Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump CAN’T HANDLE the HEAT from Prosecutors as he continues to SPIRAL

Episode Date: September 14, 2023

Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back on Legal AF to discuss: 1. Trump’s doomed efforts to disqualify Judge Chutkan in the DC Federal Election Interference case; 2. Mark Meadows continued efforts to get his Georgia Criminal Case removed from State to Federal Court, having lost several battles with Federal Judge Jones, and now appealing to the 11th Circuit; 3. The status of the other criminal defendants in the Georgia Criminal Case as they move, not in unison, to sever, not sever, partially sever, speed up, and/or slow down the fast moving criminal case; 4. Judge Cannon finally gets around to ruling on now to handle the classified documents at the heart of the Mar a Lago Florida Criminal Case, or does she, as she continues to dither and ring her hands over what should be basic issues, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSOR! Miracle Made: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGLAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Neurohacker Senolytic: Go to https://neurohacker.com/LEGAL for up to 50% off Qualia Senolytic and as a listener of The LEGALAF use code LEGAL at checkout for an extra 15% off your first purchase! Betterhelp: This is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://BetterHelp.com/LEGALAF today to get 10% off your first month and get on your way to being your best self! 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 Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 MAGA Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Salesforce, we're all about asking more of AI. Questions like, where's the data going? Is it secure? Are you sure? Are you sure you're sure? Get answers you can trust from Salesforce at AskMoreVai.com. Trump has been threatening to disqualify DC Circuit Court judge Chuck in in the Federal Election Interference Criminal Case since day one.

Calling her a bigot, a racist, a Marxist, a leftist, and as far back as two months ago that she was biased against him based on prior rulings. And now he's gone and done it. He's filed a weak motion to disqualify against Judge Chutkin because he doesn't like her rulings, he doesn't like the fact she's sending him to trial quickly, but claiming that she has an inherent bias against him. He did the same failed thing with Judge Middlebrook's in Florida, who sanctioned him later over a million dollars, and Judge Mershon in New York, which also failed. These kind of motions go right to the judge herself to consider, and she set a briefing

schedule for this week to get right to it. We will discuss whether Trump has even met the threshold test to have Judge Chuck indesqualified and what happens next in the interim. Then it's time to return to the Georgia State criminal case and check in on what's happening there with the 19 co-conspirator defendants. Some want to stay in state court, but go slow and not so speedy. A couple wanted to go

really speedy and now have an October trial date. That scared the bejesus out of the rest, and they backed away saying, well, Georgia may be, but speedy, no way. While another group said, check please and tried to head for the door marked federal court. Mark Meadows, former chief of staff, was the poster boy for how to not get his case from state to federal court, as the others like Trump watch, and Trump just woke up long enough to file some very short briefs

to join some other baseless motions filed by Ken Chespro and Rudy Giuliani. As KFA likes to say, this is really complicated. How will we ever figure it all out? And here is a spoiler alert. We're going to. Now let's move.

Speaking of hot mess, let's move down. I can never get to Canon without cracking up. So, let's say it's in the pot. Well, hopefully she is the hot mess you're referring to. No, no, let me get real here. Speaking of a confusing hot mess, we next update you on the Florida Mar-a-Lago federal criminal case. We're after several months, Judge Cannon, who Trump has not moved to disqualify ever finally got around to entering an order to address the use of all confidential national defense information and top secret documents by Trump his counsel the other the other

co-defendants in the government including ruling on whether the government has to build Trump his very own secret reviewing room in Mar-a-Lago rather than just force him like any other defendant to use one in Miami. This is Legal AF with your midweek co-anchors, Michael Popok and Karen Friedman-Igniflo. I'm in New York, Karen's in New York, and our audience is in all 50 states and 138 countries around the globe. We are legal AF and you are passionate, might as mighty and legal AFers. Karen, we could make an entire show out of the stories we're not covering on today's show and that we curated out.

But we could do like an after show or we could do a KFA dark or dark KFA show, but we got the show in front of us to do when we got our hands full. How are you doing? I'm good. I'm good. You're kind of giddy today, Popuck. You're like, it's a giddy Popuck. It's a giddy Popuck.

I'm good. I'm hoping to get through this episode without any barking dogs. So we'll see if that can happen. That's all right. I didn't get through it without doubling over and laughter. So we're starting off well, let's get to some serious matters. I mean, I, and that word serious is doing a heavy lift in that sentence. Donald Trump's motion to disqualify judge, Chuck and surprise. He finally brought it after watching her set a trial for May,

telling him that she's not going to treat him like different than any other defendant that's before her, doesn't care what his day job is, doesn't care that politics are involved with what he's running for office, and none of that is going to fly in her courtroom. And so Donald Trump's had enough, and he thinks he's got an ability on a standard that requires that a reasonable person conclude that the judge is so bred biased and so prejudiced against Donald Trump that he can't get a fair trial

and that she can't be impartial. And the judge that decides that issue is the judge that you're moving to disqualify, which is Judge Chuckkin before it goes off to the appellate courts. We're not. We'll talk about that as well. First, Karen, why don't you go over, you know, we've given the background. He only moves to disqualify judges that he doesn't like and that are, you know, we've given the background. He only moves to disqualify judges that he doesn't like and that are, you know, appointed by Democrats

or ran on democratic platforms, not because they've done anything wrong, not because they're biased, not because they should recuse themselves, but just because he wants to attempt a delay and then he used it as a fundraising grift as we know, he's lost every time. He tried middle Brooks down in Florida because he was appointed by Clinton And he had a case against Hillary Clinton

He tried Mershon because Mershon had a old adult daughter that worked in in democratic lobbying or marketing And and he donated 50 bucks or whatever it was the Joe Biden that failed and failed. And now, of course, we knew he was going to get around a judge-chutkin. Talk about the standard, and if you think he's met it, and then what happens, we'll talk next about what happens to the case in the interim. It's part of the problem with this motion for recusal is he's a little bit at this point like the boy who cried wolf. And if you do this every time for every judge, then it becomes eye rolling in a sense. And even if you did have any sort of legitimate claim,

it's hard to, with a straight face, really make that argument since this is what you do whenever you just don't like someone. And there is a legal standard for when a judge should recuse themselves or actually must recuse themselves. He filed this nine-page recusal motion. It's under a 28-united states code 455a, and it reads any justice judge or magistrate judge

of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned. Now, there's other sections of recusal that require when you have to recuse yourself, like when you have a financial interest, in one of like you own Apple stock and Apple is one of the parties to the lawsuit,

that sort of thing, or in private practice, you represented one of the parties. There's certain things in the statute that say when you must recuse yourself. But here, this one is more, it's a little bit less, it's fuzzier, essentially. And what Donald Trump was saying was because, look, because you made statements in other cases, Tanya Chukkin, those statements, those show that you are biased. And he said those cases that those statements

