Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump CAN’T ESCAPE Trials, Judge Cannon ACCIDENTALLY SCREWED him Again

Episode Date: November 19, 2023

Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok are back with a new episode of the weekend edition of the LegalAF podcast. On this episode, they discuss: developments in the: Georgia Election interference criminal case including new information on the likely 2024 trial date; NY civil fraud trial, including the gag order appeal and motion for mistrial; the DC election interference criminal trial, including the gag order appeal and trial date; the Colorado court finding Trump engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution, and so much more from the intersection of law, politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSOR! EIGHT SLEEP: Go to https://eightsleep.com/legalaf and save $150 on the Pod Cover FUM: Head to https://TryFum.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF to save 10% off when you get the journey pack today! GEOLOGIE: Head to https://geolog.ie/LEGALAF70 or scan the QR code on the screen and use code LEGALAF70 and they will give you an exclusive 70% off of their award-winning skincare trial set. On top of that you can SAVE BIG on the add-ons products of your choice when you add it to your trial. Thank you Geologie for sponsoring this video! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch 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 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump appointed federal judge, Ilean Cannon played stupid games and one stupid prizes. As we predicted here on legal AF, judge cannons attempt to delay the Mar-a-Lago document case, but not actually move the May 20, 2024 trial date to try to block the other cases against Donald Trump from going to trial at that time, backfired in her face.

You heard that right, Fulton County District Attorney, Fawni Willis requested a trial date in the Georgia criminal Rico case against Donald Trump and his remaining co-defendants for, drum drumroll please. August 5th, 2024. Donald Trump quickly filed an opposition.

Now it is in the hands of Judge Scott McAfee staying in Fulton County, Georgia. Earlier in the week, videos of the proper session, confessions of Donald Trump, guilty lawyers, Jenna Ellis and Sydney Powell who pled guilty in the Rico case were leaked to the press where each further incriminated Donald Trump. And it turned out that the leaker was once again drum roll, please. Co-defendant, Misty Hampton's lawyer, everybody predicted that. Of course, no, I'm just joking. Misty Hampton, we, everybody predicted that, of course. Now I'm just joking. Misty Hampton will talk about that and what went down in a protective order hearing when

a limited protective order was entered as a result of what went down. Then we turn to New York. Feels like a year ago, but this happened this week. Don Jr. testified in the New York Attorney General Civil fraud trial. He showed a very weird PowerPoint presentation, which misrepresented the size of the Trump assets. I mean, they can't stop lying at all. And then Donald Trump filed a mistrial motion that basically spent all of the pages attacking

the judge, attacking the judges' principal law clerk, which Judge Angoran very, very quickly denied as being entirely without merit and utterly frivolous. Donald Trump also filed an emergency appeal of the gag order that was imposed on him in New York. There was a temporary granting on an administrative basis of the gag order. We'll break down what that means. Then let's take this legal AF Amtrak from New York's Penn Station to Washington DC's Union Station and let's head to the federal criminal case

against Donald Trump in DC for trying to overthrow the 2020 election. Unlike Judge Cannon, Judge Tanya Chuck in the federal judge presiding over the Washington DC case is keeping that case on track. She denied Donald Trump's motion to strike or remove allegations in the federal indictment that reference his connection with insurrectionists and the insurrection itself. He wants to distance himself from that in the courtroom. Judge Chutkin made only minor adjustments also to the briefing schedule, but that case is set for trial. March 4th, 2024 right around the corner folks then let's get on that legal af

Plane a twin engine of my cell is in popok and fly on into Colorado where a judge issued a perplexing order in the Constitutional disqualification case of Donald Trump was that you being an airplane there Michael popok disqualification case of Donald Trump. Was that you being an airplane there, Michael Popak? Dismissing the case and entering a verdict in favor of Donald Trump. Odd ruling, the court held, yes, Donald Trump is an insurrectionist. He incited and engaged in insurrection, but the court found that the presidency, the office of the presidency is somehow exempt from the United States Constitution's 14th Amendment section 3's sweep because the judge said that the office of the president and vice president are not officers and not subject

to the terms of the 14th Amendment. So in essence, she ruled that our founders intended to give a constitutional exemption, immunity, loophole to presidents, and vice presidents who are adjudicated to overthrow the United States Constitution itself. That don't make no sense. We will talk about it here. We're gliding, we're flying. We're chugging along here on legal AF Ben Myceles and Michael Popak. Popak, how you doing and I want to say what a wonderful wedding that you had. Congratulations. And I hope you felt all of the warmth and love and support from the legal AF community and the Midas Mighty community who bombarded you with that congratulations and it was so beautiful

to see that. It was a warm embrace that it was made even better because you and I were not only in the same room together but we were on the same place together for a wedding. It was really, really heartwarming and I really appreciate you and I appreciate the Midas network and Midas Mighty and Legal AF. Learned a lot this week leading up to that. Took down my notes here, Grand Pappy, Trump ran a brothel in the Yukon

and they were all excited about that. Decided to tell the judge all about how far back the Trump corruption family goes. We got double gag orders being considered by two different courts of appeal with two different stays. We got double gag orders being considered by two different courts of appeal with two different stays. We got a judge, as you just mentioned in Colorado, who, good news, bad news, found that Trump engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution, but because the oaths of office are different between the presidency and others about their relationship with the Constitution, the commander-in-chief preserving, protecting and defending the document and

the constitutional republic and the others supporting it. She then kind of fumbled on the one-inch line and didn't punch it through to bar Donald Trump from the ballot. And then we've got, as you said, Ben, criminal trials are getting real with one in March and one in May against Donald Trump on a fall of his criminal wrongdoing as indicted. Well, look, I'm not one to brag, favorite son, I'm not one to brag,

but I did make it to table one in Michael Popox wedding. That's first position. I think that's a good segue into which criminal trial is going to go first. Right now, that clearly seems to be the judge Chutkin, Washington, DC case set to go to trial March 4th, 2024. But then who's at table two? Almost as good as table one. Not quite. Almost as good as table one. On table two, we had Judge Eileen Cannon, the May 20th, 2024 trial date for Donald Trump's theft of National Defense Information at Mar-Lago obstruction of justice and making false statements, which is co-defendants, Waltean, Nauta, and Carlos De Olivaera. So that was number two. But as we talked about here, Judge Cannon's been playing games.

On the last legal AF, we talked about a scheduling order that she issued on November 10th, where she said she's keeping the May 20, 2024 trial date, but she's having a scheduling conference on March 1, 2024, three days before the Washington, DC trial, suspicious timing there, where she would then consider trying to move the May 20th, 2024 trial. When we looked at the scheduling order, it was obvious to us.

That's why we talked about it on a legal F. This scheduling order is missing key dates, and this can't possibly be a real schedule. So we just assumed Judge Cannon is putting this forward to try to help Donald Trump, try to block off the entire summer for her trial, but not actually truly intend to have the trial there, to try to push away Fulton County District Attorney F actually truly intend to have the trial there to try to push away Fulton County District Attorney, Fony Willis, from setting the trial in or around that may to kind of August period. Fony Willis was undeterred, but when we look at that scheduling order, again, you could

pull it up, salty one more time, it's missing the CEPA Section 5 deadline. Classified Information Procedures Act governs this case because it involves classified information. Donald Trump stole national defense information, classified information, sensitive, compartmented information. So you have to go through a process of CEPA, classified information, procedure act. There's CEPA Section 3, which is the protective order.

There's CEPA Section 4, which is the government requests, their CPISection 4, which is the government request documents be withhold if they're so highly sensitive. Their CPISection 5, the most critical deadline where the defendant says, these are the classified documents we intend to introduce at a public trial. So the government can respond and say, judge, we may need to go to CPISection 6 and do redactions or substitutions because this will jeopardize our national security. This whole scheme that was passed by Congress many decades

ago was to prevent something called graymailing. A form of blackmailing where a criminal defendant and a case involving national defense information says, Judge, I am entitled to a public jury trial and I am going to show all of our nation secrets unless the prosecution dismisses the case against me. I'm taking the nation down with me. So the whole SEPA mechanism is to avoid that and have substitution, redactions, very careful handling of sensitive documents, balancing the right of the accused, and their due process rights

with national security concerns. So the CPIS-5 deadline was missing. Then special counsel, Jack Smith, earlier in the week, gave notice to Judge Cannon and said, you're missing the deadline here for the main one, CPIS-5. Judge Cannon then responded, nope, I ain't missing it.

What I'm doing instead is, come back to me, Judge Cannon then responded, nope, I ain't missing it. What I'm doing instead is come back to me on March 1, 2024 and then we can talk about CPISX5, which just showed you how clownish and not serious she was taking it because it's not even like a difficult thing. In CPISX5, you put the CPISX5 deadline. It's like in a baseball game, do you have first base, second base, third base? You don't go, I'm gonna wait to put second base until after the runner gets on first base.

The bases are just there. Every judge follows it the same way in my baseball example. That's just what you do. So then, Fawni Willis swept in, and this popoca is where you and I called it. We said, you know what, if I would do, if I was Fawni Willis, and I'm saying Fawni Willis, if you're watching the show here's what I would do,

just set your trial date in July. I was off just maybe by five days, but then Fulton County District Attorney said, all right, look, Judge McAfee, Judge Cannon's got her trial date in May. That's set. You got the March date. I'll respect those dates.

