Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump CHICKENS OUT Again After DISASTER Court Appearance | Legal AF

Episode Date: January 11, 2024

Defense attorney Michael Popok & former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back with a new episode of the midweek edition of the Legal AF pod. On this episode, they debate what will happen next with: (1) the end of the NY Civil Fraud case against Trump who is facing $370 million in fines and being barred from conducting business in New York, as the trial judge calls Trump’s bluff to give his own closing argument; (2) Trump’s s immunity from criminal prosecution defense being put on life support by the DC Court of Appeals; (3) the start of the E Jean Carroll punitive damages case against Trump next week; (4) a motion to disqualify and dismiss the indictment being filed against Fulton County DA Fani Willis, and so much more at the intersection of law, politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! Co-Pilot: Head to https://go.mycopilot.com/LEGALAF to get a 14 day FREE trial with your own personal trainer. Moink: Keep American farming going by signing up at https://MoinkBox.com/LEGALAF RIGHT NOW and listeners of this show get FREE Ground Beef for a YEAR! Green Chef: Go to https://Greenchef.com/60LegalAF and use code 60LEGALAF to get 60% off plus 20% off your next two months! Policy Genius: Head to https://policygenius.com/legalaf to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. 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

This NHL season, get more excitement out of every slap shot with FanDuel, North America's number one sportsbook. You can bet on everything from the money line to over-unders to which player will net the first goal. Make your picks and assemble a same game parlay with FanDuel Sportsbook, home of the SGP. Plus with FanDuel's quick payout, you can get paid faster than a breakaway. Make every moment more with FanDuel, official partner of the NHL. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario.

Gamlin' Problem, call 1866-531-2600, or visit connectcentario.ca. Oh, what a week it is, and we're only at the midweek. For our show, we call Legal AF for all the right reasons. For today's episode, we debate and discuss four topics ripped from the headlines. One, the conclusion tomorrow of the New York civil fraud case before Judge Angkoran with closing arguments.

Why did Trump want to give part of his own closing, or did he? But certainly not under oath. How did the judge both call Trump's bluff, set a trap, and then slam it shut on Trump. 2. We'll talk about the oral argument with Trump in attendance at the DC Court of Appeals on Tuesday on the issue of whether Trump has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, even as Judge Pan posited if he were to order SEAL Team 6 to take out a political rival just moments before leaving office.

3. We'll talk about the start next week of the E. Jean Carroll's second civil defamation and punitive damages case against Trump, as Judge Kaplan makes a series of rulings against Trump before he even steps into the courtroom. Or will he step into the courtroom? And lastly, we'll talk about the Georgia criminal prosecution of Trump and 14 others. It's back in the news as one of the Kochan's spiritual files have motion to disqualify and dismiss the indictment because of unsubstantiated claims of a personal relationship

between the DA and her special prosecutor. as judge McAfee is asked to decide Presidential immunity and whether other motions filed by other defendants should be granted all this and we're only on day three of the week on the midweek edition of legal AF with your co-anchors Michael Popeok and there she is Karen Friedman Ignifalo KFA back in New York with Avengers back as the law and order legal advisor. Our beloved co-anchor and CNN contributor. It's enough to make my my head spin as I prepare for a trial tomorrow. What is it? All-time lawyer too. Oh yeah, I'm not I wasn't trying to act like you're some sort of. I know. I know. Trying cases, handling matters, I'm not I wasn't trying to act like you're some sort of

I know trying cases handling matters. I'm trying to case tomorrow, but that's not why people are here They're here because they love your dog prints behind you. They occasionally made a comment about my blueprint behind me Yeah, let's talk about let's dive in because got a how about the Jimmy Kimmel monologue last night. Ben was the minute eight, I think our own Ben Myceles is there's a clip of him interviewing Adam Kinziker. I thought that was great. Yeah. Yeah.

We don't just report on the news on the Mydestouch network. We make it. There's some times when we'll see a quote from Ben or me or you in the paper, about something we did on legal AF or on one of the other channels. And it's definitely fun to watch art imitating life, imitating might as touch and giving us credit. But getting into one of these comedians monologues is just a different level to me at least. Yeah, it's a pop culture. You've crossed over into pop culture. We'll know when we've really made it. When somebody plays you and me on Saturday Night Live.

Gosh, no. I don't know who that'll be for me. For you, I can think of a number of people that would be, I think they'd have to bring back the woman that played Sarah Palin. 10. A Tina Fey could play you. Yeah. If I were casting it, that's a compliment.

Me, I don't know, they could bring back any number of people. Will Farrell, and give them a different cut of hair. But that's not why we're here. Let's dive in. Let's talk about things in our backyard in the New York civil fraud case. I'll update it. And then I got, I got the emails right off the document in my hot little hand right here.

What happened? 11 weeks of trial ended a month ago. Forty witnesses took the stand. Donald Trump did not take the stand in the actual case in chief for the defense. He did take the stand under penalty of perjury and cross examination for the New York attorney general, New York attorney general, and the other side have submitted their, what they're proposed findings of fact are to judge and go on who's going to rule after oral argument, closing statement, which is tomorrow at 10 a.m. when we'll cover it here in the Midas Touch Legal

AF show about whether it's going to be $370 million penalty to scorchment as the New York Attorney General is requested some lower number or some higher number. The touch isn't bound by that number. And the judge and his principal, Locklark, have been taking very good notes about the differentials and the benefit that the Trump organization and family has obtained by lying on their statements of financial condition.

So he can come up with an even bigger number than that. And then, of course, there's the non-economic punishment, which could be even worse for Donald Trump, which is to put him out of business. As a real estate mogul, whatever that is, in New York borrow money from a New York bank, he'd be banned from that if she has her way. The Attorney General banned from transacting real estate, for a real estate company based in New York. That would be really a death knell for him as a

developer and banning and barring other executives with the company from serving as New York Corporation officers, directors, or what we call control officers ever again. But now we're down after all the dust settled on the evidence and the record, to what's usually referred to as attorney argument, except because nothing can go straight here, except in response to a very simple question last week from the principal law clerk who's so badly abused by Donald Trump and all of his lawyers right up until this moment and is the subject of the reason there's a gag order is because of the merciless attacks. She reaches out and says, Hey, everybody, we're going to have to change court rooms. There's another big trial going on in there.

How long do you think you're going to need for closing arguments and let me know who's going to be doing it? And then you get a very reasonable email back from the New York Attorney General. Well, it's going to be this person and maybe that person and we only need an hour. And thank you very much. And that's it. Then you get Chris Keiss, the lawyer for Donald Trump, who starts his email. Apparently, whereas his client only has a cap's lock on his on his computer or his iPhone.

Chris Keiss doesn't know where the cap lock is and everything's written like eG Cummings in lower case. So he sends us a completely lower case, every word email to the principal, Mark Larkin, he starts with happy new year. Well, but I've been bashing for the last six months. And then in the middle of, we think we need two and a half hours or so. He just drops in as if it's no big deal. Oh, and by the way, President Trump wants to deliver part of the closing. They're like, literally,

that's what it is. And they were like, huh? And that led to an immediate response from New York Attorney General, who said not over my dead body, and there should be limits on it if it's going to happen. And the judge weighed back in with a series of emails where he said, that would be interesting. I may allow it under certain circumstances. And here's my conditions.

