Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump CRUSHED by Indictments and WORST Yet to Come

Episode Date: August 3, 2023

The top-rated legal and political podcast Legal AF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this midweek’s edition, Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo, discuss: 1. The new indictment of Trump by the Special Counsel Jack Smith, with an arrest and arraignment before Obama-appointee Judge Tanya Chutkin scheduled for Thursday; 2. Updates in the Mar a Lago new indictment case against Trump, including a motion filed by the DOJ to possibly disqualify Walt Nauta’s attorney because of multiple conflicts of interest and the postponed arraignment of the new criminal defendant Carlos DeOliviera; 3. developments in Fulton County Georgia, as Fani Wills moves to indict Trump this month and a Fulton County judge denies Trump’s second attempt to have the DA disqualified and her prior investigative work thrown out, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! EIGHT SLEEP: Go to https://eightsleep.com/legalaf and save $150 on the Pod Cover! ROCKET: Cancel unwanted subscriptions – and manage your expenses the easy way – by going to https://RocketMoney.com/legalaf SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 MAGA Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump and Dited again by Jack Smith. We have three conspiracies, four criminal counts, six co-conspirators, one named defendant Donald Trump and one federal judge, Obama appointee Judge Tonya Chutkin, who will all collide tomorrow for surrender, arrest and arraignment. In District of Columbia, we unpack the 125 paragraph indictment, the featured roles of Mike Pence, not a Coke in Spiritor, and Rudy Giuliani, a featured Coke in Spiritor, the contributions of the Gen 6 Committee report, and what to expect next, including potential separate indictments in separate cases of the other Coke in Spiritor's, as well as Trump's lawyers already trying

to cook up a free speech, reliance on council, no criminal intent set up defenses. Then we update everyone on the developments in the Mar-a-Lago criminal prosecution, with Carlos Diallaviera having his arraignment post-bone, sound familiar, while Stan Woodward, the Trump-packed appointed and paid for lawyer facing ethical conflict of interest hearing sought by the Department of Justice based in the fact that he represents five of the main witnesses or co-conspirators in the moral logo superseding indictment. Will he be able to continue to represent Walt Nauda, Molly Michael, Haley Harrison,

all at the same time, while having once represented lead cooperating co-conspirator, IT worker, you seal Tavaris. Finally, our eyes turned to Fawni Willis in Fulton County, where she gave a recent interview that her work is now done after just two and a half weeks of the regular grand jury presentation. As she owes it to the people of Fulton County and the US to indict people like Trump, who interfered in the election. While her old boss, Fulton County Superior Court Judge

McBernie, denied Trump's latest attempt to disqualify Fawni and throw out her seven months of special purpose grand jury work. And the sheriff of Fulton County says that if Trump is indicted, he'll be mug shot and fingerprinted like the rest. The Department of Justice Special Counsel's office now has two indictments or three in the less in less than nine months of being on the job. They have the right indictment now for the right crimes for the right moment, the right court and the right judge.

to see accountability and justice in real time as we predicted. And now we're just talking about the timing of criminal trials, not the ifs and whens or who knows when of indictments, with Fannie Willis ready to strike in about three weeks to give us four total indictments of Trump at State Federal levels for his actions while campaigning for office, while in office is refusal to leave office, and after he left office. And if all of this was not enough, actions while campaigning for office, while in office, is refusal to leave office, and after he left office.

And if all of this was not enough, MidasTouch launched a brand new website, and we have all new legal AFT shirts and designs. God all this and so much more. On the midweek edition of Legal AF Podcast, only one place the MidasTouch network with your hosts for the midweek, Michael Popak and Karen Karen Friedman, Agniphalo, KFA. So great to see you again. Yeah, a lot going on, right? It's crazy.

You said two or three indictments by Jack Smith. And the reason you said that was because people are wondering, it's because Mar-a-Lago don't forget Trump was indicted twice, right? He was indicted the first time and then a superseding indictment. So that's, and he's going to have to be arraigned on that superseding Mar-a-Lago indictment, because that's how it is. It's a brand new charging instrument that has brand new charges. And then we have the one that just came down yesterday, the one we've all been waiting for,

the indictment against our democracy, the Jan 6th one. Yes, it is exhausting. I'm exhausted. I did a marathon yesterday on CNN with until one o'clock in the morning reporting on this stuff. And I keep thinking, God, all these marathons keep happening over and over again. And then I realize it's because we have a former president who's a one-man crime spree.

I mean, the guy now has four indictment, has been indicted four times. The two superseding, the Jan 6th, Alvin Bragg, and then we're going to soon get Fonney Willis. I mean, you know, even career criminals who are traditional career criminals don't get five indictments in a year. I mean, this is just unprecedented. It's unbelievable to me what a what a one man crimes free is. It's the most and best set of indictments ever for a former president. I think he's up to if I'm doing my math right, 3734, 4 and I think 4. He's up to 80 80 zero felony counts between all the indictments we just talked about and

Fawney Willis hasn't even indicted yet. So that doesn't include the Trump organization, right? That was convicted recently. Right. So let's do that. Let's add 17 to 80 because there were 17 counts in New York state supreme brought by your old office in Manhattan, DA, who got a 17 count, that's 97. And now we bring in Fawli Willis with at least, I mean, I don't think she does four. I think she does 10 or 12. Yeah, it is exhausting. I'm so glad to be here with you. You and I did a marathon live with Ben, my cellist, Michael Cohen yesterday, we had a half a million

people. We were the number one YouTube for, not just for news. We're the number one YouTube live in the world yesterday, reporting on the indictment. I literally, as I was doing my part, people could hear in the background my really cheap printer printing the indictment, because that's, we learned about it minute zero, and by minute nine, we were on the air.

And so we were all scrambling to release. I was commenting on it. I haven't even seen it. Well, that's Ben. Ben will go, let's go. One minute to air time. I'll go Ben.

We haven't even read it. You don't need, just let's go. So it's literally 130 paragraphs. And so while I was making my way through, I was able to find, and we'll do it here too. Now that we've had more time, we've had more time to reflection, sober reflection. So let me kick it off with some things that I found interesting and have been reported about the entitement, and then turn it over to you for the prosecutor's view, which is always invaluable, especially here on the show. And I want to talk about talk a little bit about what's not in there,

what doesn't have to be in there, and what is in there. I'll tell you what's not in there. Things that we were reporting on about, at least in the indictment, I'm not saying in the case to be tried, in the evidence to be presented, but in the indictment,

there's no reference of the December 2020 crazy meeting in the White House between Donald Trump, Sydney, Powell, Michael Flynn, and the Overstock.com founder, which I like to call Overthrow.com, in which they were talking about suspending the Constitution and invoking martial law to seize voting machines. Will that be a trial? Probably. It wasn't necessary to be in the indictment. Jack Smith didn't think so, and I'll agree with him. I think he came up with a very elegant 130 paragraph, one defendant, three conspiracies, four counts. It could have been 4,000 counts.

It could have been hundreds of people, but it wasn't. And it wasn't that not by accident, but by prosecutorial discretion and really surgical and precise pleading, just enough, just enough in a speaking indictment to put the country on notice in Donald Trump as the defendant and a six amendment right about what he's been charged with, but not so much that we're going to be bored at the trial. Let's just put it that way. There's going to be plenty of witnesses and facts that are going to come out, including through people like Mike Pence, and we're going to talk about the six co-conspirators and whether they're going to be indicted or not. So that's the most interesting thing for me,

the things that aren't in there, the other things that aren't in there is blaming Donald Trump for what happened on Jan 6th. The planning of it that's going to be wild, tweet, the getting buses there, but instead, Jack Smith, after nine months of investigation and standing on the shoulders of the Jan 6 committee, instead said the better argument is that they didn't plan the Jan 6 insurrectionist attack, but they tried to take advantage of it once it was in motion.

And so that was an interesting new twist in the indictment for me, as opposed to how the Jan 6 committee sort of framed it based on the evidence they had, which Jack Smith has plus. He's got Jan 6 plus, you know, like a streaming service. He gets, because he has dozens of more witnesses that he was able to strip of attorney client privilege and force them to testify. So we don't see that here again because he made a prosecutorial decision that the way to the evidence that he has at his disposal that he's going to use for his indictment doesn't support the planning and starting of it. It supports the using of it. The fire was started

and they used the fire as an excuse to try to further delay the peaceful transfer of power. The other thing that's not in the indictment that was in the Jan 6th Committee reporting, which I found interesting, was any argument about the grift, using the big lie that he had lost the election to raise money, to separate money in a wire-for-a-mail fraud account from donors

and use that money to pay for lawyers as a cover-up or interference with witnesses and the investigation. Could have been in there. May still be presented tangentially as evidence at trial, but not in the indictment. All right, that's not what's in the indictment. What is in the indictment? Well, if you follow the Jan 6th Committee closely, including their final report in December, you're not going to be disappointed because that same five

step chain of the conspiracy in there, you know, is really almost exactly the same as what the Jan 6th Committee presented to us. And what I thought I'd like to do is just go to those particular links in the conspiracy. So for people, when they walk off of the show, they can say, well, what was that indictment all about? Here are the five easy pieces, if you will, of the conspiracy. And we'll find it on paragraph 10 of the indictment

in subparagraphs A through E. And I'm just going to, I'll read some of it verbatim at all paraphrase other parts. And this is the conspiracy to, to, to, to dishonesty fraud and deceit, to defeat obstruct or impair or a function of the federal government. In this case, vote counting electoral certificate certification and the like. First step, the defendant and the co-conspirators, that's Trump and the co-conspirators, use knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislatures and election officials to subvert the legitimate election results and change electoral votes for the defendant's

opponent, Joe Biden to electoral votes for the defendant's opponent, Joe Biden, to electoral votes for the defendant. That is, on the pretext of baseless fraud claims, the defendant pushed officials in certain states, those are the battleground states, to ignore the popular vote, disenfranchise millions of voters, dismiss legitimate electors, and ultimately cause the ascertainment of, invoting by, illegitimate electors in favor of the defendant. That is the fake electors and ultimately caused the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the defendant. That is the fake electors scheme. Two, step two in the conspiracy.

