Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Blindsided by New Lawsuit as Prosecutor Destroys Evidence?!

Episode Date: October 28, 2025

Trump’s novice federal prosecutor is in hot water in two ways (again), with a new lawsuit brewing accusing her of both intentionally destroying federal records and communications AND threatening reporters, while a South Carolina Clinton-appointed judge is going to decide whether she lives or dies as a federal prosecutor as Judge Currie decides the pending motions to disqualify Halligan. Michael Popok has the receipts, including an interview with the reporter, Anna Bower, at the heart of the new attacks on Halligan. Learn more about the Popok Firm: https://thepopokfirm.com Subscribe:  @LegalAFMTN  Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Peramount Woos. Check out the big stars, big series, and blockbuster movies. Streaming on Paramount Plus. Cue the music. Like NCIS, Tony, and Ziva. We'd like to make up for own rules. Tulsa King. We want to take out the competition.

The substance. This balance is not working. And the naked gun. That was awesome. Now that's a mountain of entertainment. Lindsay Halligan and trouble just seemed to go together. Because Lindsay Halligan, the novice prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia handpicked by Donald Trump to go after his political enemies,

she's in trouble again in two different ways. I'm going to cover it right here for you on the Midas Touch Network and for legal AF. Firstly, there's a lawsuit brewing, that's a legal term, about her use, admitted use, of the signal. disappearing message app as a federal official about federal records, which are her messages. And that all blew out into the open, came out into the open, because there is an article that was written by reporter Anna Bauer, friend of legal AF, who I just recently interviewed, in which in that exchange, Lindsay Halligan admitted a number of things. It was unsolicited. She reached out

to the reporter without going off the record. And she said, said, I'm going to comment effectively. I'm going to comment about the Letitia James prosecution that I alone are handling. I'm going to comment about the grand jury. I'm going to comment about your reporting. And I'm going to use a disappearing messaging app to do it. Okay. That became the heart and soul of emotion that was filed by Letitia James saying she needs to be gagged,

Lindsay Halligan. And because of the use of her reaching out. the press and commenting about evidence, that has to stop. But then American oversight, who brought a similar lawsuit against the federal government at the beginning of the Trump administration when Mike Waltz, the National Security Advisor, used the signal app, the same app, disappearing messages and all, to talk among insiders in the government about a planned attack or bombing on the Houthis of Yemen, of Yemen, about a trade port issue going on there. And Mike Waltz pulled together Marco Rubio and Tulsi Gabbard and Stephen Miller and the

vice president and all these people, but he also either fat-thumbed it or he did it on purpose. He added Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic Magazine, who was there like a fly on the wall watching the signal chat about the, the Houthi bombing attack. Everybody got in trouble. Mike Waltz got fired and made the ambassador to Iceland. And there was this lawsuit about the use of the signal app. So Lindsay Halligan knows better.

Now American Oversight, the same entity, is going after and has made a public records request, which is the prerequisite before you bring the lawsuit and the lawsuit's coming. Sent to listen to this. Marco Rubio. Why? Because he's the acting archivist of the United States. Donald Trump's fired all the people that know what they're doing. He's in charge of federal public records.

He was also on the signal chat the last time around. So here's what the letter says, using as the basis the interaction between Lindsay Allegan and Anna Bauer, the reporter. And I'm going to show you a clip of my interview with Anna Bauer on this very issue. Let's start with the letter. American Oversight Rights to Bring to Your Attention, the potential unlawful destruction or removal of federal records of interim United States Attorney

for the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsay Halligan, in violation of the Federal Records Act. You can't use disappearing messaging, invisible ink, for public records. Specifically, interim U.S. attorney, Halligan, appears to have removed or destroyed messages exchanged with a legal journalist Anna Bauer via the commercial messaging application, meaning not secure, signal where Halligan apparently attempted to influence news coverage of a federal prosecution and specifically referred to her role as lead prosecutor in the conversation. In fact, let me show you the clip of my interview with Anna Bauer on this very issue. And there's another interview that I've done of her that's up on Legal A.F. this week as well.