And then we're off and running. Karen, did you get a chance to read those emails? I did. All right, good. So take it from there. I gave you the beginning. It is. So keep going.

All right. Here's the question for you. All right, well, I'll keep going. Then I'll ask you a question. So at the back, I won't bore everybody with the details, but then it gets down to brass tax. And Goron says, I have discretion. Sure.

Here's the rules. Because he's not going to be under oath, although he could have put him under oath. I would have loved that. He'll do it only if he does it under oath. And he said, there's things you can't comment. He said, he'll have to testify on the record and tell me personally that he understands the limits as if he were an any attorney.

He can't do commentary on anything that's irrelevant or not material. He can only talk about which relevant and apply the facts to the law. He can't do a campaign speech. This is literally what he said. He can't impune the integrity of my me, the lawyers, the other side, my staff. And if he does, I'm gonna interrupt a mid speech. And if he doesn't stop, I'm gonna have him removed from the from the room and he won't be able

to attend his own closing. And I'll find him $50,000 if he tries to violate the gag order. So if you can accept those conditions, then you can do the closing. Because he said to him, this is where he set the trap. He said, I'm inclined, this is the judge to let everybody have their say. Moreover, the reasoned analysis that I will receive will better help me decide the case.

And nobody's more interested in the outcome of my decision than Donald Trump. So sure, under these conditions, I will let him do the unusual thing of having a moment in time to speak at the closing. It'll take away from the lawyer time, whether that's Coyote, Cice is going to be the leader on it. Abba probably might say something, one or two things. And then they will, oh, no way, judge. No limitations on what my client says. Now, now it cats out of the back. This is exactly what they want, right, Karen? It's a campaign speech. It's a rally. It's an attack. It's infective. There's no interest in doing a real closing argument. And then they had to throw in their own. And his mother-in-law died. Can we have, can we not have school tomorrow? And the judge

says, well, I'm sorry about that. And given my, given my, given my sympathy, but we're having closing tomorrow. And let me know if he's going to is going to give the closing. So take it from there. What first of all, start, was he ever was Trump ever going to give his closing, or was that just to get the new cycle and to get our attention and chase it? Look, honestly, in the world of Trump, you can't, nothing normal and predictable occurs. So I wouldn't put it past him to want to have, not really given a closing argument, but have another opportunity to give a speech

and to talk about how he has been aggrieved and how Trump world is the greatest thing ever. And Mar-Logago's really worth, it's probably gone up in his valuation mind now to more than two billion, because that's how he works, right? Every time he talks about something, it either gets bigger or whatever,

he just, his lies grow and grow in his own mind. And I think he probably just wanted another opportunity to do that and criticize the law secretary and criticize and go on. And I think they were on to him. And they knew that this was percolating, which is why the law secretary sent that email, right? Because you have to ask yourself why does she need to know who did it and how long it would take?

It kind of is irrelevant. I mean sometimes you ask out of curiosity, but I think they suspected that there was something up everyone's sleeve and I'm sure Chris Keiss, that's why he buried that in there and I think Trump was going to just show up that day and try and give part of the summation. And I think they wanted to make sure that ground rules were set and that's why that email was sent. She's no dummy. That she and the judge are really smart. And they realize what's going on here. And so I think that was a setup.

And because in response to a direct question about who's giving the summation, Kais can't lie, he has to give Trump if he knows that. But if not asked, why would he have to say that? He can just show up on the day and say, oh, my client chooses to do that. And interestingly, I did a little research on the rules of summation and all that because research on the rules of summation and all that because frankly, it's such a common part of any trial. We all take it for granted, right? We know exactly what you're allowed to do and not do, but I've had a few, more than a few, had many criminal prosecution cases where defendants go what they call pro-say and

they represent themself. And so it's not unheard of or uncommon in the criminal world for a party, a defendant, to represent themself. I should say it's not common, but it's not never done. It happens. And so, but so when that happens, you have to a judge has to keep tight rains under and keep it under control because the rules still apply even if you represent yourself. But in a situation like this where Trump doesn't represent himself, where he has a lawyer and he wants to give part of this mission. I just wasn't sure what those rules were because I have never seen that before.

It is so unusual. And apparently, it does appear that under the civil procedure laws and rules, he can do it. But the judge has discretion to impose limitations. And he has to agree to limitations. So the judge's discretion. And so it was entirely in judge and Gauron's discretion to put these limitations on there and to basically give the basic ground rules. These aren't personal to Trump. These aren't,

there's no animus to Trump. What Gora and did was he just gave the preconditions that are consistent with the law of closing arguments and summations, right? You can't introduce any new evidence. You can't testify. You can't comment on irrelevant matters. You can't lay out a campaign speech, right? Very, very basic rules that apply to every summation.

And I thought it was interesting because also here, there's no jury, right? This is a judge trial, a bench trial where judge and goons hearing the facts. And so he can give Trump a little more latitude. He doesn't have to be so strict. If this was in front of a jury, then I think you would have to be extremely careful and strict about it and might not even allow it if you're represented by counsel. But because it's in front of judging Goran, I think he'll give on letting him. What's the downside, right? But I don't know that he'll ever agree to that. Instead, he'll want to show up, say that it'll testify,

but not agree to anything, and then talk about how he's agreed and he's the victim again. It's almost the perfect setup for him to be able to go outside and give his victim speeches, because he loves that, right? That's his entire persona is that he's the victim. The other thing that I thought was somewhat, I questioned it, was not allowing him to have to postpone the summation a day or two

because of the death of a family member. I think that wouldn't have surprised me if the judge did allow that. And again, because there's no jury and it's a bench trial, I was slightly surprised that the judge did not grant that request. But and he could have. And I've seen it done many times on for things much less important actually. So that was that is what it is, but I still I think tomorrow Trump is gonna make a game time decision and And I think the judge will also make a game time decision. I really do I think it's that kind of a thing and This is everybody's last

opportunity to convey the facts in such a way that it's in their favor and they can marshal the evidence that came in and make arguments about it so that it's the best the best version for themself and and summations are always given wide latitude. the best version for themself and and and summations are always given wide latitude, but so with with some limitations. So I think it'll be interesting to see what actually happens tomorrow. What was your take on that whole situation?

I think that's I think the goose is cooked. He's not going to allow Trump to testify. I mean, his last parting shot from this, these are emails from this morning. He says you can appeal it. Because I won't debate this yet again, Mr. Kais. Take it or leave it now or never. You have until noon, seven minutes from now.

I, and in all caps, because he knows where the cap lock is on his computer, I will not grant any further extensions, Justice and Gorre on and having heard nothing. He wrote back 12 minutes, well, five minutes past the deadline, not having heard from you on the third extended deadline. I assume Mr. Trump will not agree to the reasonable awful limits. I place his preconditions and he will not be speaking in court tomorrow. I will docket this email chain so you can preserve your appellate rights. Now, I think that I think that ship has sailed. Was I was I surprised that I

raised an eyebrow over the mother-in-law's death and him asking, well, I think the judge he went right to the issue. If your client is not going to do the closing, it doesn't impact it. So maybe we're talking about this for no reason, as to whether he's in the room or not for the closing argument, you know, life happens as we know. And you know, Ivana died in the middle of the New York Attorney General trying to take the depositions, the depositions of Trump and Ivanka and the kids. And she did temporarily postpone that.