that she made before this case even began before Jack Smith was even appointed as a special prosecutor, you know, those statements that you made show you have a bias. And even though you may genuinely intend to give a fair trial and you intend to do so and you believe you can do so, these public statements that you judge can have made in the past, in these past cases, will inevitably and unavoidably taint these proceedings. The standard here that applies is not just that you are biased,

but what he's saying, what he's arguing, is when there's even an appearance of bias, an appearance of impropriety, it doesn't have to be an actual conflict, but an appearance of when there's any, if you lose faith in the justice system, if you think that, you know, if the public can lose faith in the judge, that's when a judge should recuse themself. And the two statements in question that he cites in his recusal motion is an October 2022 statement

in the sentencing portion of another defendant. And that reads, this is nothing less, this is the judge speaking. This was nothing less than an attempt to violently overthrow the government, the legally lawfully peacefully elected government by individuals who were mad that they lost, that their guy lost. I see the videotapes, I see the footage of the flags and the signs that people were carrying and the hats they were wearing and the garb and the people who mob the capital were there in fealty and loyalty to one man, not to the Constitution of which most people who come before me seem woefully ignorant, not to the ideals of this country and not to the principles of a democracy. It's blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.

So that's one statement that he points to. And the second one was in December of 2021, and yet another case, another sentencing, where she makes many, she similarly makes statements to that defendant. And this is an individual named Mr. Palmer. And she says, and in their motions, in their sentencing motions in plea for leniency, they say things, this was a response to what they said. And she says, Mr. Palmer, you've made a very good point.

One that's been made before, that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go take action and fight have not been charged. That's not this court's position. I don't care. I don't charge anybody. I don't negotiate plea offers. I don't make charging decisions.

I sentence people who've pleaded guilty or have been convicted. The issue of who has or has not been charged is not before me. I don't have any influence on that. I have my opinions, but they are not relevant. And so from the defendant's point of view, he says, look, it doesn't matter whether she's actually biased or prejudice, but it is this appearance. You know, actual bias doesn't matter. It's all about public confidence. And he's asking that she recuse herself when her impartiality might, might reasonably be questioned, might not a high standard. And, you know, but look, what a couple of things that I, I took from this was number one, she never mentions Trump in any of these, so it's sort of strange in some ways they're conceding that it's him, right, that they're conceding that it's him in those in those motions that he's the guy who told them to do all of this.

But, you know, look, it's the law leaves it up to the judge to decide, you know, after hearing from both sides, whether or not, whether or not she should recuse herself. And, you know, case law is basically is such, you know, there was a 1994 Supreme Court ruling that said only in the rarest of circumstances, did a judge recuse themselves based on opinions formed, you know, on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring. And court, the question isn't whether the, you know, what the judge said in the record and other court proceedings, but the fairness in this particular case.

So I don't think that, you know, that this is, that this is going to be an ultimate issue here because she hasn't said anything in this case. She hasn't ruled in any way in this case that's biased. She never mentioned to him by name These are other cases and sentencing, and she was responding to things that the other defendants said. And also, there was another Justice Scalia

wrote in another decision, recusal can be required if a judge displays a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fear judgment impossible. Look, there's nothing in about her statements or anything about her that would show she has deep-seated favoritism or antagonism in my opinion. She has, like anybody else, all judges have opinions,

all judges have feelings and thoughts and whatever, but they're judges. They can put those aside and be fair and impartial. That's what it means to be a judge. They're not robots, they're not computers, right, they're human beings that have their own life experiences, but we trust that they can put those aside and call balls and strikes. Judges are expected to form their views. After hearing all the evidence and there's no reason judge can't do that, The other thing too is look more than 1,100 defendants have been prosecuted for the Jan 6th insurrection in Washington, DC. And by every judge in Washington

has had these cases. And if you look at the sentencing minutes of many of these defendants, you'll have many, many, many judges on both sides appointed by Democrats, appointed by Republicans, who've all said similar things. So I don't see this even coming close to rising to the level of requiring recusal, or that she would recuse herself. But, like I said, he's the boy who cried wolf. And so I don't even think it's an issue.

Yeah, I don't think he wins. So I think it'll fall on the no reasonable person would believe that the statements that she made in sentencing in responding to the defenses raised by two of those unique Jan 6th defendants that Donald Trump made me do it. I was following Donald Trump. Don't show leniency and sentencing your honor because we were just following the orders of the commander in coup, the coup in chief,

Donald Trump. And in her making a comment like any other human being would make, which she reserved to herself. She said, I have my own opinions about this, but I hear you. I hear the fact that others may end up before courts, but haven't as of yet, but I got to sentence the person in front of me, not the other people under a theory of what aboutism. And so her responding to that does not, in my view, nor do I think it'll be at the court of appeals or the DC circuit court of appeals level to be a requirement

that she to qualify herself. She's certainly not going to on the motion filed recuse, meaning step aside, it's a you got me, you're right, totally biased against you, mose I think, and she is going to write after she sees the briefing, she's asked for very fast briefing on this issue. This week by the party, including something later today. You know, at Showtime, if we get it, while we're on, we'll mention it, but he's going to lose that. Just like you lost Middlebrook's and just like you lost Mershan, he'll try to take an appeal.

It's a mixed bag in the DC Circuit, whether a non-final order, which this is, is automatically appealable. It's not, it's called an interlocatory appeal, and it's up to the court. Some courts find that an appeal of a disqualification motion is important. It should be resolved early in a case and not later. Others are like, that's not a final judgment. We're not here for that. Sorry.

So we'll have to see, you know, he'll, he'll lose my prediction. I don't think you'll disagree with that. If you do raise your hand. Let me know you disagree. And then he'll, he'll, he'll file some sort of appeal. And the meantime, nothing case continues. It doesn't divest her for jurisdiction over the case. He should make rulings. I mean, there's some case all that says, maybe you shouldn't make some substantive rulings in the meantime while there's a motion to qualify pending, but she can. There's nothing right now sitting in

front of her. There is an emotion to dismiss the indictment filed by Donald Trump. She's set the trial date. There's discovery that to dismiss the indictment filed by Donald Trump. She set the trial date. There's discovery that's going on with exchange of documents or documents provided by the government. And that's and that's where it is. So got big headlines kind of interesting, gave us a teachable moment here on legal. I have to talk about motions to disqualify, but I think like all the other motions, he's filed, it will fail. Once you want to move on, Karen, to get us down to Georgia. I'm gonna go to Georgia. And so Georgia's interesting because

there's a lot going on both federally and civilly. At the end of the day, Judge McAfee, who's like the antithesis of Judge Cannon, although he's got similar credentials, new to the bench, in his 30s, never was a judge before, federalist society, but he is running a tight ship here under, you know, very, you'll comment on it, I guess, in comparison to New York, but, you know, state court, Georgia is no joke. The procedural rules, the timelines, the speedy trial requirements. This thing is moving at a very rapid velocity.