Let's play the Anna Bauer clip. Yeah, so look, I mean, we knew that there was a story here. but of course we wanted to make sure that we were diligently fact-checking everything we needed to confirm that it really was her it took us a few days to obtain her phone number and to actually you know make sure that and confirm that it really was her

we went through the process as I said of speaking with experts who could speak to us about how unusual this story is And then also, you know, I was not entirely sure whether she was done talking to me. And a part of, like, a part of journalism, you know, is just trying to see whether there is a possibility of a relationship there. And we had to make a decision like, we've got something that's clearly newsworthy. But also, does she really want to open a line of communication with me?

because at the beginning of the conversation, even though she was expressing her dissatisfaction with my reporting, she also said at one point, before you report, feel free to reach out. And that's an incredible, like, you know, opening for, you know, I'm reporting on these cases. So, of course, if the U.S. attorney is offering for me to reach out to her and ask her questions about the case

that she personally is prosecuting, of course I'm going to try to see and feel it out and we're on the record and she's offering to answer questions. So for a few days, I tried to see if she was serious about that. It quickly became clear to me that she was not. You know, she started, I don't know if maybe she just thought better of what she was doing and the outreach, but she started stop responding to my messages.

And so then we started going through the process, you know, of writing the story. But I just really want to underscore that, like, this is the kind of thing that is so risky for a prosecutor to do. You know, there can be a host of consequences for talking to a reporter on the record about an ongoing prosecution,

which is why prosecutors typically don't do it. That was just a day after her published article came out talking about it. Now, this is a very interesting demand here. Because it's, it is, it is arguing that as a federal official, Lindsay Halligan violated the Federal Records Act by using a disappearing messaging platform, which makes sense for her messages. Her interaction with Anna Bauer is not privileged. This isn't like internal, you know, litigation, work product privilege or some other privilege that would never see the light of day. This is her

interaction with the press. Hey, everybody, Ben Myceles here from the Midas, Touch Network. I wanted to let you know about my podcast partner, Michael Popock's new law firm. It's called the Popock firm. Michael Popock's pursuing his dream of starting his own law firm, really based on the popular demand by all the Midas, Mighty, and Legal A-Fers who were approaching Michael Popak with their cases and saying, can you help us? And at that time, Popak was not able to. So he went out on his own. He started the Popak firm. where he is now handling catastrophic injury cases like car accident cases, trucking cases,

malpractice cases, big negligence cases, wrongful death cases. So if you or someone you know, have a case like this, the consultation with Popok's firm is free. Give him a call. See if you have a case. It's thepopokfirm.com. Thepopok firm.com. Or you can call 877 Popok A-F-F-P-O-P-E. O-P-O-P-O-K-A-F. So, 1877 P-O-P-O-K-A-F.

Give Michael Popak a call, and I'm really proud of you, Popak. Thanks for all the hard work you're putting in. In fact, American Oversight goes one further and suggest that this type of interaction is an attempt to chill First Amendment speech and is also illegal. In other words, that she's warning her in a way, that Halligan is being, that Bauer is being warned by Halligan, which in and of itself is an improper attempt to coerce the media. In footnote six of their letter, they say to Marco Rubio, given the subject matter of Halligan's communication, criticizing a social media post sharing an article regarding prosecution of a critic of President Trump,

Halligan's repeated accusation that Bauer doesn't report fairly may be especially appropriate for preservation as a potential evidence of an implicit threat, citing to a case called Alwetti v. Molinari, which is about forms of government coercion for First Amendment analysis. So they also say that she admitted, here it says on page four, Halligan's admission in her final message, to Bauer that the signal conversation was set to disappear, suggest that she used signal for the purposes of creating records that could not be retained. That's a flagrant violation of the Federal Records Act. And they go through all of the messages that were screenshoted and saved by Anna Bauer in her article. For instance, on page 3, Halligan as a prosecutor, on the case writes to a reporter, you're assuming exculpatory evidence without knowing what you're talking about. It's just bizarre to me. If you have any questions before you report, feel free to

reach out to me. But jumping to conclusions does your credibility no good. You should read the indictment. It says she received thousands of dollars in rent. By the way, that's a lie. She doesn't even understand her own indictment. The indictment doesn't say she received thousands of dollars in rent. It says that she got a benefit from getting a mortgage claiming to the bank that she was not going to rent it. She can't even get her indictment straight. It's three pages.