But like the state's been on the calendar for a long time. The judge said, you know, it takes a lot to move things around because of your guy, the former president. And we're already impinging at another trial that, you know, the New York Attorney General just doesn't have the Trump case. They're trying the case against the National Rifle Association in the same courtroom. And so they moved all of that and he said, you know what, I'm sorry, but I'm not, I got to get, he wants to get to this decision. He waited a month to do the closing. And he's not going to be reversed on appeal. You know, the judge has been so relentlessly attacked by Donald Trump at

every turn that he what, you know, he's not going to bend over backwards to like help them help the guy out because his his agent mother-in-law died. You know, I just I was okay with it. But we're gonna see tomorrow, we're gonna have, I think, some people in the room they're gonna be there for it. I always thought Chris Keiss was gonna do it. It looks like he's going to. Maybe Elina Haba jumps up, or Cliff Robert,

to say something, let's split that way. But, you know, I think you and I have to listen closely. Here's my prediction, based on the past stuff here. Chris Keiss has made this closing argument five different times. He's five, six times. He's asked for a directed verdict or directed judgment at the close of evidence, at the close of Michael Cohen's testimony. And as recently as right before, you know, the oral arguments were set, and each

time it was rejected. He then put it in writing, and the judge on the 18th of December wrote a very scathing order denying the motion for judgment and telling Chris Keiss in no uncertain terms why he and the Trump side is completely wrong. about 63-12 of the New York executive law, the powers of the New York Attorney General, the elements of the case or the claim, the remedies that are in tight, that the New York Attorney General is entitled to on the half the people of the state of New York, just said basically a lie is a lie and good luck with your closing. The closing is going to be yet another version of that.

We've seen this already. They completely ignore the weight of the evidence. They want to rely on experts that have been discredited both by the New York Attorney General and by the judge in finding none of the experts, so-called experts of Donald Trump, provided any, any probative testimony about any issue in the case that matters to the judge. So he completely, and one he, he, one he basically called, I was going to use the bed word for it, he basically called somebody that would do anything for money.

And it really said, I, that, you, that just shows if you give a guy a million dollars, they'll say anything. That's all that does. So they'll rely on the experts. They'll rely, Donald Trump never testified. They'll rely on Michael Cohen, which is not the heart of the case. We saw the closing argument and the way that they prepared the findings, the proposed findings, the fact and conclusions of law that the judge required them to submit for him to look at. There is your closing argument.

So we know the arguments, it's going to lose. They are going to lose. The question is, for me, only is how quick does Judge Engoron, who I'm sure has been working on the draft decision already awaiting hearing anything new that could be helpful at the closing, how quick will it be rendered and what remedies will he adopt or create on his own in terms of the businesses, the operation of the businesses, the future of those businesses,

the future of the executives in Donald Trump to operate in New York and the amount of money. So you can adopt the number of 370 million or so, is it going to be a higher number or maybe a lower number? That's the only question for me. Donald Trump loses. I would, there's nothing I can say to communicate enough for you. My shock, if Donald Trump based on everything that has already happened

over 11 week trial and the statements made by the judge, if Donald Trump were to win, he does not win this. And he'll now have to take it up on appeal to the two steps of appeal, not to the feds, only state and try to get it and try to get it overturned. So I think that's where we are, Karen. What do you think? Yeah, I agree. I've said before that I think that he might not convict on it or find him guilty of every charge.

But yes, I think most he will actually be found liable and we'll see how much money it ends up being. I think more interesting will also be the other remedies, right? If he can, the ones you were talking about, if he makes himself his businesses and his properties, etc. Yeah. We're going to watch it. And we'll watch it closely. We'll have a lot more. We're shadow boxing a little bit now based on our experience and our knowledge of the

case. We'll know more tomorrow when we see the closing and then after that we'll follow it here on legal a F. We had a very good and great end of 2023 for the Midas Touch Network and for legal a F. And we're going to build on that in 2024, they're also close to two million free subscribers. That would be a good time if you're not already freely subscribing to the Midas Touch Network.

Now it would be a great time on the show to go do it. And in addition, we have lined up a really great group of sponsors and advertisers for the show, for the show in particular, their pro-democracy, and their very supportive of what we do here on legal AF. And here's an example coming up now. Start the new year knowing you found the right life insurance to protect your family with policy genius.

Getting life insurance today means you'll have peace of mind for the rest of 2024 and beyond. So if something were to happen to you, your family can cover expenses while getting back on their feet. Luckily, policy genius helps you compare your options from top companies, and their team of licensed experts is on hand to help talk you through it. As regular listeners of Legal AF know, I recently got married, and I got a child on the way,

while other loved ones continue to count on my support. With these life changes, I had to address the type and amount of my life insurance coverage, just to sleep well at night, secure the knowledge that that part of my life was covered for my family. And that's where policy genius comes in. Policy geniuses technology makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from America's top insurers and just a few clicks to find your lowest price. Even if you already have a life insurance policy through work, it may not offer enough protection for your family's needs. And it may not follow you if you leave your job.

With policy genius, you can find life insurance policies that start at $292 per year for 1 million of coverage, some options offer same-day approval, and avoid unnecessary medical exams. Policy genius has licensed award-winning agents who can help find you the best fit for your needs. They work for you, not the insurance companies, that means they don't have an incentive to recommend one insurer over another so you can trust their guidance. No wonder they have thousands of five star reviews on Google and trust pilot, save time and money and give your family a financial safety net with policy genius.

Head to policygenius.com slash legal a f or click the link in the description to get your What if you could support small family farmers and reduce your environmental imprint all while enjoying the highest quality meat on earth? When you join the Moink movement, you can. I'm so excited to tell you about Moink. That's Mo plus Oink. Moink is a meat subscription box company on a mission to fight for the family farm. They're located in rural America run by an eighth generation female farmer. Their animals are raised humanely.

Their employees are paid a living wage. And the quality of their product is better than anything you'll find in a store. Moink delivers grass-fed and grass-finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and sustainable wild-caught Alaskan salmon, straight to your door. Moink farmers farm like our grandparents did, and as a result, Moink meat tastes like it should, because the family farm does it better, and the moink difference is a difference you can taste. Unlike the supermarket, moink gives you total control over the quality and source of your food.

You choose the meat delivered in every box, like rib eyes, the chicken breasts, support chops, the salmon fillets, and much, much more. Plus, you can cancel at any time. We here at LegalAF are unapologetically pro-democracy, and it's so amazing to know that Moink is helping save rural America. I love it, and you will too. Join the Moink movement today. Shark Tank host Kevin O'Leary called Moink's Bacon, the best bacon he's ever tasted. And Ring Doorbell founder Jamie Simmanoff jumped at the chance to invest in Moink. Plus, they guarantee you'll say,

oink oink, I'm just so happy I got Moinked. I know I do and you will too. Keep American farming going by signing up at moinkbox.com slash legal AF right now. And listeners of this show get free ground beef for a year. That's one year of the best ground beef you'll ever taste before a limited time spelled M-O-I-N-K-Box.com slash legal AF. That's mointbox.com slash legal AF. And was that you're coming out video? I'm sorry. You just told everyone you have a child on the way. Okay.

