Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump BEGS for SECOND CHANCE after Jack HUMILIATES HIM

Episode Date: November 1, 2024

Did Donald Trump miss his deadline by more than a year to file a motion to dismiss the Special Counsel in the DC Election Interference case? Jack Smith sure thinks so, and just told Judge Chutkan that Trump committed two cardinal litigation sins: waiving a defense, and blowing a court ordered deadline and has demanded that she deny Trump's motion immediately. Popok is @ The Intersection and predicts she will do just that. Protect your home with 50% off a new SimpliSafe system, plus a free indoor security camera, when you sign up for Fast Protect Monitoring. Just visit https://SIMPLISAFE.COM/LEGALAF Join the LegalAF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/legalAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you look at appellate court in the eye twice and tell them that you're not going to raise an issue about whether Jack Smith, the special counsel, was properly appointed or funded on the United States Constitution, you may not be able a year later to take the opposite position in front of the trial judge. I'm Michael Popock. You're on the new Legal AF YouTube channel. Take a moment, hit the free subscribe button and I'm at the intersection looking at a new filing by the special counsel Jack Smith who reminds Judge Chutkin as to why she should immediately, immediately, without waiting another moment, dismiss Donald Trump's last minute, year late motion where he waved the argument that Jack

Smith was unconstitutionally appointed by the Attorney General, that he should be confirmed by the United States Senate, which is completely different than how a dozen other special counsel, including under Donald Trump, have ever been appointed and should ignore the plain language of a 1987 congressional statute that says that there will be indefinite funding, that's exactly what it sounds like for future special councils from Congress. All right, let's break it down right here on this particular hot tick. By the time I'm done, you'll understand how quickly Judge Chuckin is going to deny the motion that she told the lawyers in the early September.

I really don't think you should bring this motion. I really don't think you should rely on Judge Cannon, who ruled that the special counsel was improperly illegitimately appointed and funded. I don't think you should do that. But if you want to do it, you can do it. And they filed their motion last week and she gave until today Jack Smith to respond. And it had a very elegant and efficient 18 pages, which is a sign that he knows he's got the better argument because he's not, he doesn't have to spend 50 to 100 pages talking around the story. It's very simple.

There's two arguments that Donald Trump made. They're called the appointment and the apportionment argument, the A&A. The appointment clause under Article II of the Constitution, the apportionment that comes from an act of Congress and how you fund certain offices like the special counsel. But before he even gets to the A&A argument, I love the special counsel Jack Smith says, waiver.

That is a concept in the law that I know well, because I always have to be careful about it, because I practice law in federal court and in state court that you haven't waived your argument. It's exactly what it sounds like. You untimed, you didn't bring your argument up in time. There was a deadline, a time limit, a statute of limitations, a court ordered limitations period, or court ordered deadline, and you blew it. You missed it. And you don't have a reasonable

good faith excuse to have it extended, especially when the deadline in the DC election interference case to filing such motions was October of 2023, Halloween of last year, not Halloween of this year. And just to rub it in and to show that Donald Trump's lawyers waived it and missed the deadline and there's no good cause to have it extended by the judge, they reminded the judge of a few sort of sticky facts for Donald Trump, sticky because they won't go away. One is when he was before the DC Court of Appeals

arguing the immunity decision and at the United States Supreme Court doing the same thing last April and before that in DC, which are the bosses for Judge Chutkin, the issue of the apportionment or appointment clause came up and they were asked by the appellate panel, Mr. Sauer, representing Mr. Trump, are you relying on the fact that there's an argument that he was improperly appointed or funded as special counsel, that being Jack Smith?

And what did Sauer say? No, we're not relying on that. That is a hard pass. That is a hard no. It's also called a waiver in my business to ever raise that argument ever again, especially when you do it and compound it and double down on it at the United States Supreme Court. Okay. Fast forward. That's not the only waiver argument. To demonstrate that Donald Trump and his lawyers know how to make a deadline about this very same issue when they want to.

They said, well, in Mar-a-Lago with Judge Cannon, Judge Cannon set a deadline to file a motion to dismiss and they met their deadline and they filed their deadline. And in that motion to dismiss buried in there is a section about apportionment and appointment, trying to get rid of the special counsel for being illegitimate and unconstitutional. I mean, we don't agree with the argument,

but at least it was made on time. So he knows how to make it what he wants to. But here, Judge, you told him by the 29th of October of 2023 to get all his motions to dismiss in, and he got 100 pages of motion to dismiss in. Just know, we looked at it, just know we're in there is this particular argument, waiver, waiver and more waiver. That's all she needs.

She doesn't have to get to the merits of the argument. It's not a technicality, waiver and more waiver. That's all she needs. She doesn't have to get to the merits of the argument. It's not a technicality. It's a requirement in federal court. Make your deadlines. If you're like me, the safety of your home and loved ones isn't just a priority. It's your everything. The problem is that old school home security systems only take action once someone is already inside your home. Simply Safe Home Security is changing that with its new Active Guard Outdoor Protection. It's the only home security designed to prevent crimes before they happen.

For me, with a wife, a newborn daughter, dogs and cats, and our cherished memories to protect, I simply can't live without a cutting edge high tech alarm system. And that's when Simply Safe answered my needs of protecting those I love. And all the monitoring systems I've ever used over the last 30 years never did a darn thing

to prevent the intruder or package theft before it happens. They just alerted me and maybe recorded the event after it's already happened and the milk has been spilt. With Active Guard, Simply Safe saves 24-7 monitoring agents keep a close watch over your property and actually stop crimes before they happen. The cameras use advanced AI to tell the difference between friendly faces like family and neighbors

and potential threats, alerting agents to suspicious individuals before they get close to your home. These agents can talk directly to the intruder, threats, alerting agents to suspicious individuals before they get close to your home. These agents can talk directly to the intruder, sound aloud siren, flashlights, and even alert the police. While other systems only react after a break-in, SimpliSafe combines live monitoring and proactive protection, both outside and inside your home.