But I ain't respecting Cannon for the whole summer. I want August, This balances everything. We unsealed our indictment in August anyway, so it's about a year later. Seems fair to everybody. McAfee said it. Trump opposed it, but Popoq, we called it here. Talk to us about that. And then can you also talk to us about other Fulton County news like these Proffer session Confession videos leaking and their import. Yeah, I don't know funny Willis watches us. She may I am linked in with her I was I did once record from the Fulton County courthouse. It is possible

But I think you you get a lot of credit there I was hoping for maybe a slightly earlier day, but the way the prosecutors look at their calendar is they're sensitive to, they have the same calendar in front of them that they all do. Alvin Bragg has a calendar up in New York, and he can see it just the way that Fannie Willis can and just the way Jack Smith can,

and they know and others can about what are the civil, federal, criminal, federal, state, criminal cases against Donald Trump and how they should line up. One is that one that's been hovering as a potential backup to all of these. We don't talk much about yet. It's still on the books though. March 24th, Stormy Daniels, New York, Manhattan versus Donald Trump people versus Donald Trump led by Alvin Bragg's office for the business record fraud case That's still on the books. We know it's still in the books because the Trump lawyers who are stretched then

Right, they can't go man-to-man. They can only go zone to continue our mixed sports metaphors on the show For all the cases that are out there. They're they're they're They're crying on Canon's shoulder to get up to get, can we change a date here? I gotta be up in New York for the other case. And so you've got the March 24 case floating around still on the books. You got the March 4 case for Judge Chutkin, DC election interference case,

one defendant for conspiracy counts against Donald Trump. That one is the big mother of all trials. That's the one that we've said would be big footing all the rest and we're playing true to form right through there. Cannon has always been sort of a loose wheel on the wagon. That's been clanking away and we're, yes, she keeps leaving the date there. But now I think you're right, Ben.

She was leaving it to block out. Let's bring in another sport, like user elbows and block out everybody else for the rest of the summer and help out Donald Trump to just have one criminal trial, maybe two, the one in New York, but not three. And so we've always speculated, well, what, how many trials will happen if we were playing this betting game? How many trials will happen, criminally against Donald Trump, before and be completed, before November 1?

That is the judge Chuck and one starting in March, maybe with some delay here or there, depending upon some appeals issues, but ultimately going and being completed before the voters go to the polls. Fannie Willis, I love her for taking August, but she's also in the same breath earlier in the week last Tuesday. I did this on one of my hot tags in an interview, said, yeah, I'm going to start it. She said originally March now. She's saying August officially, but it ain't going to get finished before the election. My word's not hers. And it's not. It's going to go, you know, state court proceedings in Georgia take a long time. And even if it's just one defendant, Donald Trump, this is going to be a five, six, seven

month trial, meaning we're going to be into the first quarter of 2025 after the election, maybe, maybe a jury being sat in between election day and the inaugural, right? But voters will have already voted. That's really the only other case that maybe could get tried in time because it's a relatively straightforward case and short is the Stormy Daniels case. That maybe could time out before. But I think we're now down to like one, the DC the DC a chuck in case and then Fawny gets to use Florida Georgia the way that Jack Smith has been using more a logo

Which is sort of as a stalking horse to a spread and Exhaust the resources of Donald Trump as she legitimately tries to get a major election interference case, even more far-reaching and sweeping than even Jack Smiths, which is more surgical, up and running and try. She even admitted in her interview that the appeals on the issue would be into the years relay. And that's if Donald Trump loses. If Donald Trump wins, then we got a whole issue, unfortunately, about whether it has to be stayed while he's a president and we hopefully we never get there. I think these judges in McAfee, Chuck and Care, Care deeply, as do the prosecutors, assigned to them,

care deeply about having the American electorate know thumb up or thumb down, whether Donald Trump is a criminal before they vote that that matters in a democracy and they're doing everything they can to preserve the process, the criminal justice system at all. And then finally, Ben, in Georgia, we had, now that we know who leaked it, and yes, you're right, if you had Misty Hampton's lawyer on your bingo card, I'd give you a lot of credit. That was the last person I would have thought would have, quote unquote, leaked the video

proffer testimony. She should be working, as I said, midweek with Karen. She should be working hard to get the F out of here and cut a deal with Fony Willis and not piss off the prosecutor's office by leaking things that they shouldn't have leaked, causing hearings like this. And then there was that weird breakout session during the hearing that Judge McAfee had on the emergency motion for protective order about the proper videos and future exchange of documents and what can go to the public and not.

Again, we love Judge McAfee and everything he's been saying in the courtroom about I'm gonna try this case in a courtroom, not on the street. So tell me why you need to have all of this released in the public in order for your right to a fair trial to be preserved. I don't, because I don't understand that. And then because Willie Floyd, Harrison Floyd's lawyer,

was had all this umbridge about him being accused as being the leaker, because he wrote in an email that he was the leaker. He conceded later, it was a typo, but you know, the DA gets an email that says, I leaked the video. I mean, that's, I don't know. He goes, the typo was, I meant to say,

I did not leak the video. I was to misinterpret, I leaked the video. I'm like, great, We got it. Right. So he's pissed off that it got file. So they had a little debate with the judge where he said I wanted apology and I was like a scene of the Godfather. I wanted apology and I want to I want the money back for the money. And then that led down as they got through the zoom call when it got to Miss the Hampton's Lawyer as the judge was about to turn off him and go to the next lawyer to see if they agreed

to the agreed order that was eventually set in the case because they all came up with an agreed order. He said, oh, and I have something else to get off my chest, your honor. I leaked the videos. And the judge, his pulse did not go up. I mean, we saw him on the Zoom. He just was like, okay, so why did you do that, sir?

He's like a very matter of fact. Well, I think it's important to the balance, what the prosecutors are saying about the case and all the evidence out there and the transparent. My client has been nothing but transparent. He's a liar, by the way. Misty Hampton is on video lying under oath in a deposition about what she did to let in cyber ninjas and others like Sydney Powell's group to tamper with election equipment when she was the election supervisor for the coffee county.

She lied until right after that video surveillance tape came up that showed exactly what happened inconsistent with how she testified. So for her lawyer to say, you know, I was waiting for the lightning bolt to strike the guy on the Zoom for saying that his client was interested in transparency. So that was interesting. And then we've got to see the proffer. So Ben, I don't want to exhaust all of this topic. What did you think about the combination of the Jenna Ellis testimony that's

come out about her conversation with people around Donald Trump about whether we're going to be able to drag him out of the White House or not. And then the Sydney Powell comments and how that goes to the prosecution's case. Jack Smith and Farnley Willis to prove intent. Well, you've got Jenna Ellis talking about being at a Christmas party where Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff, Dan Scavino. Dan Scavino already has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team.

I believe has already spoken before the grand jury there. So Jack Smith knows what Scavino's going to say. So now you have Jenna Ellis saying Scavino said, we're gonna stay in power no matter what we are not leaving this White House and then you know The response by Trump's lawyer is yes, but Trump ended up leaving So what so what matter why doesn't matter if they said on December 19th at a Christmas party that they were not going to leave If ultimately they left anyway and he returned tomorrow a lot ago, I don't know what event could have happened between December 19th and the time Donald Trump left. Oh, January 6th.

And look, that ties into the fact that Donald Trump in the Special Counsel, Jack Smith case, as we talk about that a little later in today's show, Donald Trump's trying to strike from the allegations in the indictment, remove from them, and then eventually he's gonna try to remove from the purview of the jurors in the DC case, references to January 6, references to the insurrection itself. As special counsel Jack Smiths wrote in the opposition to Donald Trump's attempt to try

to do that in the DC case, he's like, judge Donald Trump's trying to distance himself in court from the January 6th insurrectionist. But last week he was given a speech, bragging about releasing a song on Apple music with them and bragging about the J6th choir. He's bragging and called these people Patriots. So now he wants to distance himself here, but you see why the facts about the insurrection are actually very relevant because Trump's defense is we left voluntarily. No, you did it January 6th. You tried to overthrow our democracy and Jenna Ellis's uh, profer session confirms that by December 19th by that Christmas party, Scavino and everyone were read into the plan.

