Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump CRUSHED by Appeals Court as TOTAL DEVASTATION Nears

Episode Date: February 8, 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 momentous DC Court of Appeals ruling that no President is above the law and Trump has no immunity to dismiss his criminal indictments, including what comes next with a possible Supreme Court appeal and the setting of the Judge Chutkan DC Election inference case for early Summer; 2. What happens with the trial setting for the Manhattan DA criminal case against Trump that could be scheduled for March or could be kept on ice awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision on the DC trial; 3. What Judge Engoron in the up to $500 million dollar NY Attorney General Civil Fraud against Trump may due to Trump AND HIS LAWYERS if he determines that Trump’s lead witness for the defense committed the CRIME OF PERJURY in his court room, including the impact of that finding on the judgment amount; 4. Tomorrow’s oral argument at the Supreme Court as to whether Donald Trump can be banned from the election ballot as an insurrectionist under the Civil War Era 14th Amendment’s Disqualification Clause, including the lawyers for each side, and who will likely lead the “hot bench” on the Supreme Court side, with the “10 Justice” (the Biden Solicitor General) strangely silent, and so much more at the intersection of law politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! AG1: Try AG1 and get a FREE 1-year supply of Vitamin D3+K2 AND 5 free AG1 Travel Packs with your first purchase exclusively at https://drinkAG1.com/LEGALAF HumanN: Thanks to our sponsor HumanN! Get a free 30-day supply of SuperBeets heart chews and a FREE Full - Sized Bag of Tumeric Chews valued at $25 by going to http://legalafbeets.com Trust and will: Get 10% off plus free shipping of your estate plan documents by visiting https://trustandwill.com/LEGALAF 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. 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

Crypto is like the financial system, but different. It doesn't care where you come from, what you look like, your credit score, or your outrageous food delivery habits. Crypto is finance for everyone, everywhere, all the time. Kraken, see what crypto can be. Not investment advice. Crypto trading involves risk of loss. Kraken's registration details at kraken.com slash legal slash ca dash pru dash disclaimer.

At BMO, we know every business is unique. Hey, I'm Ash Phillips. And I'm Mirola Flaga. We co-founded SysSanquiem, a creative agency that helps entrepreneurs build their brands. You have unique goals. We want to grow the SysSanquiem team to help more brands reach their creative potential. And need unique business banking tools to help you get there. The BMO e-business plan makes our day-to-day banking easier so we can focus more on the

next step for Sysanquiem. Be ready for your next step with no monthly fees and no minimum balance with the BMO e-business plan. Terms and conditions apply. We're bringing back the hits at Tim's with four retro donuts. Reintroducing the Walnut Crunch, Cinnamon Sugar Twist, Blueberry Fritter and Dutchy because what's with four retro donuts. Reintroducing the walnut crunch, cinnamon sugar twist, blueberry fritter, and duchy. Because what's classic is always fresh.

It's time for retro donuts. It's time for Tim's. At participating restaurants in Canada for a limited time. Time for Tim's. You don't have to struggle alone. Get free, confidential mental health and substance use support at canada.ca slash mental health. if you or someone you know is thinking about suicide call or text 988 a message from the government of Canada

Fanduil Casino's exclusive Live Dealer Studio has your chance at the number one feeling winning which beats even the 27th best feeling saying I do who wants this last parachute I do enjoy the number one feeling, winning in an exciting live dealer studio exclusively on Fanduil Casino, where winning is undefeated. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem, go 1-866-530-1200 or visit connexontario.ca.

Please play responsive. Ho, ho, ho, welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF at the intersection of law, politics, and justice. We got a lot to do. We have things we just gotta talk about with your regular co-anchors Michael Popak and Karen Friedman, Ignifolo. We're gonna kick it off with the DC Court of Appeals completely dismantling Donald Trump limb from limb all eight of his major arguments completely dispatched in a unanimous decision. They took on immunity, structural separation of powers, immunity, impeachment, First Amendment rights that he raised, due process rights, double jeopardy. This thing is so airtight and waterproof

Supreme Court may not even take it up sending it right back to Judge Chutkin sometime around February the 12th or 13th to set the case for trial Judge Chutkin If you're listening cancel that August vacation in Europe wherever you're going you're gonna be in trial cancel that August vacation in Europe wherever you're going, you're gonna be in trial. Then, what we're done with that, we're gonna talk about the impact, because it's like a cascading domino effect, of now that case likely to be set for trial in June, July-ish.

And what then happens to the trial of, led by my favorite prosecutor, former prosecutor, Carol Freeman, Niflows former office, the Manhattan DA. Do they try to slot it? Do they graciously yield to Judge Chutkin? Is there gonna be a conversation as there was before between Judge Chutkin's chambers and Judge Chutkin and Judge Mershan, who's got a hearing on 15th of February?

Oh, all this coming to a head. We'll figure it all out and give you our best guess right here on the Midas Touch Network. And then we got to talk about Judge Angoran. Oh my God, Judge Angoran is about to hold an evidentiary hearing to figure out whether Allen Weisselberg not only perjured himself during the trial that he presided over, but whether the lawyers for Donald Trump

did a little thing we like to call sub-burning perjury, which is not only an ethical violations, potentially a crime. And of course, in their filings just today before we aired, Donald Trump's lawyers weirdly invited the very evidentiary hearing they were trying to avoid Alina Habba basically saying my ethics counsel told me I can't talk And the lawyer her other co-counsel Cliff Robert taking the time to bash the judge Who's holding a 500 million dollar or so judgment against this client for now? Never a smart move, but also missed the boat completely About what the judge was asking, which was, was I lied to in this courtroom and are the lawyers responsible for it?

We'll talk more about Judge Angoran Doug's next, when that judgment against Donald Trump, the discouragement judgment, is going to come out. And then, and I'm not making this up, we're doing this all in one show because it all happened this week at midweek. We gotta talk about tomorrow's oral argument I'm like giddy today Tomorrow's oral argument at the United States Supreme Court that Donald Trump is not going to be attending Yeah, why would he about whether he's gonna be barred in ban from the ballot as an insurrectionist and somebody who committed rebellion against the Constitution. We got a 40-minute oral argument that's definitely going to go over. We don't have live feed, but we do have the audio that we'll be able to comment on on the

Midas Touch Network. Who's going to be the leader of the hot bench for the United States Supreme Court? For the left or for the normal? Is it going to be the leader of the hot bench for the United States Supreme Court for the left or for the normal team normal. Is it going to be Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan, or Katanji Brown Jackson, who's quickly becoming the intellectual heavyweight on that court? For the right wing, is it going to be Alito or Thomas, or are they going to stay quiet doing, liking to do their work in the dark? What is Judge Chief Justice Roberts, whose entire legacy hangs in the balance for this particular term and the one that preceded it? What is he going to do?

And what about the lawyers that are squaring off in the courtroom? One lawyer on behalf of Donald Trump used to clerk for Judge Michael Ludig, who's going to be my guest on a special interview this weekend, federal judge Ludig, and on the other side is a lawyer for crew who used to clerk for Judge Gorsuch, Gorsuch versus Ludig. The hot bench will know a lot more after we hear the oral argument, but we're going to talk about the briefing leading into it and the reply brief that was filed by Donald Trump

and what it means for his case. I think all you need to know for how much he believes in his case is he's not going to the oral argument. Despite the fact he went to the DC Court of Appeals oral argument where they ripped away his immunity defense, he went to the Eugene Carroll case, which led to $83.5 million case, which led to 83 and a half

million dollar judgment, but he can't find the time. The leading candidate for the presidency is they like to say, just can't find the time to go to the United States Supreme Court. We do all of that. Whatever else we can think of. One place, the midweek edition of legal AF with my traveling companion, my traveling co-anchor, Karen, Friedman and Ignif, love Karen. Traveling, I'm on the road again, Popoc, you know how it is.