I can't tell your grand jury stuff. All right. This letter is going to be the basis of the lawsuit. Now, they successfully sued about the signal app that the, government did in the beginning of the administration so i don't understand why they can't get this straight that's trouble number one for lindsay alleghen trouble number two is that the two motions to get her kicked as a interim u.s attorney on a violation of 28 u.s.c 546 the vacancy reform act that she was improperly illegally appointed. One brought by James Comey, the former FBI director, an identical one brought by

Letitia James. They have now been consolidated into one hearing before a judge that's been assigned that's outside the Eastern District of Virginia. So as I had predicted, because there's a conflict implicit in the motion between the judges of the Eastern District of Virginia and Lindsay Halligan, Because if Lindsay Halligan is kicked out as the U.S. attorney, it is the judges of the Eastern District, including the judges presiding over the Comey matter and the Letitia James matter, that would decide who the next U.S. attorney is temporarily until Donald Trump finally gets around to getting one confirmed through the Senate. It puts them in conflict. So, Judge Nachmanoff, who's the judge over the Comey case, at the urging of Comey sent the case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge. That's the appellate court that sits over Virginia and South Carolina and North Carolina and said, it's got to be referred to somebody else.

Judge Diaz referred it over to a judge in South Carolina, a Clinton appointee, senior status judge, Judge Cameron McGowan Curry. And now she's going to be presiding over both motions because Judge Walker consolidated Lettician James' motion with the motion for Judge Curry that was sent to Judge for James Comey that was sent to Judge McGowan Curry in South Carolina.

So now a South Carolina Clinton appointee who used to work in the Department of Justice is going to decide whether Lindsay Halligan lives or dies, at least as a prosecutor. This is the reason you don't appoint a novice, inexperienced lawyer

who's never been a federal prosecutor before to be one of the top five prosecutors in the Department of Justice overnight. It's not insta prosecutor, just add water, send her in. But the thing that was interesting is Anna Bauer said it to me in a new interview that I just did that's going up on Legal A.F. The next few hours, she said to me, I don't even understand how Lindsay Halligan got this so wrong.

She said she's at least knowledgeable about the media. She'd been a media spokesperson. She'd worked on the Mar-a-Lago case. They trotted her out to go appear on Fox and Newsmax and friendly propaganda networks in order to talk about Mar-a-Lago. That's how she met Anna Bauer on the Mar-a-Lago case. They met at a hotel lobby when Anna was covering the case and the hearings that were going on up in Fort Pierce and all of that. So Anna Bauer is like, I don't understand how she got this wrong. she worked on the defense team the defense team for Donald Trump was notorious for taking any little

thing out of context in any of the criminal cases and using it against the prosecution and so why are they surprised that it's happening to them now they should know better they wrote the playbook that the defense lawyers are using now and they had an almost identical problem with signal at the top of the administration that went to a trial or a hearing with this same American oversight. So we're all sort of scratching our heads here about how dumb they are in their conduct and behavior. We'll continue to follow it all right here. You're on legal AF.

Take a minute. Hit the free subscribe button. Our First Amendment right to give you honest commentary is under attack. Your First Amendment right to hear it from us is under attack. Obviously, by the Trump administration. Might as touch and Legal AF attacked all day long. Keep us on the air and protect us. The size of our subscriber base is really, really important to keep us on the air.

So become a free member subscriber to Legal A.F right now. Come over to Legal A.F. Substack, that's what helps us pay the bills, to be frank. It's $6.77 a month. I'll overwhelm you with amazing quality content at the intersection of law and politics. Become a card-carrying member of Legal A.F. Over on Legal A.F. Substack. So until my next report, I'm Michael Popock. Can't get your fill of Legal A.F. Me neither. That's why we form the Legal A.F.

Substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do call, wait for it, morning A.F. What else? All the other contributors from Legal A.F are there as well. We've got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad-free versions of the podcast. and hot takes wear legal a f on substack come over now to free subscribe