We are not leaving and they basically had to be forced out, humiliated after thankfully due to courageous officers and and and and capital police and capital hill. The insurrection was put down on January 6th. And then you had Sydney Powell basically confirming that while she thought the election was was still she still says that she thought she said no. All of Donald Trump's other lawyers were basically saying to him, Donald, it's not stolen. You lost. You are the loser. And then Cindy Powell said, well, then Donald Trump would say to me, you see what I

got to deal with? I got to deal with all of these people telling me that I really lost. So that all goes to intent there. And Chesbarrows wasn't released, but the video itself, but what's clear from Chesbros' proffer, which was important, is that it went to the fact that Donald Trump was aware of the fake Elector Plan. It links Trump directly with Chesbro, and Chesbros the one who was emailing and coordinating the plan for mid-December in the various states to submit their fake

electors' slates. And by the way, I'll put a little footnote there, which is we learn that the attorney general in Nevada, for example, has opened up a criminal investigation there into the fake electors. And those individuals were in communication with Chesbro who pled guilty and now linked Trump to it in these promises. One comment, then one comment that I liked about Powell. She actually said that Pat Cipolloni, who was the White House chief counsel, the head

lawyer for the White House for Donald Trump, who's also supported by Eric Hirschman, that Pat Cipala was her arch enemy and that he looked like he was more in charge of the Donald Trump. And certainly the reason she was not named special counsel, every time I say that, I get a chill down my spine, that she was almost the special counsel. And then she also testified on this offer that if she was made special counsel, she was going to execute that draft executive order that we've all read and again sends a chill down your spine about what they were planning to do to

suspend the Constitution and invoke the insurrection act and or martial law and seize voting machines through the military. She says, yeah, that would have been my role. I would have done that. But Pat Sipolloni stopped it. And it's hard to believe he wielded that much power. Thank God for Pat Sipolloni at the right moment because it sounds like, but for him, Donald Trump would have installed Sidney Powell in as his special counsel to seize voting machines and declare and use the military against the American people. And this as Congress, Maga Mike Johnson, after getting pilloried by other Maga Republicans, for agreeing to continue to fund the government in a latter continuing resolution,

he had to basically throw the red meat to the Maga Republican fascist base, and then what they consider to be productive as Republicans is releasing 40,000 hours of Capitol Hill tape, but like they then need what they want to redact to protect the identity of the insurrectionists. And so they're releasing it in tranches. And by the way, the only reason that it wasn't all released before is that the Capitol police said this could actually be harmful to our national security. If our enemies are able to get a hold of some of the footage where they can see kind of the safe spaces and the ways that evacuations were taking place. And it's just so embarrassing such a national disgrace that you have, maggot Republicansans people in serious leadership positions in the republican party

i'm talking about senators i'm talking about you know leaders in congress who are like clipping like very short clips of like when the people were like exiting and saying see see there were non-violent this was an insurrection this was in bad at all this was a friendly day we need to go after the January 6th committee. I mean, it is so dystopian. It is so potent like I know Popeyes did a hot take on that. So we'll be loading that later in the day or tomorrow. We've got a lot more show on legal AF. Want to talk about when we come back. What is going on in the New York Attorney General Civil Broadcast? A lot of news there from Don Jr's testimony to a

mistrial motion filed by Donald Trump that was swiftly denied. Want to remind everybody about patreon.com slash might as touch P A T R E O N dot com slash might as touch help us build our independent media network here. We don't have outside investors. And as we talked about, Fulton County at the top of the show, MidasTouch was featured in the recent motion to revoke bond of Harrison Floyd, one of Donald Trump's co-defendants. And our post was mentioned as demonstrating how Floyd tried to threaten and harass other witnesses in the case in violation of the conditions of his release. So you see the impact right there of Midas Touch journalism. And we've of course broke many other major stories that we talked about here as well.

Patreon.com slash might as touch. We will be right back. We'll talk about the New York AG case and we'll talk about what's going on in DC. And we'll talk about Colorado. We'll be right back. This episode is brought to you by 8th Sleep. There's nothing worse than tossing, turning or sweating or freezing in the night because you're too hot or too cold.

Better sleep is the gift that keeps on giving and 8 sleeps biggest sale of the year has arrived. The pod cover will improve your sleep by automatically adjusting your bed's temperature based on your individual need, which is why the pod cover by 8 sleep has been my favorite product of 2023. The cover can be added to any bed like a fitted sheet, and allows you and your partner to cool or warm your side of the bed as low as 55 degrees and up to 110 degrees.

In addition to keeping you at the perfect temperature all night, the pot also tracks your sleep and health metrics. On average, pot users see their sleep quality improved by 32% after just a month on the pot. If better sleep is on your wish list this holiday season, look no further than 8 Sleep. Until November 30th, 8 Sleep is offering listeners of legal AF up to $500 off when you build a bundle with my personal favorite, the pod cover. Go to 8sleep.com slash legal AF for these exclusive holiday savings.

8 Sleep currently ships within the USA, Canada, the UK, select countries in the EU and Australia. Again, go to 8-Sleep.com slash LIGA LAF for these exclusive holiday savings. This is Michael Popok, LIGA LAF. Cold turkey may be great on sandwiches, but there's a better way to break your bed habits. We're not talking about some weird mind-voodoo from your wacky neighbor or some sketchy message board. We're talking about our sponsor, Fume. And they look at the problem in a different way.

Not everything in a bad habit is wrong. So instead of a drastic, uncomfortable change, why not just remove the bad from your habit? Fume is an innovative, award-nominated device that does just that. Instead of electronics, fume is completely natural. Instead of vapor, fume uses flavored air. And instead of harmful chemicals, fume uses all natural, delicious flavors. You get it. Instead of bad fume is good.

It's a habit you're free to enjoy, and makes replacing your bad habit easy. Your fume comes with an adjustable air flow dial and is designed with movable parts and magnets for fidgeting, giving your fingers a lot to do, which helps with de-stressing and managing anxiety while breaking your habit. The first time I used fume, I was shocked

at how flavorful and fresh it tasted. It's easy to hold and perfectly balanced, quite honestly, extremely fun to fidget with. The real wood material and sleek design definitely classes it up, and I feel pretty darn cool holding it. Stopping is something we all put off, because it's hard, but switching to fume is easy, enjoyable, and even fun. Fume has served over 100,000 customers and has thousands of success stories, and there's

no reason that can't be you. Join Fume in accelerating humanity's breakup from destructive habits by picking up the journey pack today. Head to trifume.com and use code legal AF to save 10% off when you get the journey pack today. That's T-R-Y-F-U-M.com. Use code legal AF to save 10% off the journey pack today. Welcome back, great ad reads by Michael Poe-Pock. My way before you go on, you can always tell when I've done an ad read after a legal A F after dark cut because I'm still in the dark. Well, your ad reads are spot on. I think there could be a poll whether Poe-Pock or Jordy's I'm not going to even make our

audience have to make such a tough decision, but a not-so-tough decision had to be made by judge and garrion. You see those smooth transitions right there? In denying Donald Trump's mistrial motion in New York, the mistrial motion filed by Trump basically just attack the judge, attack the judge's principal law clerk, and also like just very oddly, like three pages were just photographs of the law clerk because at that time there was a gag order imposed. So by putting it in the actual filing itself, they were able to then show, you know, what she looks like and show the photo. And the gag orders now been temporarily lifted by the appellate division. I want to hear your take on that, Popeyes.

And also, we started the week. It feels like a year ago, but with Don Jr. testifying. And you and I, on the last legal AF, we were like, what is Don Jr. even going to testify to? Because when he was called by the prosecution in this fraudulent valuation civil case, he said that he didn't have any experience with the statement of financial conditions,

didn't review him, doesn't know what they say. So there was no foundation that he has any understanding of the underlying financials to the business. And again, when people try to mag a splain to me, this is the way powerful businesses run. No, the people who lead businesses know their financial numbers, okay? They all do.

There's not, you don't have a situation where you call the head of like IBM or Apple or a so-called big corporation and you say to them, hey, do you know your statement of financial conditions? They go, you know, I don't look at those. Hey, do you realize that you're even the CEO of the company? No, I don't remember. I signed that I signed a lot of documents.

I mean, come on, that's that's ridiculous and and and pathetic. But so we were like, what is done, Junior, going to actually testify to? And by the way, let me be very clear. The Trump organization is a small family held entity that is far not even near the size that it tries to ever project. Like, what's done, Junior, going to testify to? Well, they showed done Junior like a pre-planned PowerPoint presentation that was never even produced during discovery. And so the prosecution objected to it. Like, what is it? What? Like, what are you showing them? A PowerPoint?

Like, this hasn't been produced. This is not the way trials work. You don't just show PowerPoint presentations. So they objected the judge like let it happen because I feel like the judge realized that Trump and Don Jr. they were just trying to like bait him so they could play the victim and say well we didn't let the evidence in and so even though it's not actually legitimate evidence, so the judge is like, whatever, I'm the trial or effect. It's not a jury trial. Show me how great the Trump organization is. Show me. And they proceeded to show this bizarre PowerPoint presentation

that talked about the history of the Trump family. And it was just like embarrassing to even see what was going on. But what I've been interesting is you had things then like they said, and 40 Wall Street 73 stories. And it's 63 stories like again, they have to inflate everything. And then there's there's an SEC debt offering form that says that it's 63 stories. It's not 73 stories. And here's the thing, Pope, I'm going to toss it to you to give us the full roundup of everything that went down in New York from your take to Don Jr. to the mistrial motion being rejected to the administrative

Stay of the gag order Like like I just want the facts. You know what I mean like like look if Mar-a-Lago was a residential property I can have an honest conversation with you and say, I could see it being $150 million to $250 million valuation. That's not $2.5 billion or $1.5 billion. That's ridiculous. But yeah, sure, you want to tell me it's $250 million fine.

I'll accept that. But why is it $27 million? And then you're gonna go, well the judge who hates Trump did it. And then it's like, well, now you're just, now you're treating me like an idiot. Like, and that's how you should feel watching this. Like, stop it.