I'm on the road again. Yep, you love musicians like Willie Nelson and the rest. So I'm really glad, I'm really glad you are. Are you with family? I am, so when I sometimes travel, it, I have family that lives all over the country. And when I have to travel for work, if it happens to also be where my family is, I'm very lucky that I get to see them, spend time with them. So it's kind of a twofer, if you will.

So I like that. I like when you can do that. People know that I've reported from Atlanta where my mom lives. Sometimes I even go out and I put my laptop on the trash can out in front of the Fulton County courthouse and did live reporting from there. People don't know what that look, my setup looked like. People drove by and yelled out legal AF, which is a lot of fun. I know. It's funny. It's funny. It's funny. Like people, you know, when you, it's funny that if people saw what our setups actually look like. And it's like, you know, when I go, when I'm on CNN, the studio is quite magnificent, right?

It's very kind of shiny and flashy and it's got beautiful lights and incredible sound and just the setup is just really top, top notch. But here, you know, we're very portable and we have to be able to record anywhere and It's just a people really saw how I'm gonna just share really quick my cuz so one of the things you like to do when you're recording Is to put your computer up a little bit, right? Otherwise you're looking down So this is what I have my computer on a box. Okay, this is the this is the big Set up here and then we've then we've got just a portable mic and a regular laptop.

So that's my studio, but it just also goes to show how easy you can do it from anywhere, right? You don't have to be stuck in one physical location. And yeah, you might hear a dog bark or whatever, but it is what it is, right? It's authentic and we're doing, we're bringing people information when we can, where we can. And if it's not glossy and perfect,

I don't think people mind because they know we're just being honest and we're trying to research and just provide information so that they can make their own decisions. So yeah. Two weeks ago, I literally got booted from my own live podcast with you because of the hotel internet.

I literally had to leave you at a cover and I had to find my way back in to my own podcast. So yes, I get your point, but let's get, there's a reason we're so giddy and happy despite you being, you know, across the country and me being here and working all day in New York So we've got some tremendous Rulings a terrible red letter weak for Donald Trump, and it's only gonna get worse tomorrow With the oral argument at the United States Supreme Court

Let's kick it off with what sounds like old news, but it's really just fantastic news. Everybody was tapping their foot, waiting for the DC court of appeals to get around to ruling in a month, which by the way is lightning fast for any appellate court. I've been doing this for a long time. I've never had an appellate ruling in a month. If I get it in six months, I'm like, wow, that was fast.

So we just wanted it fast because it had an impact and impacted when Donald Trump would be tried and the other trials sort of were waiting for this one to be set. But we got it. And we know now after reading the 57 pages very carefully, we learned a lot of things for me anyway. And I'm sure you too. We learned what the struggle was that we were waiting on between the three. We knew that they wanted to try to come up with a three zero vote and they did. We can tell from the way it's written where Judge Henderson and her position about discretionary versus official conduct sort of drove a portion of the decision. We can see the jurisdictional discussion that was really

led by Judge Childs. We see how that takes up 10 pages or so to just declare once and for all that they had jurisdiction about this interlocutory issue on appeal. And then we saw the heart of it, which I really think Judge Pan took the lead on, or her clerks took the lead on with her, about separation of powers, immunity, public policy, lack of due process, and the impeachment argument, all laying them all to waste in 57 pages in such an airtight package as I said at the top of this podcast that There's a chance I won't talk about it with you and debate it with you a bit chance Supreme Court led by Justice Chief Justice Roberts who sits over the DC Court of Appeals for administrative purposes doesn't even take the appeal and

Certainly, I don't think there's any way in God's green earth that Donald Trump is going to be able to ask for an on-bond full 12-member D.C. Court of Appeals decision to delay this thing further. We'll talk about that next. Let me just dive in. I'll frame it, turn it over to you for the rest. I'll focus on the parts that I liked about the decision. The attacks on all of Donald Trump's key arguments I thought was masterful. And it's gotta make the Supreme Court stand up and listen. They spoke their language. The DC Court of Appeals does well at managing up.

They know that all of their decisions ultimately end up usually at the United States Supreme Court, especially about momentous ones like this about the presidency and the role of the presidency. And it completely laid to waste any arguments and the fundamental misapprehension of Donald Trump's lawyers about the separation of powers, what it means in terms of Congress passing criminal law,

the president having to abide by criminal law and the article three judges being able to determine whether the president complied with the legislative branches criminal law. That is our co-equal branches of government. That is that they are supreme in their own sphere, but there is a checks and balance built into it, not in the arguments that Donald Trump made. Donald Trump wanted to float above the entire constitutional structure and be above the law, literally.

And he even said that, taking snippets from one sentence from Alexander Hamilton and a Federalist paper that he completely distorted out of view and walking away and trying to walk away from all of the precedent that got us to this point. This is not the first time the presidency, a lawsuit and or criminal prosecution or process have been addressed by the court.

There's a series of cases, including some with Donald Trump's own name on it, coming out of your old office, the Matt and DA's office, Cy Vance versus Donald Trump, that upon which this is the next proper incremental step in link in the chain about it. Donald Trump tried to graft onto it, the civil analysis, which is, well, you try to figure out the scope of my authority and my duties. And then you, and then on the outer boundaries, the outer perimeters, no, that's a civil analysis. The criminal analysis is if during your non-discretionary function, your conduct violates the criminal code, there's no absolute immunity to dismiss your indictment, plain and simple.

It's breathtaking and it's simplicity in the analysis because it comports with our System of government and the three co-equal branches of government without which you you have an unchecked Out of control Leviathan of a presidency and that is the heart of that analysis In you know that that's baked in there then in a footnote They completely got rid of you know We keep talking on the podcast because Trump keeps talking about it in his filings about First Amendment right. I got a First Amendment right. I had a First Amendment right. And he said, you have basically abandoned and waived your First Amendment issues because you didn't raise them up on appeal. So Judge Chutkin on

First Amendment, finding no First Amendment to commit criminal conduct protection is gone. Your due process arguments, you've abandoned. And so whatever Judge Chuckin said on due process stands. So take those off the board. And then lastly, and I'll turn it to you, I want to hear your view on the impeachment decision. We thought that was always the weakest argument for Donald Trump, a misreading of the amendment that relates to impeachment, the impeachment clause, in which they argued that under all circumstances, the only way

a president could ever be indicted in the criminal justice system is that he first has to be impeached and convicted in the Senate, and then he gets turned over to the criminal justice system, which was completely Asinine and had no Had no support in the literal text of the of the impeachment clause nowhere in there In fact the opposite it said the impeachment clause basically says the only thing that can happen through impeachment is removal and indictment and prosecution and criminal process is left for the criminal justice system, but not to Donald Trump. Donald Trump argued, no, there's a negative inference. The negative inference means that because they didn't, there's like a comma there, that therefore he has to be convicted first since he was never

convicted. And that's where the SEAL Team 6 great question that just shot John Sauer out of his chair at the oral argument came into play. When he said, I don't get this, what if he ordered SEAL Team 6 to take out a political rival, Justice Judge Pan asked, you're telling me he's got to go through an impeachment conviction process?

