Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump CRIMINAL Trials are UP NEXT

Episode Date: February 1, 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: 1. The Manhattan DA loading up with senior trial attorneys to take down Trump in the March Stormy Daniels election interference criminal case and what prosecutors and judges have learned from Trump’s and his attorneys’ poor conduct in the NYAG Civil fraud case and in the recently concluded E Jean Carroll punitive damages trial; 2. Whether the indictment is likely to be dismissed against Trump in the Georgia Election Interference case because of DA Willis’ personal relationships; 3. New briefing in the Supreme Court’s upcoming oral argument of whether Trump can be barred now from the ballot as having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution; 4. Why Taylor Swift is driving the right wing MAGA mad, who now claim she is psy-op asset of the Pentagon (?!?), and so much more at the intersection of law politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! SmileActives: Visit https://SmileActives.com/legalaf to get this exclusive offer! Miracle Made: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. One Skin: Get started today at https://OneSkin.co and receive 15% Off using code: LEGALAF SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Sign up for the MeidasTouch newsletter: https://meidastouch.com/newsletter 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

Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF with your regular anchors Michael Popak and Karim Friedman, Ignifolo. We waited patiently on this Wednesday for Judge Angoran to cooperate with our programming and drop the long-awaited decision, the judgment against Donald Trump, which we expect to be over $500 million. But at the recording here at our live, it didn't happen. So we need to move on, just as we've been waiting patiently for the DC Court of Appeals to render its ruling, which we sure will be against Donald Trump.

We just don't know how in the presidential immunity to dismiss the indictment issue, we got to get that decision soon. If there's any hope of trying Donald Trump in the DC election interference case before the voters vote in November. We're trying to still, March is gone. We'll talk about a March trial that is going to happen on this show right from my colleague's former office, the Manhattan DA, that March trial.

It's such great great justice, poetic poetic justice cosmic justice for Alvin Bragg The Manhattan district attorney first to indict looks like his first to try a case and I love the way he's framed it Karen We'll talk about it in this podcast He's framed it as a dress rehearsal for election interference by Donald Trump and and this case matters There's new staffing new people hired related to it and an in an impending March 24th trial date in front of Judge Mershawn will talk about what the prosecution and the pardon me and the judges have learned from watching the E Jean Carroll trial and Donald Trump who attended and Testified and then did some other weird outlandish things, as did his putting in air quotes, his lawyer, Alina Habba, whatever she was doing. And we'll

talk about whether Alina Habba, her stock has gone up in Trump world or gone down in Trump world. Is she going to have more of a role based on her performance in Eliciting an 83 and a half million dollar judgment from the jury or less of a role in Criminal cases and other civil cases involving Donald Trump of which there are still a number out there We'll talk about whether her star has risen or fallen and what prosecutors and judges have learned in watching Donald Trump and Alina Hava and judges have learned in watching Donald Trump and Alina Hava in action as they prepare for their cases. Then we'll go to Georgia and do an update there. What's going on?

I even hate saying these words. What's going on in the Nathan Wade divorce proceeding? Whether that has any relevancy whatsoever to faunty T. Willis Fulton County District Attorney and her leading the grand jury through an indictment process that indicted Donald Trump and 16 others, including Mike Roman, and whether Mike Roman's motion to disqualify Fawni Willis and Nathan Wade because they may or may not have an outside

of the office relationship and took a couple of cheap vacations here and there, has any bearing on whether the indictment has any validity, is Judge McAfee gonna dismiss the indictment because there's some sort of outside of work relationship between Fawnie Willis and a person she hired as the special prosecutor. We'll get our former prosecutor's view on that.

And then we'll talk about how the Supreme Court is preparing for its mid-February oral argument on that very important issue. Is Donald Trump an insurrectionist and committed rebellion against the Constitution under the 14th Amendment Section 3 to disqualify him from the ballot? States are still struggling. There's open warfare among the states on how to handle this. Illinois is like, we're gonna leave him on the ballot. And Maine is like, we're gonna wait to see what the Supreme Court does.

And Colorado is like, we already made our decision at the Supreme Court level. We're ready to go. We've got the brief that's now been filed by the entity that crew that brought the actual case to Colorado and is on the other side of the appeal by Donald Trump. And then we've got amicus briefs, friends of the court briefs that have been filed that are powerful, that are strong, that are just right on the money, including one that's been filed by 20 different people,

used to be former leaders and republicans, who are republicans and conservatives, and people in leadership in republican administrations, including Judge Michael Ludig, who I'm going to have the honor of interviewing about a day or two after the oral argument. He and his fellow republicans, including George Conway, and my own law partner, Nick Rostow, filed a powerful brief as the 25 civil war historians and legal historians, including the leading civil war historian, because the 14th Amendment, Section 3, along with, you know, several other constitutional amendments, came out of the Civil War era, the Civil War generation, and were made and created an address

to stop future insurrections. This is exactly what we're watching now. We'll talk about the briefing there. And then we'll touch on, I guess, Taylor Swift, is she a Psyop for the Pentagon? Is she an operative for Joe Biden and helping him get elected? Who makes more money? Her or Travis Kelsey? This is stuff that our audience wants to know and we will cover it all on the midweek edition of Legal AF. Karen. I feel like I've won, okay?

I feel like I've won. Because we were talking about, when we were talking about all the embarrassment of riches and all the things we could talk about, we were going back and forth on Taylor Swift and I said, you know I think we at least have to talk about it and mention it and I'm so happy that that you are Because it is something that we should address just when you thought Maga couldn't get more insane This might be one of the more insane conspiracy theories. They have drummed up. But I don't know why I'm always surprised

when every time I scratch my head and I, because I always try to think maybe there's something to what there's, this is, they've taken the cake here. She's the Manchurian candidate. She's been trained to go after us. You and I talked about it, you know, as we do our editorial things about what we're gonna do on the show and I was initially against it,

but I love my partner. I love my colleague. And I wanted to surprise you and keep it loose on the episode. Yes, we're going to do it. And you're going to lead on it. But I'm sure I'll chip in with something. So let's kick it all off. People come here for a reason, just things we have to talk about. And I want to kick it off with the one that you, you referred to quite accurately, quite aptly as the, what'd you call it? The submarine case, the secret case, the stealth case, the under the radar case. This is the case that's going to trial against Donald Trump. We're all excited about what happened with the criminal, I'm sorry, the civil federal

jury ruling against Donald Trump for 83.5 million dollars There's gonna be a new jury in state court in New York New York State Supreme and presided over by Judge Juan Marchand in like six weeks And I don't for the life of me at this current moment know who the lawyers are gonna be for Donald Trump I think it's gonna be Susan necklace, but she also lost And Donald Trump doesn't like even though he is of the biggest loser, he's the, you know, he's the biggest loser on television, but he doesn't like losers. And she lost the 17 count felony conviction against one of his companies.

Joe Taka Pina noisily departed the case. Todd Blanche, he's kept such a low profile. I barely know he exists. You know, you know, blink, blink Todd if you're still on the case. And then you've got Alina Habba, who I don't know, pretty or smart. She doesn't seem to be either at this moment when it comes to trial work and how he would reward her with having her more involved with criminal cases after just watching her flail and fail in

the state case, the civil case, I have no idea. But let's turn it over to you. What has happened? How do you like, I'll throw it to you this way, how do you like how Alvin Bragg has so deftly positioned this case as dress rehearsal for election interference by Donald Trump. So, it's not to just think it's about the Stormy Daniels affair. And then talk about the new people, I'm sure you know them, who have been added to the

trial team and what you think that means. And then we'll talk about what we as practicing lawyers think the prosecutors and judges have learned about watching Donald Trump and Alina Hava act out in just a trial that just ended last week. Yeah, the Manhattan DA's office is one of 60 counties in the state of New York. It literally just encompasses the tiny little island of Manhattan, not even all of New York City. There's five different district attorneys because there's five boroughs in Manhattan. And so the Manhattan DA's office literally just covers the tiny island of Manhattan, but it also happens to be the financial capital of the United States of America. So although it's a state prosecutor's office, it's always had an outsized influence on the legal community because it handles some of the biggest cases

in the country. And I think that people still sometimes look at it as, but it's just a state prosecutor's office. But since I spent my entire career there, I know that it's probably, and I know I'm slightly biased, but it is the best prosecutor's office, one of the best prosecutor's offices in the country with some of the best lawyers. And to this day, it's the best lawyers I've ever worked with. And they know what they're doing and they try cases.