The defendant and co-conspirators organized fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted states. Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin attempting to mimic the procedures that legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the Constitution. And this included them meeting and gathering, casting a vote, casting fraudulent votes for the defendant, and signing certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors, the defendant and co-conspirators, then cause these fraudulent electors to transmit

their false certificates to the Vice President and other government officials to be counted at the certification proceeding on Jan 6th, moving to step three. The defendant and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the justice department. That would be Jeff Clark to a conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claimed that the justice department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome.

That sought to advance the defendant's fraudulent elector plan by using the justice departments authority to falsely present the fraudulent elector plan by using the Justice Department's authority to falsely present the fraudulent electors as a valid alternative to the legitimate electors. Here we go, number four step in the conspiracy chain, fourth badge of the conspiracy. The defendant and co-conspirator is attempted to enlist the vice president to use his ceremonial role at the Jan 6th certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results. That is the pressure campaign on Mike Pence. And when that failed, on the morning of Jan 6th, the defendant and co-conspirators repeated knowingly false claims of elections fraud to gathered supporters falsely told them that the Vice President had the authority to and might alter the election result and directed them to the Capitol to obstruct the

certification proceeding and exert pressure on the Vice President. And then lastly, this big conspiracy after it became public on the afternoon of Jan 6th that the Vice President would not fraudulately alter the election results, a large and angry crowd, including many individuals whom defendant had deceived into believing the Vice President could and might change the election results violently attacked the capital and halted the proceedings. As violence ensued, the defendant, Trump and Kochan's spiritualists exploited the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud and convinced members of Congress to further delay the

certification based on those claims. That in a nutshell, if you take nothing away from the 129 paragraph indictment, that is the five step conspiracy. And then we just the window dressing, of course, is the four crimes that Jack Fraud is prepared to use. I'll have Karen Freeman, Nifalo talk about that. And then, of course, we've got lastly, the Coke and spirit tours. And I'll let Karen comment on one through five. And then she and I can have a fun game of trying to predict two number sixes. I was able to, I think, rightly pick one through five last night and six I've come around with a hot take as

the who I think number six is. I want to hear from Karen. So why don't you talk about the indictment from your perspective? You have a very, you were dead on about the size and shape of it and the reason for that. And I want you, that's a valuable opinion. I want you to contribute here. So why don't you take it away, Karen Friedrich-Nifola? Yeah, so look, we often say we're reading the T-Leaves, but we're not really just reading T-Leaves, we're bringing our experience and our expertise and our analysis to what we see happening

and we give our predictions or our assumptions. And they typically turn out to be either right or close to right on legal AF. I will say we're, I think we're pretty much on the money when it comes to most of these things. And this was no different. This was a, Donald Trump is kind of like a one-man crime spree, I hate to say it.

I mean, this number of indictments in this short amount of time with this number of crimes is sort of unheard of. I don't know anyone or too many people who have that number of charges being brought against him. And Jack Smith could have brought, as we've said many times, hundreds of different counts against Donald Trump and others. This could have been a 20, 25 defendant case, but look, in the end, you can't fit that many people

in a courtroom at a table, you're gonna have to split it up anyway. And so if you're going to have to do that as a prosecutor, it takes a really experienced prosecutor to do what Jack Smith did. A junior prosecutor, someone without a lot of experience, doesn't have the confidence to not throw the kitchen sink and everything that they have, that they know,

just in case in the indictment, they will charge every possible charge that they can and every possible defendant that they can. And it's kind of a big mistake. every possible charge that they can and every possible defendant that they can. It's kind of a big mistake. A real seasoned prosecutor who knows what they're doing will say, okay, look, let's keep it simple and keep it straightforward and to use your term surgical. So think about every time you charge a crime, you have to prove each and every element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt, right?

And every crime has multiple elements. And when you sit through a jury charge, you hear those elements and the judge will tell the jury, you know, you have to find that this defendant acted intentionally and that this defendant acted knowingly and that honor about such and such a date. He, you know, did X, he did Y, and he did Z. And the jury goes back there and they have to find each and every one of those elements

beyond a reasonable doubt. So the more charges you put in there, there's more things that you have that your jury needs to agree on. So why not just put the strongest cases, right? So are the strongest charges. And that's what Jack Smith did here. He could have also put in seditious conspiracy, for example, just like the oath keepers and the proud boys were charged with seditious conspiracy. That's a charge that a lot of us were

hoping myself included would be in there. But look, there's an argument to be made that he didn't necessarily conspire with the Stuart Rhodes of the world to inflict violence on the Capitol on January 6th. And so therefore, a jury could have an issue with that. Why hang the jury up on that? Why potentially get an acquittal on a charge like that? He'll just take that, Donald Trump will take that and say, see, I've been vindicated. And, you know, look, there's a first amendment argument that I think fails, but it's his defense regarding his speech on the ellipse, right? He's going to say, I had a first amendment right. I'm a politician. I can say these things. I didn't know what they were going to do. In fact, I told them to be peaceful. So,

things. I didn't know what they were going to do. In fact, I told them to be peaceful. So by not charging that, Jack Smith once again brilliantly took that argument off the table. And he doesn't have to prove those elements beyond a reasonable doubt, which are thin anyway. So that was very smart to do. And that's how he looked at it. Same thing with charging multiple defendants, right? The more defendants you charge in there, the more you have multiple defense attorneys who will each make their own arguments, who will each come out and try to, you know, make motions before the court, which could delay things. I mean, look what's happening in the Mar-a-Lago case that we're going to talk about soon. You've only three defendants there, three defense attorneys. And you've already had multiple delays because somebody wasn't, you know,

they weren't in Florida or barred in Florida. So they couldn't, you know, he needed to get a lawyer and who's barred in Florida. Then that happened to Mr. Deole Vieta as well. And so get delayed there. And, you know, it becomes death by a thousand cuts is what I always say here. And that's what would happen.

And so Jack Smith is like, no, we're gonna keep it simple. We're gonna have it be just Donald Trump, just his lawyers making his legal arguments. And I'm not gonna charge the counts. I'm not gonna charge the crimes that have your defenses. Not that I can't overcome them, but why not just take them off the table, especially when he's facing something like more than 20 years with the four charges that he put here.

So I think it shows that he's very experienced, he knows what he's doing, and he wants a trial before the election. And the surest way to get that to happen is to have the most straightforward, simple case. This case, unlike the Mar-a-L logo case, also doesn't have the issue of classified documents. So you don't have to go through the very laborious long process of getting the defense attorneys to have top secret clearance so that they can view them. You don't have to have the laborious process of going through document by document with court and determining and intelligence community. How can we sanitize the information contained in these documents or summarize them. So these documents or portions of them can be utilized at trial as in,

you know, to put in evidence because you have to prove, you know, it's a public trial and you have to prove your facts, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt by putting the evidence in. And so with classified documents, that complicate things. There's nothing like that here. So Jack Smith really streamlined and simplified this case by doing it the way he did it. And he charged conspiracy, which we've all learned

and know now because so many people have followed legal AF, that a conspiracy count is a talking indictment, right? That whole count one of the indictment, which is 18 United States Code Section 371 is count one, and that has all of the conspiracies, right? And all the facts in it. He put the three different conspiracies in there.

He put all of the facts in there. And then counts two, three, and four look like a normal indictment. The bare bones, just three sentences, honor about such and such a day, the defendant committed X, Y, and Z. That's what normal indictments look like. But you can do a talking indictment like this when you charge things like conspiracy, which is what Jack Smith did. And so he got all the facts in there. He told the story and the evidence.

And he put his strongest evidence forward. A couple other things I just want to point out about the indictment that stuck out to me, which is the co-conspirators. There were six of them, right? And there are ways that people will talk about things in indictments that are uniform and standard and customary throughout the country, and especially in the Department of Justice. And one of the things that the Department of Justice usually does is if you're charging

someone with a conspiracy and there are co-conspirators who are not named in the indictment, right? Because if there was a co-conspirator who was named in the indictment, you would just say defendant Trump and defendant Giuliani, right? Are co-conspirators? You would name them. But if somebody's not charged, you don't typically name them because, you know, look, it's not appropriate to cast, you know, somebody, the spursions on somebody and charge them with a crime when they haven't been charged

with a crime. So you don't name people who you are accusing, you know, of committing a crime if you haven't charged them. And the way that is done always is it's done as unindicted, co-conspirator number one, unindicted, co-conspirator number two, unindicted, co-conspirator number three. That is the way most, if not all, indictments typically look that do that. Now you have to understand Jack Smith's indictment that we have all read has been wordsmithed to death, not to pun intended, right?