And what if there's no time for an impeachment conviction process? Or what if the senators don't want to convict because they said he's out of office and you took the position that don't worry about him being out of office, the criminal justice system will take care of him, which was an inconsistent position that was pointed out in the brief. I want to hear your view on the brief and then I want to hear what you think, if anything, the United States Supreme Court does with this 57 page decision So look it

When I when I the decision came down and I and I read it I the first I the first thing I thought of was you know those headlet like those New York Times or other newspaper headlines that are simple You know like Obama wins presidency or something, you know, just like two words three words in big headlines And for me it was Trump is not immune. Like it was so, this was such a powerful decision and it's so important. And in some ways it is something that no one's ever ruled on before,

whether a former president can be prosecuted criminally that's never been ruled on before or whether they have executive immunity or presidential immunity. And so this is a momentous decision. And for them to find in such categorically 100% unanimous terms, so this was a, they call it a per curiam decision

Which means it's not written by any one judge most of the time decisions are written by a judge and you know who it is because their name is up at the top and it'll say this is a decision by so-and-so and Then you'll have sometimes dissents or concurring opinions by other judges and they name who it is but this was Percur per curium decision, which means it was unanimous. So again, you have judges on both sides of the aisle who have different thoughts, concerns, opinions, and yet they all came together and unanimously wrote this decision. So I thought that was really incredible. The decision was just beautifully written. And it was both a

history lesson, a law class. And it was not what the other thing I really love about it too, is, is when parties are advocating a position, their advocates, right? And they, they give their position and they make arguments in favor of their position. Trump sometimes takes it to absurd levels. Sometimes his lawyers reign it in, but he takes his to absurd levels that make no sense, but sometimes he makes arguments that make you concerned, right?

And a little bit, at least me, a little bit worried what will happen and what could happen and how will this play out? And what's beautiful about this decision and really most court of appeals decisions in particular is judges rise above the partisanship, they rise above the bickering, they rise above the potshots

or the you know clearly gratuitous comments Trump always starts every every Everything he writes, you know, you clear his lawyers. He tells his lawyers No, Donald Trump was the 40 president Donald Trump the 45th president of the United States of America and the current leading President Donald Trump the 45th president of the United States of America and the current leading candidate and presumptive nominee of the you know the Republican Party, it's it's so clear that he's trying to either

intimidate or color the arguments in some way and Put a gravity to them that are that is hope that he thinks will either intimidate or sway sway the judges I think But the court this court in particular that he thinks will either intimidate or sway, sway the judges, I think. But the court, this court in particular, they're just, their writing is incredible. And they handled, they surgically dealt with every single argument in one way or another. And really just gave a masterclass in the law.

And it's, and they did it in a way that I think they know that the audience is going to be broad. Many times the only people who read court decisions are lawyers. And so many court decisions are written in legalese with a lot of Latin words and phrases and things that you might not understand. Well, this was beautifully written and approachable and understandable at the same time. And so it really is a great decision, not just because it ultimately ruled in favor of what I think is common sense and what should be the law, but also in a way that I think it's going to be hard for the Supreme Court to do anything

but uphold everything that they said. I mean, I don't see any weakness in any of their arguments. And the thing that they also did that I thought was great is this Supreme Court that has a super majority of Republicans, frankly, they have most of their decisions that things like when they overturned Roe versus Wade, etc. They like to go back to the old timey days and really look at history and look at what did the framers intend and mean when they did certain things. And even to the

point where when they were defining terminology, sometimes courts when there's no, and this is common when there's no definition of a particular word that's in a statute, sometimes what they do is they look to the dictionary definition, right? They even went back and utilized the dictionary from the year that either the amendment to the Constitution or the article that they're referring to, so it was either 1700s or early 1800s, they even used the dictionary with the definition of the word from that time. I mean, that's how careful they were to try and come up with what was the true legislative intent behind all of these concepts and what the law means.

And so I thought that this particular, that's what, when you said your question of what was your favorite, that's my favorite, is just this is kind of a bulletproof decision, I think. It's so good that the Supreme Court could even just deny cert and say, we're not going to even hear the arguments because this is such a just a perfect decision

and just go on with the trial. But if they do hear it, it'll be interesting to see if they give any insight into which of these issues they think that they would like to hear. And the court started out with an issue that the parties didn't even really raise or argue, but that the amicus briefs, the Amici, the friends of the court who submitted briefs,

they're the ones who raised, which was, is there, does the court even have jurisdiction to hear this presidential immunity matter? Do they even have that ability to do it midstream the way they did it or which is what we've called an interlocutory appeal because usually you have to wait until after a conviction to appeal. And so they addressed that first because that was sort of foundational, right? Are we allowed to even rule? And that was a foundational question That they addressed and and there was a case that that we've talked about and other lawyers have talked about Midland asphalt

that was Throwing a little bit of a wrench into whether or not there was this was Appealable midstream at this level and they really handled the issue and said, absolutely, that we do have jurisdiction, and we are going to exercise that jurisdiction. And so, yes, this is appeal-able, midstream, it's appropriate for an interlocatory appeal. They also went through the separation of powers, which is fundamental to our democracy. When the framers of the Constitution were fleeing the rule of the King and England, etc. And they really went through and talked about what it means and how Marbury versus Madison which is a an old case from that we all learned about in law school and and talks about how the the separation of powers and and I thought that was I thought what their analysis there um what was really just spot on where when they were

talking about the the famous phrase that everybody talks about and always cites, which is nobody's above the law, right? That that came from a case United States versus Lee in 1882 and and and really emphasized that principle and that the president of the United States is being prosecuted because he violated the laws that Congress passed. So they were very clear to talk and what you were just talking about, which is this whole concept of discretionary versus ministerial decisions. Those are two words that the courts have been fighting over and arguing about and what does that mean in the context of immunity. And I'll be honest with you, Popak, that was a concept that I really struggled with understanding until this decision.

I didn't understand when they kept talking about discretionary decisions versus ministerial decisions. And if it's discretionary, the courts can't review it. But if it's ministerial, they could. I really, until they explained it in this, it really, I really finally understand it in a way that it not only makes sense, of course that's the law. And to just, to think about it in a way that everyone can understand it,

is if Congress passes a law and basically says, this is what the law is, whatever it is, Congress passes a law and basically says, this is what the law is, whatever it is. And therefore, as an executive, as the president, he's obligated to actually implement that law, right? That's his job. His job is to create agencies to implement the very laws that Congress passes. And that's what they called ministerial. And I guess maybe it's the words that I just thought,

because that doesn't sound ministerial to me, but that's what they're calling ministerial. And then discretionary where things that are important to him, things that he wants to do, you know, or she, if you're whoever the president is, right? Things that are political, right? Things that you're gonna emphasize, that you're gonna focus is, right? Things that are political, right? Things that you're going to emphasize, that you're going to focus on, right? I'm going to, I care about global warming, so I'm going to give people money to recycle or something. Like, you know, things like that that are

discretionary, that those are things that are political. And what they said was it's entirely appropriate for the electorate to, if you don't like what he does politically, in other words, if you don't like his philosophies and the things that he emphasizes, then don't vote for him. That's the remedy. But the president has the duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That's actually in his job description description that it's the take care clause of the Constitution. And so when Congress passes a law, he has to take care that those laws are

faithfully executed. Trump wants to be immune for any actions that he does there. And what they specifically says was, if he violates the law, he's violating the laws that Congress passed. violates the law. He's violating the laws that Congress passed. And therefore, he's not taking care of the laws. And he's not, he is not doing his job. And therefore, he can be prosecuted federally. They made that very clear too. So that, that was the part that I thought was most powerful. All right, let's talk that. Yeah, we'll, we're going to jump back in on that in a minute. But let's first have a break here with our sponsors. When we come back, we're gonna jump back in on that in a minute, but let's first have a break here with our sponsors When we come back we'll talk about what I think's gonna happen with the United States Supreme Court

Then we'll move on and talk about Judge Angoran and whether he thinks that somebody has suborned Bergeri from the lawyer side of Donald Trump's case and how that could impact his up to 500 million dollar Decision against Donald Trump and we'll end the podcast talking about tomorrow's oral argument before the United States Supreme Court. That's definitely happening. It's been queued up. It's been briefed about whether Donald Trump can be barred and banned from the ballot in advance of the presidential election on states under the 14th Amendment Section 3. But first, a word from one of our sponsors.