And the thing about the Manhattan DA's office is unlike federal prosecutors who are also excellent. Federal prosecutors really get handed, they pick and choose their cases. They do a very small volume of cases compared to a state court prosecutor and they pick and choose, right? The FBI or whoever investigates a case and once they have a ton of evidence, then they hand it over to the prosecutor who then prosecutes the case. And it's, it's a, we always like to say, it's sort of wrapped up in a neat little bow and, and they get it. State, if you're in state court, which the Manhattan DA's

office is, you cut your teeth on all the cases that the New York City Police Department makes by arresting people. And so the evidence, sometimes the evidence is terrible, right? Sometimes you can't imagine the eyewitnesses are everybody under the sun. Sometimes there's not a lot of evidence. Sometimes there is.

And you just, you don't get to pick and choose your cases. You are handed what you have. And as a result, you are trained to deal with anything. And so you've got that background and you've got trial lawyers who what they do is try cases. And so you've got that backdrop. And Alvin Bragg investigated the case and he brought this case to a lot of criticism, partly because if you recall Partly because if you recall, Popak, there was another case that they were investigating. It was the criminal companion case to the very case

that we are on verdict watch, waiting for Judge Angoran to deliver his verdict. There was a companion joint investigation between the Manhattan DA's office and Latisha James, who's the attorney general, she was doing the civil. Manhattan DA was doing the criminal. And Alvin Bragg said, I want the civil case to go first. I'm not ready to bring the criminal case. And PS, I have this other case that I would like to bring that has the statute of limitations that is ticking. So let's see,

it's about to end. Let's see if we can bring this case, because Alvin Bragg has always seen this as an election interference case. It was never about a hush money case, but the media portrayed it that way. I thought the media really criticized the DA's office for bringing this case. It's about a porn star. It's got Michael Cohen. And they were criticizing Michael Cohen because he's got a checkered past. He was Donald Trump's enforcer. He was his henchman. And he has a conviction for lying, right?

For lying to Congress. And so that's problematic. And people thought, how are you going to put him on as a witness? I, of course, know that he's a great witness. He's corroborated by all sorts of documents. And who better than to talk about what Donald Trump does than the guy who worked for him?

So again, that's the bread and butter of a state court prosecutor. They know how to deal with imperfect witnesses or witnesses who have a past. And at the same time, Alvin Bragg always talked about this as an election interference case, but nobody wanted to hear it. Nobody wanted to listen to it. They just looked at this as the porn star salacious case.

And I think, you know, but rather than go on a media tour, he put his head down, he continued to investigate, he continued to do his job, and he continued to silently get ready for trial because the case was on the calendar for March 24th. And they were always going to answer ready, they were willing to step aside, Alvin Bragg said if Judge Chutkin had asked, but it's become very clear because we're also waiting still for the DC circuit. I don't know what is taking them so long and the presidential immunity issue, but so it's pretty clear that that case isn't going.

The Jack Smith, Tanya Chutkin, Washington DC election interference case isn't going in early March, the way it was supposed to, I think it was March 5th, but so instead they know it's going and they're getting ready and getting ready and getting ready. And part of a sign that shows they're serious and they mean business is they put a guy named Josh Steinglass on the case. Josh Steinglass is, you know, he's one of the, I used to always say that we had a stable of thoroughbred race horses at the Manhattan DA's office.

They are the excellent lawyers, the excellent prosecutors who, when you have a really big case that you need to win, it's complicated and it's got all sorts of issues. You bring in one of your senior trial counsel, that's their title. It's probably the most prestigious title in the office. It's given out very, very gingerly. It's probably the most coveted title in the office. It's called Senior Trial Counsel. And it's not a legacy, kind of, oh, you've gotten older. We're just going to give you that title, kind of title. It's truly the biggest honor in that office. And Josh Steinglas is one of those people who's one of the Senior Trial Counsel. I've worked with him.

He, he, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. No, no, I just was going to say I've worked with him on many cases. I've assigned many cases to him when I was. He worked a 17 count tax fraud case against the Trump organization successfully pinned it on him, didn't he? Yeah, he did. He was one of the one of the prosecutors on that case. And and he knows where all the bodies are buried in the Trump organization. He's already dived deep into it. He's already dealt with that case. And, and he knows where all the bodies are buried in the Trump organization. He's already dived deep into it. He's already dealt with that case. You

know, the funny thing is, I wouldn't be surprised if he's been on the case for a long time, if he's been on the case since the beginning, and we're just finding out about it now, because that's typical Manhattan DA's office. They you're not going to get any leaks. You're not going to get any information from anybody, including me, who I know people there, and I didn't have that information. And I wouldn't be surprised because you learn how to be really, really buttoned up

when you have a big case like this. But now he's starting to go to court and people are finding out, and so he's on the case. And that shows me they are ready and They are going to answer ready and that case is going to go and for all the naysayers who are criticizing Alvin Bragg for bringing This case why does this have to go first? Why is he bringing this? Oh my god? It's not that serious compared to all the others Well, look I mean look what's happening. This might be the only case that goes before the election This might be the only case where it goes to a jury and we're able to hold him accountable. And so that's what's happening there. And to answer another one of your points,

Popak, one of the questions you had is what is Judge Mershan and the prosecutors, what have they learned from the Eugene Carroll case and I think, and the Angoran case. I think that the thing that they have learned is how to control Donald Trump, right? How to reign him in, how to control him, and how to keep, and control him not in a bad way, but control him so that the rules of evidence

are followed, so that the jury is not tainted by inappropriate information, so that a fair trial is had. And Donald Trump has shown over and over and over again that he doesn't want the rules to apply to him, that he wants to do and say what he wants to do and say. However, it's very clear that he can be reined in. That's what Judge Kaplan was able to do and say. However, it's very clear that he can be reigned in. That's what Judge Kaplan was able to do. The other, when the case was tried, the 17-count felony conviction for tax fraud against Donald

Trump's organizations and Allen Weisselberg. I know you talked a lot about Josh Steinglas. There was another woman that was his colleague on that case. Who was that again? Yeah, so that's Susan Hoppinger. Susan Hoppinger is also an extraordinary trial lawyer. Is she on this case? The new case? She's on this case, yes. So she's always been on this case. So Susan is a former prosecutor from way back when, but then she's really cut her teeth as a defense attorney all these years. She's one of the kind of superstar New York defense attorneys, criminal defense attorneys, um, who Alvin Bragg brought in.

I didn't work with her when I was the, the chief assistant under Sy Vance. When Alvin Bragg came in, he brought her in and she was the head of one of the divisions, the investigation division, which is essentially the white collar arm of the Manhattan DA's office. She though right now, because of this case, isn't really able to, to be a full time manager of that division. So you've got another also amazing woman who's helping out with that while Susan Hofinscher is devoting her full time because this case is going to trial. And you know, as a trial lawyer, what that's like, it's all consuming. It's 24 seven.