Wordsmith, it's been looked at by many, many, many eyes, every single word that is in there has been negotiated, changed, and is deliberate. So it's very deliberate that in that indictment, it says, co-conspirator one, co-conspirator two, it does not say unindicted, co-conspirator one, right? It's omitting the word unindicted. What that tells me is they've been indicted.

So I believe that the six co-conspirators have been indicted. They just haven't filed the indictment yet. It hasn't been unsealed yet. They haven't, it hasn't gone public yet. And perhaps they will come out, they will see that as well. And they will try to negotiate with Jack Smith some kind of a cooperation agreement prior

to this becoming public. Now, I think everybody agrees that co-conspirator number one is Giuliani. Number two is Johnny Smith. Number three is Giuliani. Number two is Johnny Smith. Number three is Sidney Powell. Number four is Jeffrey Clark. And number five is Ken Chisbro. But the head scratcher has been Cokenspirator number six.

And I and others thought at first, probably just given the facts, looked like it might be Boris Epstein. But the problem is he's a lawyer and it doesn't describe him as a lawyer where the other co-conspirators are described as lawyers. But the New York Times is reporting today that they compared an email that they have that was sent, I think it was by Boris Epstein

or two Boris Epstein. And the factual scenario is identical to what's in the indictment. And so yeah, so they're calling it as Boris now. I did a hot take and I'm going with Boris. I originally said last night when we did it, that I agree because they were very careful in calling this attorney, this attorney, this attorney, this attorney. But it's almost like a diss by the Justice Department Boris Epstein is this attorney, this attorney, this attorney, this attorney. But it's almost like a diss by the Justice Department. Boris Epstein is an attorney, but he's also a self-proclaimed political consultant for Donald Trump.

He's an attorney because he gets to sit at the big boy table when there is an arrangement. Every time we've seen Donald Trump sweating, cold, cold, flop, sweating in a courtroom, usually called flop, sweating next to him as Boris Epstein. He's the guy that also brought in Todd Blanche to be the lawyer for Donald Trump and made the switch and got really rid of Joe Takapino. I assume he was involved with bringing in John Loro. But yeah, I think it's Epstein because I read that Times article and I thought it was anyway just because of the role that Boris

played as the centerpiece of coordinating all of the fake electors and all of the fake electric ground game. Ran it, ran was really run not by Mike Roman, even though Mike Roman was election day coordinator and did run around literally grabbing the election certificates and forting them, but the person that they were reporting to apparently was not Mark Meadows, was not Giuliani, was not even John Eastman or cheese borough, it was Boris Epstein. And we've said for a long time here in legal AF that Boris Epstein had a tremendous target on his back.

I was surprised he wasn't entitled already given the fact they picked up the Justice Department and picked up the Justice Department, picked up his cell phone six months ago, his text messages. He's part of Operation Coconut, which is the internal investigation tank team for the Justice Department, a special counsel's office, looking at all the lawyers, former lawyers and current lawyers, or Donald Trump's text messages, including Cleedham Mitchell and him. So listen, I think we have that. lawyers and current lawyers are Donald Trump's text messages, including Cleedham Mitchell and him. So, listen, I think we have that.

Before we leave, though, we go on through the co-conspirators going through all that. I want to talk about the defenses that are already being raised and, although already being crapped on by lead witnesses like Mike Pence, one of the ones that's been floated over the last week or so by the new lawyer for Donald Trump, John Loro on television and otherwise, is Reliance on Council. They're going to try to argue that because Donald Trump had a bunch of, I'll use Mike Pence's phrase, crack pot lawyers around him, giving him advice about what the vice president can or can't do constitutionally to interfere with the election,

or certify the election, and other advice from Giuliani, Cleen Amitchell, Siddi Powell, Jenna Ellis, Boris Epstein, and the rest are team crazy, as we like to call it, bit that he has some sort of out that he'll be able to run in front of a jury,

and as a legitimate defense, to try to defeat criminal intent willfulness and what we call men's ray out because you see it in all of their talking points. Stephen Chong, the president's spokesperson is always tried it out every day for some sort of statement. You know, multiple lawyers around Donald Trump. So John Loro tried it.

And the second one that they're trying out, including as early as today, and we have a clip of John Loro, he's like the new Joe Takapina, is first amendment, first amendment, first amendment, all the Donald Trump was doing was first amendment speech because he believed he won. And if you read the indictment carefully, it has nothing to do with First Amendment speech. Jack Smith and his team were very careful to talk about conduct, interference with the election, fake electors certificates, using the Jan 6 insurrection that's going on as an ability as a tip of the spear in order to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power,

the pressure campaign, knowing, knowing based on facts that you lost given to you by your national intelligence director, your head of cybersecurity protection for the election, your White House Council, your deputy White House counsel, your attorney general, election officials in states that voted for you, secretaries of state speakers of the house, you can't as a reasonable person, therefore bury your head and cover your eyes and ignore those facts and then continue

under some sort of first amendment to continue to berate election and elected officials to try to convert votes and tell people fraud about the election. So, that is the two levels of defense. I want to cover all of that and get back to both some interesting things about the Department of Justice that's in the indictment and get Karen's view on these defenses and how do you think they're going to work in a courtroom, which is where we

apply our trade. But first, here's a word from our sponsor. I'm so excited to say that this episode is brought to you by Eat Sleep. We've been almost half our lives in bed and if you're a woman of a certain age like me regulating your body temperature and getting a good night's sleep can sometimes be a challenge. My old mattress was old school. It would overheat while my husband and I were in it together, causing us to toss and turn and not get a good night's sleep. And inevitably, when he was hot, I was cold and vice versa.

There's nothing worse than tossing and turning or sweating in the night, whether it's because of the summer heat or your body heat. The pod covered by eight sleep will keep you cool all night, all the way down to 55 degrees Fahrenheit, if that's the temperature you choose. So you wake up feeling fully refreshed. The pod cover by eight sleep fits on top of any bed like a fitted sheet, and it will improve your sleep

by automatically adjusting the temperature on each side of the bed based on your and your partner's individual likings. It can cool down, it can warm up, and it adjusts based on the phases of your sleep and the environment that you're in. The other thing I love about it sleep is it genuinely helps improve your sleep routine and your habits and your overall sleep quality. I really love the temperature control and that both me and my husband

can set our side of the bed each to our own liking. And I love the gentle vibrating alarm that you said each morning. And I wake up feeling refreshed after a great night's sleep allowing me to start the day off, right? My husband loves eight sleeps technology, which is incredible. While the temperature part is the biggest game changer for me, the pod cover has other amazing features thanks to the pods sleep and health tracking.

You can wake up to a personalized sleep report for you each morning that offers insights into how certain behaviors like late-night exercise or caffeine impact your sleep and overall health. The pod cover by 8 sleep truly provides the ultimate sleep experience. I've never experienced sleep like this and the pod's cooling technology has been a lifesaver for me at this phase of my life. So if you're a woman of a certain age like me and we all know who we are, invest in the rest you deserve with the 8th sleep pod. Go to 8thsleep.com slash legal AF and save $150 on the pod cover. That's the best offer you'll find. But you must visit 8sleep.com

slash legal AF for $150 off. Stay cool this summer with 8th sleep. Now shipping within the USA, Canada and the UK and select countries in the EU and Australia That's 8th sleep.com slash legal AF. We've all heard the famous lie try it for you for 30 days Yeah, well, that's just enough time to try it and then completely forget about it In fact over 80% of people have subscriptions they forgot about. You could be wasting money and not even realizing it. Rocket money helps you find those forgotten subscriptions so you can stop paying for the ones you don't use. Do you know how much your subscriptions really cost?