That's why I trust SimpliSafe with my own home security every day. And I want you to have that same peace of mind. Protect your home with 50% off a new SimpliSafe system, plus a free indoor security camera when you sign up for fast protect monitoring. Just visit simplisafe.com slash legal AF. There's no safe like SimpliSafe.

Then the second half of the brief, it's all 18 pages, it doesn't take me that long. The second half of the brief is Jack Smith telling Judge Chuckin, because I think this is how she's gonna write her order. She's gonna find that you're late, you've waved, done. But even if I got to the merits, you lose. And here's why, it's very simple.

Let me start with the funding part. Donald Trump jumped up and down and tried to embarrass Jack Smith by saying, he got $36 million to do this investigation. Yeah, look at the guy he's up against. Look at the scope, the sprawling scope of the conspiracy. Think of the hundreds of witnesses, the millions of pages of documents, the recordings,

just the footage of the attack on the Capitol alone. And half of that went for security details anyway to make sure nobody got their head blown off that works for Jack Smith in the court system or the FBI. All right, let's put that aside for a minute. The Congress in 1987 passed an indefinite spending measure. You know how I know it's indefinite spending measure? Cause they said it in the law.

It's an indefinite spending measure to keep in place the funding for future special councils. Just have to come back to Congress and refill the bucket. And every special council and the prosecutors took pains to remind Donald Trump and Judge Shetkin how many special councils there have been since like 1987. There's been almost a dozen of them. Senator Danforth was a special council. There's been almost a dozen of them. Senator Danforth was a special council.

He's gonna be a guest of mine. I'll be doing an interview with him over the weekend. Robert Herr for Joe Biden, Mueller, Jack Smith, the guy going after Hunter Biden. We could go on, right? John Durham, whatever he was doing for Donald Trump. And so every one of them were funded the exact same way, through the exact same statute

and the exact same funding mechanism. The funding mechanism originally started as part of the independent council statute that Congress had on the books. But once they saw what some really independent councils, not responsive to the Department of Justice or to the Congress, would end up doing, like Ken Starr prosecuting Bill Clinton for eventually having sex with an intern, they were like, let's get rid of the independent council position, but keep the funding in place and let the Department of Justice set its

own internal housekeeping rules for appointing an independent counsel. That's what they did. So that's easy. And every independent counsel, special counsel, special prosecutor has been funded the same way. On the appointments provision, the other A in the motion, that's easy too. Article 2 of the United States Constitution empowers the executive branch and its department heads to appoint through their department heads inferior officers. That's what Jack Smith is. He's an inferior officer. Don't take my word for it. There's a 2019 case for the D.C. Court of Appeals, which are the direct bosses for Judge Chutkin, which says so. It's called in Ray Grand Jury. And it says a special counsel is an inferior officer as that term is used in the constitutional analysis and was properly appointed by the attorney general. Same thing for special counsel.

And if you want to go back further, there's a 1974 US Supreme Court case called US versus Nixon, the last criminal president, in which the Supreme Court recognized the legitimacy, authenticity, and the constitutionality of a special prosecutor, just like Jack Smith. So you got all that. And then, of course, they go through all the ones that have been appointed. And then my final, like the coup de grace, right?

They stuck him, like the shiv in the shower in a prison. They went after Ed Meese, who Donald Trump, Ed Meese used to be a marginally successful lawyer, made it all the way to attorney general before he got indicted. Now he's 93 years old, he's in Federalist Society, the masthead, they roll him out in all these MAGA cases. I never met the man, I don't know if he's all there,

but he makes some pretty peculiar arguments that don't seem like he's written them. And one of the arguments written for him that he signed suggested that the appointment provision is invalid the way it's been applied by Merrick Garland for Jack Smith. And they said, we don't know what he's talking about. Because they said, Ed Meese knows how to appoint a special prosecutor, special counsel. He did it in the Iran Contra scandal and he used the exact same language, the exact same statutes to do it. So now he's saying that was all illegitimate. And what about all these special counsels and

special prosecutors and all the indictments that happened, been prosecuted and people put in jail related to them? What do you do about them? This is just to show you how quickly Judge Chutkin is going to deny. She doesn't want another brief. I think maybe by the time this hot take goes up, she's going to deny the motion. She may do it before the election. She doesn't want to deal with the electoral calendar, but if she's ready to issue her order like tomorrow,

I think we're going to go up. Like it's going to be denied, and they can all take it up to the United States Supreme Court because that's where this is heading anyway. Once she makes the immunity decision about whether, and she's gonna find that the indictment survives the immunity decision, that's going back to the United States Supreme Court,

along with this one, like a little sidecar on a motorcycle. We're gonna follow it all. You're here already on Legal AF, the YouTube channel. Hit the free subscribe button. Help us get to whatever number we're up to now, 300,000 within the first two months. I appreciate you.

I'm curating this channel at the intersection of law and politics without blowing smoke or sunshine and bringing you stories just like this one, I don't know, about every half an hour. And I appreciate you being here. So until my next hot take, until my next Legal AF, my next Legal AF podcast,

or on this YouTube channel, I'm Michael Popak and I am reporting. In collaboration with the Midas Touch Network, we just launched the Legal AF YouTube channel. Help us build this pro-democracy channel where I'll be curating the top stories, the intersection of law and politics. Go to YouTube now and free subscribe at LegalAFMTN. That's at LegalAFMTN.