It's when you're when you're on trial, there is nothing else. You are you're up all night. You're up early in the morning. You don't eat. You don't, you know, I had a trial once that lasted so long and it was so stressful and so intense. There were so many defendants and little old me that, you know, I just couldn't eat, I was stressed out and I lost so much weight during the trial that the jury was worried about me. Afterwards, after the conviction, at one point I got a nose bleed in front of the jury, it was so embarrassing, but I just was, I mean, I cannot tell you how stressed I was.

It was a huge case and they literally were like, I think they felt sorry for me. They're like, oh my God, is she okay? I was a young cross-secutor way back in the day and thankfully they convicted, but all they wanted to talk about afterwards with me was, are you okay? Oh my God. This is like, they were so nice to me.

I'm like, I'm fine. It was just stressful. My first federal trial that went six weeks with a new judge I lost 15 pounds because the judge didn't give the lawyers lunch He decided to work through lunch let the let the jury leave So I lived on a Cuban coffee and an apple every day for six weeks But we had a funny joke just to talk about stress. We were up against the government we were up against the Department of Justice

and some people from Maine Justice in Washington. And one gentleman was very heavy and one gentleman was very small. And as we watched, we couldn't tell if we were just delusional, we were just getting giddy, but as the trial went on, we could swear that the smaller guy was getting smaller and the larger guy was getting larger. And our theory was that the larger guy was nibbling on the smaller guy was getting smaller and the larger guy was getting larger and our theory was that the larger guy was nibbling

on the smaller guy. But that, you know, listen, you got to like your brain has to take a break on these kind of stressful trials. People, as you described it, I don't think we can, in many professions, I don't know if you can completely empathize with what a skilled and dedicated trial lawyer needs to do for a complicated case morning, noon, and night until that case is over. You live, breathe, and sleep it. That's not Alina Habba. That's not what we slept.

Well, I was going to say, except if you're Alina Habba, who can rush off to New Hampshire and show up behind your client while lying to the judge and saying she had COVID. I mean, that would never happen in my practice. So. What I agree with you on what they've learned, and believe me, prosecutors and judges were watching intently how Trump acted and acted out and testified and lied in the New York Attorney General,

civil fraud case, and then back to back. I mean, you rarely get this opportunity as a prosecutor or a judge to see in real time that same defendant and maybe part of their trial team in action, in real time, just weeks or a month before your own trial. I mean, that is a, as a chef's kiss, that's a gift. And believe me, they're watching just as they're scrubbing social media and watching every little tick and every little whatever of Donald Trump, you know, to help prepare their cases. There's somebody that's watching the psychosis of Donald Trump in action and how to push

his buttons. Now, he may not testify at any of these criminal trials. He doesn't have an obligation to under our constitutional scheme. However, he has to attend. And if he tries, in the state case in front of Judge Mershan or in the federal case in front of Judge Jutkin or anyone else or Dan Scott McAfee, tries to pull that shtick that he pulled in front of the jury in a civil case in which he muttered under his breath, not really used stage whispers for them to hear, him criticize criticize witnesses, the victim of his rape in this case.

Get up and be disrespectful to the court, the judge, the opposing counsel, who happened to be a female attorney, but the jury by extension in his antics, that's not going to go well for him in a criminal setting. You saw that the jury so punished Donald Trump in the Eugene Carroll case and Alina Habba, I believe both, they felt disrespected by both, that all, all that Roberta Kaplan on behalf of Eugene Carroll asked the jury for was $20 million or so, $27 million in terms of punitive damages. That was the number that she set as her target and the jury said, how about 83 and a half million?

That was a jury created number. And that is all because Donald Trump thought more Donald Trump is better because he did nothing in the aging Carol case in May. He didn't know he didn't show up. He never arrived. the jury never saw it So he thought more Donald Trump and then Alina Habba He calculated that the reason he lost is because Joe Takapina was his lead trial lawyer and the jury didn't like Joe Takapina

Well, God loved Joe Takapina. I have my own I had my own criticisms of how he cross-examined the rape victim So ham fisted and half-azardly that he pissed off the jury, but his jury only returned a $5 million verdict, 5.2. So, what is the difference? Alina Hava, disrespectful. And juries, as you know well, juries don't think the judge is an a-hole. The jury thinks the judge is their boss and that they're in it together for this period and they're very respectful because the judge is very respectful of the jury and the jury process. And they are you know the judge often talks to the jury in soothing tones you know at breaks and at different points because they're in this together for justice. And so when a jury sees a judge upset and admonishing lawyers, they don't side with the lawyer like Alina Haba, I guess, thought was happening. They side with the judge.

And they thought that Alina Haba was being disrespectful and impertinent and unqualified and in an amateur. And they're pissed off because their day job, at least for the period of the trial was to Was to be the jury. I think I think also just to underscore your point a little bit hopock You know the first trial they were not they were also the five million represented the sexual assault and defamation Here this didn't this the damage calculation here wasn't about the sexual assault or that defamation. Here, the damage calculation here wasn't about the sexual assault or that defamation.

It was just the earlier defamation and the punishment, I think, was because of the, I'm gonna do it a thousand times over and over and over again, so I think what you're saying is on steroids because, think about it, they thought a sexual assault was only worth five million, but punish him for what he keeps doing here. This is a huge loss for him, just huge. Oh, yeah. He can, he can. I did a hot take on between the 83 and a half million dollars,

the 500 million dollar plus that we're expecting from Judge Angoron, he's out of cash. He can say what he wants about it being a three billionaire. But good luck going to- Can he get his, can he grift the money from his supporters? Not supposed to, not to pay judgments. He's paying his attorney's fees, $50 million or so, from a pack by way of taking money back from a super pack that's not supposed to be used for attorney's fees

because he lent the super back money that he asked for the 43 million back to pay for the attorney's fees but it Everything that I have seen analyzed by people who are more expert than me on election law and criminal election law Says that he cannot use that money now the PAC money. He can set up his own separate a separate fund raiser for it But that's a lot of but go fund me but that's a lot Patreon but that's a that is a very high number. It's not like I need hey

Can you tide me over with 10 million till I get paid? This is like 500 million dollars He's gonna have to sell things and he kept talking about in the aging car outcase banks love me There's no victims here. Yeah, Deutsche Bank noisily fired him and declared they're not gonna go back into business with him Capital one which is a big bank for him is not doing business with him He hasn't taken a loan out his business is dead in the water the the monitor reported In the civil fraud case as the last nail in the coffin for Donald Trump before and Goron the judge rules She said a I can't figure out where the frauds going on here or not B, there's a lot of

Control problems still and how they operate their business that are lying They're not being forthright with me and C They haven't done a darn thing in 14 months in terms of transacting business They haven't bought a property sold a property entered into a new deal taken out of bank loan. How are they operating all they're living on? Is the 60 or 70 million dollars? I mean, it's a lot of money But it's not enough to cover in in net revenue from the stream from Mar-a-Lago and golf courses and everything else So he's busted. He's gonna have to get the money from somewhere I don't know if that's Dubai or the United Arab Emirates

But he's not getting it from any legitimate bank in the United States because he's his his auditor fired him for fraudulent Statements, he's been a judge twice of committing persistent fraud at his business operation And he's the subject of 91 criminal counts. What is Bank board of directors is going to allow them to lend money to him. It's crazy. So I want to just piggyback on what you're saying. Slightly different from when you said the Eugene Carroll jury, they, the Eugene Carroll jury awarded damages. So just criminally, okay, in the criminal case, the jury doesn't determine

punishment. They only determine guilt or innocence. So it's very different from civil where they they also determine the punishment, right, the amount. So this, what you will see is in the criminal case is you will see they will find the defendant guilty or not guilty of, there's 34 counts. And a lot of people are asking, what will he be sentenced to? Can he be sentenced to jail? Will he be put in? And so this is a low level. He's charged with 34 counts of falsifying a business record in the first degree.