Most Americans think they spend around $80 a month on subscriptions, but the actual total is closer to $200. If you don't know exactly how much you're spending every month, you need rocket money. Rocket money is a personal finance app that finds and cancels your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps you lower your bills all in one place. Over 80% of people have subscriptions they forgot about, and chances are you're one of them, like that star zap just to watch one show or that free gaming trial you never actually use. Rocket money will quickly and easily find your subscriptions for you and for any you don't want to pay for anymore,

just hit cancel and rocket money will cancel it for you. It's that easy. Rocket money also helps you manage all your finances in one place and automatically categorize your expenses so you can easily track your budget in real time and also get alerted if anything looks off. Over 3 million people have used rocket money, saving the average person up to $720 a year. Stop throwing your money away, cancel unwanted subscriptions, and manage your expenses the easy way by going to rocket money.com slash legal a f that's rocket money.com slash legal a f shout out to our sponsors without whom we would not be able to provide you with our show on a regular basis. So thank you for thank you for both of them today. Two defenses. They're already

floating John Loro will show a clip of it later. Karen, what do you think about those? They're already floating John Loro will show a clip of it later. Cara, what do you think about those? The defenses are, you know, look, you guys say something, right? If you're a defense attorney, but the, the, the first amendment defense, which is the free speech defense, right? That's what he's going to say is that look in, in politics, people say all sorts of things and politician say all sorts of things. And if we're going to start fact, you know, they, people say all sorts of things, and politicians say all sorts of things. And if we're going to start fact,

you know, people fact check each other, if we're going to start criminalizing political speech when they say things that are not true, you know, that's what John Loro is trying to suggest. You want to play the John Loro clip, and then you can react to it? Sure. Let's play John Loro,

the new lawyer for Donald Trump about First Amendment Defense. In addition to him saying the First Amendment Defense, he's also taken on the Donald Trump strategic way of communicating, which is interrupting, talking over the person, not letting him finish their sentence. I mean, that's what Donald Trump does, right? It's this, it's like just be a bully and aggressive and it's really, you know, John Loro is just Joe Takapino 50 pounds lighter. Yeah, let's see it.

So earlier this morning we had the chance to speak to one of Mr. Trump's defense attorneys, John Loro. We started with the timing of a trial. The special counsel said yesterday he would like to see a speedy trial. That is 70 days from now. Are you ready to go? Would you like to see a speedy trial?

Well, the speedy trial right is a defendants right. Correct. The government's right. So we're entitled to understand what the charges are. We're entitled to do our own investigation. The special counsel or the Justice Department, the Biden Justice Department, has had three

years to investigate this. To take President Trump to trial in 90 days, of course, is absurd. The question is, why do they want to do that? If you want to seek justice, then you need to offer, Mr. President Trump, an opportunity to get a hold of all the evidence and understand with the... I don't think that was quite the clip. Do you have the other part of the clip salty where he talks about first amendment, right? That that was a clip of John, but it

wasn't quite the clip we were looking for. While we're looking for that clip. We'll get back to that in a minute. There were two other things I just wanted to mention about the indictment. And then we'll go back to that while salty is looking for it. So number one, the thing that I thought was kind of a blockbuster in the indictment was the fact that Mike Pence is going to be the key witness. Like he's the victim, the witness, and he took notes, you know, contemporaneous notes of his conversations with Donald Trump. Who does that? He was, the witness, and he took notes, you know, contemporaneous notes of his conversations

with Donald Trump. Who does that? He was, I mean, and think about this just logistically. This is Trump's vice president, right? They were together and they were serving together, and you're going to have Mike Pence testify against the president that he served as the star witness. He's the witness to so much of this. And I just thought that was astonishing. And why did he take these notes? Why did he take these notes of his conversations with Trump? And he did it for the same reason

others took notes with their conversations with him, which is they're trying to cover themselves because they were being asked to do things that were criminal and that were illegal. So he had these notes for protection for the future. So I thought that was, you know, we all knew he was cooperating, but to the extent that he's going to play a leading role in this trial, I thought that was really highlighted here. And the second thing that stood out to me about this trial

or about this case was, you know, Fannie Willis did a good thing, which is she broadcasted to the world, really to Jack Smith when she's going and that it's going to be a big detailed indictment, right? And she did that for several reasons. She said she did it for security reasons. And I was fairly confident that there was zero coordination when We talked about this on one of our legal A.F.s. there's no communication

or coordination between Jack Smith and Fanny Willis. I know that just because I've been involved in these types of cases and prosecutors don't do that and won't do that. It's totally and utterly inappropriate and it would be put everybody in a difficult position and she confirmed as much that there has been no coordination or communication. But she's signaled to Jack Smith because there's going to be a lot of similar hurties in their cases, right? She's going to bring the fake electors scheme in Georgia

and potentially other states. And she knows Jack Smith was doing the same thing. And so she kind of signaled to Jack Smith, this is when I'm going. So if you're going to do it, do it first, because I don't want to screw up your case. So what Jack Smith, and in the indictment, there are many pages where he details the fake elector scheme in each state. And he's got an Arizona section, an Amishigan section, and a Georgia section, and so on.

It was a constant section. And he talks about the facts of what the the sphakelector scheme was in each of the states. And he detailed he put details in there. And that provided a road map for Fanny Willis to make sure that at least her evidence doesn't conflict with his because boy would that be tricky, right? If one of them gets it wrong and they have conflicting theories, conflicting narratives. So I thought that was something else that was done in the indictment that Fanny Willis is, I bet she's going to be doing and she's going to be looking at her draft

indictment and making sure that there is no conflicting evidence and testimony that will come in at the trial. So if you want to go back to the defenses, I don't know if we were able to. Well, let's do it this way. I think they're the defense of Reliance on Council, I think, is a dead bang loser. You got Mike Pence already saying today, the Donald Trump was surrounded by his quote, not mine, crackpot lawyers that were giving him bad advice. We know who the Crackpot lawyers are. They're led by somebody who is all over.

The indictment is littered with one other person, other than Donald Trump. If I had a name one, it's Rudy Giuliani. Rudy Giuliani is all over the indictment, leading the charge, leading team crazy. So you got Rudy, who's recently come out and says, I'm not cooperating with Jack Smith. I'm not going to, I'm telling the truth and Donald Trump did nothing wrong, which of course is a ticket, is a fast train ticket to indictment land for Rudy Giuliani.

He should know that as a former US attorney. But so the whole reliance thing doesn't work if the client is actually the one pulling the strings and brings in these people in order to give him cover for his cling to power in his thirst and lust for power You can't bring in a bunch of people that nobody would rely on even your own vice president and those that were around you He did have some competent lawyers around him and all of them are rate against him to tell him that he had lost the election that they're all of his fraudulent Attacks on Joe Biden's win were false were not right. We're not corroborated. There was no evidence for it. There was no Election to positive fraud as Jack Smith likes to say in the indictment that would have changed the outcome of the election or in any of the battleground states. Jack Smith took certain pains to say the only way that Donald Trump could have won the

election as he was told by his own election people, his own campaign manager, was if he won five states starting with Arizona and that he told Donald Trump there was a 10% chance you'd be able to run the table on those five states. And the next day, his own campaign and his own lawyers in a courtroom told the judge that they had lost Arizona. And that's in the indictment, very early on in the indictment.

And for Jack Smith, that's what starts it. You knew you lost Arizona, your lawyers knew you lost Arizona. They told the judge you lost Arizona and there was no coming back from that. The other scary thing about the indictment that I had never heard before, but for the first time, saw in the indictment, it was about Jeff Clark. Now, I've heard a lot of crazy things about Jeff Clark. The number three or four who was was pining away in the last 12 days to be the attorney general because he's a big election denier, big maga, big

maga, and has, and believes in the unitary executive branch and the president is a dictator and all that. And I was like, OK, thank God this guy never got to be in the big chair as the attorney general, because we know what he would have done, because he had a draft letter on Department of Justice Letterhead that he was prepared to send to election officials all around the country in the battleground states telling them that the Department of Justice on letterhead officially

recognized election fraud and that they should recognize the fake electrosertificates as real certificates. That, okay, so here's what happened. Here's what we knew happened, and then I'll tell you what's new in the indictment. What we knew happened is that there was almost a mutiny when Donald Trump tried to elevate Jeff Clark into that role and write that letter and send that letter out. Pat Philbin and Patrick Cipolloni told Donald Trump

in no uncertain terms that they were going to leave and there was going to be a mutiny and all his lawyers were going to walk out much like what happened in Nixon in the midnight massacre What we didn't know was the conversation the content of the conversation involving Jeff Clark Donald Trump and Pat Phil But and we also didn't know until the indictment that Donald Trump offered the job of attorney general to Jeff Clark and he Donald Trump offered the job of attorney general to Jeff Clark and he accepted it. We always thought it was a proposal that Trump floated, not that it was an offer and acceptance. So in paragraph 80 of the indictment, the indictment says based on the facts also on the morning

of Jan 3. I mean, come on, we're like 17 days left in the administration. And we're still picking days left in the administration. And we're still picking new attorney generals, really. Also on the morning of Jan 3, co-conspirator number four, Eastman met with the defendant at the White House. I'm sorry, Jeff Clark, I said Eastman, Jeff Clark met with defendant at the White House. Again, without having informed senior justice department officials, right? He's number four. He's not supposed to go meet with the president without his boss

is knowing like Jeff Rosen like tell them why. It's not just it's not just for protocol. It's not just for you know, yeah, I'm gonna read for the indictment. Yeah, okay, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, okay. And it's okay. let me start again. Again, without having informed senior justice department officials and accepted, accepted, the defendant's offer that he become acting attorney general.

We'd only heard rumors that that was something that Donald Trump was thinking about in the recesses of his brain. Not that he had actually offered it and it was accepted. So for a moment, there was a moment where Jeff Clark thought he was the attorney general. The next paragraph says on the afternoon, on the afternoon of that same day, co-conspirator for Jeff Clark spoke with a deputy White House counsel. That's Pat Filben.