Taking care of your health isn't always easy, but first a word from one of our sponsors. I wonder why this didn't really work, but with AG1 it's just one scoop mixed in water once a day, every day. Instead of sluggish and rundown, it makes me feel energized, focused, and ready to take on the day. That's because each serving of AG1 delivers my daily dose of vitamins, minerals, pre- and probiotics, and more. It's a powerful, healthy habit that's also powerfully simple. With AG1, without even thinking about it, I know I'm automatically getting essential brain, gut, and immune health support with vitamins, probiotics, and nutrients from Whole Foods. I like to think of it as a nutritional insurance, which with my growing family I need, I know I'm covering my nutritional bases right from the start of the day.

If there's one product I had to recommend to elevate your health, it's AG1. And that's why I've partnered with them for so long, a product that I've been using and endorsing since I co-founded Legal AF more than three years ago. So if you wanna take ownership of your health, start with AG1. Try AG1 and get a free one year supply of vitamin D3 plus K2 and five free AG1 travel packs

with your first purchase, exclusively at drinkag1.com slash legalaf. That's drinkag1.com slash legalaf. Check it out. Heart health and staying healthy, especially when you have family, friends, or loved ones that want you to be able to spend as much time as possible with them.

It is so important. And if you're like me and you have a grandson, you're gonna wanna be around for a grandson, you're going to want to be around for a long time to watch him grow. February is heart health month in the United States and more than half the population would still benefit from blood pressure support. Superbeats heart chews are the number one doctor pharmacist and cardiologist recommended way to support healthy blood pressure and they even promote heart healthy energy without the stimulants. Paired with a healthy lifestyle, the antioxidants and superbeats are clinically shown to be nearly two times more

effective at promoting normal blood pressure than a healthy lifestyle alone. And with over 40,000 five-star reviews and counting, people are raving about superbeats' heart shoes mostly because they taste absolutely delicious. I look forward to them every day. Super Beats heart chews are absolutely delicious and truly much better than any alternative supplements out there. I take them every morning and it's helped kickstart my day. And after taking Super Beats heart chews,

I feel like I have more energy and I'm ready to take on the day. Super Beats is the number one doctor, pharmacist and cardiologist recommended heart chew for cardiovascular health support. It's blood pressure support you can trust. Support your heart health with Super Beats Heart Choos. Get a free month supply of Super Beat Heart Choos

on all bundles and a free full-size bag of turmeric choos valued at $25. That helps inflammation, by the way. With your order by going to legalafbeats.com, get this exclusive offer only at Legal legalafbeats.com. Get this exclusive offer only at legalafbets.com. What are my favorite ways that they cut Donald Trump literally down to size is that they paraphrased Chief Justice Marshall, who on the scale of the greatest Chief Justices, he's at the top, he's number one. If it wasn't for Chief Justice Marshall and the Marbury

decision in 1807, we wouldn't have a Supreme Court doing checks and balances over the presidency or over Congress. He kind of gave them their job description in his famous case of Marbury versus Madison, which is the case that Donald Trump's lawyers fundamentally misapprehended as you've outlined, Karen. But in that, in a case involving Aaron Burr, sorry, the person who assassinated Alexander Hamilton, Marshall put it this way, and I'm paraphrasing, but just a bit. Presidents come from the masses, they come out of the mass of the public, and when their term is over, they return to the masses. And they call Donald Trump, you're not President Trump, they call him Citizen Trump, who has no more rights or defenses than any other criminal defendant has.

They said that early on in the case. That stands to stark contrast to every time Donald Trump's lawyers, as Karen you alluded to, every time Donald Trump's lawyers file something in federal court or any court, they start with, Donald Trump got more votes than anybody else in the history of the Iowa caucus, who cares? As I've said on hot, to the recent hot takes

that I've done in this area, the founding fathers and the framers of these various provisions anticipated that an insurrectionist, somebody that rebelled against the constitution may also be popular. We can come back, we can come back off that, we come back to the podcast host, all right, there we go. He can also be popular and that doesn't mean he has any more right to become returned to office Or to avoid a criminal indictment than anybody else and I'll leave this sort of passage with this ringing I think of all the pages of the 57 pages the one that will live on I think the most and really sums up their position is on page 40 and 41 of their of their a decision

Where they say at bottom Sorry, we cannot accept former president Trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes That would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power the recognition and implementation of election results Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the executive the presidency has carved launch to violate the rights of individual citizens To vote at bottom former president Trump stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president Beyond the reach of all three branches Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that as to the president the Congress could not legislate the executive could not prosecute That's the Department of president, the Congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute. That's the Department of Justice,

and the judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the Office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former presidents from federal prosecution in general, or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges and the indictment in so holding, we act not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.

That is, for me, the heart, the gravitas of the decision. And I think it's 50-50 to just round out the point that you made, we talked about at the top, that Chief Justice Roberts throws, I think he will throw it over and see if he can get four votes, see if there are four votes in order to take this case up

on an emergency cert petition. I'm not sure that's a foregone conclusion. Now, people might be saying, well, there's six right-wingers, that's true, but I'm not sure John's a foregone conclusion. Now, people might be saying, well, there's six right-wingers. That's true. But I'm not sure John Roberts is gonna join with that if he thinks that this is intellectually satisfying this 57-page decision by the third. And if he peels away, now they've only got five votes.

And if he can drag Gorsuch or Kavanaugh with them, I don't think Amy Coney Barrett goes, but he can drag Gorsuch and or Kavanaugh with them. And I think the most likely person, given Gorsuch and or Kavanaugh with them. And I think the most likely person given his prior positions is Kavanaugh. If you can peel off Kavanaugh, they don't have the votes to bring it up for an emergency appeal. And even if they do, even if they do, then it would go on a relatively fast track. We'll see an administrative stay by Justice Roberts, well, no right away,

just for a short period of time to keep the trial on ice while they figure out what they're doing at the appellate level. Then if they have the four votes, they'll ask for full briefing but expedited. That would take us through the month of February into the beginning of March with an oral argument likely, sorry, New York is responding, sometime in the beginning of March with a ruling thereafter. If that ruling comes out in April or May, which is what we would expect, that's planning a time for Judge Chutkin to schedule this trial for June or July. Now, let's say that all happens. And Judge Chutkin has already indicated she's ready to cancel her vacation and do the nation's bidding and try that case in June or July.

If that is what is going on, let me ask you a question as being formally in that office. There's going to be a hearing on February 15th in front of Judge Mershawn to decide what is the trial schedule going to be. We keep saying it's the end of March, but it's really not until he sets it. He now has these data points, Oral argument, the appeal from the DC Court of Appeals will know by the 12, three days earlier or 13th whether Donald Trump is going to appeal. We think he's going to. We may not have yet. John Roberts, where the full nine members of the Justice of the Supreme Court Justice is making the ruling

yet. But if she's going to try that case potentially in June or July, what do you think Mershan does? He tries to slide Stormy Daniels and the trial against Donald Trump in the middle. Certainly can. I mean, if I were him, because they don't have a trial date set, everything is just a guess at this point.

Anything could happen. So I wouldn't give up that trial date if I were him. I think he keeps the March 24th trial date. He sets it. Everyone gets ready for trial. And if Chuckin sets another date, maybe let's say, let's say somehow they deny cert, and let's say she set a date for April 15th or something like that. He might see that date and say, okay

we're going to defer to that case and step aside and we'll go after that case. But if there's no trial date set, there's no way he's going to let this date slip in my opinion and if he thinks he can get it in ahead of time, I think that's what he does. Okay, we'll see. And we'll see if we know they're going to talk because there was reporting the Judge Chutkin and Judge Mershan, which they're allowed to do out of the judicial canons of ethics, because they have the same defendant in front of them in a criminal system, even though they're in state and federal, did talk. And they'll talk again about, you know, I'm sure Mershan will be deferential to Judge

Chutkin who has the bigger batter case as I like to joke on legal AF. And the one that is, you know, yes, we'd like any criminal conviction. But I mean, if we had a pick one, it would be the DC election interference case, which is really trying him for all the things that he needs to be tried for about the insurrection and have that go for. He might say, all right, well, what do you think? He's, well, I think I'm going to be able to get this thing slid in in June and July, and I don't want you taking my March and having him be exhausted and not done. And then I got an argument that they can't start in June or July because they're still on trial with you. So we'll see. I think you and I need to carefully monitor with our own contacts about what's going to happen.