It is a low level felony in New degree. It is a low-level felony in New York. It's the lowest level. In New York, the felonies go A, B, C, D, E. In E felony is the lowest level. And it's an E nonviolent felony, which makes it even lower. So if it's a violent crime, you get an enhanced sentence. And if it's nonviolent, so it's a white collar case. an enhanced sentence and if it's nonviolent, so it's a white collar case. The sentencing range is you can get zero, right? You can get probation, you could get some other non-jail, non-incarceratory sentence. And the max you can get is, I can't remember, it's an indeterminate sentence. It's either one to three or one and a third to four. I can't exactly remember, but that's kind of the ceiling, which means you'll serve around a year, year and a half

before you're eligible for parole. And then you can serve up to that max sentence, whether it's three or four, I just don't recall. And another question is, can they be consecutive? Meaning can they be piled and stacked on top of each other? And the answer is yes, technically. Some of them can. I would say of the 34 counts, 17 of them.

Actually, wait, no, 11 of them, I think. How many transactions were there? Was it 11 payments, Popak? You talking about the Stormy Daniels? Yeah, to Michael Cohen. How many? I'm not sure of the exact number off top of hand. So if I remember correctly, there's one or two,

there's two or three charges related to each time he paid. I think there's two charges. There's two charges for each payment. And then one of them had three charges because it had to do with a fake check and then a fake business entry for a payment. Those two, because it's essentially the same transaction,

even those two counts, those two would not be allowed to be consecutive to each other. But the next transaction could. So he could get prison. Will he get prison? And my answer to all the people who asked that question, what do I think? What do I predict? And this is 100% opinion just based on what I've seen other judges do in other cases. I think at most he would get what's called a six months split with probation. I could see a judge saying, okay, well, I'll give you six months of house arrest or six months in jail with followed by five years of probation, maybe one to three. But I don't know that a state court judge,

this is where there is a difference I think, I don't know that a state court judge is going to put Donald Trump in jail if he doesn't have the cover of also a federal judge. Who has all the time- What about a Trump-hating democratic operative whose daughter worked for the Biden administration and who has it out for Donald Trump? Won't he do that? Karen, hold that thought. We're

going to talk about that and a lot more on the cliffhanger I just created. We'll talk about Fawney Willis and if she's up to her eyeballs and any real issue that could lead to the dismissal of the indictment. And We'll talk about the Supreme Court gearing up for whether Donald Trump will be on the ballot or not under the 14th Amendment Section 3, but first, one of our 2024 sponsors. Are you self-conscious about your smile due to stains? Are your teeth aging you? Popular food and drinks are known to stain teeth. Beverage is like coffee and wine stained them over time. So what can you do to brighten your smile? Well, you should give smile actives a try. Smile actives is safe, effective, easy to use,

and will keep you smiling proudly. As you probably know, because of all the videos we do, I'm a big coffee drinker, and over time, I noticed my teeth lost some of their brightness that I was used to seeing. 97% of smile actives users in a clinical trial reported up to six shades wider on average, all within 30 days.

Simply add Smile Actives Pro Whitening Gel to your regular toothpaste. It's been formulated with polyclean technology to boost stain removal and deliver active whitening ingredients into teeth, grooves, and crannies to get better whitening. Smile Actives makes a teeth whitening ingredients into teeth, grooves and crannies to get better whitening. Smile Actives makes a teeth whitening gel that can simply be added to your toothpaste

every time you brush your teeth. So no change in your routine, no extra time and no more messy strips, trays or lights. People will start commenting on your wider, brighter smile in just days. Smile Actives is the whitening boost your favorite toothpaste needs to give you the smile you deserve.

Visit smileactives.com slash legalaf today to receive a special buy one, get one free offer with auto delivery plus free shipping and handling. That's smileactives.com slash legalaf, terms and conditions apply, see site for details. 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-Made 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 bent 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 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 AF 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 Miracle Made. Go to trymiracle.com slash legalaf and use the code legalaf 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, Miracle Made for sponsoring this episode. All right, we're back. I didn't mean to cut you off there. You knew that was a tongue-in-cheek question. I understand what you're trying to say about the sentencing. We'll continue to follow it. But I think it's important.

I think to kind of round out this segment, I think it's important that Alvin Bragg kind of hung in there with the brass ones against a lot of public attack and criticism, including when he went on this show, when you interviewed him. And I give him a lot of credit for that because it takes a lot of intestinal fortitude

to do what he's done, which is to indict and be the first one before there was the cover of Jack Smith, before there was even a Jack Smith on this particular case or even a Fonnie Willis who was still investigating. He came out of the box and he made the decision to indict from that office and seek the indictment from the grand jury. Let's talk about somebody else who we have a lot of love for on this Let's talk about somebody else who we have a lot of love for on this podcast and on this network because of her courage, because of her bravery, because of her putting herself in the guess, the more MAGA acts out and attacks you personally, the more you know that you're getting, that your case is probably pretty strong against them. And the more we reported on Fawnie Willis getting, you know, four, uh,

convictions already, four plea deals, three felony convictions, three of Donald Trump's lawyers Testify on her behalf another dozen people to become state witnesses for the prosecution and flip including eight or nine fake electors Winning at every round at the federal court when Donald Trump's You know people like Mark Meadows and Jeff Clark and other people tried to bring their case out of Scott McAfee's courtroom and state court and bring it across the street to federal court as a first step of a two-step process to maybe getting themselves dismissed on supremacy, clause grounds or on immunity grounds of some sort. She's won all of those and Nathan Wade should

be credited along with that because he's been doing the lion's share of the on-the-ground line prosecutor work after she brought him in as a special prosecutor along with the team that he heads. She's thought, of course, she's made all the major decisions there. It's her prosecutorial discretion and judgment that we're talking about. And, you know, the fact that it's come to light that maybe she also has some sort of relationship with soon to be divorced, Nathan Wade, and she herself is not married. We've always been, I've seen your hot tech, I've done my hot techs. This is a big, a big nothing, a big who cares. I've seen all the prosecutor ethics rules about relationships or using taxpayer dollars. And you have that working theory that runs the other way.

I think if he is her boyfriend, he is working harder for less money than otherwise. And people will say, oh my God, he's getting 350 an hour. That's a very low number, by the way, for successful lawyers. And oh, he got $700,000 for two years of work. I don't know, Jack Smith's team took him, you know, had to be paid $14 million for their work.

I mean, this is like very efficient work. It's the efficiency that comes from having a relationship with your boss. That's what I think. But all kidding aside, it doesn't lead to the dismissal of the indictment. They just want to embarrass Fawney Willis and in a misogynistic way, in

a racial way. And Nathan Wade too, but now it's going to all be dumped in the lap of Scott McAfee who mid month is mid February, he's going to have to hold a hearing about whether the indictment needs to be dismissed and whether it's Fawney Willis and or Nathan Wade need to be dismissed from continuing to prosecute the case. And finally, and I hate to even have to report this because I hate to even have to know anything about it. It looks like we have at least a temporary,

temporary property settlement and settlement of all issues between Nathan Wade and the soon to be former wife, Jocelyn Wade. I like, I hate to not even know that. I hate that I even have to report on that. It makes me uncomfortable because it doesn't have anything to do with Donald Trump's criminal conduct as alleged in the indictment or Mike Roman The election day mule for the fake elect your certificates

You know who worked hand-in-glove with Ken chest bro to try to overturn the will of the people That's what the indictments about Karen bring us up to speed from there forward and what you what you think's gonna happen with Scott McAfee to the indictment and To Fawni Willis's position as lead prosecutor along with Nathan wait but the one thing that MAGA has always been really good at doing is They it's like I always think it's like they throw a ball and we're all like golden retrievers that go and follow their ball. And I'm guilty of it as anybody else, but this is the perfect example of them making

hay out of literally nothing yet. The media, including myself, is spending time defending her and defending this case because it's just to call this a scandal, to call this an affair, to call this anything is really, I think, just misstating what it is. It's an office romance if it's even true, which I assume it is because if it wasn't, I'm sure she would have denied it. And all the evidence is that his contract allowed for more hours than the other two individuals

who she also brought on. There were a lot of people who turned her down for the job. I don't blame them. Not sure why anyone would sign up for what happens to you. If God forbid you get involved in prosecuting or in any way on the other side of the V in the verses of Donald Trump.