And that's scaring the crap out of a lot of the defendants who are like, maybe they thought about speedy trial, but not that fast. We don't go to trial in six weeks, which is what Ken Chesbro and Sidney Powell, because they stepped forward and said speedy trial. And the judge said, sure, fine, October 23rd. And then everybody sort of had to recalibrate around that. You've got a group, for instance, that are just to kind of give the scorecard

that I'll turn it over to you. Powell and Chesbro, the two former attorneys, are going to trial on the 23rd of October in state court before Judge McAfee and a jury. Trump, Eastman, still, David Schaefer, Clark and Chile, as long as they remain in federal court, subject at state court, subject to whatever happens in federal court on some of their efforts, they don't want to speedy trial. They want to slow this down and have a all-nother hearing about when to set a trial. Giuliani is staying apparently in state court, but he wants to sever his from Powell and

Jess, bro, because even though he's co-captored of Team Crazy, he doesn't want to be tried with Team Crazy. And that's not how severing works. You don't get to pick your defendants. That's not the basis for emotion to sever, but never stop Rudy Giuliani for acting outrageous in a courtroom. Hall, another one of the co-conspirators,

wants to, doesn't want any speedy trial, and everything in the indictment related to things outside of Georgia, he would like to not have in his case, even though that's not how a racketeering conspiracy works. You're in for a penny, you're in for a pound, even if somebody did a bad thing in Arizona, and you only did a bad thing in Georgia, if the jury finds that there was a conspiracy of which you were apart, sorry, you're responsible for that. So that's not going to work.

Travian Kutti, she wants no-speedy trial. Okay. Ray Smith wants to, he's helpful. He just wants to split the group up into manageable subgroups for trial. Okay, that's probably the most reasonable thing I've heard so far. Mr. Floyd, who was the last one to get out of jail because he didn't have a lawyer and couldn't get his bond condition set, he wants to pick who his defendants are going to be. That's not happening. And then there's that little subgroup like Mark Meadows leading the way that wants to say, check please, I'd like to go to federal court because I'm a federal officer. All right, took construction from a federal officer. And already they've hit a buzz saw because Judge Jones is not agreeing with them on that.

And it's now up at least for meadows on an expedited appeal with the 11th Circuit. And we'll talk about some interesting things that have happened in both inside Judge Jones, the federal judges courthouse in courtroom and outside. And then I'll give you an idea of I think they skip the step and asking somebody for a stay, but I'll get to that when it when it comes back to me.

That's big picture Georgia. But Cara, what do you find most interesting about it, including the procedural elements of Georgia law, maybe how it compares to what you're used to in New York, so people can get a sense of, is this normal? And will help bring that to them here on this, on this, is that normal addition of legal AF? Well, first of all, Trump has signals. He filed a motion that he may ask or seek removal, but he hasn't yet sought removal. So that's weird. That's sort of weird.

I may run for president of the United States one day. I'll file emotions of this to that, but I don't think that's happening either. He's waiting to see what Meadows is going to do. And what happens with Meadows, don't you think? Yeah, yeah, yeah, completely, completely. Wait, did Giuliani ask for a speedy trial? No, he wants to, no, he doesn't ask for a speed. He wants to sever and he wants to pick who he's going to be with. know he doesn't ask for his beat wants to sever and he wants to pick who who he's going to be with So he doesn't I can't yeah, it's hard to keep track of all of these The whole thing, but he you know, so first of all Just there's a little bit of a I'm a state court person obviously because I practice in stick in state court for a very long time

And really my whole career. And in the world, there's a little bit of a hierarchy. The federal practitioners, I think, view themselves as sort of the elite federal court, federal AUSA's, federal, you know, the federal bar, the federal, federal courtrooms are just they're much nicer. They look really the federal, you know, federal courtrooms are just they're much nicer. They look really austere and beautiful and regal. And they're just this really, this really just incredible, you feel this incredible sense of awe when you're there. But it also breeds a little bit of a snobbery, I will say, about the federal practice. And State Court is a little more rougher on the edges. It's a little rough and tumble.

It's kind of a scrappy street fighter. And but I love State Court. I'd much rather be in State Court than Federal Court. And I guess that's just more of my personality. And Judge McAfee, I think, is showing that he came up in state court. And because state court judges, state court prosecutors, they're no joke. He controlled that courtroom like nobody's business.

He knows what he's doing. He might only be a baby judge and he's only been there for a little while. But he really showed that he had command over the facts, over the defendants, over the issues, over the law, and over this case. And so I think he's going to do a great job, potentially, but he's so far what I've seen, I really, really like. And one of the things he's going to have to decide is, you know, Fannie Willis wants to keep all 19 defendants together. And, you know, there's a few issues with that that I think he picked up on. So number one, the fact that only a couple of them,

only two of them have asked for their speedy trial that's going to start October 23rd. And on the one hand, she filed a motion asking that they be read, that the judge remind them of all the rights that they're giving up by doing speedy trial, by requesting a speedy trial, by the way, that was denied. But by doing that, she put in writing, at least, that, look, these are just so you know, defendants by doing this, by going speedy trial, you can't now later claim that you didn't know, therefore, that you are giving up your right to have

know, therefore, that you are giving up your right to have a certain amount of time with discovery or to have certain witness information in advance, et cetera. And so at least you put that in writing, at least they're unnoticed. And I thought that was smart, but you can on the one hand say, and signal, look, you know, you have to wait, I want them to wave all these rights and acknowledge that they wave these. But then on the other hand, ask all the other defendants to say, okay, they're not waiving speedy. They're not asking for speedy trial, but I'm going to force them to do this even though they want to exercise themselves and avail themselves of the rights afforded to them, the due

process rights that they have. So I think the judge is a little skeptical. Are you sure you really want to force these other 17? I don't think that's going to happen. So I think at least those 17 are going to be split from the two. And then the question will be, what will he do with those 17? Will he try them all together? Will he wait and see what happens in federal court? And it's very interesting because the five or so that have sought removal to federal court and it's very interesting because the five or so that have sought removal to federal court have a right to appeal to the appellate courts, which is the 11th Circuit here in the Supreme Court, both sides have a right to appeal.