Like, don't, that's not what happened. Donald Trump devalued the property to pay less property taxes. The reason it's 27 million dollars is not because judge and gore on divine, did it goes, I hear by decree That Mara Lago shall be $27 million dollars. No Trump did and the Trump organization people who testified in this case said they did and they executed Indeed Decades ago that said it will forever be used as a club for commercial purposes so they could pay less taxes

They didn't pay property taxes on 250 million. They sure as heck didn't do it on 1.5 billion. That's why the valuation is what the valuation is. That doesn't mean the property is not impressive. I'm sure it's a beautiful property. It's by the water all fine, but you don't have to commit fraud with it. Then it's the same thing with 40 Wall Street. I don't own a building that 73 stories. I think it's probably pretty impressive. If you have a building that 63 stories, by the way, Trump doesn't own in a German family, doesn't Trump has an arrangement with them, but still impressive.

But then you say that it's 73 stories. I mean, that's ridiculous. You have a 10,000 square foot penthouse. I don't live in a 10,000 square foot penthouse. You don't live in a 10,000 square foot penthouse. I don't live in a 10,000 square foot penthouse. You don't live in a 10,000 square foot penthouse. That's still pretty big. But then you have to lie and say it's 30,000 square feet so you can be that greedy and then lie

and take out extra benefits. And then do that with all of your other properties. It's like, let's just exist in the world of objective reality. And we saw with Don Jr.'s testimony there that even when he was doing this ridiculous PowerPoint presentation This is why I think the judge just was fine allowing it to happen. It was filled with all of these unnecessary Other than they lie about everything in flading of inflating of the assets

So I don't know. I think that's important just to say that though because I really I'm craving the facts I'm thirsty, I'm craving the facts. I'm thirsty for the evidence here. And I just get so bothered when you have Alina Haba and this whole crew, just treat the American public and the world like fools, ridiculous. They're about to lose their buildings and money

and businesses and ability to operate in New York and the best that they can come up with is flailing in court, attacking a law clerk, attacking the judge, moving from multiple stays in mistrials and putting on evidence that stretches back to 1900 with Grand Pappy Trump. This is the best that you got. You and I practice law ban, we try cases. Your first witness out of the box is supposed to be your best witness. It's supposed to be the one we call it, a recency, a primacy in recency. You're supposed to put your best witness first, usually a roadmap witness.

You put your next, what you put your, if you have four witnesses or five, whatever you got, you put another witness towards the end, because that's the most recent thing the judge will remember. And sort of in the middle you sandwich other ones that are, okay, they're not doing well with any of them. They just put on an expert yesterday that the, in which he admitted that he, he did not look at any of the underlying representations of Donald Trump considering about 40 Wall Street, the property that you just described so accurately, and basically disqualified himself as an expert to give the judge any relevant opinion about the issues that are at stake in the case. This untethered quality of this failure of the Trump people and the lawyers

because they're not very good. And they don't have the facts or the law on their side to connect the evidence and the testimony to the issues that are in front of Judge Angkoran. And instead, just want to sue the judge. They filed another lawsuit against the judge in his official capacity under what you and I described in September, article 78 of the New York of New York law, which is an action that you you can bring to an appellate court to try to compel somebody to do something. In this case, the judge to stop gagging or the judge to rule in their favor, or the judge to declare a mistrile or whatever he would want them to do. But if this is the best they got with Don Jr., and then I want to talk about procedure

in a minute, then all hope is lost for them. Because he had already, as you and I noted last week, disqualified himself, Don Jr. did, as a precipiant witness with knowledge on the key issues in front of the judge, meaning the use of the statement of financial condition that's at issue in the case during the time period, that's in the case, that's allowed in the case, and the relationship between or the nexus, between the use of the statement of financial condition of Donald Trump, which we know has been cooked and artificially inflated with banks, lenders, investors, buyers, of places where he needed to get approvals, insurance companies, and other counterparties.

That's the issue. And when they decided in their little cutesy, smarmy fashion to get up on the stand one after the other to say, oh, that's not my job. Oh, no, I poor concrete. That was our job. No, I don't, financial statements. I barely graduated from Wharton Business School. I don't know what that means.

And Ivanka, I'm just a mother of a couple of small children down in Florida. I really don't know much about what's going on until we got into the old post office and that litter up. And oh, let me tell you all all the details about the old post office. So that's their problem. They disqualify themselves in the case when they were dragged onto the witness stand by the attorney general and hurt case in chief. And now they can't now grow a brain and suddenly remember the things that they say they don't have any knowledge of.

And to your point about, which is your right on it, this kind of mom and pop small organization thing because it was never, Donald Trump never founded a major company where there were executives other than people with his own last name. I worked at a company, you know, as people know, where I was the number two lawyer there, the CEO and the CFO, chief financial officer were 12 feet apart, right? One office sat between them because it's important that the CEO who's out there borrowing money, lending money, making deals and transactions, it has a close contact with the CFO about things like how much money

do I have, what is my net worth, how's the company doing, where are we with our lenders, and that is a constant interaction. But in the Trump organization, they sort of pulled the pin. That's because Daddy Trump didn't want, have people looked at Alan Weisselberg, you think he was pushing back against Donald Trump, right? Speaking truth to power, you think you think McConney that the controller was speaking truth to power, right? Nobody was. And that's not what Donald Trump wanted.

He didn't want real, upstanding officers and directors and control officers in his company. No, no, no. He wanted people that when he said, what's two plus two? And they said, what do you want it wanted people that when he said, what's two plus two and they said, what do you want it to be, boss? And he said seven. You know, great, we'll put it down for a seven. And the reality is you outline Ben,

then I want to talk a little bit about New York procedure and what we just observed is that Donald Trump was a billionaire, probably a single billionaire at all the relevant time periods. He just wasn't a three, and four, and five billionaire, and that's the problem for him, not for us. That was the problem for him, because in order to do the borrowing that he did at the rate that he did it, and the volume that he did it, he needed to be over two and a half billion, or three billion in net worth. And that's what he told the counterparties. And that's why they did

business with him. Those were requirements or conditions of their relationship, their financial relationship, but he wasn't there. So rather than go out and acquire and bring in investors and outside investors into his own company, he just changed the numbers or had his people change the numbers to make them into a triple billionaire when he really wasn't. And so you have all of that going on. So when they can't put on any real evidence, you know, the PowerPoint about Graham Pappy Trump back in the 1900s building hotels slash brothels in the Yukon for minors, you know, that led to one of my favorite moments so far in the trials when the New York Attorney General objected and said, you're on, they they're going back to the 1900s?

Are they waving the statute of limitations? Can we try them for crimes going back that far? Everybody's sort of left. But the judge has a very clear sense of what his role is with no jury present in a trial that's going to stretch into 12 and 14 weeks. And he has to keep track of 50 or 60 witnesses, thousands and thousands in pages, maybe approaching a million of documents.

And he does that, of course, with his law clerk. So all of them, I'm going to turn to procedure for a minute. I practice in New York, law clerks, newsflash, sit next to the judge. That's why the bench is built to have a desk next to the judge. Sometimes in different courthouses, the betting upon their procedure, it's the bailiff, the law clerk, a clerk from law school that's clerking after graduation, or in this case, a lawyer who holds the role of principal law clerk when the judge has a question about testimony. Okay, they have transcripts that are being prepared each day and it's up on their screen. That

is it's an appropriate role of course for the law clerk to say what Don Jr. just said there is inconsistent with what Don Jr. just said six three weeks ago at the beginning of the trial and handing a document of the judge to show him that. That's not her co-judging, which is what she's been accused of. That's her as the case law and the ethics opinions outline. That's her serving a role like a close confinant or colleague within a law firm. But I got a question, or I'm trying a case.

Let's say you and I been trying a case together. Let's say it's your witness, but I'm assisting you, right? And you're doing your outline. And the witness hits on something that I know is is inconsistent with a document or a prior testimony. It would be a malpractice if I didn't run up to you at the podium and say, Ben, that use this document. This is use this one, right? That's not me, that's not me co-glitigating that witness with you. That's me doing an assist the way you would do it for me. And that's what we're watching, but to outsiders, like Alina Habbo who doesn't practice in New York regularly,

Chris Keiss is a Florida lawyer and the other lawyer that sits on the island and I don't think has been inside of this commercial, this court much, everything is nefarious. Everything is, oh my god, there's whispering, there's notepassing. She's co-judging. No, she's not. She's serving her role as principal law clerk. So they filed a couple of things last week and I'll turn it back to you. They filed an application with the suit against the trial judge again under Article 78 and asked for a stay until the issue of the gag order and whether it was proper or not, the two gag orders

and the two fines could be decided by the full, intermediate area pellet court. It's not the highest level of pellet court in New York. It's the second highest. And it sits in Manhattan, that on Madison Avenue and it's the appellate Court. It's not the highest level of Pellet Court in New York. It's the second highest. And it sits in Manhattan, that on Madison Avenue, and it's the Pellet Division First Department. I'm admitted in the first department. That's where I swore in in 1992, when I became a lawyer. So that place had a quick hearing. One judge was assigned to it, David Friedman. Same judge. I'm not sure how that happened, it should be done by it should be done by spinning a wheel and it shouldn't be done by being assigned to him, but he

was the same judge who stayed the trial before the trial. They even tried to stay this trial forever before it even started in October. They ran in September to try to get the appellate court to stay the trial before it began. And this same justice on his own, because he's allowed to do it, did an administrative temporary hold on the case. It didn't affect the case, because by the time the full appellate panel met

two weeks later, the trial hadn't even started yet. And they, including that judge Friedman, joining that full panel, ruled that there was not going to be a stay, get going with your trial. And so this time, however, and I want to get your view on this one, the reporting from those that went into the room for the hour-long hearing at the first department suggests

that Friedman had a very jaundice view and was very skeptical of the New York Attorney General's position on the gag order. And he made two comments in particular that were reported. One is, well, the law clerk posted her own picture of her with Chuck Schumer at a fundraiser. And so it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. They're allowed to comment on that and make it go viral. What's the problem with that?