You know, if it's the government versus Trump or a private citizen versus Trump, if you're on the other side of that V, you are signing up for a very difficult life much more than just your job description. You have your entire private life turned upside down, which is what's clearly happening here. And you get death threats and you have to have security, etc. So I am not surprised that lots of other attorneys turned her down. She turned to a trusted advisor, Nathan Wade, who's qualified by all accounts.

And he has a lot of experience. He's a trial lawyer. He has great judgment. And of course, they people are going after him. And as Fani Willis said, but they're not going after the two white people that she brought on board. We'll see what Judge McAfee will do. I'm actually in the process of trying to do research and talking to local Georgia lawyers because I want to know

things like, excuse me, I want to know things like what exactly is this hearing? In other words, who goes first? Who has the burden of proof? What is the burden of proof? What is the standard that Mike Roman and all the other defendants have to achieve? What is the issue that we're looking at? What's the allegation? What exactly is, if they subpoena Fonnie Willis, what are her rights?

What can she justifiably say, none of your effing business, if they ask her certain private questions that should belong nowhere in a court of law? And what will she be required to answer, if anything? I think it's important that we all educate ourselves before this hearing on February 15 to learn about this so that when we watch it,

thankfully, because it will be televised, we can really analyze it for ourselves. I still don't under, you know, of course, Donald Trump has now joined the motion and, you know, is saying I want to join Mike Roman's motion. And I also agree that she somehow is disqualified as a result of this. But you know, it's definitely something that is salacious and is the ball that the golden retrievers is chasing after because we're all talking about that. We're not talking about the fact that Donald Trump tried to steal and disenfranchise the voters of Georgia. So I don't know.

I'm going to interrupt for one second. I like the research thing. That's, so I don't know. I'm going to interrupt for one second. I like the research thing. That's great. I don't really have a lot of Georgia contact. So if you can find that out, because there are, you know, sort of, sort of people understand, you know, we practice, I have a national trial practice, so does Karen, but, you know, the intricacies of the Georgia criminal procedural code, you got to really talk to somebody that's drinking from that water fountain and understands that the The Mike, the Donald Trump Me Too brief, I thought

was also just sort of both mean spirited and again should be dead on arrival with a judge like Scott McAfee. Their big argument was, oh, they didn't like the fact that she took to the pulpit the day before the Martin Luther King, Jr. day and defended herself indirectly and her judgment and her discretion and her professionalism and questioned why she was being attacked for hiring one of three special prosecutors who happened to be black and why they were questioning the amount of money that he was receiving

and his capabilities and all of that. And they said, oh, she violated special prosecutor ethics rule because she made extra judicial statements that will bring prejudice upon Donald Trump. How? I mean, the fact that she was in a black church, I got news for Donald Trump and I did this on another hot take. The jury of his peers in Fulton County, Georgia, which I've been going to regularly for 30 years, my sister lives there or near there, is going to be very diverse. Let's just leave it at that. Okay. So if he thought they're all going to be like, you know, wearing maga hats and sitting there, they're not. And nothing she could say is going to bring any more prejudice on him than the jury may already have. But the jury is gonna be selected by, you know,

with Judge McAfee and with the help of Wadir, and they're gonna get a jury of nine or 12, whatever it's supposed to be in Georgia, that's gonna at least tell everybody that they're gonna be fair and impartial. They're gonna listen to the evidence and they're gonna assess it, as you said, live guilt or innocence under the standard

that they are charged with. We're going to talk about, George, but I love the fact that you're going to reach out to people in our network, your network, and we'll give that sort of really granular information about what is this hearing going to be about. And then, you know, fortunately, as everybody now knows from the Midas Touch Network, the two million strong Midas Touch Network, proud to say that we

almost went over the top right on our show. I said, we said if we did, we were going to buy a t-shirt to the two millionth person, but it didn't happen on our show. So it didn't happen. But the good thing about Scott McAfee, among all the cases that we're going to talk about here Including the United States Supreme Court next is that he puts everything on YouTube It's part of his chamber rules and we'll get it and a live feed and you some combination You me and Ben are all three of us well depending upon the time of day We'll jump on and we will do running commentary just during after before about that particular hearing which now we understand that Fawnie Willis and Nathan Wade have been subpoenaed. They're gonna be there anyway

You get subpoena them, but they're gonna be there anyway on the issue of whether they should be disqualified and whether the indictment That's that that's the thing that doesn't get enough press is that it's not just to disqualify it embarrass impugn the integrity of Fauney Willis and Nathan Wade. It's to dismiss the indictment. And so they've overreached so much. It's almost making it easy on Scott McAfee. He's not going to dismiss the indictment over whether Fauney Willis and Nathan Wade are drinking buddies in Napa Valley or not. They're just not. I mean, I can't put that in any more certain terms. But we're going to talk about courts like the United States Supreme Court that barely gives us

the audio of their oral arguments. And we're going to talk about the advocacy briefs that have been filed now as the Supreme Court takes up the issue, which I'm sure they're loathed to do, but they have no choice, is whether Donald Trump is an interactionist that rebelled against the Constitution and is barred from the ballot or can be barred for the ballot under the 14th Amendment. Section three or not, are judges supposed to be making that decision? Is Congress supposed to be making that decision despite the literal textual language of the Constitution? What about the arguments that have been raised not even by the parties but by

amicus friends of the court briefs filed by the leading historians about civil war and the amendments to the Constitution that arose out of that era and leading Federalist Society conservative Republicans leadership in Republican administrations who filed their own brief as well who all come to the same conclusion Which is Donald Trump should be barred and banned from the Ballot as an insurrectionist someone who rebelled against the Constitution under that 14th amendment we'll talk about all of that and

Taylor Swift and whether she is she is a Psyop because she works for voice of America encourages people to vote She is a Psyop because she works for Voice of America and encourages people to vote next on the later part of our podcast. But first, another word from our sponsors. This quote for today's episode comes from One Skin. If you're still feeling the stress of the holidays like me, you know it can really take its toll on your skin. But One Skin can help your skin bounce back with science-backed TLC that refreshes and reverses signs of aging from the inside out, Something women my age need to be on top of. Their products are powered by scientifically

proven peptide called OS1 that targets fine lines and wrinkles right where they start, which is yourselves. This isn't just another skincare routine, it's real science breakthrough. In fact, OS1 is the first of its kind to actually turn back the clock instead of just masking the signs of aging. With their full line of face, eye, and body, and sun, and travel size products, here they are, I actually love them. And people always say to me, I can't believe you are 57 years old,

and it's mostly because of my skin and I take care of it. And this is a really fantastic product. It doesn't just promise healthier skin, they prove it and I am all in. I love using one skin as part of my nighttime routine before bed. I'm absolutely thrilled with the results. My skin not only looks more refreshed and healthy, it feels soft too, just cleans and applied twice daily. One skin, you can put it on your face, your eyes, your body, and there's also a shield that can be used with other products to help with sunscreen. So it easily fits into your current skincare routine.

And for a limited time, our listeners will get an exclusive 15% off One Skin products using the code LEGALAF when you check out at oneskin.co. That's not com, it's.co. Start 2024 off right and give your skin the scientifically proven love it deserves with one skin one skin is the world's first skin longevity company by focusing on the cellular aspects of aging one skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer get started today with 15% off using code legal af at one skin dot co that's 15% off onekin.co with legal AF as your code. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. This is a great time to have healthy, beautiful skin. Okay, we're back.