And so he's going to be hard pressed to proceed on those cases in the middle of this appellate process because he even acknowledged you can't really enter a judgment of conviction. He says, you know, what's going to happen? You're going to go to trial. Have the jury, percentile your evidence, have the jury deliberate, but I can't enter a judgment of conviction until all this happens. If it is safe, they're convicted until the pellet, their pellet remedies have all been exhausted. And what if it turns out that it gets pulled up to federal court, then what, then what happens to the state court case that we had, you know, that trial? So, so I think he, and PS, there's one other question is, will double jeopardy attach, right? Let's say he goes all the way through

to verdict, but he doesn't enter the conviction, you know, and then and then all of a sudden it gets removed and they say, you know Well, Jeopardy attached that you can't so much so that you can't retry that case in federal court, right? That's another question an open question that I think is I ask a question about double jeopardy in the application there. Do you think double jeopardy applies when it's not, you're not being prosecuted under federal claims, similar to state claims, but you're just changing courthouses. You think it still does. Yes, yes, absolutely, because you can't be prosecuted twice. A state court prosecutor can't prosecute you twice, twice, but the same.

If it turns out that it was jurisdictionally defective and state court and they have to move to federal court, I think it could attach. But I don't, that's, but I think it's an open question. I don't think it's a no-brainer that it won't. I think it's a risk in other words. And so I think that he will either delay, oh, so then one other issue, by the way, is 17

defendants can be unruly. Even though there happen some big trials out there, I think there can be an argument that violates due process if you have such giant cases because juries can get confused. Juries have to evaluate the evidence against each defendant individually. You don't can't you sweep them up into, you know, while everybody's charged with RICO. So then therefore I'm going to just, you know, I found that, you know, RICO applies, I like it, so I'm going to convict.

No, you, they have to analyze the facts and the law as to each and every defendant. And it can get very confusing. And there are some due process issues that have been acknowledged by courts that have said, if the case is too big or too complicated with too many defendants that be careful and you can't get too big. So I think he's gonna break this up.

I think it's gonna probably be three trials. I think you're going to have the speedy trial group, you're going to have the removal group, and then you're going to have the rest potentially, but I think it's going to get broken up. Now I agree with you. I think from a practitioner standpoint, the way that you avoid the appellate issue is you put on your general recochase, but then you have certain days reserved for each of the 17. So this is the Rudy Giuliani day, and this is the Donald Trump day, and this is the and the jury is focused for that day in a little mini trial that you've created. And then you can you can point in the appellate record to, well, the jury shouldn't have been

confused because I had two full days of doing nothing, but fill in the appellate record to, well, the jury shouldn't have been confused because I had two full days of doing nothing but fill in the blank. Jenna Ellis or, you know, QT or David Schaeffer or whomever. But I agree with you. I think the one defendant who was like, just split it up properly, actually hit on, potentially or accidentally hit on the right approach here. It's the same thing that happened when the group of co-defendants, co-conspirators was a little bit too unruly, no pun intended in the proud boys and the oath keepers and the judges there split it up. Judge Maitzah said, my courtman's not big enough for this. I'm going to split this up in nine and eight

and seven and six and different combinations to accommodate it and they were like two months apart and the government went to trial on both those cases. I think you're gonna see a similar thing here and that's okay too. As long as Donald Trump's in the first, that were the second group,

so that there's a shot at this going before the November election, I think we'll be, you know, when the others go, frankly, is less of a concern to me. The only person that's really keeping people up at night, and they want to see tried before November, whether by Jack Smith or Fony Willis, is Trump. So let's get Trump into that, into that first group.

We're going to talk about federal court, Mark Meadows, his attempt to get a positive ruling out of Judge Jones twice and failing, what the 11th Circuit's doing all about that. And then, of course, we're going to turn down to Florida and talk about that hot mess that is the Mar-a-Lago case in the way Judge Cannon is handling it. But first, a word from our sponsor. Did you know that your temperature at night can have one of the greatest impacts on your sleep quality? If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle Maid's bedsheets. Inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid uses silver infused fabrics and makes temperature regulating bedding so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long. Using silver infused fabrics

originally inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long. So you get better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with silver that prevent up to 99.7% of bacterial growth, leaving them to stay cleaner and fresher three times longer than other sheets. No more gross odors. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands.

And feel as nice if not nicer than bed sheets used by some five-star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores, causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. Go to trymiracle.com, slash legal AF to try Miracle Mate sheets slash legal a F to try miracle made sheets today and whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for

a loved one. If you order today, you can save over 40% and if you use our promo legal a F at checkout, you'll get three free towels and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product. It's back the 30-day money back guarantee, and if you're not 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with MiracleMade. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF and use the code legal AF to claim your free, three-piece towel set, and save over 40%. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash legal AF to treat yourself.

Thank you, MiracleMacle Made for sponsoring this episode. Have you heard of sentissant cells also known as zombie cells? These old, worn out cells no longer serve a useful function for our health, wasting our energy and nutritional resources. These zombie cells tend to accumulate in our bodies as we age, leading to the aches, slow workout recoveries, and sluggish mental and physical energy associated with that middle age feeling. Our sponsor, NeuroHacker, packed seven of the most science-backed, senolytic ingredients

into one formula called Qualia-Senolytic, and you can take it just two days a month for fast, noticeable benefits, and a much better aging process. Scentolytic ingredients are science-back back to support our body's natural elimination of zombie cells. My body and energy levels feel about 15 years younger after just a couple of months of adding qualia, and my diet. I love how easy it is to take. Having more physical and mental energy for my family and friends is such a win in how

I show up for those I love. My productivity has doubled. I feel invigorated and enthusiastic again, with the daily drive and enthusiasm to get things done. The formula is non-GMO, vegan, gluten-free, and the ingredients are meant to complement one another, factoring in the combined effect of all ingredients together. It's also backed by a 100-day money-backed guarantee, so you have almost three months to try qualia at no financial risk and decide for yourself. If you're in your late 20s or older, adding qualia's senolytic to your diet can play

a crucial role in combating negative aging symptoms. Go to neurohacker.com slash legal for up to 50% off Quagga Sentalitic. And as a listener of legal AF, use code legal at checkout for an extra 15% off your first purchase. That's neurohacker.com slash legal to try Quagga Sentalitic with code legal and start aging on your terms. See now now, if we led with the Neurohacker and then the miracle made, it would have explained how enthusiastic I was and energetic in the miracle made ad because I had used Neurohacker.

But returning to our substance of our podcast, including our indefaticable producer, Salty, who found for us as we were recording a new decision that just popped out where a new filing by Fawney Willis, I should say, about the very thing we're about to talk about, which is whether Mark Meadows is gonna be able to get his removal to take his case, a state prosecution from state over to federal court as a federal officer. Now, let me tease it then, then, then if Karen, you had time to read during my

ad reads. I did read it. I'm glad we don't have to do the ad reads live. We had the little, we had the commercials. And frankly, I'll tease that. It's about what you and I and Ben and I had said she was going to do. You were a little worried that she was, we did a hot take on this, that she was going, that Fonnie was going to be like, well, I already admitted he was a federal officer. That may be, but the question that the 11 circuit posed in their, by through their clerk, because we don't really know who the panel is, that's, that's taking up the appeal by Mark Meadows. It's like, hey, we're gonna have an expedited hearing about whether this removal should have happened

or whether Judge Jones was right or not, but there's something that's bothering us about the removal statute and its application in this case. And everybody leaned forward and said, what is it? And the clerk said, this is the issue we want briefed in advance of this anonymous panel that will not be anonymous as soon as we get the briefing schedule out. And here are our argument.