And very skeptical about gagging somebody who's running for president and not having him attack constantly staff of the judge, not the judge himself or the staff. So those were the two comments and he put a pin in it because of the constitutional issues that are implicated. Now it goes to a full of pellet panel, which he probably joins, and there'll be five of them, and there'll, you know, there has to be a majority vote on this. What did you think about that? And then you and I can talk about the mistrial motion

that's already been denied by Judge Encore on. If you just were presented with the issue in a vacuum and said that Donald Trump posted a message of the judge's law clerk and a gag order was issued. And that's the issue that was presented. If you blinded your eyes and covered your ears to all of the context of Donald Trump's behavior, the stochastic terrorism, if you ignore context, I could actually see how an appellate judge who is presented with

the issue says, well, why shouldn't you have a First Amendment right if you want to post things? It's weird, but why is posting things about a judge's law clerk or a photo, threatening or harassing? Well, it is when you understand the context. Donald Trump is trying to threaten and harass and attacker. You have to and here's the thing as it was presented on an emergency basis, Popeye versus a full briefing where all of the context will come out. You have in Donald Trump somebody who has been criminally indicted now four times, four times. Somebody who has threatened to execute military leaders.

Somebody who is responsible for a judge, a judge-chutkin, for example, having her life threatened by the people who follow him. So the thing, and I go back to, we showed a videotape of the Australian billionaire, who's now a witness for Special Counsel, Jack Smith, who it's alleged Donald Trump shared nuclear submarine secrets with. One of the things that he's on audio recording is saying about Donald Trump is that Donald Trump is an Australian billionaire right wing guy. Basically, his Trump's really good at using enough ambiguity like a mobster, but not to actually say it. I don't

think that makes you really good. I think that makes you cowardly and a crook and a freaking mobster who shouldn't be anywhere near the positions of power. But you have to understand it in its context of why it is threatening, why the behavior is harassing, and that's what you have to do. And the trial judge is uniquely positioned to do that. What I worry about is what I said before, though, is that an appellate division sitting in its ivory tower insulated from the threats and attacks that are happening on a daily basis to that court that Court is getting inundated with death threats and attack

It's easy for an appellate judge to be like, well, what's the big nail here? And that's what Donald Trump relies on the way Mafioso people rely on that. So that's how I think the gag order is absolutely appropriate. But I think that's where an appellate judge sitting in the ivory tower may say, well, no, what's the big deal? It's a photo. The big deal is that Donald Trump in a misogynistic targeted way is Knows what he's doing getting his people to try to destroy her life to destroy the life of the judge and not deal with the facts It to your point Ben right on and it will pick up with it later on the 14th Amendment of Colorado there are the plaintiffs trying to get

Trump off the stand, put an expert on stochastic terrorism and talked about the call and response, the strong call and response that exists between Donald Trump and his followers to do violence, to do violence at his bidding. So that we'll talk about later. And remember Ben, I know you know this, but Judge Jutkin, I'm sorry, Judge Engoron in New York even said, you're going to get somebody killed talking to the Trump side about the constant attacks on his principal law clerk who's still running, who's running for Judge one day.

And so right about that, you want to do, you want me to do a little bit on the mistrial and the denial, or do you want to do something else first? Let's talk about the mistrial and the denial of the mistrial. Then I want to cover Judge Chutkin keeping the train on track there. Then I want to hit Colorado. A lot of people I see in the comments want to get our take on Colorado. I did a hot take about it as well. We'll talk about all of that.

Let's just take our last quick break of the day. Geologies of 26th time award winning skin hair and body care company recognized in men's health, high-peas, birdie, a squire, ask men and Oprah-Daley grooming awards. Geology creates simple and effective skin care and hair care routines customized just for you, with ingredients that are proven to work. Their products are built around just a handful of powerful proven ingredients that have been trusted by dermatologists for decades. With over 7,000 5 star reviews, it's clear that people truly love the product. My skin looks so much better now that I'm using the geology skin care they sent to me.

My skin is smoother and it's become a wonderful daily routine to make sure my skin stays clear. The moisturizing morning cream and everyday face wash have become my personal favorite. Geology Spell GEOLGIE helps fight acne, reduce oiliness, prevent wrinkles and combat darker puffy under eyes. Have smoother hydrated skin and target signs of aging. Right now for a limited time, they're hooking you up with an absolutely insane offer. Use my code legalaf70 or scan the QR code on the screen and they will give you an exclusive 70% off their award-winning skin care trial set.

On top of that, you can get 30% on the Anon's products of your choice when you add it to your trial. This is one of the best offers you'll see. Get it before it's gone. Head to g-e-o-l-o-g-dot-i-e slash legal AF 70 or scan the QR code on the screen and use code legal AF 70 and they will give you an exclusive 70% off of their award-winning skincare trial set. On top of that, you can save big on the add-on products of your choice when you add it to

your trial. Thank you geology for partnering with us. Welcome back. Thank you geology for partnering with us. Great ad read again by Popok three for three today. I want to be three for three on our Topics actually we got another topic after this is two more topics to discuss some good topics to discuss I'm thrilled that we still got more show to go. Tell us about this mistrial motion that judge and Goron very swiftly Disposed of Michael Popak.

So swiftly, the judge didn't need even full briefing on this particular motion. Just to explain New York practice, you make a letter request to the judge first about your desire, your intention to file a motion, and then you can, that's your letter brief, we call it. It's not your actual emotion and you in this case you attached in New York because we have a kind of a unique Byzantine style here that dates back to the early or the late 1800s. You do it by way of what's called an order to show cause where you propose a briefing schedule, a return date we call it for the brief and then for the hearing

and you submit that to the judge. The other side, in this case, the New York Attorney General, can submit a letter brief in opposition to the request to file the motion. It's a little complicated, but that's what happened. Then the judge took one look at the letter briefing and the foundation for the mistrial motion, which is primarily the following. We don't like judge Chuck. We don't like Judge Angoran.

I don't know why I'm getting those two confused today. We don't like Judge Angoran. Judge Angoran is mean to us because he doesn't rule in our favor enough. He rules for the other side more than for us. He's got a law clerk that's a Democrat and she ran for Judge and we don't like the fact that they do their job together. The way a law clerk is supposed to support a judge. And we observed all that.

The judge runs a newsletter for a private school that he used to be a part of and likes to post a not commentary, but likes to post and links to the articles about the case there. And we think that shows bias. He's got some pictures of himself with his shirt off that seemed to drive them a little bit crazy for whatever reason they love doing that.

And this was the grounds and that the judge made a statement that they've taken completely at a context to which the judge found bad faith that they even raised that issue. And I'm going to talk about what I think will happen next related to the lawyers in the room making a bad faith comment about a judge because that's not a good thing under the ethics rules. Talk about that in a minute. And the judge said, okay, on that one, I said when you're when you're when you're here, I'll read it. I'll just read it.

I have it here. To the extent defendants argue that I have exhibited bias. And this is on page five of six of the order. By stating in court that quote, I'm not here to hear what Donald Trump has to say, close quote, such argument is disingenuous and made in bad faith as defendants omitted what I said immediately after that sentence, which is I'm here to hear him answer questions.

Indeed, that's precisely the role of a witness and the finder of fact. Meaning, when he was pontificating Donald Trump in response to every question and getting on his soapbox with his canned answers and not answering the question. And the judge said, this is really irrelevant. If there was a jury president, the lawyer would have instructed that he would have asked the judge to strike the testimony from the record.

So it's not part of the record for the jury and to instruct him to answer the question that's been asked. When you have a bench trial with the judge's the trial, or in fact, he doesn't have to go through that rigour moral. He can just say, that's answered the question. We don't need your narrative. And he said, I'm not here. And that's when Chris Kys stood up with Olinah Hoppen,

and said, it's just a lot of you, your judge, if you just lay back and let him talk, it's just a lot easier, you know, you know, he is the former president or the president or whatever, like the call. And the judge said, I'm not here to hear him talk. I'm here to hear him answer questions. They cut that in half and use that here.

It is here. They use that against the judge in every filing that they've made, including in the federal court and the federal courts of appeal. The bad faith reference is a bad thing for Hobbock, Kice, and Cliff Robert because the judge can do one of two things. And he can do it right now.

He can't threaten to do it, but he can do it. He can make a referral to the first, to the Appellate Division, first department, which supervises all lawyers that practice in that department, and make a ethical violation referral that they've used bad faith now, the second time against the judge in their filings, that's a bad thing.

For those in the courtroom that are not already members of the New York bar, like Cliff Robert, but are there by permission under what we call the pro-Hawk Vici rules or the special admission rules, the judge can pull their ticket and say, you know what, Alina Haba? You know what, Chris Keiss, you've lost your privilege to represent your client here because of how you've acted. I'm not sure he goes that far because now he's getting in the middle of that sacrosanct relationship between a lawyer and a client, but I don't think this ethical violation will go unnoticed by the judge.

