want to make sure that we can control the bodies of women and tell you who you can marry. In that case, we want the government, the federal government to step in and big government can control a woman's body, control who you marry, control your day-to-day activity, like a fascist state. So we're for it when it's for us, we're against it when it's against us. And that intellectual dishonesty is really problematic when you are trying to approach it

Starting point is 01:05:56 from a prism of intellectual honesty and consistency when you have people who constantly lie and gaslight. I could go on that. You know what the thing about? Yeah, the thing about Pence that always I always find maddening is he thinks it's enough to stand in front of a press conference and say, I've already said everything. I need to say about Jens six. Trump was wrong. I didn't have that power and it was a dark day. Let's move on. No, that's not enough. We've got a criminal investigation about a former president president at the time who tried to commit a coup. You were a lead fact witness who observed many of the aspects and elements of it as outlined by the JAN-6 committee.

Starting point is 01:06:39 And now you're gonna have to, you know, you know, you have to take the good with the bed. And now you're gonna have to, you know, you have to take the good with the bad. And now you're gonna have to sit in a box, swear under oath on that Bible that you love so much. Look, the jury, grand jury in the eye, and testify honestly about all the things that went on. And no, you don't get the benefit of just take my word for it. He was wrong and I was right and I did the right thing and let's move on.

Starting point is 01:07:04 And it's not enough. That's not a criminal prosecution and that's not how our criminal justice system works where no one is above the law, certainly not the president of the United States. Speaking of which, the terrorist group, the Proud Boys, they're currently engaged in their seditious conspiracy trial. This is the third seditious conspiracy trial brought by the Department of Justice in connection with the January 6th insurrection, the oath keepers, one number one, not W-A-O-W-O, and they lost, and the two top oath keepers there in the first trial were convicted of seditious conspiracy in oath keepers two, oath keepers trial 2, all five of the Oathkeepers were convicted of seditious conspiracy.

Starting point is 01:07:49 Now this is the proud boys staring down those same seditious conspiracy charges. In addition to all the other felony claims that all of the other terrorist groups were charged with and mostly convicted of, on each and every one of those felony counts as well. One of the proud boys here in this case, Joe Biggs, his lawyer, and the other proud boy said that they wanted to send these subpoenas. So the fact that Biggs is doing it doesn't mean that the others don't want to do it. So just the proud boys generally are subpoenaing Donald Trump, though. And their lawyers are basically saying,

Starting point is 01:08:26 look, the Department of Justice is essentially, uh, intimate, you know, essentially saying Trump was a criminal code conspirator here. They showed the Trump debate, uh, uh, in the opening where it was the proud boy stand back and stand by. We have all this evidence of Trump's links with the Proud Boys. So we want to call Trump in our case. So they sent out a subpoena. There's the subpoena for those watching. For March, March appearance by Donald Trump to give enough time for this subpoena to be served. Ironically, the Proud Boys said that we'll rely on the government for help serving Donald Trump. So we'll let you know government for help serving Donald Trump. So we'll let you know if service is effectually,

Starting point is 01:09:07 but the subpoena has been prepared. This isn't the first time that an insurrection is trial, they've tried to subpoena Donald Trump, but to be honest, though on this one, it feels like they actually have the best shot at it. I don't know if, you know, what Judge Kelly, the federal judge, presiding over it is going to do here, but let's remember that there's lots of links between Trump and people like Enrique Tario and Joe Biggs and some of the other proud boys who are being tried here.

Starting point is 01:09:40 Look, Enrique Tario went to the White House and got a very special tour on October, on December 12th, rather of 2020, like right before the January 6th insurrection. And he posted it on his social media platform and said, I got this unexpected invite. And he got to be in places in the White House that normal people, almost anybody, including dignitaries, don't get to see when they do White House tours like he was in the residence He took a photo on the balcony of the presidential residence and took a photo right at the front of the White House And the way I've described it on another one of my hot takes though is imagine Bill Clinton inviting Timothy McVey to the White House Before the Oklahoma City bombing and to me it is that serious. I'm here after or after or after,

Starting point is 01:10:26 but but but the analogy to follow here though is is that this was before the January 6th insurrection. It was undisputed that Enrique Torio was a terrorist. It's undisputed that the proud boys as a terrorist organization. And here's the thing again with the bolt sides is like the proud boys are not conservatives. Okay, they're not like these are like Republicans and conservatives that know that these are terrorists. These are terrorists who want to overthrow our democracy. And it is disgusting. It is sickening to have these individuals at the White House to have Enrique Tariy at the White House before. And then the Willard Hotel, which is a five star hotel in in Washington, D.C., leave it to