The previous month, Pat Filben had informed the defendant, Trump, that, quote, there is no world, there is no option in which you do not leave the White House on January 20. Now that same deputy White House Council, Filben, tried to dissuade co-conspirator for Clark from assuming the role of acting attorney general. The deputy White House counsel reiterated to Clark that there had not been outcome determinative fraud in the election, and that if the defendant remained in office nonetheless, that there would be, quote, riots in every major city in the United States, Clark responded, quote, well, Pat, that's why there's an insurrection act. I mean,

it is, I just, I just got a chill right down my spine. The Jeff Clark was going to use the Insurrection Act as the head of the Department of Justice to crush riots in the streets. Now we go to the suspension of the Constitution and martial law being invoked in order for Donald Trump to stay in power. Go ahead, Karen. Yeah, so I was just going to say the reason they kept telling Jeffrey Clark, the environmental guy, right? At one point, they were like, can't you go find an oil spill or something to go deal with? Right, the reason they were telling him you are not to speak to the president directly, the only people who are allowed to speak to the president directly. The only people who are allowed to speak to the president directly are the attorney general

and the deputy attorney general or the acting attorney general and the acting deputy attorney general is it's very, very important to have that protocol because you don't want to undo influence from the president on criminal prosecutions. This has to be, it has, you know, all criminal prosecutions have to be, have to be, not have any political influence, they have to be without fear or favor. And so that's why they do it like that. Before we move on to our next section, I just want to say two more things. Number one is the defense of First Amendment. And that's going to be one of his primary defenses

is look, you know, I can say whatever I want. And I'm running, you know, opposite the president. I can say what I want. I can say what I want. And Jack Smith did a great job of saying, yes, you can say what you want. And that is protected by the First Amendment. And you're even allowed to challenge an election appropriately.

You can ask for audits, you can go to court, you can use a legitimate and appropriate means. But our listeners have to understand and what a lot of people know is the First Amendment, the right to free speech is not an absolute right. You do have a right to say what you want to say. You are even allowed to lie. Lies are protected by the First Amendment. But where it becomes criminal is when you lie to try

and get something that you're not supposed to get, like by fraud. So an example that my friend Norman Eisen gave last night on television was, you know, you could, you know, people would say, look, I can go, I can't go into a bank and say, you know, give me all your money and say, oh, I'm protected by free speech. You know, that's just not okay because that's causing someone to give, you know, holding up a gun or whatever, you know, pretending you have a gun and they're going to give you the money, you know, that becomes a crime. You don't have free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater, right?

Because that would cause, you know, stampede and whatever, unless there is a fire in a crowded theater, right? You can't just do that. So the first amendment right is not absolute and that defense is not going to fly. And the only other thing I wanna say before we move on is I wanna talk about how great the judge is

that we got here, right? That was assigned to got here, right? That was assigned to this case, right? Her name is Tanya Chetkin. She's an Obama appointee. She was picked at random. And she has overseen many of the Jan 6 rioter cases. And she issues some harsh sentences.

So, and she previously rejected Trump's attempt to avoid disclosing some documents to the Jan 6 committee, you know, writing, presidents are not kings. So I think she's a great judge. She will not allow him to do his delay shenanigans. She'll keep tight control over the case. And there's a chance, I think if there's any chance that this case goes to trial before the election, we got a great judge for that.

Well, that's a good second way to talk about Mar-aLago, where we're not sure we have a great judge. In fact, we're probably pretty sure we have one that is very inexperienced and over her skis. I mean, Tanya Chukkin is applying her trade in the DC Circuit Court, which is usually a feeder program or a campaign to the US Supreme Court. You go DC Circuit Court, which is, which is, I would argue, there's probably three plums in the federal court system that you'd want to be appointed to, Southern District, New York, Second Circuit, that covers New York, maybe four federal circuit, Court of Appeals, and DC Circuit, and then the Court of Appeals

for the DC circuits. Maybe now that's five. But these are all potential places where people will end up, and usually from the DC circuit, you end the DC judge like this one, a circuit court judge, whose husband is also a former superior court judge in New York. So as I said, on a hot take, it sort of runs in the family, being a judge runs in the family, which is a nice family business.

But she is before even this, I would have thought would have been on a short list for much like Katangi Brown Jackson came out of that, went to the court of appeals and then on to the Supremes and the other, and can name a number of other people as well, if Joe Biden gets another opportunity to name somebody, the US Supreme Court. I mean, now it's a little complicated given she's the judge presiding over arguably, you know, one of the most historic federal trials and history of federal trials, but it's, I think it's clearly given her background, her experience sentencing Gen 6 people. We used to call her, I used to call her Hangimhai Chutkin because she was the

harshest of all the judges in sentencing. She's been opposed to Donald Trump, including the tax returns at the House Weaseways and Means Committee and getting those turned over. She was supported by the Supreme Court on that one. She's just a really great judge, not just for democracy, yes, yes. She's just a very, very good federal judge. In contrast, we've got Eileen Cannon. And now we're pressure testing Eileen Cannon because the Department of Justice has another case there. And so last week it was, we're going to do a superseding indictment and bring in Carlos Diolabiera, the head of maintenance or maintenance worker, former valet, whatever he was, in terms

of his role in trying to delete the server, drown the server, flood the server, whatever he was trying to do to help his boss, the boss, Donald Trump. And with unindicted co-conspirators listed there as well, including the number one cooperating witness right now, we believe, yes, seal. You seal Tavarra, who's the IT worker who Walt Nauda is alleged, along with Carlos DiOlevera, to have enlisted in a conspiracy on behalf of the boss to delete the server and the surveillance videos

that were located there so they didn't have anything to turn over to the Department of Justice. Now, we've got a new issue because, you know, justice makes strange bedfellows, stand woodward, who I think represents nothing but John VI people, has not one, not two, not three, but five, different, either witnesses, co-conspirators, indicted, co-conspirators. He represents all of them in the Mar-a-Lago indictment, including the Super seating indictment. Two of them have been identified as employee number one

and employee number two, or witness one, or witness two, are Molly Michaels and Halle Harrison. They, Halle Harrison works for Melania right now, but had worked for Donald Trump. And, Michaels had worked for Donald Trump. And, Michael's had worked, Michael had worked for, Molly, Michael had worked as the Oval Office Coordinator

and head executive assistant for all things Donald Trump, including before the, you know, the election, after the election, Jan 6th and beyond. And the two of them were texting about moving the boxes, moving the documents, and the two of them were texting about moving the boxes, moving the documents, and certainly Molly, Molly, Michael is listed in the indictment as having texted with another lawyer for Donald Trump about Donald Trump returning boxes to the National Archive back in January.

There were 15 of those boxes, Donald Trump handles himself, including returning the Iranian war document that is part of the indictment. So they're like critical witnesses about the movement of Boxes and Donald Trump's instructions related to it. He also, well, Stan Woodward represents Walt Nauta. He used to represent areas.

He used to represent, you see it to Varys, the other Coke and Spiritures, not been in diet and is now cooperating. But only started cooperating after he fired Stan Woodward, who's being paid by the Save America Pack. I forgot to mention that. He's one of the many lawyers that have drained the donor's money that was supposed to be

Pratonal Trump, but goes to Donald Trump's lawyers instead from 100 million last year to 4 million this year, part of that is Stan Woodward's law firm. So he represents those two women I just identified. He represents, represented the IT director. He represents Walt Nauta. It's like everybody but Carlos, all of, all of, Vera and the Justice Department is like, you know what?

I think there's a conflict of interest there, Jackson Smith's people are saying, and why don't we have what's called a Garcia hearing named after a 1975 case in that district. Every district has a case like that about conflicts of interest. Why don't we bring in Molly Michael all separately? Bring in Harrison separately. Bring in, you see all two Varys, bring in Harrison separately bring in you see all

Tavares bring in these people and have the judge evaluate and make sure that they all understand that their lawyer represents them and their lawyer might be in a weird position where he's cross examining his own clients to defend Walton out of and before we go that far judge why don't you look into whether he should be disqualified or not so we got that and then we go that far, Judge, why don't you look into whether he should be disqualified or not? So we got that and then we got what happened with Carlos the Oliveira who's supposed to have his Array, McCarrie, why don't you comment on both of those things? So look, I think I did a hot take. I'm not sure it's been out

It's come out yet about you know who your lawyer is matters and why it matters to have Your lawyer paid by Donald Trump and why that's significant, right? Some people might think, oh, that's so nice of him, you know, he paid for it, paying for his lawyer. I mean, he did get him into this situation after all. But you know, it reminds me of, I think about, you know, back in the day when prostitution, for example, it used to be prosecuted by the Manhattan DA's office and you'd have these women who be you you knew they were being

Human traffic and beaten and assaulted and you know just really Sexually assaulted you knew they were the victims of these horrible crimes But their pips would hire their lawyers pay for their lawyers and the pips would sit there and court and watch them Basically, you know, you can just see, they could never come forward and come to us so that we could help them and get them out of that situation because their lawyer was being paid for by their pimps and they can't now go against them.

And same thing with drug dealers, right? You'd have these low level drug dealers that you'd catch on the street, the cops would catch them on the street. And you'd have the cartels or the gangs, the big gangs would, the ones who never go near the stuff who just kind of run the business, they would pay for their lawyers. And once again, they'd get caught up in it and couldn't get themselves out of it so that we could get the big fish.