We'll know more on February 15th and we'll report on it. But as long as we're talking about New York State Supreme Courts, let's return to that saga. I feel like I'm binge watching the episodic TV here when it comes to the civil fraud case. So let me tell you where we are, and i'll then you and i can battered around bad the bad You know Bash the badminton around a little bit the shuttlecock around a little bit about the case 11 weeks of trial dozens of witnesses um experts for donald trump all sort of rejected by by the judge

Witnesses that testified including many that that for donald trump that the judge found to be incredible including many that for Donald Trump, that the judge found to be incredible, uncredible and not telling the truth, including Donald Trump himself in one scenario. Now it all comes in the end, and oral argument was held a month ago and or three weeks ago, and we've been waiting on Judge Angoran

to issue his judgment. Now, first we thought he was waiting to see the monitor's report for the monitor that he had installed 14 months ago about what's going on currently in the Trump organization. Have they learned their lesson? Are they still committing fraud? How are they running their operation in the lab?

Should I allow them to continue? Are they good Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts? Or are they recidivists that I should punish? What is it? So he got that report, and we've done a lot of talking about and unpacking of that report, which was not, it was closer to a D,

to an F for the Trump Organization than an A or a B. And so I was like, I was probably waiting on that. And then we get the new bombshell. New York Times starts to report that Alan Weisselberg the disgraced chief financial officer already convicted of tax evasion and served 100 days in jail at Rikers Island Who testified? Yes, he was called adversely by the New York Attorney General But he testified trying to help Donald Trump every time there was a question that would have hurt Donald Trump He couldn't remember every time there was a question that would have hurt Donald Trump, he couldn't remember. Every time there was a question

that could have helped Donald Trump, he suddenly grew a brain and memory banks and testified about it. And in real time, Forbes magazine had a headline that said, Alan Weisselberg just perjured himself because he lied about him pushing as a major part of the assets for Donald Trump, the size of the triplex apartment in Trump Tower, which we have a picture up there, which is one third the real, you know,

they tripled the size of it, speaking of triplex. And it went from being, you know, maybe a $50 million apartment to on the books for Donald Trump, $150 million apartment, which as you can all imagine, knowing math, that's a big swing to cook your books with. And he lied it under oath apparently and said, I never told anybody that, I never pushed the size of it. I don't know what the size of it was. And Forrest magazine was like, yes you did.

You gave us an interview in Trump Tower in which you waved your arms around and said, look at this giant 30,000 square foot triplex. And of course he had already testified and given sworn testimony to Karen's old office. The reporting is he's in plea discussions being led not by the lawyers for Donald Trump, but by his own counsel, Seth Clayman, at Clayman Rosenberg, to maybe take a plea of perjury for testifying fraudulently inside of the courtroom with Judge Angoran.

So Judge Angoran reads the paper. Nobody thought to inform Judge Angoran officially, like the lawyers. So he had to read it like in the morning paper. He came back to the lawyers with an urgent high priority email. I love Angoran. And wanted a response in two days as to whether it was true what impact it should have on his Evaluating the credibility of witnesses like Alan what Weitzelberg if he should just

Apply the legal doctrine that he's a liar and he lied about everything and do an adverse inference about it And how that should impact the judgment and as officers of the court I want you all I want you all to tell me what happened here Hint hint did the lawyers for Donald Trump know he was lying and allowed it to happen meaning they subordinated Let me know I want to get to the bottom of this and so we got the We got the filings which just came in right before we got on the air Karen and I got on the air tonight Which is from Alina Habba and mainly the New York Attorney General Kevin Wallace and Cliff Robert Karen you get a chance to go through all those I did I did

Yeah, look these this back and forth about Weisselberg was fascinating because first of all, having worked at the Manhattan DA's office and had the New York Times report on our big cases, typically the New York Times does not go out over their skis. I don't think they would have published this if they didn't have pretty good information

that those discussions are going on. So that's number one. I think that we have to assume that that is happening, at least at some level. And it was very interesting because some people would think that prosecuting perjury is easy. It's not because it's like, oh, it's a liar. Either you lied or you didn't or you told the truth. But it's not always easy because when you say things like I don't recall it's hard to prove Memory right it has to be a material misstatement for you to be able to prosecute someone for criminal perjury and the statement has to be under oath so the easiest thing would be if you had if you had testimony at the case, the tax fraud case against the Trump organization that they got the 17 count conviction for at the Manhattan DA's office. The easiest

thing would be in that trial where F. Allen Weisselberg testified to something that he said the apartment is, I know for sure I went and measured it. The apartment is 10,000 square feet. But then he came and he testified to Judge Angoran. And I'm just making up the facts, because what I didn't do is analyze the record in detail. I'm just giving an example of what could be perjury. And then in front of Judge Angoran, if you testified, no, it's actually a 30,000 square foot apartment.

And he lied, right? That's a clear material misstatement of a fact under oath that I think Could constitute perjury the fact that they so I think they probably have the goods on him I think there probably is something and they're negotiating What do we do because don't forget this not only will impact the attorney general's case, but this is going to impact The Stormy Daniels election interference case that's about to go because Weisselberg is a witness in that case. And so look, it's, you know, when you have a, when you are calling a witness who's a

cooperator to the stand and then you have to, you have to put out there that he's a liar and he committed perjury, he kind of is useless in a way unless you can corroborate him because the cross-examination of him is you lied under oath. So why should we believe you? You're under oath now. I mean, he's a liar. And so it's not good for Allen Weisselberg that he committed perjury. He also could go to jail. They could rip up the cooperation agreement and the cooperation agreement, which would say, if you violate this, then there's some consequence that could happen to and might happen,

and he might have to go back to jail. So Ngoran is right to want to know about it. And he talked about a concept in the law, which is called falsis in uno, another Latin phrase that practicing lawyers, trial lawyers are familiar with. And it basically means that if a witness lies about one thing, you can assume they lied about everything. It's actually a jury charge that we often ask for

when we go to trial and we're talking about what's the law, what are the charges that the jury is going to be read. And sometimes lawyers can ask for that. If a witness has, if you find that a witness has lied under oath, you cannot choose to disregard everything they said and assume everything they're saying is a lie. And Judge Ngora talked about that. Should I, should I, I could do that. It's one of the things he could do, but that he obviously wants to know. And so the letters today, and he said, so, so parties, I want you, I read the paper, I want you to get back to me and tell me what your positions are and tell me what the law is and what should I do here. And the, the Attorney General's

office said basically they wrote a letter and a letter brief by Mr. Wallace, who basically said, look, what we have done in our office is what we have to do, which is we built a wall and there is somebody who is dealing with the Weisselberg perjury criminal side of this and talking to the Manhattan DA's office. I'm on the civil side and and so that's what I'm dealing with and we have to deal with it this way. And but he basically cites a New York ethics rule 3.3 AC which creates a disclosure obligation to a lawyer if they basically knowingly call a witness to the stand or or if their client, let's say, so here it's his client,

but they didn't call him to the stand, right? The Attorney General's office called him to the stand. If they know they're an officer of the court first and foremost, if you're a lawyer, right? You represent your client, but you also are an officer of the court. That's why you have to be an attorney in good standing of a particular court

to be able to practice there. And so because you have obligations, it's they're giving you permission. A court gives you permission to practice there. And if you're not barred in a certain jurisdiction, you have to ask for a, you have to ask for permission and be sponsored by a lawyer because you have ethical obligations. And one of them is that you're not going to knowingly submit false information or suborn perjury to the court. And so the Attorney General reminded the court of the ethical obligation that Alina Habba has that basically says, look, you have to disclose to the court if one of your client or a witness that you called gave a material falsehood, You're obligated to tell the judge.