Is that I'm asking, is that the first time you're announcing it in that commercial? Yeah, I only do it for when I get paid. Wow, congratulations. Congratulations. That's amazing. That's really amazing. Like you said, make it personal. Is that all right? Oh, yeah. That's amazing. That's really made me make it personal. I said all right Congrats to you and your lovely bride. That's wonderful news and I think it's amazing that that's how you share it making a future

Democratic president Just make sure they're a natural born citizen. Yeah, they're going to be born in Jersey. So I think we're good. All right, let's get back to what people want to see us talk about, which is the oral argument. Wow, wow, you and I were just, we were just floored. We got Judge Pan, who as I expected, took the lead here. Judge Childs, who was a shortlisted

for the United States Supreme Court. Judge Anderson, who was appointed by GW Bush. And I think we can safely say that based on this oral argument, John Sauer for Donald Trump was not having a good day and Donald Trump was sitting in the room watching it as well. I don't know if you really understood what was going on. Even by this charcoal sketch here indicates that Donald Trump looks completely clueless.

They just dropped them in from preschool and he's just sitting there watching things going on. There's Jack Smith in the back row, as you can see from the sketch, John Sauer up at the podium. And then you've got the lawyer for the lawyers for the special counsel. And the issue was, you know, right away they got the two major issues within this expanded oral argument. The first one was, do we even have jurisdiction to decide this issue? Isn't this an interlocatory appeal that really should wait until the end of a trial? Why are we here, in other words, which judges often ask?

I always tell my colleagues when I'm training them for court, judges are impatient, and there's two questions that they have in their minds as they tap their foot where they're gavill. One, why are we here and what do you want? Those are the two things that are really animate almost all hearings or presentations. And they want to know why they were there. And they were particularly intrigued, not by an argument raised by the special counsel, who I think considered it and rejected it, wanted to get to the merits. And a brief though was filed by friends of the court, an amicus brief, we call it,

which they argue that this is too early. This is an interlocatory appeal, and this type of immunity argument is not in the Constitution. We all agree that the presidential immunity is sort of a made-up thing from case law, from wherever you can grab it, but it's not in the literal text of the Constitution. There is immunities that are in the literal text of the Constitution, speech and debate for congressional people is in there.

Double jeopardy is in there and that kind of immunity. But there's no presidential immunity clause that you can point to with your finger. And therefore, the argument goes, there shouldn't be interlocutory appeal, go through the trial, see what happens and we'll get back to you. And the judges were concerned about that. And really, that's how it started off. Judge Child really led the way on the jurisdictional argument. If I had to kind of summarize who took the lead on what issue, I think Judge Pan was the

overall leader of asking questions. She's the one with the now, will go down in history is the most famous, one of the most famous and searing insightful questions that got right to the bottom of the ridiculousness of Trump's argument. And will likely be the thing that will be repeated in the order as they deny his motion, his, his appeal for having immunity up front, which was the famous now famous seal team six question. When that happened, I wrote to you who went and the rest and I said, well, that answer just completely killed the case for them. I don't think we need to do anything else for the next hour. So we have Judge Pan giving and not letting up with questions about their, the other side's

argument that there has the only way that you can prosecute a president for crimes that were committed while he was president is only if he went through an impeachment process leading to his conviction by the Senate as a prerequisite. And they hung on to that like a dog with a bone regardless of how ridiculous the consequences of that position was. So in other words, if there's only five minutes left in a presidency before swearing in of the new guy and your guy commits a crime, and there's no time for impeachment,

let alone conviction in the Senate, which take weeks, if not months, your guy doesn't go to jail for committing that crime or get indicted because he wasn't convicted by the Senate? Yes, that's what I'm saying. And then we get into the SEAL Team Six. So I'm gonna leave you with the SEAL Team Six, Karen. Judge Childs led on jurisdiction,

which was why are we here? And I don't think they got very good answers on that. Although to the credit of Jim Pierce, the Department of Justice, they said, well, we understand that argument, your honor. but we don't think that's the right thing for justice. We see it as yes and easy exit, and it would get us back to trial quickly, but that's not the route we want to take. We want to take the right route for the American people and even for Mr. Trump, and we want it ruled on the merits about the issue of immunity

one way or the other. And we think you have sufficient jurisdiction in order to make a substantive ruling on the merits. I thought that was a very honorable position for the Department of Justice to have taken. And then Judge Henderson, she was the founding father type, who kept talking about the framing by the founding fathers and Chief Justice Marshall in 1803 and Marbury versus Madison, and what was an official presidential act and what was a ministerial presidential act and which of these buckets this fit into. So each of them very interestingly took a different angle of attack, but it was an attack. And John Sauer, who's very difficult to listen to, as I joked on Tech's Jay with you guys, he's like, his voice sounds like the love child of broken glass and sandpaper.

And he has a terrible voice as an advocate to listen to. So I thought he was using some sort of device to like, you know, to cover his voice, but he wasn't. But he, he, the hill that he chose to die on, no pun intended, was this seal team six example by Judge Pan and take it from their current. Well, so I actually have a girl crush on Judge Pan after listening yesterday to her just insensitive questioning. She was so good. I was not surprised to learn that she's a former prosecutor because girlfriend knows how to ask questions

and make people answer the question. And she's just brilliant, absolutely brilliant. And she wanted yesterday, and she's just, she'll stop. She would stop the parties and she's just brilliant, absolutely brilliant. And she wanted yesterday, she'll stop, she would stop the parties and say, I'm asking you yesterday, no question, yes or no. And she kept basically taking whatever argument, especially Mr. Sauer, who represented Trump, was making to its logical or ultimate absurd conclusion and really pushing the envelope because it really is the best way to highlight not just for lawyers but for laypeople. They knew this was going to be listened to just the reason why some of the legal arguments that they were making don't just doesn't work. And it started out with, I would say,

four legal questions that were sort of being batted around. One was jurisdiction, one was, does a president have absolute immunity for criminal prosecution? One was, in order to prosecute a president or a former president, do they have to be impeached and in indicted, I'm sorry impeached and convicted by the Senate first and whether double jeopardy attaches. And within the second question, which is do presidents have presidential immunity, is it absolute or is there sometimes yes, sometimes no? And by the end of the argument, the oral argument,

they had knocked out at least half of those questions by getting Mr. Sauer to concede certain facts and certain information. And the SEAL Team Six example was really in the context of Mr. Sauer, what you are saying is that presidents have absolute immunity for criminal prosecution. If they were working within their job description, so if they were doing official acts,

and that's what Sour was trying to say, that if he's acting as president, he has absolute immunity because for example Don't forget in civil cases. There is immunity from civil From civil liability for official acts, right? Anything that's part of your job description even if it's within the outer limits of it as long as it's in the outer perimeter of your job duties, then you have, you are, you are, you can't be sued civilly. And the reason for that is you don't want presidents to be looking over their shoulder. You want them to be able to make difficult hard

decisions. And so that's why that's why that's there. But no court has ever ruled on whether or not there is criminal immunity for presidents. And so, Sauer was trying to say, it should be the same. It should be the same. Well, actually, what you're saying was, it should never, they should never be prosecuted. There's absolute immunity, but especially for official acts. And so, that's when Judge Pan was pushing the SEAL Team Six example, and she gave a few other examples. She said, so, okay, for example,

definitely within his job description is giving pardons. And so are you saying that he could sell pardons or be bribed to give pardons, and that would be okay? Because that's within the same, your same duty, and the same thing with the, with the, with the SEAL Team Six argument, it's okay, well, he's commander in chief.