So this is very similar in that way. Any if Trump is paying for these lawyers, then how is the lawyer going to have, if the lawyers be holding to Trump, but what's in the best interest of someone like Waltonado or Mr. Dioliviera is to cooperate against Trump, it creates this conflict. They're not going to, in any way, do something that would harm the guy who's paying their bill.

Same when you're representing more than one defendant, right? If you're representing multiple defendants, let's say you have one that's more culpable than the other one that was the ringleader and one wasn't, you can't use information that's adverse to the other client against the other one. And so if you can't use all the information you have, you're not representing your client to the fullest. So, you know, it also just strikes me that we heard from, you're if you remember, during

the Jan 6th Committee, Cassidy Hutchinson testified that, you know, she couldn't come forward, she couldn't cooperate because she had this, you know, Trump paid for lawyer who basically was telling her things like, look, it's okay to say you don't remember, it's okay that, you know, don't go refreshing your memory, don't, you know, you don't have to really give them too much information, you know, that's just, just kind of say you don't remember. And she's like, but what if that's a lie? And she went in and spoke to the select committee and came out and said, I'm F'd because I lied. And she realized that she needed to get her own lawyer.

She got her own lawyer and that's when she felt comfortable like she could come forward and tell the truth. She hired Jodie Hunt, which was a very independent lawyer. Yeah, and that's why people like Jeff Sessions and others, right? And then she finally came clean, right? Exactly. So that's, and then as you just pointed out, we saw it with with UCL Tveris, right? You know, it was as soon as he got his own lawyer, he also, you know, he got a target letter, he gets his own lawyer, he dumps Stan Woodward

and now he's cooperating and didn't find himself as an unadided co-conspirer. So who your lawyer is matters. And kudos to the prosecutor to put them in a jackpot situation where they have to make a decision. You know, you see, Alta Varas probably thought, oh, I scared it by, I'm not going to be in diet. Oh, wait, target letter. Oh, wait, hold it. I didn't realize there was going to be,

and who knows what Stan Woodward is telling him. I can tell, let me just make a public service announcement. If you want to be indicted, hire Stan Woodward is telling him? I can tell, let me just make a public service announcement. If you want to be indicted, hire Stan Woodward. He'll never cut a deal for you while he's being paid by Save America Pack and by Donald Trump. He's beholden to one client and that guy's name is Donald Trump. And if you are just some lowly worker that used to work for Donald Trump and you got caught up in his conspiracy, go get, as Karen said, go get your own lawyer and cut a deal. You too may be able to escape liability, but not

of Stan Woodward's your lawyer. I mean, I don't know what's going to come out of the hearing, but that's coming out of the Pope-Pock Karen-Free Magnificent Law take right now. Jack Smith does not want to prosecute the low-level maintenance guy, right? He wants to flip them. These guys aren't criminals. Like pancakes. They're not sort of career criminals who woke up one day and said, you know what I want to do? I want to possess and hide classified documents. The big ones workers not keeping Jack Smith up at night. Yeah, exactly. So, you know, they're just caught up in this mess. By the way, I always thought it was a curseo hearing, the conflict. I never heard of it as a Garcia hearing.

I'm gonna have to go to the office. I'm gonna have to go to the office. Yeah, but they jacked, you know, because he's a local guy now. He used the precedent from the fifth circuit, which was the circuit and covered at the time. People might be saying, I thought Popeyes the 11th Circuit were flawed.

It is, but it was the fifth circuit until they split and made a new circuit called the 11th Circuit. And the case down there is called the Garcia hearing, but it's what you're referring to. It's known like that. So we had that. And then you just just like a little sprinkle, a little sprinkle of the your rainmapping postpone, then we'll move on to what's going on with Fawny Willis. Yeah.

So once again, you know, straight out of the Trump playbook, right? I don't have a Florida lawyer. You know, so once again, you know, straight out of the Trump playbook, right? I don't have a Florida lawyer, you know, so oops, so he you know, he shows up without a Florida lawyer and I mean there's thousands of Florida lawyers like and everybody knows about this case, right? Not bad. It's so deliberate and so intentional again to delay again by another week another two weeks another month And so he's not going to be a rain now until what is August 10th? Yeah, August 10th or August 11th. He had a post $100,000 bond. Look, Carlos the Olaviera is in deep, deep shit. He's the guy, as you, as I heard you say, what are your hot tags and what are your commentaries? You don't believe in coincidences. They just flooded

the server room. I mean, first they tried to get the server, then they tried to choke the server, then they tried to stab it, when they couldn't stab it, they were gonna drown it. I mean, they were trying to do anything they could think of to satisfy the bosses to make, huh?

I just think so. It's like something out of like a... Lighting on fire was gonna be next, I'm sure. It's just, it of like light and on fire was going to be next. I'm sure It's just like it's something that you would see in one of those like, you know, 1980s Bill Murray, you know stupid half movies where like the flood the server like drain the pool and flood the server room like And we're gonna get more about it when it gets to trial is I've had a lot of weak IT people in my life that work with me, but I cannot believe that you see Alta Varis

as an IT person didn't know how to delete the server. His first reaction, I'm sure because he was like, I don't want to do this, was like, oh, I don't know how to delete a server. Really? But thank God he didn't, because, you know, and that may well be, we're, you know, putting all joking and jocularity aside for a moment, although we are understandably happy

about what's transpired. You're always looking for that moment in history when somebody at that level ends up ripping the mask off and reveals the fraud in the scheme. Fawn Hall shreds the documents for Oliver North in the Iran Contra scandal. Nixon's secretary deletes the 18 minutes in Watergate. Right? This is all consciousness of guilt.

You don't do these things if you're not guilty of something. That's the gold standard for prosecutors, right? And Bill Clinton, God blesses Saul, goes and tells Betty Curry, his assistant, to try to get back gifts that he gave Monica Lewinsky during the middle of his denial of having any kind of relationship with her. And these are those moments. And we're seeing it now. The boss wants you to delete the server. Is that moment or could be that moment? At least in moral aga prosecution for Donald Trump. Let's go to Georgia.

Funny Willis, who God, I love her, which I can't express my love for Funny Willis. Funny Willis, while she's biting her time, finishing up with her regular-grang jury, trying to get the indictment, which spoiler alert she's going to get an indictment against Donald Trump, it will be later this month, was doing things for the community that elected district attorneys do, like back to school events at parks all over Atlanta, Georgia, where she gives low- cost school supplies and backpacks to parents and students. It's a really great thing. And our local reporter caught up with her

said, Hey, funny. While you're doing your backpack event, which we know you love, what's going on with the jury? And she said the following, one, my work is done. We're ready to go. I have to do it for the people of Fulton County. I have to do it for the people of America. Some people may not like my decision and some of those people may be violent, but I think we're ready and All she needs is probably another day or two and she's gonna get that indictment. Why? Because she of course she stands on the shoulders of seven months or almost a year and a half of investigation, and seven months of a special purpose grand jury. 75 witness transcripts, hundreds and hundreds and thousands of exhibits that she's able to use

because you're allowed to do that in Georgia in her regular grand jury. So she picks up where the special purpose grand jury left off, except now she's got the inditing mechanism in the regular grand jury. So she's effing close. I mean, if she doesn't get it in the next week or two, and then on seals it coordinated with the sheriff,

and then my favorite thing I'll turn it over to you, Karen, is the sheriff who has already cleared the streets in early August, telling everybody to work from home because we don't want any riots down there, has also said that he's not going to give special treatment to Donald Trump. If he gets indicted, he's going to get mug and arrested. He's going to get mug shot, fingerprinted and processed just like everybody else. I love Georgia. But he has to say about all that.

I love that guy. I mean, how great was that, right? That he said that. Because he hasn't, everywhere else, they haven't done a mug shot or whatever. They're kind of treating him. He's kind of like, nope, he's going to be treated like everybody else.

I thought that was great. Yeah. So any, any, any things you've picked up in your own reporting or investigation about, about Fawney, how about this? Because you've been very good this among other things is the the kind of the scope, the size of Fawney's indictment because you were really dead on. I gave you a shout out right at the top of me coming on to the live podcast show we did last night where I said, you know who nailed it in terms of, you know, four counts, one defendant, Karen Friedman, Ignathe Filippe, as opposed to a more sprawling. But, you know, she's got a different, Faudi's

got a different audience, she's got a different, a, a, a, a, a, a justice system. She's got a different, um, set of stakeholders, she's got a different investigation with more people to it and more whatever. What are you? Are we going to see? Let's put it on the extreme. If Jack Smith's is surgical, precise and very efficient and with word economy and count economy, where do you think? And then you have the prolux ones that a unseasoned prosecutor that you described earlier, with just with every count, every defendant, every fact, and there, just kind of, you know, 50 pounds of potatoes and a 10 pound sack on the other end

of the continuum. Where do you think Fonies is going to fall? So I think Fonies is going to fall on the other end of the continuum, through squarely in the 50 pound sack of potatoes and a 10 pound sack. But not for the reasons that I think Fani is going to fall on the other end of the continuum, pretty squarely in the 50-pound sack of potatoes and a 10-pound sack. But not for the reasons that I think she's not experienced or qualified or not doing a great job. I think she's doing it for a different reason, and I think if I were her, I'd probably be in the same boat. You know, you have to remember, looks, looks, think about where Fani, where how this came about. The Department of Justice by all accounts didn't do anything for the first year and a half.