And what the assistant attorney general Wallace said was, look, we're unaware if there's any negotiations with the attorney general and the DA's office because I'm not handling it. That's being handled by someone on the other side of this confidential wall while that's happening. But Alina Habba is under an obligation to tell the court if that's happening. But Alina Habba, who is under an obligation to tell the court if that's the case,

but her letter basically sets out the opposite, right? But I have a theory about why she did. She basically said, she wrote a letter that said, oh, I consulted with my ethics council and I'm constrained by providing more detail. Yes, my office represents Weisselberg on the civil matter, but we have nothing to do with the criminal. And I haven't discussed anything with the Manhattan DA's office. But she says, my ethics counsel says I can't give more information. First of all, what I read, first of all, that's not true. That's mistakes of the law. But what I read from that is basically he she knows Weisselberg lied. She knows he, and he probably admitted to her that he lied. And she's trying to figure out what do I do because I have an obligation to the court, but I also have an obligation to my client. And so in some ways, by answering that way,

by saying that I, ethically speaking, I can't say anything, she's basically admitting that he did lie and she knows he lied. And I'll give you an analogous example. When in a criminal case, for example, if you're a defense attorney and you have a client and they told you a set of facts and then they said to you that morning,

I'm gonna testify and I'm gonna say a different set of facts. I, as the lawyer, I have an obligation. I can't call that, I can't call that my client to the stand and allow him. I can't knowingly ask him questions knowing that he's committing perjury. But I also can't, because of attorney-client privilege reasons, I can't sell him out to the court. And so the way I handle that, the way attorneys handle that, is they say, they stand up and they say, your honor, my client has a statement with which he would like to, that he wants to make to the court.

And I, but I'm not gonna ask him any questions. He is going to make a statement to the court. And the attorney steps back and sits down because they are not supporting perjury. They are basically saying, my client is doing this and I'm not participating. And so everyone knows what that means. It's like code to the court.

Hopefully the jury doesn't know because you don't want the jury to be tainted, but it's kind of code to the court that he's lying. And so I read her letter to also be code and she's basically saying, you lied. I can't say anything, but I'm basically admitting that he lied and committed perjury. And so that's what I think she was doing there. Yeah, I think she's got a sub-boarding perjury problem.

The problem that they have is they've walked into the trap that's been laid by judging Goron judging Goron didn't say that he Took it as article of faith that the New York Times article was accurate reporting He asked the lawyers who are officers of the court to give him the facts or information Required for him to assess as the trial of fact whether we have a perjury problem and a sub-boring try or a fact whether we have a perjury problem and a sub-boring perjury problem in the courtroom and Instead Cliff Robert ran out and did a crazy response attacking the judge's ethics of all things talk about the pot calling the kettle and And then of course they always love the what-about-ism. You know who is ajurer, your honor? Michael Cohen is a perjurer with no record site.

Just an exclamation mark. He perjured himself in front of you. Where's the citation of that? Where is the proof of that? Nothing, it just undermines their credibility every time they write something into the court. And what the judge, I'm sure is gonna respond is, thank you for your submissions.

The Trump lawyers seem to have missed the boat. I'll take Ms. Habba at her word that she cannot tell me more based on her ethical obligations, but also I need to get to the bottom of whether, A, whether perjury has happened in my courtroom independent from whether the crime of perjury has been prosecuted by the Manhattan DA. I have my own independent obligations as a judge to determine whether as the trier of facts somebody lied to me under oath. So I'm gonna hold an evidentiary hearing and get to the bottom of it. You know, Allen Weisselberg wants to take the Fifth Amendment. Fine. So the problem is he doesn't have the complete...

He doesn't have, as we like to say in civil practice, he doesn't have all necessary and indispensable parties in front of him. He has Alina Habba, he's the lawyers for Trump. He doesn't have Seth Claimann, the lawyer for Alan, he doesn't have Alan Weisselberg in front of him again, who probably will take the Fifth Amendment on this particular issue. He doesn't have representatives of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, who may or may not be able to speak speak and he doesn't have testimony under oath. You'll note those that are watching as the audience the letters we keep posting the letters that were submitted including the New York Attorney General It's not under oath. They're not affidavits. They're on letterhead. They're on electronic letterhead of these law firms So these are naked allegations and argument of counsel without any evidential support. I think they're just walking into the, if I'm in Goron, you can do one of two things. You can take the direction from the New York attorney general, which is yes, you got lied

to. However, we know he's a liar. He went to jail already. We put him in jail. The Manhattan DA put him in jail already. He served his time. You know he's not reliable. Get to jail already. We put him in jail. The Manhattan DA put him in jail already. He served his time. You know he's not reliable. Get to the decision because they're chomping at the bit because they want the ruling. They want up to 500 million. Somebody said in the chat, why is it only up to 500 million? Well, it's got to be tied to ill-gotten gains or profit that

they should not have obtained. And there was a detailed calculus that was put on by expert witnesses for the New York Attorney General. Yes, the judge can increase that, but disgorgement is not punitive damages and punitive damages are not at stake here. So there's a ceiling for this with interest, but, you know, he could, he could, he could give the benefit of every doubt to the New York Attorney General and ratchet that number up a bit. He could take that lead for the New York Attorney General, which is nothing to see here. Yes, you may have gotten lied to, but you knew you possibly possibly were lied to. But I don't know why some of the old people just issue the judgment or you could do what I think this judge is going to do, which is I don't like

the precedent of somebody lying to me in a courtroom and I can't ignore it. I mean, I can't just cover my eyes and my justice is blind, but it's not deaf and dumb. And he's going to have to do something about it as, because I think it just sets terrible precedent in the future for if they quote, unquote, get away with it. He doesn't know the answers. And he hasn't gotten any more information that's going to allow him. Like if you and I got forbid, if you and I got a letter like that, email like that from a judge, you and I would prepare like a declaration and affidavit under oath, you know, that we didn't do anything wrong. And this is what we knew. And this is what we didn't know. And, you know, within the limits of our ethical obligation, not

these guys. If I'm Edgar and Goron I hold that hearing And maybe I don't hold up the judgment any longer because the answer to it doesn't really he can say I am going to make my own Credibility decision, but this is a different issue about whether he got lied to and whether lawyers were responsible for it Yeah, I completely agree with you. I think he separates it though I think he has a hearing and one of the things I just want to mention is people in the chat are asking what word are we using with supporting perjury, supporting per... Like, you know, it is a weird word, right? It's S-U-B-O-R-N. And it essentially means to obtain testimony from a witness or to induce testimony. And so that it's just a different word that is used in the phrase for perjury.

Just to clarify. For the P, be like boys, suborn. It's one of those things that, you know, this is why we spent a lot of money to go to law school. So we knew what that word was. But, but this is legal AF. And we like to break out and do law school classes. But before we do our last law school segment on the tomorrows as a primer for tomorrows,

a pellet argument before the United States Supreme Court, we got a word from our sponsors. By now, you may know I recently got married. See, we build up our lives with bright moments of joy, pride and success. And however you define those moments, securing your future should be part of the journey. The things we build our future around are the things worth protecting. Making an estate plan now means gaining security of your assets and peace of mind for you and your loved ones.