If there is a oral argument, because they've suggested that perhaps they're not even going to do oral argument, they'll do it on the papers. The question they had is, hey, when you read the removal statute, it says a federal officer has the right to do it. That implies present tense. Mark Meadows is not a present tense federal officer has the right to do it. That implies present tense. Mark Meadows is not a present tense federal officer. He's a former federal officer having been the chief of staff for Donald Trump back in the day.

As he get a removal right as a former federal officer, and we said on our hot take that, although you were slightly concerned about her, if anyone else having conceded that he was a federal officer, we said, well, look, if you look at the text of the two provisions that the 11th Circuit seemed to be concerned about, there's a good argument that it means present tense, not past tense when you compare and contrast the two, the two provisions that the panel asked us to compare and contrast. As exactly that textual analysis is exactly where Faudi will us. She's no dummy. She's the opposite.

She's really, really smart. She said, okay, I got a way to frame this for whatever panel I'm going to get on the 11th Circuit because you're right. If you look at all the cases, and it's that one thing that you and I talked about in our hot take just recently, which is what is the federal purpose behind the removal? And it is at core to prevent a state from interfering with a federal office or function. But that is not what's going on in this alleged case in the indictment. It's not a federal officer whose duties are being interfered with by the state. It's a state election process that's being interfered with by the feds.

And so the public policy or federal preemption or federal policy that's embedded within the statute isn't present with, especially in the form of a former officer who's claiming that something he did in the past is somehow now being criminalized. That's where she went in her briefing. You've got it up, I know you'll do a little bit more. Last point to kind of tie it into your commentary is how do we get here?

Remember, for those that are new to the show, I would say remember, as if you're following every hot take in every episode of our show, why aren't you, by the way, if you're not? But if you're not, let me just, we like these to be stand-alone episodes, although they are cumulative as well. Meadows tried to assert that he was a federal officer,

at least at the time time and that he had the right under the federal officer removal statute to take his case and have it tried somewhere else. He gets the prosecutor, Faudi-Willis, he gets the Georgia Law, the Georgia indictment. It's not a federal case in that sense. It's not a federal indictment for the purposes of a future presidential pardon. It just gets tried in a different courthouse presided over by a federal judge under the federal rules of civil, federal rules of criminal procedure. Okay, he tried. He failed. The judge found that under no circumstances had he met any of the tests, or at least the main, the main test is that he was performing federal

functions, his job description as a federal officer, which is at the heart of the indictment that just says, no, I looked at the heart of the indictment. I looked at the outer boundaries of your responsibilities, which you, Mr. Meadows, could not even tell me what they were. So I don't even credit anything that you told me when you testified. I had to figure it out myself by looking at the hatch act, which gave me the outer boundaries, which means if you're a federal officer and you're getting paid to do your job, you're not supposed to be campaigning or doing

things in favor of a campaign or a presidential or any kind of candidate. And that's what you did. Out of the seven things you're alleged to have done, which are at the heart of the indictment, you know, are eight things. Seven of them are, you're working for Canada Trump, not doing your chief of staff duties. So he then ruled, sorry, bye bye. Meadows then says, and this is where I think he got it wrong, I wanna hear your opinion. He files a couple of motions immediately, Meadows, his lawyers, George Terwilliger,

to stop or block the issue with the judge, the federal judge. In other words, I want to stay in federal court. Don't let me, I don't even want to be remanded back to state court. Let's enjoy block or stay the order of the federal judge while it's up on appeal. So he filed with them, he asked them, the 11th Circuit while they're looking at the substance of his brief, the substance of his appeal, the merits of his appeal. He wants, he wanted a stay and I get an emergency stay, which the 11th Circuit as it right now is not granted. He asked the federal judge to do the same thing. Don't send me back to state court. Bad things could happen.

A trial could happen in October with me. I don't want that to happen. And the judge evaluated that and reached a conclusion, Karen, that you can talk about. The weird thing is is where he didn't file a motion for stay. If I had an issue with federal court, and I'm trying to get there, and I'm trying to get the appellate version of federal court to rule in my favor, but I'm sitting in state court,

I would also file a motion with Judge McAfee and say to Judge McAfee, hey Judge McAfee, I'm Mark Meadows. I'm next store across the street in the Northern District of Georgia federal court, and I'd like to stay there. I've got an appeal you might have heard about. In the meantime, you're making all sorts of decisions down here.

Can you just stay the case against me while I litigate and do my appellate process over there? And he didn't do that. And so things are just moving along in the meat grinder that is Georgia and Judge McAfee while the federal court does its thing. I don't think the 11th circuit is going to issue a stay because they're doing an expedited briefing,

fast briefing schedule on the merits of the appeal instead. Where do you think we are with all this and what do you think it means also for the other three or four people, including Donald Trump, who are thinking, hmm, maybe I'll try the federal removal two step and see if that works. I love that Fannie Willis just said, that this removal doesn't apply to former federal officers for a couple of reasons. Prosecutors don't get to make mistakes.

You don't get to, on the one hand, say in her filing to Judge Jones, with the three elements for removal, you have to be a federal officer, you have to have been performing within the scope of your job, you have to be a federal officer, you have to have been performing within your scope of your job and you have to have a federal defense. You know, Judge Jones says, look, you know, the state concedes number one

that the federal officer applies to you. And then to turn around now and say, oops, I didn't mean it, it actually doesn't apply to former, to former, agent, you know, federal employees because you're a former, you're not current. So, you know,

prosecutors just can't make mistakes. You have the burden to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt. And you're supposed to be the smartest person in the room. If you make a mistake in front of a judge, if you argue the wrong law, they will not necessarily trust you the next time. They're going to look and say, are you really sure? Because you said this, but you weren't correct

when you change your mind. And she said she should be sure, 100% sure, if she did change her position, that that is the correct law. And I'm not sure we know because the law, what she did was she argued the plain language of the statute, the statutory construction, leaves, doesn't say former, it just says current, or just says, in federal employees, which implies current federal employees, and that in other areas of that same statute,

it talks about when the Congress intended to cover former federal employees that they know how to say that, and since they didn't say it here, therefore it must not apply. And so I think that I don't really understand why the 11th Circuit asked for briefing on this issue. Perhaps there's another case that they're considering where this issue came up. And so it's an issue they're already considering,

maybe it's something they thought of on their own. Whatever it is, to take that position, I would think that she would want to be sure. But in any event, look, I think there are cases of former law enforcement, federal law enforcement, who they might be able to point to that it counts, that it counts for. But let's see what they rule. And hopefully she is right. And hopefully she is 100% sure. And that's why she changed. But I just don't like when a prosecutor makes a mistake.