He used that word particularly for a reason. And then my other favorite part of the decision Which he denied the motion for mistrial. He says I don't even need full briefing and then he said to the He said to the New York Attorney General the following on page five of six Plaintiff this is the New York Attorney General has advocated for a full briefing schedule on the Mistral motion, emphasizing that although it believes defendant's motion is without merit, it also believes briefing would economize the timing and effects of any appeal. And the judge made this withering response. However, in good conscience, I cannot sign a proposed order to show cause that is utterly without merit and

upon which subsequent briefing would therefore be futile. And he says, I've looked at all of your basis for mistrial and it is denied. My relationship with the law clerk is appropriate and ethical. She's not a code judge. All the decisions I make are mine and mine alone. But in a little bit of a commentary here, you've got a judge, and I know these lawyers have never done this before I have, who's got a 8, 10, 12 week trial. He is the only trial effect. Okay, He can only scribble notes so much during these days with the New York Attorney General put on 25 witnesses. I assume Donald Trump will put on a dozen or more witnesses. There are hundreds of thousands of pages of exhibits. Even the jury has other jurors to rely on when they deliberate about what did your notes say? What did you think that

guy said? And they have all the transcripts. The judge uses his staff the way a partner and a law firm uses his associates in order to help him keep track as the trial effect of all the information and to ultimately render his decision. The decision is the person in the black robe, but that doesn't mean he can't consult with people sitting next to him. And they keep even in the, well, get to it when we get to DC a little bit, Ben, they even put that photo again in the DC gag order to raise an entire section of attacking the

Law Clerk again. All it shows is willful blindness and a misconception and a miss reporting of the relationship between a judge and a law clerk under New York law. And at beginning, I thought, well, this is just ignorance because they don't know any better. No, they're doing it on purpose because they got nothing else to talk about because they're losing, let me just say it out loud, they are losing the case in the courtroom. I can't put this in, I can't put this on finer terms. Within the four wood-paneled walls of the courtroom,

where it matters, not outside. Where the game is played, they are losing and losing by a lot, right? Those 25 witnesses were devastating for them. The evidence with Donald Trump's signature on it, devastating for them. The evidence with Donald Trump's signature on it, devastating for them. The adverse witnesses that were brought in, that were former employees and felons, or those that just avoided being felons by getting immunity and their own, his own children,

devastating. And if they're first witness to try to turn around this, this battleship in their direction is Don Jr's play school PowerPoint. They are dead. And so that's why you see the flailing and the bashing and the attacking because they are losing in the courtroom. And that's a microcosm or a macrocosm, microcosm of everything that Donald Trump does and that all that

maggot does. I mean, talking about the release of these January 6th, additional tapes, right? What was their first instinct? They gave him, what Kevin McCarthy do? He gave him to Tucker Carlson, so Tucker Carlson could filter him. And now they're releasing it, but they're redacting the faces of actual insurrectionists, so people who are involved in the insurrection are being protected by them.

And then the mega people are like clipping small portions of them and then acting like, oh, look, you see, they were not violent at this moment. So therefore, let's go after the January 6th. It's all bad faith. And what really makes me angry about it and should make you angry about it watching that is that they are trying to manipulate us. They are trying to play us. And when legacy media is lazy and allows them to do what they're aiding and embedding that manipulation of us with very disastrous consequences for

our nation. And that's why for me, this show, what we talk about here on the Micah's show, just give me the full facts. Look, Pope, if judge Engoran actually said, or any judge said in a proceeding, suespante on their own to any litigant, I'm not here to listen to what the party has to say. Get out of here. I would be really upset about that. I would say to myself, that's a corrupt judge. The judge's how horrible. But that's like someone telling you the first part of the story, but not telling you how it ends. And that's the

lie. What judge and Gora said was, I'm not here to hear what Donald Trump has to say. I'm here to hear the answers to the questions. I'm here to listen to him answer the questions because this is a trial. So when he's being cross-examine, I'm not here to just listen to him rant and rave and read letters and go on tangents that are not related to this.

You want to ask him in direct examination, which you didn't do. Alina Haabban, Trumpslers, ask him direct examination. This is cross-exam. I'm here to listen to him answer the questions. And then the fact that Trumps lawyers had the audacity, not only to make that their public talking point. And by the way, that may be all the public hears about it. People are very busy in their days. People have a lot going on. They're working

sometimes multiple jobs. So they may only hear, wow, this judge said, I'm not here to listen. There may be something wrong with this judge. And they're not getting the full context. That pisses me off. It really does. That's why I do this. That's why we built this network. So I'm like, no, no, tell me. Oh, the judge said I'm here to listen to the answers to his questions. And the Trump lawyer kind of arrogance with disinfo has reached such a level where they're like, okay, we're going to put this in a court filing. We're just gonna lie about what he said, even though there's a transcript,

we're gonna even put it in the court filing, because you know what, we don't even care if we lose this case, so we don't care about, we just care about will the public create so much pressure? And when we talk about what happened in Colorado, my read on it, Popok, is that the judge in Colorado just was afraid. She made the key finding of insurrection,

but I think she was afraid that if she ruled against Donald Trump, she would get the ingorant treatment or the Chutkin treatment, and she didn't want that to happen. She was afraid, and fascism makes people fearful. I understand that, but in this moment, we need to be there for each other. That's how fascism takes people down. That's how a small group of fascist-minded people take over authoritarian, take over countries, and authoritarianism gains root.

And that Colorado ruling to me was really just the judge saying, you know what, I am making this ruling. If someone else wants to make it, you can make it, but I'll find that he's an insurrectionist, but I'm out. We'll talk about that in a moment, but let's talk about a judge who is fearless, about that in a moment, but let's talk about a judge who is fearless. But when you're fearless, what do you get? The relentless, relentless attacks by Donald Trump. She's been subject to death threats, Judge Tanya Chutkin, someone's being prosecuted for threatening her life. And we don't even know about the countless other examples of death threats to her and her staff and to her court that must be taking place on a daily basis. We know some of that from Special Counsel Jack Smith filing as he's been subject to these

threats. As Donald Trump attacks Special Counsel Jack Smith's wife and family and puts them in a position of peril. And then when Donald Trump goes and gives the speeches, he then jokes about people like the person who was convicted of attempted murder on Nancy Pelosi's husband this past week as well. Donald Trump spreads the conspiracy. Again, the Nancy Pelosi's husband was involved

in something with this guy, even though that's completely derangingly false. The guy was found guilty. And then Donald Trump laughs about it. I guess the wall didn't work. I mean, she's the real terrorist. And makes a joke about it. That is the context of him encouraging his people to do that and to go after these people.

And they do it. They follow it. They do it, they follow it, they do it. Judge Chutkin ruled that Donald Trump's motion to strike or remove inflammatory allegations. That's what Trump called it, motion to remove inflammatory allegations from the indictment. She denied that and kind of denied it in very strong terms and said it's kind of utterly without merit. But what Donald Trump says is inflammatory in court is connecting him with the insurrectionist and what happened on January 6th in the indictment.

One of the things that Donald Trump says in his reply papers is he said that basically like, well, these insurrectionists, they were the ones going to the Capitol, not Donald Trump. I mean, Donald Trump said we are going. Then of course, there's audio recording from Jonathan Carl's new book of Donald Trump saying that he intended to go with them. They spread the lie again over and over

and over again as they did in Colorado that well, no, Donald Trump was actually trying to call 10,000 National Guard. They repeat that, they repeat the lie over and over and over again and again, bad faith. That did not happen. How do we know it didn't happen? Donald Trump's Secretary of Defense testified before the January 6th committee said that's absolutely not true. That's absolutely false.

But not before that same Secretary of Defense went on Hannity and lied about it and said that there was 10,000 National Guard. Then under oath said no, that never happened. There was never 10,000 National Guard. The only mention and reference, because to me, fax matter of National Guard or 10,000 National Guard was that Donald Trump in trying to seize power wanted a procession where the National Guard protected him as he would walk into the Capitol building, Napoleon style, and declare basically becoming the emperor of the United States.

Go read the January 6th Committee report that's coming from Donald Trump's own team. Trump wanted it for himself for a short period of time not to protect the city or anything like that. And then the advisor said, we quickly told him, don't do that. And then Donald Trump never talked about it. But there was never a request for 10,000 National Guard. But anyway, Judge Chutkin was like, no, I'm rejecting this. She did maneuver, she did grand Donald Trump a few extra days to file his oppositions to the various motions to dismiss.

And I think she's doing that. I want to your take, Pope, I think she's preparing her denial right now. She's writing out her denial. And there's a lot of motions at this point and she knows how frivolous it is. So I think the reason that she gave like five more days, seven more days, nothing that's going to change the March 4, 2024. I think she was giving herself time through the holidays to actually write the order, which I think she's working on.