Starting point is 01:11:07 maggot to totally defile that historic hotel by the White House. But they used that as home base for the January 6th insurrection. I'm glad it wasn't the Hay Adams. I like the Hay Adams so too. And they had a lot of people in their in Trump's inner circle who were communicating with the proud boys and had direct communications with them. And then the proud boys even like showed up at the willard. So there's all those connections. So to me, it doesn't seem like a frivolous request. To me, there still is going to be the question of is Trump a necessary,

Starting point is 01:11:46 you know, witness here and ultimately is it, you know, is it just going to be a distraction? Is it an admiss? But if anyone's got a shot, I feel like, I feel like there's a valid reason why they want a subpoena, Donald Trump. What do you think? All right. Well, let's talk about this. First of all, let's talk about the process of issuing subpoenas.

Starting point is 01:12:05 Officers of the court lawyers are allowed to issue subpoenas. It doesn't mean that the judge has blessed it. It used to be back in the day clerks of the court had issue subpoenas, but in federal practice, any lawyer in a case can attempt to issue. Issue of subpoena just means have it typed up. We showed a picture of it. Then you gotta get it out and have it served in between. We know the Department of Justice

Starting point is 01:12:31 is going to object to the subpoena and move to quash it even before service. It's the one place they're gonna be on the same side as Donald Trump because they do not want the circus of Donald Trump being brought into a courtroom, which I don't think, will ever happen in this particular case, because it's really irrelevant to any, to the prosecution, of course, the fact that they thought they heard Donald Trump tell them to do something as a

Starting point is 01:12:58 motivation or as a defense to their men's rea in front of a jury, I think so losing argument. You're going to see a strong motion filed by the Department of Justice to quash this as a defense to their men's rea in front of a jury, I think so losing argument. You're going to see a strong motion filed by the Department of Justice to quash this subpoena so that it never sees the light of day and certainly never gets into a process service hands to serve on Donald Trump. As you said before, others have tried this strategy and all have failed. Dustin Thompson, who got arrested and walked out of the Senate chamber, or the House Chamber with a stolen bottle of booze and a coat rack, he tried this and

Starting point is 01:13:33 the jury came back in two and a half hours and convicted him of every count and he was sent this for three years in prison. Now let's talk about for a minute, the lawyer that's doing this for Joe Biggs. This is being issued by Joe Biggs's lawyer, Norman Patis. Norman Patis, a very well-known criminal defense lawyer in Connecticut. You may remember him because we've talked about him on prior podcasts. He's the lawyer for Alex Jones in the Sandy Hook trials in Connecticut. And he got severely sanctioned by the judge for allowing secret and medical information of the parents of the Sandy Hook children

Starting point is 01:14:14 to go out to people that were outside the scope of the protective order. She ordered him without going through a bar committee or anything. She ordered him as a punishment suspended for six months for that bad behavior. In fact, he just got his suspension stayed by the Connecticut Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in Connecticut just five days before he appeared in court in front of Judge Kelly in the Proud Boy case to file this

Starting point is 01:14:46 subpoena. He had been gone for most of this trial and sitting on the sidelines because his license was suspended. So on the 13th, the Connecticut court lifts the suspension for now while they let it a full appeal go forward. He pops into court, mentions in court casually, I'm thinking about subpoenaing Donald Trump. We're working on it right now. And then here you go. It's a side show. Norman Patis is known for this. He takes very, very, um, unlikable, um, cringy type defendants. I'm okay with that. In general, every criminal defendant needs a lawyer, but he seems to relish becoming the focus

Starting point is 01:15:27 of the trial himself. He does outlandish things, you know, for instance, in the, in the, just to remind everybody, I think you and I talked about this, Ben, in the Sandy hook trial, he tried to subpoena Hillary Clinton. So this is a page out of Norrb Patis' book to kind of get attention, take it away from his clients, have some sort of fist fight with the Department of Justice, which he thinks he wins even if he loses. My prediction, it's gonna get quashed. Judge Kelly's not gonna let the subpoena go out, ultimately. Donald Trump's not coming into the Proud Boys trial. They're gonna get convicted based on the overwhelming amount of evidence against them that establishes