With Trust and Will, you can create and manage a custom estate plan starting at just $159. Go to trustandwill.com slash legal AF for 10% off plus free document shipping. I know from my own experience that estate planning through other means can be an incredibly grueling process and often costing thousands of dollars. But Trust and Will makes it super simple and streamlines the entire process from A to Z. Trust and will's website is incredibly easy to navigate and the process is very straightforward.

And one of the best parts is that after working with trust and will, you'll have a peace of mind that your assets and wishes are secure. Trust and will has simplified the process by creating and managing your will or trust online, from finding out what's right for your family to finalizing documents with a notary. Ensure your family and loved ones avoid lengthy, expensive legal proceedings or the state

deciding what happens to your assets. Trust and Will has made a state planning accessible and affordable. Live customer support is available through phone, chat, and email. Get the peace of mind you deserve by creating your estate plan with trust and will. Secure your assets and protect your loved ones with trust and will. Get 10% off plus free shipping of your estate plan documents by visiting trustandwill.com slash legalaf. That's 10% off and free shipping at trustandwill.com slash legalaf. Did you know that your temperature at night

can have one of the greatest impacts on your sleep quality? If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle Maid's bedsheets. Inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid uses silver-infused fabrics and makes temperature-regulating bedding so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long. Using silver-infused fabrics originally inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid sheets are thermoregulating

and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long, so you get better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with silver at the perfect temperature all night long, so you get better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with silver that prevent up to 99.7% of bacterial growth, leaving them to stay cleaner and fresher three times longer than other sheets. No more gross odors. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands. And feel as nice if not nicer than bed sheets used by some five-star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria.

Bacteria can clog your pores causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. Go to trimiracle.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 legal af and use the code legal af to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40%. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash legal af to treat yourself. Thank you Miracle Made for sponsoring this episode. And we're back. We're on to our last segment. I was just reading some of the chat during the commercial break. Yeah, I mean, like two years ago. We'd have like 1500 in the chat and we'd be like super excited We're still excited, but now we're over 20,000 in a chat like tonight and end up the top two or three of YouTube live worldwide and it's all because of our audience

I assure you and we're appreciative from the bottom of our pod. Let's move to the 14th Amendment, Section 3. You had an amazing interview with George Conway, and I got a George Conway one degree of separation because Judge Ludig is going to be my guest on the weekend. I think we'll post it on the weekend to talk about the oral argument that we're about to talk about at the Supreme Court level. He has an amicus brief that's there that I'm sure is resonating with his colleagues on the Supreme Court. And many of them clerked for Ludic and some are arguing at the Supreme Court who clerked for Ludic. So his Federalist Society right wing conservative view that leads the same place, which is Donald Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, I think Federalist Society right-wing conservative view that leads the same place

Which is Donald Trump engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution? I think is worth listening to and the reason he one of the reasons he's doing it is because George Conway It's all that would be a good thing to do So we appreciate all the people that have now come over and are very very supportive of our our movement here and Our audience some of the audience has been with us for almost the entire run of four years and summer new tonight are very, very supportive of our movement here and our audience. Some of the audience has been with us for almost the entire run of four years, and some are new tonight. We welcome all of you to it.

Fourteen. Just really quick. I highly, highly, highly recommend every person. If there's one interview to watch, it's going to be this one that you're about to do with Judge Ludig. He is absolutely going to be, I mean, he is the guy on this issue. And so that's just a huge opportunity and a huge get for legal AF.

So that's just, I just wanna make a massive plug for that. Definitely. I appreciate that and for the network. Ben had been in communication with him. Fortunately, my law partner helped write the brief that they filed together and he connected me with Judge Ludick who knew the show and knew it through George Conway and otherwise and can't wait to really address a new audience. You know, he's known as the tweet that saved democracy because he gave Mike Pence's backbone and convinced him as his lawyer that he had no Power to to reject the certification of the electoral certificates And that's why we have Joe Biden as president because of this him coming out from the sidelines Somebody of his you know the Mount Rushmore of even right wing Federalist Society

Bulletproof credentials that kind of person. And he's the person that, you know, he's got fans, you know, on the Supreme Court that listened to him and he had a very good argument. The argument is simple, that the drafters of the 14th Amendment, along with all the amendments that came out around our Civil War Reconstruction Era, which were created for two main reasons, all these amendments, 12, 13, 14, 15.

It was to give newly freed slaves, now black Americans, civil liberties that they never had before the right to vote and protect them. And it was to make sure that insurrectionists that had tried to secede from the country, that that violated the constitution that rejected the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, ultimately leading to his assassination, would never come back into the government again, no matter how popular they were. Every time I hear a lawyer for Donald Trump or a spokesperson say, he has, the people should be heard, he's really popular. Let him be president again. That is you're only proving the point.

The framers of that were concerned that somebody like Jefferson Davis, who was the president of the Confederacy and ultimately was prosecuted for insurrection would be so popular that he would be able to sneak back into the Oval Office because the populace wanted to see him in office, regardless of the fact that he'd violated his oath to the Constitution and they never wanted that to happen again they anticipated the Civil War era anticipated a future insurrection as the president not named Donald Trump but in the future that that would happen

That's what's great about the Constitution. Yeah, I was taught It's a living breathing document not a brittle piece parchment, the way the originalists and textualists in the Supreme Court look at it. And the language that they chose was quite elegant in its simplicity in the 14th Amendment, Section 3. It doesn't say go through the process of getting him impeached and convicted in the Senate. And if that happens, come back to us. We'll talk about whether he should be on the ballot or not. No, it doesn't say go through the criminal justice system get him indicted for insurrection and the conviction and come back and talk to us No, it says engaged if the person in who took an oath of office to support the Constitution And was a federal officer under the laws of the United States

if that same person quote engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, they can't serve an office again. Even if later, that disability or disqualification is removed by Congress, they come off the ballot now because they can't take office. And that's for courts to decide.

Everyone's like, who decides that? Well, back to the long argument, not argument, sorry, long description, discussion that we had during this podcast about Marbury versus Madison and Justice Marshall. It is the courts, the Article III courts, whether it's the state courts or whatever, somebody has to be the arbiter, literally, of the language of the Constitution. And that's always been the job description since 1807 of the United States Supreme Court and the lower courts under them of the federal government. It's them. It's not Congress because they could have written in because they did it in an earlier section of the 14th Amendment. They know how to

write, go back and talk to Congress before you decide whether to take them off the ballot when they want to, but they didn't write that. They wrote in anyone who engages and who makes the decision as to who is violated the Constitution or not, any statute or law or crime. It's the court system. I think this is a relatively simple analysis. They're all caught up on the Trump side with the argument that everybody, this is back to the, he's above the law again. This is why the DC court of appeals, I don't

think it was a random that they issued their ruling three days before the oral argument. It's a little late, but they got it out before the oral argument because they wanted the the intellectual integrity and analysis of their Decision to be up with you don't think everybody on the United States Supreme Court and clerks haven't read the DC Court of Appeals decision It's just podcasters They read it and they read that all of that language we talked about all the federalist Papers from our founding fathers about the role in the three Coequal branches of government the structure of our government separation of powers. It applies here as well Donald Trump wants to be above the law. He wants

Everybody who took an oath of office to support the Constitution to be subject to disqualification except for the presidency Which makes absolutely no sense and is against the weight of legislative history Which is what you go back and look to when you're trying to interpret the words you go Supreme Court You go back and look at what were the senators saying at the time of its passage? What did words mean at the time of its passage? You know like this is where you pull that dusty dictionary that Karen talked about earlier And then you put it all together and say the words mean exactly what they say. They're not given to alternate interpretations.

They're plain English. They're not words missing. You have to interpret each word according to its meaning, to give it meaning. And you can't just pound your head and go, it's so hard, I can't figure it out. We'll just leave out the 14th Amendment, section 3, because it's too hard to figure out what the framers meant that that's never been said in the history of constitutional interpretation We can't figure out what the framers or drafters of the constitution meant You'll never hear that said especially among the originalists and textualists on the right wing of the united state supreme court especially among the originalists and textualists on the right wing of the United States Supreme Court.