As we speak, denying those motions, one of the things I think she'll do to, we'll see if I'm right about this. Is try to consolidate at least some of the motions into an omnibus order denying because one of Donald Trump's tactics here is to try to do multiple motions to dismiss versus one motion to dismiss with various categories because he wants to try to get as many attempts at appealing with different DC circuit court of appeals. And Jack Smith already consolidated some in an omnibus opposition. And I think she's going to do the same in how she adjudicates these decisions so that it just goes to one panel and doesn't slow down because what Trump's then going to do is he has an interlocutory appeal right when it comes to the double jeopardy claim that he makes and the immunity and the president

so-called presidential immunity claim when he loses that he's going to go to the court of appeals and folks that'll be his last al-Merry. That will be the deciding factor of this case goes in March or not, what the court of appeals, DC circuits going to do there. So that's the way this is going to play out in the next four to six weeks, Popa. So I like Chutkin a lot, as we all know, and her order was only three pages

in denying one of four of the motions that Donald Trump filed in the last couple of weeks, one to quash the indictment, one to dismiss the indictment, one on double jeopardy, one on prosecutorial misconduct and the rest. This was the easiest one for her to deny. I think that's why I came out so quickly. And I think it's ironic that it came out the motion to deny- sorry, the order denying Trump's motion to strike inflammatory allegations linking him directly to Jan 6th in the indictment, coming on the eve of a judge, another judge in Colorado.

We'll talk about next, who after a week and a half long trial, found as a matter of law as the fact finder that Donald Trump did participate in the Jan 6th insurrection. He was an insurrectionist and somebody that engaged in rebellion against the Constitution and also pointed out how he uses his call and response powers a persuasion over his well-armed and unhinged followers to do his violent bidding. So you have that judge after hearing evidence and testimony, including expert testimony and the reliance on many findings in the Jan 6 committee report. And then you have this federal judge saying, first of all, the Jan 6 committee, sorry, the Jan 6 allegations about Donald Trump's role in it, yes, is in the indictment. But as you should know, indictments as a document don't go to the jury in their deliberation,

which is basically, which is by the way, a criminal trial 101. Indicaments are not evidence. It's civil trial 101. The complaint is not evidence. It's civil trial 101. The complaint is not evidence. The prosecution has the burden beyond a reasonable doubt to put in in the room, in the wood paneled courtroom, the evidence, the witnesses, the documents, whatever the evidence is, circumstantial, direct, documentary, testimonial, whatever the evidence is, they've got to present it. They can't say, well, in the indictment, we reference this fact.

They got to prove that fact in a courtroom through the witnesses and whatever else. And so when the jury goes, let's talk about jury deliberation for a minute, when the jury finally, quote unquote, gets the case, which is what we call it in the biz. And they get the judges now instructed them on the law and sent them off to deliberate to decide on the guilt or innocence of, in this case, Donald Trump. What do they have with them in the room? Well, in federal court, they probably have their notes that they took throughout the trial. They get to keep those generally. They get all of the evidence, piles of it. They get, and they can get other certain things that they request if they ask a question

through the judge and the judge grants it. And if they have questions during their deliberation, they can send questions through the jury for person to the judge to have them answer. The lawyers usually weigh in about whether that question is gonna be answered or not, how it's going to be answered And that's what they have in the room and their brains and their understanding of having their own experiential Understanding of what they've heard in evidence in the last

You know, whatever it is six weeks or so opening statements by the lawyers are not evidence. Even the closing argument is not evidence. The evidence it refers to is evidence. And so the indictment is not evidence. So the judge was like, I don't need to edit out from the indictment references the Jan 6. First of all, I don't even have to talk about relevancy because it doesn't reach the level of being prejudicial or inflammatory, which is the standard for me to remove it and by the way for good measure the judge said and

speaking of Unsupported accusations that are inflammatory your own brief Donald Trump uses that on frequent occasion She says in the bottom of page two over to page three of her order Defendant 16 page reply and supportive its motion, despite making numerous inflammatory and unsupported accusations of its own. And then she gives an example to votes just one paragraph to the prejudice requirement, which is what the whole brief should have been about. And she said the part she didn't like and put it back on them, hoisted them up on it,

was this allegation. President Biden directed the Department of Justice to prosecute his leading opponent for the presidency through a calculated leak to the New York Times. It's just like, where is evidence of that in your inflammatory comment? And so this is denied. I think this is Boad's well for the Department of Justice that she's going to deny most if not all of the remaining motions. This case is going to trial in March. Maybe he tries a DC court of appeals and tries to take an off ramp to get a temporary

stay while he raises one of these constitutional issues. Pardon me, I kicked my computer with my foot or and maybe that ends up going to the Supreme Court, but we are still so far on target for March. And I just think Ben, leave it on this. It is just the height of irony that on the days that Donald Trump is claiming Jan 6th, do nothing about, well, me, me and Jan 6th,

why would you make that connection? Is the same exact time, of course, besides the Jan 6th committee why would you make that connection? Is the same exact time, of course, besides the Jan 6th committee, making that connection and facts, making that connection. You got another judge who made findings in Colorado that he is, that he used Jan 6th and its insurrectionist as a weapon to incite rebellion against the Constitution same week. But the judge says that in the infinite wisdom of our founders, they were cool with that.

You know, as long as it's the presidency or the, as long as it's the most important jobs and the most important offices according to this judge, those were the exempt ones, all the other ones, you can't run again, but insurrection is form a bond. She's wrong, but I like, I'd never heard this before. I like your stochastic terrorism, scaring judges from doing their job theory.

I didn't quite take it that way, although, it makes a lot of sense and it does explain the facts. You want to jump into it first or? Yeah, she didn't want the smoke, she didn't want the fire. She knew what the facts were that were presented. And she made the finding that he was an insurrectionist, but she, I think, was fearful of making the right order. Or didn't want to be the first one to make the order, fearful of MAGA, whatever it is, she was psyched out

because it just simply doesn't make sense. We just show you Article II executive branch of the United States Constitution. If you look at clause one, the president's role, it says the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States. He shall hold his office during the term of four years and together with the vice president chosen for the same term be elected as follows.

Then Article 2 clause 8, the presidential oath of office says before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, Article 2, Section 1, clause 8. And then if we go to the 14th Amendment, Section 3, the relevant provision for the Constitutional disqualification, it says, no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress

or a electorate president, or hold any office, civil or military under the United States, or under any state who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States. She'll have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against him, the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, but Congress may vote by two thirds of each house to remove such disability.

That's amendment, the 14th Amendment, section three. And so here, the Colorado judge said, well, if you look in descending order, it mentions senators and mentions representatives. It mentions electors, it mentions members of state legislatures. It mentions executive or judicial officers of any state. So she says, if you look at statutory construction and you see a list like that, and it starts with senator or representative and descends with executive or judicial officer of any state And you don't include president or vice president in there and then she also says that previous drafts of the United States

Constit- of this amendment included Porsche had an initial draft when one of the people were drafting it that actually started off with president or vice president, then it said Senator Elector, the fact that that was removed and omitted, she says that shows that this, it does not apply to the presidency and that the oath taken by the presidency is a different oath than what is invoked by this provision, which I don't know. I think that's actually torturing the statutory construction here because it says, or as

an officer of the United States, which to me is a catch all, What the judge says is that it's not a catch all to say officer of the United States, but not to use the direct words, President or Vice President, but simply subsume President or Vice President under officer like any other ordinary officer. If you make a list in descending order, would not make sense that that's what was there. And that if the drafters of this provision wanted it to apply to the presidency and vice presidency, they would have just simply said it as they had an initial draft. She said, go ahead, sorry. I just want the, that's what she says. And then she, she makes the finding, trumps an insurrectionist,

he engaged an insurrection, and she rejects his both sideism, where he goes, lots of politicians use martial language, like let's, you know, go after him, or let's fight like hell, and she goes, that ignores everything that he actually did that day, and the lead up to it.

I find he's an insurrectionist, but, and then in the remaining like eight to 10 paragraphs of the ruling out of nowhere. It's 101 page ruling. So you're reading this thing, and it goes through how Donald Trump's witnesses are incredible, how the petitioner who brought the case, their witnesses were credible,

and you're thinking, okay, he's about to get disqualified, and then you read those last paragraphs. And based on that interpretation, the way I described it, she goes, well, actually, it doesn't apply to him. All right. She's wrong. I did not take on this. And let me tell you why she's why I hate to say it because we liked her up until now.

I still like her. I just think she got the analysis wrong. And maybe for the reason that you pointed out where there's a kind of a subliminal fear here of Donald Trump and his followers. But what, what sounds like what she needed, which unfortunately was not presented in the record, was an expert on the reconstruction period in American history, lasting 1866, 1877, and what Lincoln and his successor was trying to do to put the union back together again.

This was not the only loyalty test that was required of people to come back to the union. There were a number of laws that were passed of which the 14th Amendment being ratified, section three was one of them to make sure that before they let them back into the union's house at the front door, you took a loyalty test at an oath, and if you couldn't pass that test, you weren't going to be able to serve an office again.

That's one. The second thing is Lincoln and the successors to Lincoln were worried about Robert E. Lee and his followers, just like we're worried about Donald Trump and his followers today, and pissing them off and to try to also at the same time Bring brother and brother and sister and brother back together again after a civil war We like to use that term civil there. It's gonna be a civil war if this doesn't happen to Trump There's gonna be a civil war We had a civil war and it went on for a number of years and hundreds of thousands of people died. Go to Gettysburg.