Starting point is 01:16:05 that they committed all of these crimes, including from their own social media, from their own video evidence, from their own, what they thought were confidential communications that are going to be put up on the board and up on the video screen in front of the jury, just as it was for the oath keepers one and two. And they're going down here as well. And that's the last time that Erika Tariya we're gonna have to think about him going to Mar-a-Lago for dinner because he's gonna be in an orange jumpsuit

Starting point is 01:16:29 for a long, long time. Well, and next week you have Jeremy Bertino who should testify assuming that the jurors feel better. And Jeremy Bertino was the leader of the North Carolina Proud chapter, uh, who has already pled guilty to seditious conspiracy, who was part of this group, who will be testifying against the group, who was on their confidential. They thought were confidential encrypted chats, which are not confidential. Um, and he has all the information. And so his testimony should be devastating

Starting point is 01:17:03 when that occurs next week or the week after if there are still some jurors who are sick. And so his testimony should be devastating when that occurs next week or the week after if there's still some jurors who are sick. And finally, let's talk about the Fulton County special grand jury report portions were released earlier in the week. We talked about the judge who had been supervising the special grand jury judge Robert McBerney who I think has been doing a very very good job here Very even handed in the approach has made some rulings that also were work were critical of the District attorney in some senses, but ultimately allowed the process and witnesses to that had to testify to testify. This wasn't there was no games manship here. The judge didn't put himself above the process like the judge did everything

Starting point is 01:17:53 right, including this decision, I believe. So earlier in the week, Robert McBerney basically said, look, there are the statute in Georgia says that if the grand jury, the special grand jury states that they want this published, under Georgia law, it says, shall. It says, I shall make it public. However, we need to balance that against the due process rights of individuals whose names may be mentioned in the report, who the Fulton County District Attorney, Fawni Willis says that indictments are imminent.

Starting point is 01:18:32 And we want to be very careful and protective of the due process rights of individuals who may be indicted, who some may be who have shown up before the grand jury, special grand jury and others who may not have even had the opportunity to go before the special grand jury. For example, right here for those watching and for those just listening, I'll read for you a portion of McBernie's order regarding these due process considerations that he issued earlier in the week.

Starting point is 01:19:03 He said, look, these due process concerns are particularly true if the Grand Jury spinal report includes recommendations involving individuals who never appeared before the Grand Jury. And so had no opportunity limited or not to be heard. And as I said, that seems to be a reference to Donald Trump, because there were 75 witnesses who appeared before the special grand jury, including most people in Trump's inner circle, other than Trump. And there's lots of speculation that one of the names in the report that Fulton County District Attorney Fonney Willis was presenting evidence against and who the grand jury recommended be indicted is Donald Trump. So in many senses, the decision to not release the full report, but only portions of the report that don't release the names of the individuals who are recommended to be indicted,

Starting point is 01:20:02 the introduction, the conclusion, and ultimately section eight. In many ways was to protect the due process rights of people like Donald Trump and others. However, that was of course twisted by Donald Trump in a way that he said, let me inject disinformation into the process before we put up the post that Trump had though, one finding that was published in the special grand jury report, though, is that they found by a unanimous vote. There were 26 members that composed the special grand jury. There were three alternates, but all voted that with all of the evidence presented, there was no election

Starting point is 01:20:45 fraud in the 2020 election in Georgia, capable of overturning the results there. So the only finding that has been made public was a direct rebuke of Donald Trump's disinformation and conspiracy. But Donald Trump posts complete exoneration. Let's show the post that Donald Trump made. Thank you to the special grand jury in the great state of Georgia for your patriotism and courage. Total exoneration.

Starting point is 01:21:16 The USA is very proud of you. On the one hand, Donald Trump is doing this to inject this information to use the due process considerations that he's been afforded or that the other people, his name's not in. I think it is, but the due process considerations that other people who are being recommended for criminal indictments have been afforded to basically say, look, my name's not in there at all. I've been exonerated when actually this was done to protect his due process rights. He wants to destroy our constitution, but he wants to also use our constitution's protections to inject this information for his ultimate goal of overthrowing it.