So what I want to hear from you, Karen, is that sort of the argument? What do you think is going to happen at the oral argument? Who do you you've got? You've got two lawyers. It's not I thought it was going to be Harmeet Dillon. It's not you got a lawyer who used to clerk for ludic. This is going to be fun for my interview who's arguing for Donald Trump. You've got um, a lawyer for crew who used to clerk for Corsage who's up on the bench. The guy for Donald Trump has only argued, well, he's argued five cases in front of the United States Supreme Court.

The crew guy I think has argued one, not that it totally matters. And the thing that's missing, I just wanna leave it on this and kick it over to you. I'll tell you who's not arguing. And it's very rare that it happens, but it's happened here for a reason and this just shows you the integrity of the Biden Department of Justice and the Biden administration. The Solicitor General is not involved in this process. She didn't file a brief on behalf of the United States. The United States

of America is not taking a position mainly because it's gonna be Trump versus Biden, unless it's not. And so usually the Solicitor General who's often referred to as the 10th Justice of the Supreme Court, right? That's how much weight that person and gravitas that person carries in that courtroom is not there. And there's not there by accident

It's not like she forgot or she didn't get the assignment. It's on purpose The you know the Biden has decided that it's better to stay on the sideline and let this be argued by crew that brought you know the committee for responsible ethics and whatever the crew stands for who and whatever the crew stands for and Trump lawyers and stay out of it and not have a brief or even an amicus brief So it is very odd you almost always have when there's the United States Constitution involved the Department of This listener General's office taking a position. That's missing tomorrow the 40 minutes Which will become an hour and a half have been split between the lawyer for Donald Trump the lawyer for crew and a half have been split between the lawyer for Donald Trump, the lawyer for crew and a lawyer who's going to get five or 10 minutes for the secretary of state of Colorado, who's actually a party to the case.

Let me turn it over to you about what you think is going to happen to oral argument. People can use it as a watching guide or a listening guide. We'll have it. Hopefully we'll be able to get the feed. Salty will tell me what you're talking on tomorrow's oral argument to put it into the Midas Touch network. Look, you know, a couple of things. First of all, just that dignity and integrity that Joe Biden has in his justice department by not having the Solicitor General participate in this is just

really striking to me. And it reminds me of how Joe Biden also left the special counsel in place, David Weiss, who was Trump's special counsel, to continue to investigate and prosecute his own son, Hunter Biden, so that people wouldn't view it as partisan or political. So he left Trump's appointed So he left Trump's appointed United States attorney and made him to be special counsel. And so I just think that just really goes and speaks a lot about who Joe Biden is because there is no way Donald Trump would make that decision

if the shoe were on the other foot. If there was an investigation into Don Jr. or Ivanka, you think that under the Biden administration and Trump won, you think he would leave that person in and make them special counsel? There's no chance in hell. And the same with the Solicitor General. So I just think it's worth noting because that is really just says a lot about who Joe Biden is and the integrity that he has. Look, tomorrow what's gonna happen is going to be fascinating.

The fact that Trump is not showing up, I think says a lot about Trump because he likes to go to court when he can make speeches and stand outside and turn it into a circus and a political rally and a campaign rally, that doesn't fly in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court is, there is no place on the planet that is more formal or buttoned up

than the United States Supreme Court. It is, they have rules, they have order, and they take their job extremely seriously. And because he can't do his lawless, bloviating, he is not going to show up. Because if so, they wouldn't put up with that. And they wouldn't hesitate. The individuals who are, I don't know what they're called,

court officers or whoever it is that it would be in the Supreme Court, they wouldn't put up with that. And we'd find ourselves in a situation. So he's just a coward that he doesn't want to go and actually listen and abide by the rules. And so he's going to stay away. Just a couple of things that I want to talk about,

about what you just said. Number one, just going back to the DC Circuit opinion that you said, for sure, just going back to the DC circuit opinion that you said, for sure they're going to have read. One of my favorite things and one of my favorite parts about that opinion is they made sure that they used the word office or officer 61 times in the presidential immunity decision. And why is that important?

Because that's what's going to be discussed tomorrow. One of the arguments that Donald Trump is making is this doesn't apply. The 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not apply to him because he's not an officer. He claims he's not an officer. So therefore, it does not apply to him. And I think that was a very subtle but clever and brilliant thing that the DC circuit did was use that word office or officer that many times as

a signal to I think the Supreme Court and and they and they and it was very very clear where he is an officer and how he held office and took the oath of office, et cetera. So, so I thought that was just an, just a brilliant way of, of informing the Supreme Court. And look, in the end, though, what do I think is going to happen? I do think that as you pointed out, the Supreme Court has a legitimacy problem, right,

that they are seen as partisan, et cetera. And essentially, I think, though, this is a case where they might find some kind of way and some sort of off ramp to say, Trump has to be put back on the ballot. I know I'm in the minority here, but I do think that they're going to ultimately put him back on the ballot or have him be on the ballot.

I don't know how they're gonna do it, but I think they're gonna do it as a counterbalance to the presidential immunity because they are 100% going to have to rule that he's not immune. And I think that's gonna be how they do it. Again, it's just a guess, a gut. I don't know why, there's something about this case

that just feels different, even though I think the law is exactly right, the way Judge Ludig and others have said, and it does, he is an officer, he did take an oath to support the Constitution, you know, all the arguments, right, that he did, that a trial judge after a trial found that he engaged in insurrection, et cetera.

Despite all of that, and maybe what they'll do is they'll say it's not self-executing and that's how, that's gonna be their offer. I don't know, they're gonna find some way, I think, to do it. Anyway, we'll see, that's just my prediction. Yeah, I think we're gonna know with the the oral argument, um, who's leading it. And the questions that are asked, we'll, we're, we're fortunate, um, that we're on

a network that's going to live feed this, at least the audio. Just for everybody knows they don't do, um, TV. They don't, they don't put cameras in the United States Supreme Court. Although I think it would help with their legitimacy issues, but they're not going to do that. There's going to be an audio feed. In fact, I think we've got assaulty. What do we have? There's the line of people that are going to try to get into the galley to watch the oral argument. And we're going to go, I think right off of tonight, there's going to be a, we have a page set up on Midas that's going to take some people that can set the reminder

for when we are able to get the audio feed and put it in. And then I don't know if we'll be doing running commentary, but we'll certainly jump on when it's over an hour or so after it begins ish. And then I know all the leaders of legal AF will do their hot takes and their own unique analysis about it. But we reach the end of another scintillating. I mean, the gods have opened the skies and have provided you and I and Ben with content beyond our wildest imagination. It's so true, it's so true.

But in the right direction. I mean, we often joke with each other in texts like, you know, why did they just issue that? They just stepped on one of my hot takes or, you know, didn't they know we're about to, why did they issue the order yet? We're about to go live. But, you know, getting aside,

this is why we're here. This, we're here for it. And this is why we're here for it. And so are you in our audience. We really appreciate all the legal AFers and the Midas Mighty Remember. We've got the oral argument tomorrow. We've got all of our sponsors

that really need your support because they support us and keep us on the air. Got our hot takes that we do, our legal AF after darks. We've got our merchandise store, store.mitestouch.com, something like that, which you can buy all, fly the flag of legal AF, and then the way to help us, of course, is the way you're already doing it. Bring your friends and family and those in your life over to legal AF. Join us on the chat. Give us a thumbs up, leave comments, and then go listen to the audio podcast

once we've mounted there in a few hours. So we got a show on Saturday and a Judge Ludig interview that I'll be conducting over the weekend. So until our next Legal AF and until Karen's next hot day and my next hot day, this is Michael Popak. Sign it off.