We've got a new filing by Meadows, he is basically told the court because I think it was simultaneous filing Soodle unusual. So nobody gets an advantage. He argued there is in a case that discusses this issue for 140 years of jurisprudence. And he thinks he's right that it has to apply to former federal officers as well because like who would take the job if they didn't have the ability, I guess, in his view, to when sued for something they did back when they were a federal officer, I have a motorcycle outside my recording, that's very excited about removal, apparently. That if they need to have the ability

to have that kind of protection for things they did while they were federal officers, because like there is a revolving door between government and private sector. And so his argument, I presume is some version of, it doesn't say it doesn't apply, even though it's sort of written in the past tense. He differentiates the textual reading

and points to the fact there's no case that's ever been decided, including a recent one involving Donald Trump. They want a site of case. They can cite the case of out of your office about Stormy Daniels, where Judge Hellerstein, just in May, or so ruled that Donald Trump had the ability to seek federal removal under the removal statute as a former federal officer, but failed because covering up an affair with your mistress

is not part of your presidential duties. So, you know, this is why we're trying to catch these things as they happen, analyze them, look at them, analyze them in real time, we'll continue to follow it. And see what happens with Mark Meadows, who has now an ex-budited ability to argue the merits of his case in front of a merits panel of the Leven circuit. I don't think they need to stay anything because frankly, there's nothing coming up in Judge McAfee's courtroom. He's one of 17.

And if he wants to be heard from about scheduling, he can be. But he's waivedaved or he will wave a speedy trial. He's not going to be set for trial in October. And so nothing's burning down the house over in Fulton County that requires the 11th Circuit to move any quicker than they're moving. And they'll move and we'll get a decision in the month of September about whether Mark Meadows, a, whether federal officers who used to be federal officers get to use the statute under 11th Circuit precedent. And two, whether Mark officers who used to be federal officers get to use the statute under 11th Circuit Press in it.

And two, whether Mark Meadows has the qualifications to bring his case over to federal court, that will be a September event. Let's, we're going to move on to Florida, talk about the classified doc, it's hard to believe it took Judge Cannon this long to enter her classified protective order and procedures rulings, you know, you'll watch Judge Chuck in she kind of addressed these things summarily about six weeks ago five weeks ago and we're just getting around You know, it's just foot dragon by the judge She eventually gets around a sort of the right decision, but you know, she's gonna look at the clock and say,

oh, look, oh, who, look at the time. We're not gonna be able to have that trial in March the way I thought we were. Because, you know, it took me so much time to figure out basic issues like how a grand jury works or whether a person can have his own private place to review confidential and top-seeker documents. But we'll talk about that after a word from our sponsor.

This show is sponsored by BetterHelp. Do you ever find that just as you're trying to fall asleep, your brain suddenly won't stop talking? Do your thoughts start racing right before bed or at other in-opportune moments? As a practicing lawyer, I know my mind is always racing, whether it's work related or family related. I've personally benefited from years of therapy because it allows me to discuss my feelings of uneasiness or stress factors and find ways to cope in a healthy and productive way.

It's helpful for learning positive coping skills, how to set boundaries, it empowers you to be the best version of yourself. And it just isn't for those who've experienced major trauma, it's literally for everyone. Whether you're dealing with decisions around career, relationships or anything else, therapy can help you stay connected to what you really want and really help you while you navigate life. So you can move forward with confidence, excitement, and just feeling good. If you're thinking of starting therapy, give better help, a try. It's entirely online, so you can do it from anywhere at a time that's convenient for you.

It's designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your individual schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire and get matched with a licensed therapist. You can switch therapists at any time for no additional charge. Get a break from your thoughts with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com slash legal AF today to get 10% off your first month. That's better, help.com slash legal AF. Welcome back everybody.

We're gonna talk about Florida and judge Canon's recent decisions. I'll say one thing about you, Celta Varis, and then I'll turn it over to you, Karen, about the skiff, I love saying that word, and confidential documents and what Judge Cannon is doing and why it's taking her so long to do it and how it impacts everybody, including the maintenance worker, wasn't even charged with anything related to classified documents. He was charged with trying to destroy a server containing video surveillance of people moving boxes around in in contravention of court orders federal judge orders national archive Department of Justice and FBI. So you sealed to Varys we've been talking about a lot on legal AF when the

superseding indictment came out the first thing that is bad and I had it first for the weekend edition of legal AF the first thing we said was up we got a pan we got our first pancake. Somebody's flipped. You see all Tavaris, even though you was it named in there, everything in the second indictment in the section related to the conspiracy to try to delete, drown, burn, hang, stab the server

containing the surveillance video footage that looked like you sealed to Varys and we said at that time, oh I know one thing you sealed to Varys is flipped and we suspected he was cooperating with the government. We subsequently got the details of it and we're getting more of the details of it in a way that I am now suspicious in a good way that the reason that the government and Jack Smith has brought the Garcia process forward to get to the bottom of conflicts of interest among Stan Woodward, the lawyer representing Nauta, the other co-defendant and used to represent, you see Alta Varis, is just to err in front of the judge into the world. All of

these issues about what bad things then, what word did when he was representing Yoseyl Tavares. What we already have learned is that Yoseyl Tavares testified in March to a grand jury in the District of Columbia. He testified in committed perjury by telling the grand jury that he couldn't remember, it couldn't recall any conversations with Walton, Aoda, and Carlos D. Olive, Viera, the maintenance worker about whether to delete the server at the request of the boss, Donald Trump. The Department of Justice had conflicting testimony and other evidence that indicated that he was lying But while he was with Stan Woodward, he wouldn't concede to that wouldn't flip on Donald Trump until They then filed the initial indictment for Mar-a-Lago

Which got you seal to Varys nervous and then they sent him a target letter and said, you're the target of a criminal investigation, including about lying to a grand jury in the District of Columbia. He then had a hearing in the District of Columbia with presided over by Chief Judge Bozberg who said, you may need your own independent counsel here, i.e. not one bottom paid for a Bich Donald Trump. So why did I get you the first public defender, the first chief public defender, the District of Columbia, and you speak to that person, then tell me what you'd like to do here.

And he came back and said, I'd like to do two things. I'd like to fire my lawyer, Stan Woodward, and I like to recant my testimony before the grand jury. So we knew that he was cooperating, but Stan Woodward in a recent filing as part of this Garcia process, named after a case down in the 11th Circuit, said that you see all two viruses now cooperating with the government, which is just a confirmation that we've always known, which is bad news for Donald Trump, that the IT worker is cooperating with the government, even though Walton now could have had the same deal.