And Donald Trump is throwing that, you know, is literally throwing that in everybody's face and saying, why is this happening now, right? It wasn't until the Jan 6th Committee did their amazing historic work and they're going to go down in history as, you know, they all, including Liz Cheney, who, you know, committed political suicide, in order to set the record straight and do this investigation and do these hearings. That was the kick in the pants to the Department of Justice.

Fannie Willis was sitting there the whole time going, DOJ, where are you? There was a crime here. And so she had no choice but to do this big sweeping, sprawling investigation. She was well underway. By the time Jack Smith was finally appointed. Now, Jack Smith has moved in Lightning Speed, which is also something that I told everybody would happen. Only, like the reason I know how Jack Smith is going to do things and that he's going to be fast that this is going to speed it up

That you know he's going to walk and chew gum at the same time and do all these indictments and what the indictment is going to look like is partly because we were trained by this in the same office by the same people At the same time like we just we know the same things and so that's partly you know kind of how how I'm able to to know these things about him. And, you know, he's done it at lightning speed. But it's still, you know, Fanny Willis had had a year and a half, two years waiting for the Department of Justice to do something and they didn't. So she did a big sweeping investigation. And that's what she has. And so she's just going, she at this point, that's what she has, that's where she is. And so she's going going, at this point, that's what she has, that's where she is. And so she's going to bring her case.

And I also think it makes sense that she's going to bring the big sweeping case. Because God forbid you have Donald Trump wins the presidency. OK, God forbid he does. He's either going to pardon himself or he's going to, if he's convicted or not, he's going to try to pardon himself on the Janssix and other cases.

But he's also, let's say it's still pending and it hasn't gone to trial, you know what he's going to do? He's going to, his own attorney general, he's going to throw out that case. He's going to tell him to stop the case, throw it out of court and not prosecute it. So the only case that will go down in history as as really holding everybody accountable who did exactly what they did on January 6th, all of them. Giuliani, Eastman, Sheesbro, Clark, Sydney Powell, you know, Boris Epstein, all of them and more are going to be held accountable also by Fanny Willis and she needs to do it.

It needs to be done and it's pardon proof. So, I think that's why hers is going to be the opposite of Jack Smith. It's sort of a, you know, she got herself into that situation because the Department of Justice wasn't doing anything. She is where she is. It's pardon proof. And it's also important, you know, for the record keeping of history that these people are held accountable. This is not just somebody who committed crimes. This is people for the first time in our nation's history

that you have a concerted effort to try to steal the country, to rule by Fiat, to steal the presidency and take away our democracy. And that's, I mean, if Jack Smith's very short press conference yesterday, I think said it perfectly. I think he spelled it out perfectly. Why this case is different from all other cases. He said why the Capitol police officers were heroes, why they're national heroes. He said it wasn't just because they protected the Capitol building or because they protected the men and women who were inside the Capitol that day.

It's because they put their lives on the line to protect our democracy. That's what this case is about. And so you're going to have this autocrat, this person, Donald Trump and his henchman, they're going to try and make it so this case is erased and nobody's held accountable. And little Fanny will us down in Fulton County, Georgia. And I'm calling her little not because of her stature, but because she is just this little Fulton County, you know, in Georgia, one county in one state in this country is going to be one of the few people who can and will hold those responsible for trying to overthrow our democracy accountable. So I applaud her and that's what I expect to be coming in the coming weeks.

And Donald Trump is afraid of her because he's tried everything he can do to throw sand into the gears of justice and try to get in her eyes and try to get rid of Fanny Willis and try to get rid of her office, try to get rid of the special purpose grand jury where he knows 75 people already testified, including Rudy Giuliani, including Mark Meadows, including, I think her case is very scary to him because he knows what he did. Right? He knows what he did last summer. And one of the things he did last summer was make multiple phone calls into the state,

including to Brad Raffinsburger, along with Rudy Giuliani and another one with Mark Meadows in which he tried to interfere with the election. So pardon me, on two recent occasions, Donald Trump has tried to disqualify her and her office and try to get the whole special purpose grand jury and their work, their report, their recommendations thrown out. First, they went two weeks ago with a direct petition to the Georgia Supreme Court, where I guess they thought they had a kindred spirit or a friendly ear, nine Republican appointed Supreme Court justices, and they rejected the petition 9-0 and said, you know what, we don't see it about any grounds to

disqualify Fonney Willis and the DA. If you have that issue, go bring it up below, or Fulton County, or some other place, but not directly to this court, which generally sits as a court of appeals, not as a place to decide matters in the first instance. And also, we're not really comfortable with you interfering with a pre-endipment process. The sounds familiar. This sounds like what they did last summer when they interfere through Judge Cannon and had a willing audience there to interfere pre-indipement with Mar-a-Lago. And there, which I'm going to talk about next with Judge McBernie and his special order that just came out, denying the motion to remove Fawty Willis, denying a bid again to throw out the Special Purpose Grand jury. They reference the Cannon decision at the federal level

with special delight, I'm sure. So you got Georgia Supreme Court says, we're not tossing the Special Purpose Grand jury. You don't really have standing to do that now. It's pre-indipement and we're the wrong court. And we don't see the grounds for funny willis being disqualified, that didn't stop them. They had filed Drew Finling and another lawyer for Donald Trump.

His lawyers in Georgia had filed in March a motion to quash the, you know, to suppress or quash the actual special purpose grand jury work and its report. That's called Quashhell for those that work. I love that word. Kind of stuff. I see Karen likes that kind of stuff to preclude and to recuse, meaning to disqualify Fawney Willis. And a very nice nine page opinion written by Judge McBernie, who I'm going to read from some of it, including the footnotes, said, let me just cut to the chase. No, I'm not disqualifying Fawney Willis. You haven't given me just cut to the chase. No, I'm not

disqualified, Fawney Willis, you haven't given me any grounds to show either that she has forensic misconduct, which is required in Georgia, or that she has a conflict of interest. And since you haven't shown me any of that, I'm not disqualifying your prosecutor. She's doing what she's supposed to do. She's not supposed to be unbiased. She's supposed to be fair, yes, but she has a point of view. That point of view points her wherever the evidence points her. And I'm going to let her do her job as to the special purpose grand jury. This is from Judge Bernie's order. Page two of nine. He said, well, you know better Trump because you tried a pre indictment

attempt to have a court interfere pre-enditement with a criminal investigation. You were told by the 11th Circuit, this is the Canon decision, this is now throwing shade on Judge Canon, you were told by the 11th Circuit, not once but twice, you can't do that. You don't have standing because you're not yet injured because you're only the target or the subject of a criminal investigation. In Georgia, we're not talking about the three indictments or four indictments, Donald Trump has in other places, but in Georgia, he is only a targeted individual. He is not yet an indicted individual and until you're injured by getting an indictment,

if and when that day ever comes, or as Judge McBurnie said, perhaps and perhaps, until then get out of my courtroom. You're going to have nothing to talk about. You have no standing to talk about it. And then he said the thing that will live on in history, in footnote, in footnote three, on page two of McBernie's order. He said that, yes, I agree with you, generally having a indictment looming against you, could be a really bad thing. And yes, there's a little bit of a stain of that that may not be erased by having the indictment eventually tossed or thrown out if you're able to do that.

However, in footnote three, he compared Donald Trump to Rumpel's still skin. A name I hadn't heard since I was about three and a half. And what he said was, but for some, being the subject of a criminal investigation can, Allah Rumpel's still skin, be turned into golden political capital, making it seem more providential than problematic.