Starting point is 01:22:04 But I think something else is at play too here. And I've said it before on a hot take and I've said it before I think on the political beat down show I do with Michael Cohen. One of the reasons Trump employs this tactic though also is because his name is likely in it. He wants there to be a leak, whether it's the Fulton County DA or a member who is on the special grand jury who gets pissed off at the disinformation that Donald Trump states. So then it gets out somewhere. There's a report or a leak or something that happens

Starting point is 01:22:41 where someone says, no, Trump's name is in the report. He's allying to you. He wants to bait that to happen. And why would he want to bait someone into saying, no, your name's in the report? So he could play the victim. Because that's what they love to do in Maga Republican world. And then they wanna go and say, oh,

Starting point is 01:23:01 you see the judge was trying to protect the due process rights and now you violated the judge trying to protect the due process rights. And now you violated the judge's protections of my due process rights. So I can't be convicted or you need to overturn my conviction if it is convicted. That's the tactic of these of the victim mentality of a mega Republican, the disinformation as well as trying to bait that to happen. So I can go, whoa, who is me? Whoa is me?

Starting point is 01:23:26 Just pull up another one of Donald Trump's posts, though, where he claims that these were the most important sections when they were not, they were the least important sections. So Trump writes, the long awaited important sections of the Georgia report, which do not even mention President Trump's names, have nothing to do with the president because President Trump did absolutely nothing. Everybody talks about himself on the third person. Right. I mean, in this one, just every sentence has like three times where he does it.

Starting point is 01:23:56 And he's not the president. The president participated in two perfect phone calls regarding election integrity in Georgia, which he is entitled to do. In fact, as president, it was President Trump's constitutional duty to ensure election safety, security, and integrity. And it goes to the next one. Between the two calls, there were many officials

Starting point is 01:24:17 and attorneys on the line, including Secretary of State of Georgia, and no one objected, even slightly protested, or hung up. President Trump will always keep fighting for the true and honest elections in America. That's a lot. That's a lot. That's a lot. Every single thing there is a lie from the fact that even calling himself president, saying

Starting point is 01:24:36 it's the most important sections. These were not the most important sections. He was absolutely not exonerated. On the phone call, they were objecting to it. They were telling him, what are you talking about? We can't do that. You are wrong. And then Donald Trump's last point is because they didn't hang up the phone on me that that's

Starting point is 01:24:56 why it was a perfect call. Who calls a phone call a perfect call? This is a, like, here's a thing too, where it's like the gas lighting of large media networks too. Like, this is a maniac. Like, this is a fascist, maniac, weird trader. This isn't a politician, right? Like, this is a poisonous, cancerous, destructive force. This is no difference than if, frankly,

Starting point is 01:25:27 if Vladimir Putin was living in Florida and posting and wanted to run for office in the United States of America, we cannot blind ourselves to what this is that we're reading. And I don't think other than on the Midas Touch network, other than on legal, legal, I have forage, I don't think other than on the Midas Touch network, other than on legal, legal, legal, I have forage, I don't even think it's being covered. I don't think it's being covered. How do you not cover this? Pope, yeah. First of all, it's not a thing that

Starting point is 01:25:56 if the party that you are extorting doesn't quote unquote object or hang up the phone, there's no crime committed. Another thing that Donald Trump has made up, first of all, he's wrong because Raffin's burger at his general counsel did object to being shaken down on the phone call by Donald Trump in a classic case of election interference, but that's not a thing, okay? That's not a thing that, well, they didn't object, so it was a perfect phone call, no crime was committed. I think the, you know, your outline of what happened with these three relatively minor sections of the Grand Jury report that that in balancing his, the judge chief judge, McBernie or judge McBernie's duties

Starting point is 01:26:39 and responsibilities to protect people in the due process, especially unnamed people from having their rights violated in advance, balancing that against the shall publish requirement of a document like the Special Purpose Grinchurri's report, I think he struck the right balance. I think he kind of gave a little bit, you know, a little bit of, through a little bone to the media who were seeking to have the entire report released and balanced that against what his prosecutor, who he reminded everybody

Starting point is 01:27:11 in his order, that report, the Special Purpose Grand Jury Report, that wasn't for me, that wasn't for the judge, that was for the district attorney, and there's only one physical copy of it, and that's with a district attorney. So this isn't a public document in that sense, but I do have to listen to the will of the special purpose grand jury, and I'm gonna give these three relatively minor, and we say relatively minor because it doesn't list the charges, it doesn't list the people,

Starting point is 01:27:41 it just talks about somebody committed perjury, maybe more than one person. And Donald Trump's like, well, wasn't me. I didn't testify. So I could, that's one place I couldn't have committed perjury. And any, like you said, he writes what he writes. But here's, here's the thing. I agree with you that he's baiting and goading and trying to get somebody to step out of bounds and violate the secrecy of the grand jury process. I'll tell you who it's not gonna be. It's not gonna be Fonney Willis.