What if he orders SEAL Team Six to assassinate or murder his political rival? Are you saying he could never be held accountable for that? And what was brilliant about Judge Pant's question, I actually wrote it down because it was so beautiful what she said was, she got him to concede that if a president is impeached and convicted, because Sauer kept wouldn't say yes or no, he kept saying yes but yes but because what he was trying to say was conditional

yes, he kept saying. Yes, okay, you're right. Conditional, conditional yes or yes but as I would. What I'm saying, right, what is so what he kept saying was, was, was you can prosecute him, but only if he's impeached and convicted first. So she literally got him to concede that if he's impeached and convicted, then you could be prosecuted, right, That that would be okay. So therefore, there's no complete presidential immunity because he was making so many different arguments

and one of them was under the impeachment judgment clause, which is a section of the Constitution that basically says, it's basically a double jeopardy section that says, look, even if someone is convicted and by the Senate, impeached and convicted, that only has to do with removal. They can still be prosecuted, criminally. And so, and if you look at the historical context

and the legislative intent of when the Constitution was drafted and the amendments were drafted, you will see that that was the purpose of the impeachment judgment clause. So, really, in order to kind of make that argument, I don't think he realized that he was also argument. Yeah, he didn't realize he was arguing against himself. Too many, they had to do it on your point.

Too many arguments being made that were internally inconsistent and pan trapped them in the own. And because they're so fixated on going down with whatever argument and not yielding, she took advantage of that and said, well, let's synthesize all of your arguments in one. How can you both say there's absolute immunity and simultaneously say, but there is an exception. If you go through an entire impeachment conviction process and then you don't have absolute immunities, I will not say I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying I'm not saying that he can be prosecuted for the same or related conduct. And same or related conduct has to do with double jeopardy. And so she got him to basically take double jeopardy out the window, take absolute immunity out the window.

And so the only issue left is whether there's this outer perimeter presidential immunity, in my opinion, whether there is this sort of in or out of your job description immunity, whether you have to be impeached and convicted first and whether there's jurisdiction. I think the impeachment judgment clause goes out the window. There's no way that's the case. The debate that day was written. Will they say there's a difference between official and unofficial acts? That was something that one of the judges, I can't remember if it was Henderson or Child.

Henderson. Henderson was very much interested in. So that they could draw a distinction the way they did in the simple context. I think she gets outvoted on that one. I think that it, you know, it's a three-judge panel. I think she is interested. She was suggesting maybe it goes back to Judge Chuck, but I think Pan shot that down. By the way, back on Girl Crush for a minute, on my short list, I had on my pool. I had if Biden gets another appointment on the Supreme Court, I had Chuck and originally, I think it's difficult now given her role in the, well, maybe not pan, who I know just

got elevated to the DC Court of Appeals, which is a feeder program for the Supreme Court. First Filipino American ever put on court, let alone female Filipino American. She is really a powerhouse. I would love to see her on the Supreme Court under Joe Biden. Same. I was, she just was so good. Yeah. And all of them.

She's not a lot of amazing things related to Jan 6th already. You know, Amy Bourbon Jackson certainly is his, uh, a Quiddit herself really well as a, as a justice, but, but Florence Pan is really the cat's pajamas, you know, in that. Remember that phrase? No. I never did that one. All right, well, I'm, I'm a little older than you are. No, I'm not sure about that, but it cuts me out.

But, you know, that's pajamas. All right, so I think we're going to have to, I think this is going to go quickly. I made a prediction that within three to four days, we're going to see a very quick ruling. They understand their place in history. They understand that the trial is currently on ice and marches in jeopardy as a trial date,

unless and until they make their decision and they know that the US Supreme Court is likely to get involved. Now that they've ruled and the question I have to sort of conclude this segment is when, not if, the United States Supreme Court and John Roberts gets it first, gets the writ of an emergency writ of surgery. Suppose they go the jurisdictional route, which I hope they don't, but it's supposed they do. It would give an easy out to the United States Supreme Court to say, yeah, we sort of agree with that. It's too early. Let's not do it now. Or Is there enough votes on the US Supreme Court on the on the hardcore right side of it that they want to take it up and hardcore right side of it, that they want to take it up and make this pronouncement, which they're none of them are itching to do.

I assure you, in the 270 plus years of our Republic, this Supreme Court is not itching to have to make a decision forevermore about presidential immunity to criminal prosecution. That's not something you want to do. It's something you have to do. And so we'll see what they're sort of next to next to us. And I had just want two quick things. My other favorite thing from from this argument was they threw back in Source Face number one that Trump said during the impeachment proceeding in the congressional record that no former office holder is immune. You don't need to impeach me

because we have a backstop of prosecution. And many senators relied on this. So I thought that was brilliant. Number one. And the second thing I just want to read to you comes from an article in the Atlantic by George Conway. It was just the beginning of his article, so beautifully written.

It says, it was a cold and rainy morning in Washington, DC yesterday. Five years ago, Donald Trump said that was enough to deter him from visiting Iron Maorn American Cemetery to commemorate the fallen American soldiers, soldiers who died defending the nation, whose constitution he had sought to abrogate, but now seeks to invoke.

But yesterday he showed up anyway, appearing in court was more important to him because this was a bad him. And so at 9.25 a.m., the former president and his entourage strode into courtroom 31 of the e-barrett, pretty man, United States courthouse on Constitution Avenue. Just a few blocks away from the Capitol, his supporters had ransacked three years ago Friday and took their seats. It took just a few short minutes for their case to come completely apart.

I just loved that, so I wanted to start. Yeah, he's great at painting a picture and I love that picture. Well, we got another case to talk about. We'll be coming up at the last couple of segments on the midweek edition of LegalAF. We're gonna talk about the E. Jean Carroll. Second civil defamation case,

dealing with statements that have already been found by a judge to have been defamatory while he was president against E. Jean Carroll and a jury that will be selected solely for the purpose of deciding whether she's entitled to putative damages and other damages and how big those damages will be. And not as Donald Trump, his lawyers, I guess, wanted to do, which is to retry in front of a second jury, whether he sexually abused or raped her at all. That's not going to happen

based on a series of new decisions rendered by Judge Kaplan. And then finally, we'll update everybody on the Georgia criminal prosecution, some allegations that have been robbed at a prosecutor there, the impact of any on the prosecution itself and on indictments, and then some decision making by Judge McAfee about some of the Koch conspirators, all of that and so much more. But first, in other word, for more sponsors. Copilot is a personalized fitness solution. Every individual is unique, so your fitness journey should be to.

Copilot's app links you with an affordable real-life fitness coach who customizes workouts tailored to your individual needs and goals. No fitness fads here, workout anywhere anytime and make fitness a seamless part of your lifestyle. With Coat Pilot, you'll get completely personalized workouts with step-by-step guidance. Your coach continuously updates and adapts every workout to your goals, schedule, and injuries. The My Coat Pilot app offers a connection to a real-life expert coach and the workout plans tailored by your coach are meant to be enjoyable and effective with regular progress check-ins and the support and guidance you need for your

fitness journey. The workout programs are designed around your specific lifestyle and the ability to work out at your convenience anywhere you want. My co-pilot makes it easy to start and stay committed to your fitness goals. My coach, Total Rockstar, he keeps me motivated and committed to the program he's designed for me. The thing is, Co-Pilot coaches are here to help you and they truly want to see you succeed at every step of the way.