Go to Appomattox, if you don't believe me. I've been to those places on school tours. Okay, we had a real war where brother against brother and fought against each other to the death over our country. And then we had a reconstruction put it back together again. So the fact that the presidency and the vice presidency were not mentioned by name is more, I believe, based on history, have to do with not alienating

people they were trying to get back into the union than because they wanted to have a, or allow our founding fathers of the people during this period, a rebellious, traitorous president to be on the ballot or to give that a permission. And that's why, as you pointed out, right, Ben, there's this catch-all. Now, how do I know that he's a federal officer holding the office of the presidency? Yes, it's all the time you mentioned office in the oath, but also he just recently took the position with which the judge completely ignored in a federal

removal petition that he brought in the E. Jean Carroll case, the defamation and rape case where he tried to get it away from judge, uh, uh, federal judge Kaplan and bring it over to, um, and, and no, I'm sorry. I just, let me try it again. He tried to get his Stormy Daniels case. Sorry, try it again. Restart, Popuck. Stormy Daniels hushed money cover-up case away from Judge Mershan and bring it over

to a new federal judge. And in order to do so, he had to take the position, Trump, that he was a federal officer, a title to federal officer removal. So how do you then that he was a federal officer, a title to federal officer removal. So how do you then say he's a federal officer, which he's already acknowledged? He has to take the oath. Yes, his oath is the last line firewall of defense of the Constitution and our constitutional republic because he's the commander in chief.

So it would be weird if he said support the constitution the way the congress people say it or other officers say it or cabinet members say it. He is the commander or she is the commander in chief. So she has to preserve protect and defend the constitution because they got the finger on the button of the military. Right. That's why they get that, that, that, but that doesn't mean that all those things preserve, protect, defend, don't equal support. And so the judge got all wrapped up with, well,

let's look at the oath difference. This one says support. This one says defend, preserve, and protect. Unlike they're exactly the same thing. The only reason the presidency has this other duty is because they're the commander-in-chief, right? We expect the president to protect the Constitution. That's something that always gets left out of the 14th Amendment analysis, not on legal

AFP in general. It's not just that he's an insurrectionist and engaged in insurrection or rebellion. It's insurrection and rebellion against the Constitution. That's where the judge gets right in her analysis. That the word same means the Constitution. So we're looking at the relationship between the federal officer and the Constitution. All have to support it. One has to defend, preserve and protect it.

And that's the commander in chief. But that doesn't mean, oh, that's the out. Here we go. Because they didn't, they used a different oath version. And there was this earlier draft because they didn't want to piss off Robert E. Lee's followers that had his name up there at the top. And rather than the catch-all, oh, that's it.

Sorry, you're not going to use the 14th amendment to disqualify him from the ballot. Now, you've got one issue left on appeal. This group that brought the case is going to bring it up on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, ultimately to the US Supreme Court, on the issue of whether the 14th Amendment and this whole issue about the drafts of it and the legislative intent and the oath that were taken about each applies to a rebellious insurrectionist president. Yes, no, thumb up or thumb down.

And that, no, it's gonna go on an expedited appeal because this issue has to be decided before the ballots are printed in November. And while we're watching, and I'll leave it on this, Ben, all we're watching are various courts, leave it on this, Ben, all we're watching are various courts, whether it's Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, at the Supreme Court level, at the original jurisdiction of a court level, try to struggle with how to apply something

that the framers left us, but without instructions, or an instruction manual on how to implement it. I heard one of the legal commentators recently on one of the news shows say it just shows that we don't understand procedure and it's really hard. Okay, that may be true and it may be the first time we've had a rebellious insurrection as president that we've had to go after under the under the constitution that it's our governing document. But that means that we now have to have the gravitas, I'm talking to the judges here, the gravitas,

the steeliness, the balls, the steel, to create the procedure because it's supposed to be, and this is where the judge got it right and wrong. She said in her 101 pages, constitutional provisions and amendments need to be broadly and liberally interpretant. And then she did the exact opposite. She made it narrow, looking for exit rams and outs. Some judge is going to have to stand up here like she originally did and say, I interpret constitutional provisions. And just because there's not a,

because the constitution is not a statute book that gives you chapter in verse in 500 pages of federal regulation, like it's in the CFR, the code of federal regulation, exactly how to do this. You have to do it by court precedent and common law. And these judges and Supreme Court judges that want to punt and say, oh, it's a political question,

goes back to the Congress. We don't want to deal with it. And this judge, I can deal with it, but I don't want to deal with it. So I'm going to misinterpret the last provision in there and punt it off to my higher bosses at the Supreme Court level. Somebody's got to stand up once and for all and say, I need to implement and execute the language of our U.S. Constitution, that sacred language and do it at the most critical time

in our history with a former president that I have found to be rebellious and insurrection, I have to do it. And we can't just bang our head and go, it's so hard, so complicated. What do we do? They didn't tell us what to do with it. Ridiculous. And so I want to have, let's see what Colorado Supreme Court does. You and I will figure out the makeup of that court and how that may impact the decision-making.

Then ultimately, it's going to go to the right-wing Maga Supreme Court and the 6-3 majority, which today has not sided with Donald Trump on many or all issues that are important to him. We'll have to see what they do here. We know Alito and Thomas will instantly find a way to say that it doesn't apply. I'll write there descent right now. The question is, can John Roberts count to five and get five votes to find that it applies? Not just for Trump.

Yes, I care about Trump. But let's be frank, one day he's going to be dead. I mean, from natural causes. And we'll have another Trump. And then somebody who's going to try to use his playbook and test the guardrails of democracy and our justice system even more than this guy. And that's the case law and the body of precedent that I care about, that our audience cares about, that you care about then, that we're watching the development. All of the cases that are going to have the Trump name on it, moving forward, state and federal, Supreme courts all over this land are going to be important to our democracy, moving forward

to avoid and to stop the toppling accidental or otherwise of our democracy by the next Trump. That's what I worry about. I worry about this guy. I worry about the next guy or woman. The way to combat that though is we need an empowered, educated electorate that understands where and how the manipulation is taking place. Manipulation can happen from a variety of ways.

And we talked about that here on today's show. It could be Donald Trump's lawyers in bad faith, selectively only saying certain things that the judge said. The judge said, I'm not here to hear what Donald Trump has to say, but omitting the full sentence, the full context. The judge said, I'm here to listen to him answer the questions that are being asked. Another way is to torture common sense language. If you look at the second amendment, for example, we all know that it says, well, regulated militia, yet we are being gas-slided by people who have an agenda and want

there to be a massive proliferation of militarized weapons out there to do the bidding of the NRA who tell us, well, you know, there's a comma there and a comma there. So we don't read well-regulated militia. That part doesn't matter. And all it is is the right to bear arms. So wait a minute, you're telling me you're a strict textualist, but I'm supposed to not read that text. What about? Yeah, well, there's a comma. Okay, but it says well-regulated. Coma. It's like, okay, you're just you're just gaslighting me. Stop, but it says well-regulated. Cama, it's like, okay, you're just gaslighting me. Stop it.

It says well-regulated militia. Another way is framing issues. And Maga Republicans do this all the time. We are originalists. We are strict textualists. We are states rights. Okay, states rights. You want a federal ban with no exceptions for abortion,

and you want to impose that on all states? I thought you were states rights. No, no, no. This is where we have to make sure we have a government. The government needs to tell people how they need to live their lives. The government needs to tell people what religion they need to be a part of.

So we're not states rights there. Now we're big government. You know, or they say that they're fiscally conservative. You all added $8 trillion in debt, MacHare Republicans. There's nothing fiscally conservative about that. So there's kind of selectively providing information.

There's false framing of these issues. And then there is just kind of the outright overt lies that are taking place and manipulating what the language is. I don't want you to feel gaslit and I want this community to be a very safe space for information to flow. And it's perfectly okay that you leave this episode and you disagree with me and popok on everything.

You may go, you know what, the judge had a great point there in Colorado, descending order, that makes sense, but I hope you appreciate that we gave you all of the facts. You may disagree with me about judging Goron. You may think it was inappropriate for judging Goron to say, I'm not here to hear what Donald Trump had to say. I'm here to hear a man's or questions, but at least you know the full context of what he had to say. You're informed to make that decision.

And I hope when we talk about the various cases, you're just left with the facts and data. You certainly know our opinions, but I want you to be able to see through the layers of manipulation that billion dollars are being poured into so that an oligarchical style, Russian, Putin-esque style, authoritarian style, construct, which maga republicans are trying to have take root can can can further entrench itself and eliminate some of these great systems that we have. I mean, you know, we we we know that our judicial system isn't perfect, but it's also a very strange thing and a dangerous thing to see people like Donald Trump, not even focused on the facts, but attacking the judge's law clerk.

Popeyes practice a lot longer than me. I practice for a decent amount of time. I graduated law school in 2010. And that's just, that's not normal behavior of attacking the law clerk. Like that's not normal behavior of attacking the law clerk. Like, that's not our system. And we should not accept it. We should not be okay about that. Knowledge is power and we hear on legal AF,

want to make sure that you feel empowered when you leave this episode and the other programming we do on the Midas Touch Network. So thank you all so much for watching this. If you wanna keep supporting the growth of our independent media network that has no outside investors. You can do that at patreon.com slash MidasTouch,

p-a-t-r-e-o-n.com slash MidasTouch. You can get all the legal AF merch and gear of the stuff makes great presents for the holidays as well. 100% union made, 100% made in the the USA store.mitustouch.com That's store.mitustouch.com Thank y'all so much for watching this episode of legal a f Ben micellas Michael Popeye land in the plane We'll see you next time have a great one. Shout out to the might as mighty

plane, we'll see you next time. Have a great one. Shout out to the Midas mighty.