He was represented by Stan Woodward, they met with Stan Woodward to get, with the government, even though Walton, Nowda could have had the same deal. He was represented by Stan Woodward. They met with Stan Woodward to get, they wanted Nowda to be the first pancake, the first flipper. And he refused. He's just gonna go down with this ship with Donald Trump. So they wanted either Carlos Diolabiera or Yoseel Tveris and they got Yoseel Tveris, as soon as they ripped him away

from lawyers being paid for by Donald Trump. That's you sealed to Varis, but today's rulings after secret confidential sealed hearings is quite interesting and confidential records. What did you make of it, Karen? Yeah, Judge Cannon did what she's supposed to do, which is you know is set up procedures for on how to deal with classified information. On the one hand, you want to say, oh, she's doing the right thing. She's really not letting Donald Trump just take his documents home tomorrow, logo, and use them wherever he wants. She sets out a very detailed ruling where she puts out

that pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act, various rules in order to protect national security. The government's motion is granted and the protective order is entered. And the court finds that this case involves classified information. And she talks about the purpose of the protective order to protect the classified information and tells the defendant Trump that he can be, that if he violates this, he could be prosecuted, it applies to all the documents, anything that could be classified,

whether it's a document, whether it's communications, whether it's information of recording, metadata, it could be anything. She has very exhaustive detail list of like what this considers and what this applies to, and that you can only disclose, it's like need to know if necessary in order to prepare for your defense with the defense team.

And she also designated a CISO, stands for Classified Information Security Officer, which is going to be the person who's like the referee or the person in charge who has to designate the the skiffs, you know, the secured, I always forget what it stands for the skiff. But it's the secure room essentially that you know that you can't bring electronics, you know, in and less, it's approved by the CISO and, and you know, you can't record

anything. You can take notes, but you have to leave everything in there. And, you know, she even puts in there, look, you know, the CISO is going to be in the skip with you and you're looking through your stuff, but that doesn't waive the attorney's client privilege. But she goes into this whole, you know, this whole detail, the how the procedure is going to work, how everything's going to go. And on the one hand, you know, some, some people might say, Oh, look, she's being fair, she's doing the right thing. She granted a government motion. And to me, it's a little bit of a Trojan horse is how I would call it because she had no choice but to grant this. I mean, this is our nation's most sensitive, secret information and the classified information procedure

exact lays out exactly exactly what she has to do and so she did what the statute required her to do. The reason I say it's a Trojan horse is you know these small little rulings, these ministerial rulings, they're important obviously because you know we don't want you know Russia to get our nuclear codes so they're important but they're don't want Russia to get our nuclear codes. So they're important, but they're not real big wins for the prosecution because this is something she kind of had to do. And I just think she's giving the government the thing she has to give because she has

her eye on the ultimate prize, right? She was appointed by Donald Trump and the ultimate prize is whether or not you win or lose this case. So, let's just, you know, Nako Crazy here with the, okay, she ruled for the government. I'm still a little bit concerned about whether or not she is, whether or not, you know, she is going to be fair and impartial. And I say that based on what she did in this case, you know, before there was a case, you know, when there was just an investigation and she inserted herself

into a place where where she's where the law doesn't allow her to. And, you know, she pointed a special master, you know, during the investigation process. And, and frankly, the 11th circuit shot her down and said, you know, you don't basically said you, you, it was inappropriate and you can't do that. And so I still am a little bit concerned about her impartiality here, but it is what it is. And at least she's following the law, the way she's supposed to here.

And it doesn't look like Mar-a-Lago, like Donald Trump is going to get to use Mar-a-Lago as a skiff unless the CISO designates it as such. Yeah, and our producer put up a little in the chat there. It's sensitive, compartmented information facility. I know this. I can't remember that. One of those, you know, do you ever have things like that that like, you have a mental block

and no matter what you can never remember? Oh, they they're going to have to make a drinking game out of however, how many times I say civil rico instead of criminal rico because I primarily practice on the civil side and we use civil rico, which is a version of rico and the civil courts more than criminal. So no, I, I get it. I, you know, I said I'm producer just wrote, I had to Google it. Yes, that's where we get. I want to call it a secured classified information facility. Do you think that sounds better than sensitive compartmented information facility? And because I want to call it that because I think that's a better name for it, I can't in my brain, it just won't register that it's really the other.

The problem is not your brain and it's not registering. The problem is it's not registering with Judge Cannon's brain, which is, which is why it's taking her months to do what should take weeks. And if you're right that there is a hidden agenda here, we're seeing it play out in how slowly she's making, she's getting to the right decision, but it's like the old Abbot and Castello routine, you know, slowly she turned It's like you see Chuck and it's like okay. We got a trial and may I got work to do what's in front of me Pop pop pop this one's like well, this is interesting. I really haven't thought about it

What do we do briefing and oral argument and hearing after hearing and then I'll maybe I'll get to the right decision and even then and hearing after hearing, and then maybe I'll get to the right decision. And even then, just to reinforce the comment I'm making here, even after she made the decision, if we go on the docket now, she's wants further briefing about another issue that was already discussed in the oral hearing in front of her. So we're now moving into the world. I mean, you and I joke about that old adage, which is that perfection is the enemy of the good enough. And with this, with this person, anything she gets a wild hair about, she sends the lawyers off to brief from front of her. And then there's always that opportunity for her to screw it up. And, you know, and as Ben has said, and as in his hot

takes on the minus touch network and, and, and I think on the Brothers podcast, he thinks that Jack Smith has just got his finger just switching over the trigger to get to the 11th Circuit to try to get rid of her, but he's being very patient because she eventually gets to an okay decision that he can live with. But we have the broader picture here which you and I have said on prior podcasts, which is, yes, he cares about Marlaco, but it's a stalking horse, you know, it's pressurized. He has opened a front in the battle against Donald Trump that may not be his ultimate objective, his ultimate objective is up with Judge Chutkin in DC and getting that case and a future amended superseding indictment in that case, which I'd be shocked if it doesn't come out.

We haven't talked about it yet here, but there is reporting and I did a hot take on it. Yep, it's up. I'm trying to think of my hot take. Went up yesterday about the grand jury is back. This is like I joke about it being the walking undead for Donald Trump, like the zombie chasing Trump at slow motion, but eventually we'll catch him. The grand jury's back for for Jack Smith. It's been back in session since last Thursday, and the reporting out there is that it's looking at two streams of analysis or two streams of presentation to the grand jury about fundraising.