Okay, we're back. I love our sponsors. I know. Thank God. I can't emphasize enough't emphasize enough people like why do they need sponsors because You know, we wouldn't be on the air without though. Let's be frank and they support our mission We picked the sponsors. Sure. They pick us and they want to be on With audiences that are that are the Democrat the demographics of our audience for a reason uh, we we attract smart good-looking

Now i'm pandering to our audience. Um, we attract, you know, a really great group of people and they want to promote to them And there's nothing wrong with that the good healthy Uh capitalist economy that supports our constitutional republic. Let's move on from our sponsors. You are, I'm going to, I'm going to do a pick them here, like they do in sports and sports betting. You want to do Taylor Swift first or you want to do the Supreme Court? We'll end with Taylor Swift.

Okay. Let's see the United States Supreme Court. I'll frame it. I'll turn it over to you. Uh, Colorado, of course, four to three, their United States Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump was an officer under the United States, took the appropriate oath of office as required by the 14th Amendment Section 3-2 support, or in this case, defend, preserve, and protect the Constitution, and therefore, without completely self-affecting, without any constitutional

or sorry, congressional action whatsoever, by the literal terms of the 14th Amendment, because he engaged in insurrection and rebellion, as outlined in the Jan 6th Committee report, in all the ways that he did that, and interfered with the peaceful transfer of power. He violated his oath to the Constitution, therefore it could be barred and banned

by secretaries of states, or whomever is responsible for that individually in each state to put Donald Trump on the ballot that that Issue is up on appeal with the United States Supreme Court Who has taken in all the briefs and has set the oral argument from February the 8th? It'll be audio will be able to report on it We'll hear how hot of a bench that's going to be. And this is a dilemma for John Roberts and the others who consider themselves to be textualists and originalists, which means that they look to the literal text of the parchment of the drafters and the framers and the people who were worked on the passage of each amendment to determine what they meant by the words on the page

Well, the words on the page here don't say go look somewhere else and go to go to Congress We'll put up a we'll put up here the 14th amendment section 3 doesn't come with an owner's manual because it was it's it's quite obvious What it means if you engage it's simple It's it's elegant in its. If you engage, it's simple. It's, it's elegant in its simplicity. If you engage in insurrection or rebellion against the constitution, that's what the same means. Then you, then you are, and you took an oath as a federal officer under the, under America. Okay. Well, that, he satisfies Donald Trump satisfies all of those criteria. He's an officer. satisfies all of those criteria. He's an officer.

He is the chief executive officer of America. He's the president of the United States of America. He took an oath and office to support, defend, and do whatever towards the Constitution. So his relationship with the Constitution is the right kind of relationship. And the reason has argued in Judge Ludwig's brief, along with 20 other people, including my law partner and George Conway.

The argument there is that he, Section 3 comes out of the Civil War era and you have to respect that the people of the civil, the the generation of the Civil War era who passed a bunch of amendments at the same time to protect newly freed slaves, now black Americans, from being lynched, from being denied the right to vote, from having insurrectionists come back to the government. Right, we just got through fighting a civil war over slavery. Yes, yes, Nikki Haley, the reason South Carolina

tried to secede Your own state or you were the governor of is because of slavery It's right there in their declaration and that was the beginning as as noted in this brief I'm talking about of the civil war and an attempt to stop the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln Does this sound familiar? Okay, so you have to, their argument is, you have to understand what the civil war generation and restoration generation was trying to say to us today about future insurrectionists and what we should do about them,

including one that could be the president. We had an insurrectionist president. His name was Jefferson Davis. He left the union, he went, became the president. We had an insurrectionist president. His name was Jefferson Davis. He left the union, he became the president of the Confederacy, and he was tried for insurrection. He also argued, you don't have to try me for insurrection because I'm already disqualified from office under the 14th Amendment, Section 3.

So between the historians, led by the leading historian who's at Princeton, in the world on civil war between the historians led by the leading historian who's at Princeton in the world on civil war and civil war law and this other group. So these 50 people, they're talking to an audience on the United States Supreme Court of originalists and textualists and saying, yeah, you want to be an originalist and textualist?

You used it in order to find the second Amendment gave gun ownership almost unfettered rights. Okay. You used it to take away a woman's right to choose. Okay. Then to be consistent, you should be banning and barring Donald Trump from office without resort to Congress and don't take any exit ramps. Ban and bar him. He's an interactionist and engaged in rebellion against the Constitution. Karen, what do you think about it? And what do you think about the members

that these briefs are addressed to? Roberts, who's trying to hold the center, Kavanaugh, and Thomas and Alito, who would always side with the actual language of the Constitution, except they got their buddy, Donald Trump, in their crosshairs. What do you think happens next? First of all, I love that there's a leading expert in the world on civil war law. I can only imagine the conversation with his parents when he was going to school to study that. They're like,

that's like, what, that's so arcane. Why would that ever be useful? Why don't you become a lawyer where it, you know, you can do something in the current modern day. And now he's the most popular important person in the country for this. It's just fascinating how you've got these incredible experts because so much of this is about history, right? This is, we are making history

because one of the things these briefs really did a good job, I thought of spelling out, is our democracy is on the line. This is all about whether or not we wanna be a constitutional democracy or not. That's what's at stake here. And the briefs, what's interesting about this issue, because it's so out in the public sphere

and it's been litigated now in multiple states, the issues, the legal issues and the moral issues and the things that people are saying like, oh, come on, just let the people decide. Just let them be on the ballot. Let them be on the ballot and let the people decide. That's what a democracy is.

Because those arguments are out there and people are making them, each of these briefs, I thought, did an excellent job of tackling the arguments head on. And in addition to presenting their case, also addressed the arguments that people are making. And so I thought they did an excellent job at that. And look, to me, the most compelling arguments are things like the fact that the main brief, the Colorado brief, said that basically just like we can't be forced

to put someone on the ballot who's not of age or who's already been twice elected president of the United States, we can't say, oh, but let the people decide, right? You're saying just let the people decide, well, we're not going to if you're not at least 35 years old or if you are Barack Obama and as much as I would do anything to have him be president, again, the Constitution forbids it because he's already been president twice, that it's very much the same here

and that they shouldn't be forced to put Donald Trump on the ballot and that there's over 130 years of Colorado election law precedent that allows the courts to decide who's qualified to be on the ballot or not. And the lower court determined that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection, the appellate court, but although the lower court said, but it doesn't apply to the president, this amendment,

section three, the 14th Amendment, section three, the appellate court reversed that, right? The Supreme Court of Colorado reversed that. And so really what they're just asking the United States Supreme Court is to uphold the decision of the lower court. And the amicus briefs, like I said, you know, we did a really good job at essentially saying, setting the stage that this is about democracy. This is about sending a message that nobody's above the law. And that the historians, what they added to this was that, look, there's two issues that the founding fathers feared. One, a violent insurrection. And two, executive tyranny, right?

So that's why they have checks and balances. There's three branches, three separate but equal branches. The entire constitution was designed to protect against executive tyranny. That's exactly what they were rebelling from when they came over from England. And that is why the Constitution was absolutely designed the way they did. And they also said it's not just a matter of let the people decide,

because if that were the case, Hillary Clinton would be president, right? Because she had the majority of, she would have been president over Donald Trump, because she had the majority of votes. But no, that's not how our constitutional Democracy runs and we follow the rules. We follow the law and there aren't two separate sets of rules that that this that section 3 of the 14th amendment is not Antidemocratic, which is what all the MAGA people say is let him be on the ballot. It's anti-democratic Let the majority decide. Well, you know, again, they said, look, if that were the case, Hillary Clinton would have been president if you just let the majority decide. I also loved that one of the briefs,

I think it was Common Cause, cited a 1787 letter from Jefferson to Madison. And it said, in an uncanny prophecy of petitioners' efforts to stay in office in 2020, Thomas Jefferson warned that an incumbent president defeated in a close reelection campaign might, quote, pretend false votes and foul play, end quote, in an effort to illegitimately, quote, hold possession of the reins of government, end quote.