The flexibility of Co-Pilot with all of our busy schedules makes this the perfect way to stay committed. The fact that the workouts are planned and designed by my coach allows me to take even more off my plate and focus on reaching my peak performance. I'd love for you to follow my lead to get fit and feel fabulous, give Copilot a try to find out why it was listed by Forbes as the top rated personal trainer app of 2023 head to go dot my copilot dot com slash legal AF to get a 14 day free trial and 20% off your first month of personalized fitness with your own personal trainer.

If you sign up before February 1st, 2024, that's go dot my copilot dot com slash legal AF to get a free 14 day trial and 20% off your first month. Sign up for the new year and let copilot help you reach your fitness goals. Vick this year's resolutions of breeze build healthy habits the easy way in 2024 with nutritious recipes from the number one meal kit for clean eating. Let green chef take the work out of eating clean with chef-crafted nutritionist-approved recipes featuring certified organic fruits and vegetables, organic cage-free eggs, and sustainably sourced seafood. And that's not all. Green chef's new gut and brain health meal plan includes a mouth watering array of nutritious dinners,

clean snacks, and functional drinks crafted to actively support the well-being of your gut and enhance cognitive health. Embark on a delicious culinary adventure this year with Green Chef's diverse menu. Each week, choose from 80 flavor packed options, easily customize your meals to suit your lifestyle. The preferences like keto, vegan, vegetarian, fast and fit, flavor packed options. Easily customize your meals to suit your lifestyle. The preference

is like keto, vegan, vegetarian, fast and fit, Mediterranean, gluten free and protein packed. I love green chef. And my absolute favorite is the spicy chicken and broccoli stir fry. It's really, really delicious. There's others I like too, but that's my favorite. Go to greenchef.com slash 60 legal AF and use code 60 legal AF to get 60% off plus 20% off your next two months. That's greenchef.com slash 60 legal AF and use code 60 legal AF to get 60% off plus 20% off your next two months. Green Chef, the number one meal kit for eating well, and it's delicious. And we're back, legal AF midweek.

And let's talk about the last two topics. One shouldn't take us too long. Eging Carol gets another day in court that she deserves. And in advance, Judge Kaplan, this is in federal court in New York starts next week Pickin a jury Donald Trump has been tried every every trick in the book to try to avoid this case he brought He a defense three years late that he was the president at the time and his presidential immunity rejected by the second circuit court of appeals as Being brought too late and he has waved his right to do it. That's on Alina Habba and Donald Trump. It looks like he is not going to take an emergency appeal

to the United States Supreme Court, at least as of this recording tonight. He's not doing that, probably because they've got enough on their hands right now with things that matter about his liberty, like whether he has immunity from criminal prosecution and whether he, uh, two of his counts should be dismissed at the DC court of, uh, at the DC trial level, um, and some, and whether he should be on the ballot in any state. I don't think he wants to throw this one on there at this particular moment. So as of right now, this case goes the trial, the judge has already ruled that Donald Trump will not be able to retry in front of the jury whether he raped her E. Jean Carroll or not. It's already been decided that he did

by a jury and by a judge. And he's not going to be able to have a do over on this particular issue. The only and he won't be able to go after her or talk about any of her, you know, victimize the victim again. And this gave the judge another opportunity because Donald Trump asked for it to have the judge recite exactly about eight or nine more times that Donald Trump was found to have raped either with his digit, his finger, or his penis, E. Jean Carroll in 1996. And that is now law of the case that travels into this new case to be considered by the jury.

The jury's sole focus will be on the amount of damages that she suffered. And her expert is the same expert that she not only used in the first case, where she got $5 million for that level, that set of defamation statements, but is also the expert on economics and economic damages and things that was used by Ruby Freeman and Shea Boss in the District of Columbia against Rudy Giuliani

that resulted in $148 million judgment. Of course, Donald Trump tried to get rid of that expert, and the judge said no. And he tried to add a new expert late, and the judge said no. So effectively, Donald Trump is going to have no experts. She's going to have this expert that did well in front of the first jury, and she's going to be able to testify all over again about the shame and indignity and defamation, potential flexion of emotional distress that she suffered as a result of these comments.

I don't, who do you think, let me kick you off with this. Who do you think tries this case? So, the first case in the summer was tried by Joe Takapina, who we haven't seen, or heard Heidnor hair of in months. Alina Habba who didn't do a darn thing in the first trial, and that was about it. Now Trump's got, there's been no other appearances. So it's Medio who's Habba's partner, Habba, Takapina again. I mean, it's not Chris Keiss, Laura or Blanche, the criminal lawyers because they

haven't appeared in the case. Who do you think tries this case? Well, who filed motions? You know, like who? Guy. Yeah, I think it's probably Hava. I think he seems to have gotten faith in her again. She was supposed to, she was relegated to just being a PR person, but she's been, she's

been doing witnesses in the, she didn't she cross Michael Cohen in the, in the civil fraud? Yeah, so I just think that, I don't know why he broke up with her and why they're back together now. Like, it does appear that, you know, such, I see that,

that he's been going after Takapina, so I doubt it's him. And I think it's her. I think they probably think it's better to have a woman who knows. Well, he did a terrible job and whatever that was supposed to be, the masquerading. That's a great line, by the way. That was the line of the week so far, which is, I don't know why he broke up with her and why he's got back together, whether that does explain that relationship in that way.

It's my turn. Yeah, I salty wrote that, but I don't think he was John replaced her. He was John replaced. Chris Keiss was always doing the closing in the New York Attorney General. Habba was always going to be arm candy to continue our theme for tonight.

It's strange. Yeah, it's really, really strange. So I have a question for you. So one of the things when the judge was talking about the things that are left in the case, and you just said it's damages, but he said he made a distinction between constitutional malice and common law malice saying that he's already found

there's constitutional malice, but there's still certain things he let in because it goes to common law malice. And I wasn't sure what that meant. Was that to go to like punitive damages? Or do you have any idea what he was talking about? No, I don't know what constitutional malice is, but but she doesn't, she doesn't have to prove, well, there is a fight over actual malice versus what you only have to prove. If it's a person that's in the public eye, I guess that's the argument that she was some sort of public figure because she was an L magazine editor. I'm not, I'm not that sure, but.

Yeah, but if they already found that, him lie, that he's liable and it's only damages left. That, that was my question. Is it really just damages? Or they're still going to look at, they're still going to, they're still going to rule on the jury still going to decide defamation. No, for the one statement that's left. No, no. He's ruled as a matter of law on summary judgment already that the state was made while president matched the statements that were made

the after he was president since there's no immunity, defamation is already, but the jury's going to be so instructed that the defamation has already been found. So it literally is just damages. I bet it goes to punitive damages. But it's going to be big. I think Robbie Kaplan's asking for 50 or 60 million dollars this time around and she deserves every penny of it. So we'll follow it. We'll follow it. There'll be, you know, not televised again, sketch artists and people in the courtroom that will be able to get information from, I don't know if Donald Trump's going to show up for this, but he didn't show up for the first one. He likes to tell people he's going to show up for things,

get the media to take the bait and then follow it all afternoon. And then, oh, no, I'm off to Scotland to do a ribbon cutting for one of my golf courses. By the way, before you move on, I just want to, you reminded me of something about the no televised and how there's no, nothing's televised in federal court. The fact that the DC court of appeals, the DC circuit immunity argument was audio, was audio broadcast and the world didn't come to an end. And it wasn't a circus.