One is fundraising done by people like Sydney Powell to raise money to use to hire consultants to break into election equipment and election computers in seven battlegrounds states, including Georgia, where we know what happened. It's in her indictment, Foddy-Willis's indictment. And the fact that they use donor money fraudulently to then commit a crime, which is cybercrime breaking in and downloading voter data, that's a bad thing. That could be wire fraud in the prosecutors arsenal. And the second fundraising element that the grand jury apparently is looking at,

which we thought they were gonna put into the last indictment, but it got left on the cutting room floor for now, is Trump save America pack and magapack using money to influence witnesses, interfere with the pursuit of justice, obstruct justice, because they're hiring lawyers like Stan Woodward, bought and paid for by PACs, who aren't letting their clients tell the truth.

And the Department of Justice has a couple of examples of that, Cassidy Hutchinson, who in the Jan 6th committee, was told by a Trump lawyer, this is her testimony, Trump paid for a lawyer for her defense. Why don't you not remember certain of those facts? She even though she was a young professional, I was like, I don't want to do that. And she hired Jody Hunt.

And suddenly she cut a deal with the Gen 6 committee. She's cooperating with Fony Willis. She's cooperating with Jackson Smith, now telling the truth. And we just saw out with you, Celta Varis, who we spent some time on the show doing that, doing that with. So we've got the grand jury, and the reason a grand jury is back is either they spit out nothing, they spit out a new indictment stand alone,

tied out, or they spit out a superseding amended indictment against Donald Trump, adding perhaps some other people, even though we're already in September, and we're 14 months away from election day. Can you have any comments about the grand jury and its new work? I mean, it'll be interesting to see whether or not he supersedes that indictment or whether he brings different indictments. I suspect he's not going to supersede that indictment that he wants to keep it one defendant for charges, streamline so that it will go and that we might see other indictments

come. I think, you know, the six unindicted co-conspirators, if they don't flip, I think potentially we could see them get indicted separately. And I think the streams that you just talked about also these other charges could be brought in separate indictments. But I think strategically it would be a mistake to supersede this particular January 6 indictment because that will just slow the whole thing down if really what, you know, the big strategy here is that we know is Trump just doesn't ever want to go to trial on any of these cases. It's doesn't ever want to go to trial on

any of these cases. It's not that he wants to go to trial and prove his innocence. It's not that he wants to get a resolution. He just doesn't ever want a trial. And Jack Smith does want a trial. And so if that's what the goal is is to get a trial, I hope I don't think strategically he'll supersede that very as you call it, always call it a surgical indictment.

So, we'll see. We'll see. I agree. I think you're right. You've always said that the better of the two indictments for the purposes of getting justice and getting a verdict before an election for people to make the decision about whether I still want to vote for the guy, even though you got convicted or not, at least you have that data point in front of you to make it hard for me to believe that people would still say that, but there are people we know that

would vote for Donald Trump, even if he died, they're going to vote for Donald Trump as well. And you've always said that that is the way he did it. One, defendant named Donald Trump, four counts for conspiracy counts and everybody else, a co-conspirator unnamed as of yet is the way to go. And he can bring as many effing indictments as he wants to bring, but we'll continue to follow him in one place on legal AF. If this is your first time watching our show on the Midest Touch YouTube channel, a couple of ways that if you like us, give us a thumbs up here, helps with the ratings,

leave a comment, we'll chat back with you, and then you can help the Midest Touch network itself by being a free subscriber, hit the subscribe button. It helps. They're trying to get the 2 million because that will make the minute network even more powerful in the content Even more voluminous that it all that it already is and you could be the two million Subscriber and Karen Friedman Knifle was already offered on a hot take to give somebody a t-shirt that turns out to be the two millionth Subscriber if you come here regularly welcome back. We're really happy. Oh, I got it I'm the two million subscriber and all I got is this dumb t-shirt.

Yeah, something like that. Believe me, we'll have a big celebration of that happen. If you're here on a regular basis, we appreciate you. We try to make each episode sort of stand alone so that if you're new to the show, you can get facts and information, not smoke and sunshine from people that sort of know what they're doing in terms of analysis and hopefully does it also in an entertaining way. And it's also cumulative.

If you're here for a while, then we're on our, I don't know if you had enough, it's like 350th episodes since we started legal AF, that doesn't include hot takes. For that, you got to add another, I don't know, 1500. That's our body of work so far. And it's so it's, it's episodic in that this episode can stand by itself. And hopefully get watched in the future. And somebody will say, hey, they were right or they were wrong. And it's also cumulative in the sense that as a serial in that it,

it builds on itself in concepts that we talk about here on the show. We have talked about in the past and you'll find that you're actually, as some people have said, I feel like I'm in law school. I'm learning something and that's one of our goals as well. If you want to help the network, help the show one way for you to subscribe, listen to us as well. If you're watching us, go and you don't have to download it. Just listen, click, listen, click subscribe, follow whatever it is on audio platforms for the

podcast, Google Spotify, Apple and the rest. We've got merchandise and we're doing much better in selling the merchandise. Now the Karen Friedman envelope took over. And so I think we've like, like, I don't know what the version of 10 times, we've 10 times ourselves, because things people like the way these t-shirts look. You can mix in match colors with, we have four different logos. It's really great. And you can go to there. They are right now. Thank you, salty. You can go to store.mytustouch.com. We've got a new website. That's for all things might as touch, might as touch.com. You can find amazing,

original legal writing and analysis by people like Karen Friedman, Ignifilo, she's got one up right now about what she would do if she was cross examining Donald Trump, which I found to be fascinating, as well as all of our audio and video content is there. So it's one stop shopping on the mightasTouch.com website. You can follow Karen Friedman, Agnifalo, at her social media handle. What's your handle? At KFA legal. At KFA legal. And I'm at MS Popok until the next midweek edition with Karen and me. And this Saturday's edition with Ben Myceles. And me, this is Michael Popock,

Karen Friedman, Igniflo, giving you the last word. I think we got something special, Karen, what you got. You know, you said earlier, we should have a trial because people should have the information before they vote, you know, they should know as he convicted or not, but then there are some people who will vote for him no matter what, even if he's convicted. And one of those people is Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has said, I will vote for him no

matter what. And there was a picture today that came out that I saw that just shows just how close the two of them are. You look at that and you look and see she's, you know, this is, it almost looks flirty to me between them and it just goes to show how close they are and that no matter what that woman will vote for him. It doesn't matter what he does. It doesn't matter that he's been adjudicated or rapist. It doesn't matter that he could be convicted of these very serious crimes. She and others like her will stick by him no matter what. It's like he's their Lord and Savior, Donald Trump. And it's just, I bring it up and I say it because it's so head scratching for so many of us

that anyone could vote for him, especially given what the allegations are, but we can't ever get to comfortable or to righteous or to complacent. There are these people who treat him like he is, you know, the second coming of God, because they will follow him no matter what. And so we have to keep doing what we're doing and getting information out there because the stakes couldn't be higher. Shout out to the Midas mighty and the legal AFers. We'll see you next week on legal AF. you