And that's a letter from Jefferson to Madison, December 20th, 1787. And so this is, it's just that they've done a great job at showing that this is something that the founding fathers warned us about, and they designed the Constitution to not allow this to occur and That if if the Supreme Court doesn't allow this it's really upending our democracy And I'll do a book and you did the 1780, you know old-timey Yeah Mike Lodig in his brief ended it this way He said ultimately this case has a virtual confession on December 3rd 2022

Mr. Trump posted that his unfounded Accusation of widespread election fraud quote allows for the termination of all rules regulations and articles even those found in the Constitution. He had said as much of the same in his January 6 speech on the ellipse, quote, when you catch somebody in fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules. Mr. Trump deliberately tried to break the Constitution, to incite, threatened, and actual armed force to prevent the peaceful transfer of executive power mandated by the executive vesting clause, and as a result he should be barred from the ballot.

Let me put this in. This is Michael Ludwig. If you had told me before Legal AF, I, you know, I, before we started this whole thing, that one day I would not only be complete in agreement with Michael Ludic, but I would have him on the show and interview him. I'd be like, you're kidding me, right? But as I said in a hot take that's running right now, he stepped off the sidelines of history. I mean, he was almost on the Supreme Court at one point. And, you know, he he's regarded as the person who tweeted to save democracy. His tweet at just the right moment

about the calling Donald Trump out as somebody who had, who was trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and more importantly, gave proper guidance and public guidance to Mike Pence to give him the backbone that he was sorely lacking and shove a rod up his backside in order for him not to cave to Donald Trump's entreaties to stop the certification and just turn it over to the states which would have picked Donald Trump as president. That's all Michael Ludick. He's on the Mount Rushmore of Federalist Society, right-wing conservative judges. Okay? That's not the guy that would have been my pick for the United States Supreme Court in other words, but look how he has stepped forward and has gotten attacked mercilessly as a result of it, along with these other people like George Conway and others,

to oppose what they see as what the founding fathers, the framers, and you know, from the Civil War era, what they envisioned happening, that they wanted stopped and they baked it into an amendment of the Constitution. Think about this. This is not just a statute that was passed by Congress. Okay? You know how hard it is to change a constitutional amendment? The Equal Rights Amendment died already and that was in the 70s. We can't change the Constitution, given our political division right now. But back then, they felt it was so important that they amended the Constitution three or four times in the same 1787 period in order to protect black Americans, newly freed slaves, and to prevent an insurrectionist from ever coming back into the government again, because

they foresaw that the, as you said, Karen, the popularity of a Confederate insurrectionist, like Jeff Davison, could restore him to the presidency of America or put him in as the president of America. And they never wanted that to happen. They were going to make sure that was not going to happen by what they wrote. And now I'm sorry, Chief Justice Roberts, you and the rest of the originalists and textualists have to, you know, what was good for the goose is good for the gander. You thought it was okay to find a Second Amendment right almost

unlimited to have a handgun and other weapons in your home, unless there was some old, tiny regulation that was similar to a regulation being proposed today. You ripped away a woman's right to choose because you couldn't find it, you looked everywhere, you couldn't find it in the literal text of the Constitution, what about this? It's in the literal text. It doesn't say, well, if you can't figure it out,

well, just forget about it. It's just words on a page. Just ignore our amendment. Doesn't say that. And it doesn't say go back to Congress. Because Donald Trump's argument is well Congress Needs to decide no Congress only decides after you've been disqualified whether they're gonna they're gonna take away your disqualification At all that's up to Congress

But not the act of banning you from the ballot and taking you off the ballot completely That's not for the American people to decide. It's for the 14th Amendment to be applied. Sorry, it's the only way I could put that. Let's switch gears to something completely more lighthearted. And I'm gonna let you lead on this one. As always, for the final word, we're gonna talk about Taylor Swift. Taylor Swift, who, listen, I gave a lot of kudos to

when I found out she had the highest grossing concert in concert tour in history The era's tour one. She's worth over a billion dollars. She has these loyal fans called Swifties She's encouraged them to vote. She's she's done what a lot of a lot of encourage them to vote. She's done what a lot of celebrities don't do, frankly, and sport heroes don't do anymore, which she's taken a position in civic life about things that she thinks is right and wrong and about politics. And she's now getting somehow repaid by it. Talk about what MAG is doing to her and what do you think the impact of it is? I think it boomerangs on them. But what do you think the impact of it is? I think it boomerangs on them,

but what do you think the impact of taking on Taylor Swift as an as a operative of the Biden administration? Look Taylor Swift is universally beloved. I can't tell you how many people myself included who watched a football game this weekend because I was rooting for Taylor Swift's boyfriend's team. Okay, I understand from people that Travis Kelsey was, like is a good football player. And was also there. Well, yeah, exactly. That he was a celebrity in his own right

before he started dating Taylor Swift. But I'm sorry, Taylor Swift is, she's the real deal. She's, first of all, her music's amazing. Second of all, she's just very real and wholesome. And she just says what she believes and whether she's very much into LGBT and, you know, just love and love who you want and really being a supporter and an ally of people who struggle with that. And she just speaks from the heart, whether the good, the bad, the ugly, whether it's relationships, whether it's the guy who, who bought the entire her entire collection of music and, and, and owned it and, and wouldn't let her couldn't and couldn't

play, she couldn't play her music. So she re-recorded it all. I mean, she's just, she puts her head down, she does her work, and she, she doesn't get distracted by, by distracted by the noise in the background, whether it's misogyny or other people who have tried to bring her down. And I think people love her as a result, because she's not someone who at least gives the impression of being fake or phony or just out to make money. She went on her tours. She spreads the wealth, you know, she she in addition to according to Salty has boosted the the US GDP. The federal reserve, oh no, no, the Federal Reserve report for the quarter that the ERAs

tour toured reported that in all the cities that she so impacted the economy in the cities that her tour hit, that the Federal Reserve commented on it positively as something that moved the needle for the US economy. Yeah, I mean, look, but in addition to that, the people around her, whether it was the workers, the people who worked in the stadiums or worked on the in her in her orbit or in the communities that she was in, she was very generous with

them. And so as a result, and it doesn't look like a stunt, it looks like that's who she really is. She does it quietly and she does it because she's just seems like and gives the impression all around as just being a really good person in addition to having great music. And so she's beloved, right? Like the Swifties are a thing for a reason. She's amazing. And then she started dating, you know, somebody who seems like it's good, it's going to stick, right? And it turns out he's a football player. And I think that the NFL and, and alpha males and macho men and that whole thing, that's Magga's red meat. That's their bread and butter, right? That's their territory. And they see Taylor Swift and Travis Kelsey getting serious apparently, and their head is exploding because she's just telling people to get out

and vote. She's not telling them who to vote for. She isn't a dorsed a candidate, but they know that She's not telling them who to vote for. She doesn't endorse the candidate, but they know that if she gets people to actually go out and register to vote and vote, that it could be, it could have an impact. And they feel threatened clearly because they're going after her and they have spun the most ridiculous conspiracy theory so ridiculous that I don't even, I don't even, I can't even say it perfectly. So I'm going to have Salty play a clip of them, of Fox freaking out over her. We have had enough of Taylor Swift for now. She shouldn't be liberal. She should be a total conservative given what, given everything.