And it was fine. I just don't understand why we can't at least have an audio broadcast if they don't want cameras in the courtroom for the upcoming trials. For any of them or all of them. There's such a difference between what happens in court and you read the record of people who are in there versus what Trump specifies about when he comes out of court, which are just mischaracterizations, lies, and just an absolute, makes an absolute mockery of the process. I really do think the American people deserve the deserve to see for themselves. There's

deserve the deserve to see for themselves. There's a the our countries founded on the premise of of open public courtrooms and in this world of of social media and anyone can broadcast from anywhere that information needs to be accessible to all of the American people. And so I just think the more we can just point out that we just did it and it's happening in Judge McAfee's courtroom. And again, the world isn't falling apart. I just don't understand why the federal courts aren't and frankly the state courts in New York, the mild office, why that trial isn't going to be broadcast, even just audio

if video is a concern. Well, maybe after this, we'll see some recommendations on that. I think a pellet argument is much different than trial level work. It's a very austere, solemn moment when you've got three judges there, and only lawyers speaking on legal arguments, and the records closed as With judges who take who take control as opposed to a jury trial where the acting out incentive is quite high The only example that we've had recent example of that is You know, I don't think I don't think the justice system was well served by OJ being

televised. And that was 40, you know, 35 years ago. I can't imagine if Trump had the cameras fixed on him the whole time and as lawyers, we'll see. But it's not going to happen this time. So we, this is all aspirational at this moment. Let's turn to Georgia. Um, you got Mike Roman, who I think is in a lot of trouble, based on testimony by his co-conspirator, uh, Ken Chesbro about his involvement in the fake electric scheme. And remind everyone who he is and what he did, please. Yeah. So Mike Roman was the day, election day, uh, coordinator for Donald Trump, but he was really the mule for the fake certificates. They like to talk about ballot mules for Joe Biden, which there weren't any,

but there was a mule that brought all of the certificates. These had to get into the hands of Mike Pence in order for their schemes to work. And they had problems, you know, Michigan and Wisconsin, those fake collectors, they decided to mail them in. They got lost to the mail. And it, Mike Romans like slapping his foreign, we need them.

We need them from Mike Pence. What do we do? Make a photocopy, make a fake, fake collector certificate. We'll use that. And then there was a whole debate between Mike Romans or the Trump campaign and Ken Chesbro, lawyer for Donald Trump, about whether there was going to be a warning label on any of the fake-electric certificates or not. The warning label that Ken Chesbro said he wanted was,

only use these in case of emergency in the form of Donald Trump wins, one of these lawsuits, which he didn't, he was owe in 60, to overturn the results of the election. Only use them then. And the results of the election. Only use them then. And a couple of the certificates in a couple of states have that legend, but that quickly was like a visible link.

That quickly got erased. And when Ken Chesbro said, but they don't have the legend on them that I wanted. And to which Mike Roman now gave the infamous comment in emails, FM, F, the fake electors, we don't care, get me those certificates, we need those certificates. So Mike Romance lawyer has filed like 100 page document asking for the disqualification of Fawni Willis without any evidence being attached to it

without any declarations or affidavits sworn. That say that she's in a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor that she's chosen to be the lead prosecutor in the case, who's from private practice, so she deputized to run the case, Nathan Wade. And they claim that it's some sort of violation, which I don't really see,

between, you know, there's an, you know, he's in the, it's some sort of violation, which I don't really see, between have, you know, there, there's an, you know, he's in the yellow tie there for those that watch. Wade was in the middle of a divorce proceeding, apparently, I don't know. Let's just say it's true. We will now with Fawli Welles. I don't know what that has to do with the price of T in China or the indictment that's been brought by her office, primarily by her in prosecuting the case. So they make this argument that sounds a lot like the attack on Clarence Thomas, which

as well, she benefited because he earned $700,000 from the budget. And then he used some of that money. He must have to take her to a trip to the Caribbean. Look, if this was a defense lawyer on the other side and an incestuous relationship with the prosecutor and somehow that compromised someone's ethics, I would get it. But even if this were true, it's, it was salacious because it hit the headlines that way. I don't see how it's unethical at all in terms of her or how it puts the indictment. How it imperils the indictment.

What do you make of the allegations and whatever the new reporting is that we're popping up on our chat here? I have to say this was yet another mega hit job on a strong black woman. This absolutely felt like what just happened at Harvard with Claudine Gay, right? This just absolute double standard where you have to do a colonoscopy on a person's private life and somehow hold them to a different standard than literally everybody else. And I just don't understand why, first of all, I would bet you almost anything that they are in a relationship

because if they weren't, frankly, she would have denied it by then by now. So she's clearly trying to figure out how to respond to this. But what is the issue that two people are engaged in consensual relationship with one another? I mean, it's not like she is engaged or accused of sexual assault clearly. That's something that doesn't seem to be disqualifying for the, for the, the mega people since they want to elect that man president

of the United States. Is that the issue? Or is it, I mean, don't forget, they tried to also go after her and say that she was having a sexual relationship with a gang member, right? Do you remember that? I mean, which was also preposterous and ridiculous.

They're just going after her and trying to take her down. And this is what happens to women, strong women in general, and especially women of color, especially black women. It's really outrageous, and it just looks like a hatchet job to me. The other question is, okay, he's getting paid, and they went on vacation together, that presumably money used was was paid paying for the vacation. I don't really know what that issue is, but okay.

So yes, he got money for a job that he actually performed and earned. So again, it's not like she's funneling money to make their argument for them. I'll make their argument. You'll shoot it down, but let to make their argument for them. I'll make their argument. You'll shoot it down But let me make their argument She's keeping the prosecution alive not because it has merit because it's lining the pocket of her boyfriend And the more that that's the reason and her judgment is calm. I'm making the argument I'm not agreeing with it being the devil's advocate the case doesn't have merit

She's keeping it alive and it stretched it out over a year to benefit her boyfriend to pay for the trips that she's going on with a walley's in a divorce proceeding. That's the argument. Yeah, I suppose I guess I would counter that by saying as someone who used to be I've been married to the same person my entire adult life, but he was a public servant and then he was in private practice and I got news for you, you make a lot more money in private practice than you do as a public servant. So she pulled him from private practice to work on this case. He is not making as much as he could make in the private sector. I just don't see money being an issue.

I don't see their relationship being an issue. What if they were roommates? What if they were best friends? What if they went to the gym together? I mean, what is it about a romantic relationship with somebody that is somehow causes some kind of conflict? It would be a conflict, for example, if it was the prosecution and defense attorney, right? You're on opposing size. Right. That's a conflict, right? But I just don't understand how this in any way impacts the case. Then they're trying to dig stuff up about that.

He is the sworn oath of office. They didn't file it properly. I mean, they said. She had Jordy rejected that. That was raised already. Yeah, so it's like they're just looking for something to go after her. The Largery Taylor Green from the Northern District of Northern, Northern Georgia has decided to get involved.