Starting point is 01:28:09 Fonney Willis issued a one-line press release after she read Judge McBernie's order and said, yep, seems like a very prudent thing he did. We're not gonna appeal. Okay, now the media's got a decide if they're gonna appeal. Because the media is the petitioner that actually sought to have this released, they could appeal to the next highest level of pellet court in

Starting point is 01:28:30 Georgia and have them decide ultimately whether the entire report needs to come out. But I think this is going to be a very stale, much to do about nothing argument, because I think this will put an accelerant on the decision, the tough one, hard one, but once she gets paid to do, that Fawney Willis is going to make in the coming days, week to, to move for an indictment, to go in, as you said earlier, I think we did this on, on our midweek edition this week. She may already be presenting to a regular grand jury. This report and bringing in some live testimony to get her entipment.

Starting point is 01:29:07 I don't think so. I think she would announce it. She's announced everything else. She announced that she had made her decision, how she was gonna make her decision, that she was gonna have a special purpose grand jury, that it was gonna be for a limited duration in time, that it issued its report.

Starting point is 01:29:23 She's given us the TikTok all along the way. And one that McBernie has required her to do now in his order, which was, I want regular reports. It may not be public. It may still be confidential about the pace of your investigation and your prosecution decisions. But I think she stands in front of a podium and announces that she's going into a regular grand jury with under her arm this huge report

Starting point is 01:29:45 with all the evidence already there, which is proper here, say that she can bring into a grand jury in Georgia, as opposed to other places like in New York, where you got to do it all by live witnesses, testifying as fact witnesses who have knowledge and grand jury Georgia, not the case. She can bring in the report, have excerpts of it, read out loud, have testimony, prior testimony,

Starting point is 01:30:08 read out loud. I think she brings in Karen Friedman, McNifalo, our co-maker on Wednesdays, as a former prosecutor agreed that she's probably gonna bring in a couple of live witnesses, just to spice it up and get the jury to pay attention, the regular grand jury. But I think she announced she's going for indictments

Starting point is 01:30:23 and I think, I don't know if it's gonna be our midweek edition or it's next Saturday, but I think, you know, by early March, you know, I think she's going to, she's going to move to indict whether it's for election fraud interference or the bigger civil rico racketeering and corrupt organization act a mob type case that she's very skilled at doing. Then she has experts on her bench at the prosecutor's office who were brought in just to be civil rico prosecutor. So she likes using this type of technique and tool. I think we're new and I

Starting point is 01:30:58 are going to be talking about. And it's not if it's when. And I think this moves hurt them. This moves the clock closer to midnight for her decision that she's going to announce to seek the indictment of people, including Donald Trump. What do you think? Well, in terms of when back on January 24th of 2023, Von Willis told Judge McBernie, quote, decisions are imminent on the charges and Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. And to me, the word imminent means as it is defined, about to happen.

Starting point is 01:31:36 That's what imminent means. So about to happen, then, we're now February 18th of 2023. And so if imminent means about to happen, then that's, that should be happening soon. And I think Robert McBernie even hinted at that and Robert McBernie, I think held off really making this order until he had to and releasing it until he had to like, OK, you said it was imminent. I'm gonna wait a little bit.

Starting point is 01:32:05 All right, I'm gonna release these portions and then at the end of the order, that McBerney said basically keep me updated because if things change, let me know. But to your point, Popok, I think imminent means February. If you said it in January. Yeah, I agree with you. It means March. It means April, it means April the latest. When you and I do these reports, we follow the data. And so when the data point of the word imminent from a district attorney who's been an honest broker with her words has a meaning that formulates our projections. And he's going to release more of this report. You know, he's, he's parceling this out.

Starting point is 01:32:52 He's spoon feeding it out, as you said. He's giving you a lot of line to run with here because he respects the district attorney and the process. And he's trying to balance these competing interests of due process rights of potential criminal indicted defendants and the rights of the prosecutor and the public. I think, as you said, he's doing a great job, but he's made it clear in this last order that he's going to dull out more and make more of this report public until it's all public.

Starting point is 01:33:21 Eventually, we're going to see the entire special purpose grand jury report. I think it's probably after she saw her indictments and we know exactly who's indicted and who isn't. And he may do some redactions and black tape along those pages, but you and I are eventually gonna see that report. We're gonna have a whole show, special show, just on that report and what it reveals.