The Pentagon's Psyop unit pitched NATO on turning Taylor Swift into an asset. Yesterday, she flew private from New York City to Baltimore. Yet she constantly talks about climate change. So just please don't believe everything Taylor Swift says. We're all begging you. I think she should just stick to her singing and let her love life be what it is.

The New York Times just speculated she's a lesbian. A new poll shows 18% of voters are likely to vote for whichever candidate Taylor Swift endorses. Uh-oh. Biden effectively has Taylor Swift as his VP. Single posts of hers led to 35,000 new registrants. That's arguably more power than the president. She's sharing links.

And her boyfriend Travis Kelty, sponsored by Pfizer. What's her stance on policy economic policy foreign policy? So don't get involved don't go in public politics, we don't want to see you there I Mean come on they're going they're losing their mind I Ask you something. I mean, I know this drives Fox News But what the heck does Maria Bartiromo's opinion matter about politics? What is judge whatever her name is judge Pirro matter?

I mean Taylor Swift has every bit of a first amendment right to express Whatever her civic or political views are as anybody else and the fact that it gets amplified and Trampolined because of her, her face. And they're scared. What you heard there, if I was gonna, if I was gonna read that, the read out of that is they are effing scared. There was one and there was one thing buried in that in that montage that was like the Rocky montage that that salty put together was whoever Taylor Swift says to vote for 24% of the people will vote for, oh my God. Yes. Yes. Because right now I just saw a terrible statistic that said that, that Joe Biden is down in five out of seven battleground states, unless, unless Donald Trump is convicted and then 55% of even MAGA Republicans won't vote for a convicted Donald Trump. Hence the Stormy Daniels election interference case is really, really important.

Because even those red meat, red MAGA bat wearing people won't vote for a convicted criminal. And they don't vote for Taylor Swift either. And by the way, on the one thing, the Psyop, that's because Voice of America, which we used to like, it's part of Stars and Stripes, it's part of America's voice in the world, used Taylor Swift instead of a washed up D-list celebrity. Yeah, that's smart.

That doesn't make her the Venturian candidate. No, but they've also said because, I guess Travis Kelsey, who's her boyfriend, I guess they said that he also sponsors Pfizer who does the COVID vaccine and Bud Light, right? Which is, he does those commercials, right? Don't forget, right, exactly. So those, that's why that's how they've said that somehow she was a plant, that they were those, that's why that's how, that's how they've, they've said that somehow she was a plant that they were date that they started dating as a plant.

And then I guess somebody threw the game so that they could get to the Super Bowl. I don't know how else, how they can have devised this crazy conspiracy theory. It's just I got bad news for them. I got bad news for them. If they think they're going to do, they're going to swift boat, no pun intended, Taylor Swift and bring her down. And like they try to do with Colin Kaepernick and people that, you know, you know, what Neil during the, the whatever and the, and the trans gender spokesperson for Bud Light ain't ain't happening as you just laid out so eloquently. It ain't happening with Taylor Swift and the people that follow her if they think they think 18 year 18 year olds

Who vote who also like Taylor Swift are gonna follow are gonna go fox has a point Maybe I shouldn't follow her because she drove her she flew a jet to go see the you know, canza city take on balthamore Yeah, no Salty didn't didn Trump, didn't Donald Trump say, I don't care? Something he postured and said, oh, go ahead and go ahead and vote for her. I don't care because I'm more popular. You know, something like that, right? I'm more popular than Taylor Swift. Yeah. Okay. No way. I'm going to pause it something and see if Salty can make this make make the needle the needle move in in in the universe Joe Biden drops Kamala Harris and puts Taylor Swift on the ticket is this like a no-brainer no brainer

He doesn't need to do that we like Indulging me on the tailors of things. She I went when a woman gets mercilessly, mercilessly and senselessly and ridiculously attacked by maga. I want to be one of the what not that obviously nobody cares what I have to say compared to Taylor Swift. She doesn't need what I have to say. But certainly I like Fonnie Willis, I want to weigh in. And because it's, you know, women in general and anybody who sees that happening, I think has to call it out. And so, so I appreciate you. I don't know about mainstream media at all, but I don't think there's three anchors, Um, you, me and Ben, who are more supportive and defenders of, of women and women in leadership

and power than on this network. I just don't, I just haven't seen it. Um, you know, we just, it comes from the heart. It just, we, we call out misogyny when we see it and we're just not going to allow it to happen. I think it was, I do now having rounded out the podcast, I think it was important that we talked about it. But we've reached the end of the midweek edition of Legal AF. We thought we were going to talk about Judge Angoran's decision to whack it, whack it to Donald Trump to a tune of over $500 million, but that's going to have to wait for

either the weekend edition with Ben Dallas or next week with Karen and me. So until we meet again on Saturday and Wednesdays with Karen, a couple of ways you can help support our network besides patronizing our sponsors is also a lot of free things, free subscribe to the Midas Touch Network. Two million was a blast, Three million is even better. We like to get three million subscribers by next year. That would be fantastic.

You can do that with your thumbs and fingers by just going out and subscribing while you're watching this YouTube. Leave a comment and a thumbs up on this particular Legal AF, it helps with the algorithm. Then you can go over to our audio podcast platforms where Legal AF is on every one of them, Spotify, Apple, Google, you name it, we're there.

Go listen to this podcast or go back and forth. It's both free, but it really does boost our numbers and helps keep the lights on and us on the air. And then we have us, do you wanna fly the flag of Legal AF? We got a store You can buy merchandise from there. It is store dot minus touch dot com that's a great way to support us and then the

We do hot takes now. We call them legal af after dark They're little mini potlets. We take each of the segments from an episode like this And i'll do an introduction of it. So, you know gonna be Legal AF after dark. And if you already saw the show, heard the show, know all about it, take that and send it over. It's like a gateway introduction, that was a drug for the show that you can send as a little teaser appetizer to people in your life and say,

hey, you know that show Legal AF that I talked to you about? I know you may not wanna just just devote a whole hour to it, but listen here, here's a segment of it. Go listen to it, maybe something you'd like and you can send that off to them. So that's something you can do. And we also posted for people, frankly, who don't, who aren't part of our audience.

I mean, we do get, you know, beautiful numbers. We get, you know, almost a million people a week that watch our two shows, but there's people that watch other content on the Midas Touch Network And don't know about legal AF and we're trying to reach that audience too or for people that missed the show And there there's oh, I want to hear that particular way that Karen talked about, you know something or hey I want to get that clip about Taylor Swift, you know, there it is It'll be you'll see in the next couple days as we put it up on the same YouTube channel

So until our next legal AF Let's bring Karen back There she is till our next and for those that don't know I'll remind people that Karen is we talked about the Manhattan DA's office. She's Helping fictional Manhattan district attorneys on a show little show. We like to call league of opposite legal AF a little show They're called Law and Order AF. And she's sitting in whose office is that on the show? This is Lieutenant Dixon. This is her office. So this is, it's funny. So there's, on the stage, there's the courtroom, the DA's office, and the police station. And that's all, that's all on the stage.

And right now I'm in the police station, where I typically, it's funny, because I could go to the Manhattan DA's office. People think, thank you to record this, right? People think that's where I'd be more comfortable, but for whatever reason, I love, I'm always in Lieutenant to me, this is where I feel most comfortable.

I love this office. I like it because over your left shoulder, there is a flag that reflects that somebody, and I have one because my dad was in the armed services. And when he died, I was presented his flag by a bugle corps. And I have that flag in my office in a very similar box that usually means somebody has died or a law enforcement in this case. And so I really left a nice- We have Mark's father as well, my husband, sorry, his father's as well.

It's a nice touch and I, whenever I'm looking at you, I'm always looking at that and thinking about my dad. But until our next legal AF, we have a shout out now to the mightest, mighty and the legal AFers.