She's now filed a new criminal referral on Fannie Willis with Brian Kemp in his office, the governor, and the attorney general there citing the quote unquote, bombshell allegations. I love how the press is running with this. The bombshell allegations. I agree with you. If it weren't true, she probably would say something about it. She said, as I would expect her to, she will do her her litigating in the courtroom with filings. I don't think when Judge McAfee, who seems to be a pretty sober chap here and by the book, they didn't cite a rule of ethics in Georgia because there doesn't one, I don't think there's one that's applicable. That would disqualify her. There's no evidence that

she has in bad faith prosecuted the case or sought the indictment. There's a grange. I'll remind everybody there was a special purpose grand jury and then an indicting grand jury that heard the evidence and indicted. She didn't indict, this isn't on information, this isn't a jury, a grand jury process, which even the Supreme Court has recognized is one of the safeguards to what out of control prosecutor is the fact that there's a grand jury that was involved. So if she didn't have her case,

and regardless of who she's going on a cruise with, the grand jury would have rejected it. So you have that going on. But look, we're spending 10 valuable minutes talking about this instead of something that's more important about Donald Trump and his losing cases, exactly what they wanted. And then Donald Trump pushes the button

and Marjorie Taylor Green does his bidding or they bring Hunter Biden into Congress. Hunter Biden would not be a subject of a congressional investigation. Nor would Joe Biden be the subject of a possible impeachment proceeding. If there wasn't crimes allegedly committed by Donald Trump, which are the subject of a series of indictments and prosecutions, make no mistake about it. If Donald Trump had slithered back under the rock out of which he came after he lost the election and did the normal thing, which is you don't hear from former presidents again, they go bury themselves in institutes. He should have just returned to business and the job of making money. If he had just done that and not decided to run again or there

was no crimes that he committed, there we would not be talking about Hunter Biden nor we would be talking about Joe Biden. But this is, this is what they think balances the scale in public opinion while the guy is only running for office as it's apparent in order to try to avoid prosecution. And you know, because, you know, to his credit, he's right. If he had just stayed home in New York, running Trump, Trump organization and didn't have the ability to keep talking about the fact that he's the leading candidate for the Republican party or whatever he says, he would have nothing to say in his defense, because you see how weak his defenses are when they're tested inside of a courtroom.

That's why he loses invariably when the rubber meets the road of a judge in a pellet panel or a jury, Donald Trump loses. Get off this kick that I keep reading, not an art audience, about Teflon Don that he never gets hit. It's not true. He's been indicted. Trials are going to happen. He's going to lose important pellet decisions as he has been and all will be right in the And I think that's what I think is the most important thing

that I've ever seen in my life. I've seen it in my life. I've seen it in my life. I've seen it in my life. I've seen it in my life. I've seen it in my life. I've seen it in my life. I've seen it in my life.

I've seen it in my life. I've seen it in my life. I've seen it in my life you're coming out as a future dad. I'm glad you finished that sentence. I mean, I don't mind if it was the other thing. I'm just like, are you out? Are you out of me? What's happening here? You know, that's big news.

It's huge. Very exciting for the Popok family. So we've reached the end of another epithetic of that of another episode of legal a F at the midweek with Karen Friedman, Diffalo. And Michael Popak, let me just do a brief rundown of how you can help if you want to help us. Watching helps. Re-subscribing to the Midas Touch Network and helping them get the 2 million.

They're so close. It's like 70,000 away from 2 million subscribers. Or as I like to joke, we are the network you've been looking for because we have no outside investors. Support our sponsors. We curated them, pick them, they picked us, we're together, and it's really important that you support them if you can, if you can.

Most things I'm talking about are free. You're watching us now on YouTube. We'll do hot takes of what we call legal AF after dark Most things I'm talking about are free. You're watching us now on YouTube. We'll do hot takes of what we call legal AF after dark of each segment here. Not so much for people that hang in for the whole show, which we of course appreciate. But you can take that clip, watch it, digest it separately, send it off to friends and family people in your life and ask them to join our show here, right? And then you go listen to us on the audio podcast platforms

of your choice and kind of go back and forth. Helps with the ratings, helps with the reviews. Not just chat with us, go back out and do the comment. That's the comment of the thumbs up drives a lot of what YouTube is looking for for successful shows. The chat is important, but the algorithm really likes that one. And then we have a store.

If you want to fly the flag of legal AF, we've got MidasTouch store, which we're going to put up here, store.mitusTouch.com, where all of our exclusive gear, legal AF look at those t-shirts, mix and match with colors and different logos and all of that. And that's it, man. Sure, we're going to do a Patreon eventually. But for now, that's the way that you keep us on the air and keep the audience growing. Karen, last word. Yeah, I just want to say for those in the chat who are saying yes, but Claudian Gay was engaged in plagiarism, right? And I know there's a lot of people who take issue with my

characterization of going after her just because she's a strong brilliant African-American woman, just like Fanny, what they're going after Fanny Willis, similarly. But I really think that that is a mega-talking point that she engaged in play at journalism. What happened to her is she inappropriately put quotation marks or cited people. I would call that more of an inappropriate,

you made a mistake on how to cite something, not that she was trying to take credit for someone else's words. And guess who else did it? The billionaire, his name, I can't remember, but I know you have off the top of your head, Popoq, who is the one who went after Claudine Gay and went after her and was incessantly going after Harvard and telling them that he's going to withhold money if they don't take her or remove her, which they ultimately did, his wife also has done the exact same thing.

So it's a mistake. She made a mistake. She did not engage in plagiarism. And for anybody who is going to listen to the right-wing MAGA playbook on this, we have to fight back and stop holding women to a different other standard and looks recognize brilliant smart women and celebrate them and not take them down. So your theory is if she had been a white man and she gave the testimony that she did to Staphonic, she would have survived it. Yes. 100%. Not only that, they wouldn't have even done the colonoscopy

on her life like they did. Look, why is the president of, is it MIT? Why is she still there? She's not black. I just think, and I guess it's a woman. I get it that it's a woman, but my point is you can survive that. You can survive that comment, right? Do I agree with it?

No, I thought it was terrible. I'm Jewish, obviously. I disagree with what she said, but what they did to her after the fact, you can disagree with someone and still recognize when it's a hatchet job. And I believe that's what they have done to her. And we've allowed it to become normalized and routine. And we throw up our hands and say, oh my God,

but Fanny Willis went on a cruise and had a consensual sexual relationship. Oh, look, I can't believe there's gambling going on in this establishment, right? It's outrageous. We literally hold Women up and especially black women and and and people need to to view this know it call it out and and start paying attention to it because it's a completely different standard Well, we've reached the end of another episode of LegalAff

Do My Closing again. Sorry. Don't apologize. Thank you. I couldn't let you get the rant in and not me. Yeah, you got to have your own rant. That's fine. And then we'll see who's going to rant next week. And on Saturday with Ben Mycelas, we have our LegalAff episode. So until next week on our two versions of the show, Michael Popock, Karen Friedman, if you'll shout out to the Midas Mighty and the LegalAF episode. So until next week on our two versions of the show, Michael Popock, Karen Friedman, and Nick Niflow, shout out to the Midas Mighty and the LegalAFers.