Starting point is 01:33:44 Yeah, and Judge McBurnie's report from earlier in the week in footnote too, he says just that look, when indictments are made, when there's the normal process of criminal discovery, the report is going to be released in full or as fulsome as it can balancing the due process rights. But we're going to get this report eventually. And we're going to get this report this year. I mean, just a matter of, just a matter of when and we will keep you, of course, informed if there is any breaking news that we learn regarding the charging decisions by the Fulton County district attorney, Fawney Willis. And that could be imminent using her words.

Starting point is 01:34:23 A lot of imminent breaking legal news this past words, a lot of imminent breaking legal news this past week, a lot of breaking news that will definitely be occurring. Next week, we appreciate everybody who watches legal a F. Want to make sure to remind you to subscribe here on our YouTube channel. We are on our way to one million subscribers. The month of March will be the March to one million subscribers. I think we will be able to get there at that time, but if you're not subscribed, hit subscribe right now and recommend to a friend, family member, coworker or colleague to subscribe to the Midest Touch YouTube channel right now. Also, please, please, please, please, take two minutes out of your time

Starting point is 01:35:06 after this episode to subscribe to Legal AF on audio podcast as well. If you're listening to this on audio, take two minutes out of your time to subscribe to the Midas Touch YouTube channel. But for our YouTube viewers, please, right now when the show is done, search legal AF wherever you get your audio podcast, hit the subscribe button and if your podcast platform that you use allows for five star reviews, leave a five star review and actually leave the review about the show. It helps with the algorithm and if you can it's also helpful if you play the show a little bit as well on audio. And I think listening it to both audio on video gives you kind of both flavors of

Starting point is 01:35:51 it as well. And it's helpful to reinforce a lot of the legal concepts here. We try to break it down, of course, in ways that everybody can understand. But we recognize that sometimes people who say we watch or listen to this more than once that that is actually a helpful exercise So please listen to this on audio and not just video and for those audio listeners listen to it on the live stream video That is then on our YouTube channel thereafter as well Also check out patreon.com slash might as touch PAT our EON.com slash might as touch. There are memberships you can join at Patreon with a lot of exclusive content you can only

Starting point is 01:36:31 get at patreon.com slash might as touch. One of the other features is we post some of our videos first on Patreon so you can see and watch the videos first on Patreon. We also have exclusive podcasts on Patreon and me and my brothers, we also host a meet and greet that we do on Zoom where you can ask us any question. We do that once a month. We're going to be doing that at the end of February as well. So subscribe now if you want to be there for the meet and greet for February and ask us a question to meet us and do all that. That's on our Patreon account. Also check out store.mitustouch.com.

Starting point is 01:37:12 For the best, MidasTouch gear, we've got great legal AF shirts, great legal AF gear. The convict or convict 45 shirts. check that out as well. Want to also announce a new partnership here at the Midas Touch Network with Harry Litman's show. It's called Talking Feds. I'm sure you see a lot of Harry Litman's content here on the Midas Touch Network. Subscribe to Harry Litman's YouTube channel as well.

Starting point is 01:37:41 It's Talking Feds is how you find it. T-A-L-K-I-N-G-S. Talking Feds two words. Search for it on your YouTube channel Talking Feds with Harry Littman. Subscribe there. Harry is now part of the Midas Touch Network and subscribe to his YouTube channel. We're going to try to get that YouTube channel to get a hundred thousand subscribers by the end of March. Again, it's called Talking Feds. May as well subscribe to Political Beatdown, the new podcast I host with Michael Cohen on audio as well. for some breaking news. Cohen's the main witness in the Manhattan district attorneys investigation. So we get the scoops first here on the Midas Touch network. And with all of these shows that you're seeing and that we're developing here at the Midas Touch network, that's with your support. We're doing that through our Patreon. That's how we build this new programming out.

Starting point is 01:38:40 And none of this is possible without you, the legal a furs, the mightest mighty, the community out there. Michael Popeok and I have such a great time spending this time with you and make sure you subscribe to this channel. We're so grateful for everything that you do and we're so appreciative and every day I wake up just so motivated by the legal aephers, this community out there, and how you not just listen, but then actively utilize the information to support our democracy. So thank you all as well. Popok, did you want to give a final word to our legal aephers or shall I sign off? Prosecutions and trials, prosecutions and trials, that's 2023 and 2024 on legal.

Starting point is 01:39:25 A.F. Absolutely shout out to the Midas Mighty.

Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump and Fox had HORRIFIC WEEKS and Jack Smith ROLLS ON

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.