Regardless, simply being the subject or target of an investigation does not yield standing to bring a claim to a halt, to bring a claim to halt the investigation into court. Love that, love that, love that. In the other place where the judge, I thought very fairly and very evenhandedly said, you're calling out Fony Willis because you don't like the fact that she tweeted or she retweeted something or that somehow shows bias. And the judge says, I've seen the evidence you presented such as it is,

meaning there's not much of it. And I don't see any indication that Ms. Willis or anybody in her office has already pre-decided the case against you, has already believes you're guilty before bringing the indictment or Has any kind of bias or animus against you that would constitute misconduct However, if you're talking about the amount of times that both sides have gone to the media Let me comment on that and that's why I love McBurney because he's he's not gonna have fought

He will us off the off-thog either He said and I quote from page seven of his order, and as for the forensic misconduct, that's a term of art in Georgia, which both sides, while both sides have done enough talking, posting, tweeting, and then in parentheses, he put X-ing and press conferencing to have hit and perhaps stretched the bounds of Georgia rules of professional conduct. Neither movement has pointed to any environments from the district attorney or a team of lawyers, expressing a belief that Trump or Latham,

there's a Kathy Latham joined in on this motion. She's the coffee county, a GOP head who opened the doors and let cyber ninjas and Sydney Powell in to steal election data and image servers, speaking of servers of private confidential voter data to use in their crazy scheme to try to overthrow the election. She will be indicted by no doubt. She will be indicted by no doubt she will be indicted by Fannie Willis. So, he said that rather there's no environments for the District Attorney or a team of lawyers expressing a belief that Trump or Latham is guilty or has committed this or that offense. Rather, the consistent and persistent theme has been the standard fair of pursuing the evidence

where it leads us, holding everyone accountable, and no one being above the law. The drumbeat for the district attorney has neither partisan in the political sense, nor personal, in marked and refreshing contrast, to the stream of personal, invective, flowing from one of the movements. Let me guess, Donald Trump? Put differently, the District Attorney's Office has been doing a fairly routine and legally unobjectionable job of public relations

in a case that is anything but routine. Motion denied. And the next stop on the train for them is gonna be to try to appeal that back to the Georgia Supreme Court or an intermediae or a pellet court right there in the middle. Or there's already just to kind of round the square of the circle. There is another motion you might have heard of in which they brought a motion to disqualify Foddy Willis for third time and McBernie, the guy that just issued the order, that's pending

but has not been ruled upon yet, but is being handled in another county because of the conflict of interest that starts when you start attacking a judge by having another Fulton County judge decide whether a colleague has done something wrong. So it's been shipped off to another county. They'll be a hearing. It'll be after the indictment. Nobody cares. Fawney Willis is not getting disqualified. And McBernie isn't either. And the special purpose grand jury work is going to is going to is going to be used the way it's being used

properly in the grand jury process. What do you think about McBernie in that order? First of all, it's beautifully written. It's you know, pithian snarky and in the way it only judges can be. So I really enjoyed it. And, you know, the way he sort of did it subtly and footnotes, et cetera. You know, it's, it's, I thought it was really smart the way he set it up so that people can understand, anyone can understand. You know, I think judges are conscious of the fact

that lay people are reading their decisions about Donald Trump and the media, et cetera. And people are interested more so than they are in typical other judge orders and decisions and indictments. And so they're being written in ways that anyone can understand. And what struck me, there were just two, you summarized it beautifully and perfectly. So I'll just, I'll just rather than go over all

what you did already. I'll just mention two more things. The thing I thought he did the best was describe how, how, and as you said, Donald Trump knows this already, how really you're not, there is no standing, meaning there there's no you have no right to have a court interfere when there's no criminal case yet just an investigation. And so he did a great job at explaining why and why it is that there has to be some kind of harm or injury and just you know having an investigation against you doesn't count. And in fact for you Trump, it's actually helped you. So you're not not only you're not harmed you are helped because you're raising so much money with this. So it's just one more time to underscore that when there's an

investigation, when when when there's an investigation, it doesn't, there is no opportunity to have a judge interfere with that wait until there's a case brought and. And then you can make your motions, right? That's number one. And number two, he also acknowledged, tacitly acknowledged that Trump will try to remove this case. He acknowledged that Trump's going to try to remove this case from State Court to Federal Court, the way Trump did with Alvin Brad, right?

He went to Alvin Hellerstein and tried to get the case removed to the Southern District of New York. And Hellerstein said, no, that was personal, right? You have to meet several different standards to get a case removed from State Court to Federal Court. You have to have been acting under the color of law, meaning you have to be acting with, you know,

at least pretending to have the authority or acting like you had the authority to do it, you know, within your job. And you also have to, there has to be a federal crime or a federal interest implicated. And you have to also have a federal defense. And in that, and then the Alvin Brad case, none of those, he was a federal law, it also have to be a federal officer. And in the Alvin Brad case, Judge Heller-Dustin said, OK, I'll give you that, you're a federal officer,

but you don't have any of the other things you weren't acting under the color of law. This was personal. He was your personal lawyer. And you didn't have any, there's no federal issues here or defenses. I think in this particular case, it's slightly different. I think here he's a federal officer. And here he was acting under the color of law.

He was acting like he had the authority to do this. It involved federal elections. I think this case might be removed to federal court. If that happens, don't worry. That doesn't kick Fannie Willis off the case. She'll still be the prosecutor, and Georgia law will still be the law that has heard. It'll just be heard in a district court,

federal courtroom in the Northern District of Florida. So I think really, really people would say then why is Trump doing that? And I think it's for several reasons. Number one, delay once again, right? Cause now you're gonna fight over this. And there's going to be motion practice. And then therefore it could, it could delay things because again, that's his number one tactic. He doesn't ever want to go to trial and any of these things. And then the other reason is

it's forum shopping, right? He, he somehow thinks he'll have a better chance at a better job. I'm sorry, at a better judge better judge federally than he will in the state. So I thought that those were just the only things I would add. I agree with you. Yeah, that's really great. He definitely follows the news and he knows about the attempt at removal from state to federal court. I think not to give Donald Trump's lawyers any ideas.

I think that's a very close call and it probably could get sucked across the street to the federal court house, Northern District of Georgia. It may not help him. One of the judges of the Northern District of Georgia is Nina Totenberg's sister, for those to follow NPR, and Judge Totenberg was involved with forcing Lindsey Graham to testify. So there are some democratically appointed judges in by Democratic presidents in the Northern District of Georgia. So that may not help him. He may want to see first which judge in Fulton County ends up being his judge. I'm not sure it's going to be McBernie. I think it's another random

wheel assignment. In fact, McBernie, I think, said, it's not gonna be me, but we'll see, maybe because he handled the grand jury process, he is excluded under their selection process. And then lastly, because it comes up all the time in the chat and I wanted to anticipate it, people might say, yeah, but there's a governor in Georgia that's Republicans, he'll get pardoned. No, good news.

Georgia has a very unique pardoned process. First of all, the governor is not responsible for it. He has no power. They had a lot of corrupt governor's surprise. They had a lot of corrupt governors in Georgia, and they took away the pardon power because they were using it. They were doing like pay to play.

People were paying off governors to get pardoned. And so they didn't like that, and they decided to have a state board. So there's a state board. It's appointed. There's some Democrats on. There's some Republicans on there. But you have to serve the first five years of your sentence before you could even apply

to the state board. So I don't think that's what Donald Trump is trying to find. I don't think he's happy with that. And that would apply even, as Karen said, even just to be clear, even if it went across the street to the Northern District of Georgia federal court, right? The crimes are state crimes. That's just going to be the courtroom for the trial and the judge to handle process.

That's not the place for anything else. In fact, I'm not even sure. I want to look into this next time, Karen, you and me. I want to look at whether federal rules of criminal procedure apply on a removal of a state case I wonder if it does or if they still apply Georgia my god is it their federal rules probably apply But that's an interesting thing you and I can look at for a hot take perhaps but we've reached the end of another addition Historic addition when I signed up for this gig, I didn't think we'd have a former president

with four indictments. Oh, crazy. And a fifth one to come. But then again, I'm not sure we'd have a show going this long. If we didn't have something like Donald Trump. He's like, hey, he's common. Hopefully we see somebody like him never again, or at least every few hundred years.

But we're at the end and people ask, how do we support the cause? How do we support minus touch network? Legal AF, we like the Wednesday show, we like the Saturday show. I always love the competition. Wednesday is better than Saturday. Saturday is better than Wednesday. I love Karen. Popoq talks too much.

Ben's shut up. I mean, everybody's got an opinion. We love them all. I don't care. This is what makes the big blue marble roll along. How do you support us? Everything I'm going to tell you about us. Absolutely. 100% free. I feel like I feel like an info-mercial in the middle of the night. Totally free. Might as touch network, YouTube channel. Subscribe to it. Hit plus subscribe. Free. All of our content is there. Our podcast is there. All the past episodes of our podcast, hot

takes to Karen Friedman, Igniflo, Ben, Myceles and I do almost every day, every hour are there. There's playlists to get dedicated to each of us individually as well. So that's a place to go. But you knew that. You're watching us right now. If we're not, you know, hopefully we'll be top three in YouTube live. We'll go and check it out as we're doing the show. Top one. Once nice. We were one yesterday. You and I have been, I don't know if we ever been one.

We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two.

We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. We've been two. Even if you watch this on YouTube, just go subscribe and listen. It helps the algorithms over on Spotify and Apple, Google, all places that you pull your

podcast from. That's, there's everything I'm talking about. Free, free, free, free, free, free. Go on and review us in all those places that you listen to your podcast. That helps. And give us a five star review and tell us what you think related to that. Then, and this is, I'm so excited. Well, I'm, I'm going to tease it first. We got new merchandise. And Karen was responsible

for it along with Jordy. But before we get there, there's a launch of a new website. When I joined the Midas Touch Guys brothers two or three years ago, they had, I'm going to say it out loud, they had a crappy website. It was okay. Actually the entire network was it, was not a network, it was a website. It was okay. I used to send them like, you know,

Super Mario brothers racing in the middle of the street during COVID on Fifth Avenue. I would send them video and that actually would go up his content. That's how crappy that website was. You know what's not crappy anymore? The new turbocharged muscular website just relaunched from might as touch.

Go on that. You'll find not only all of our podcasts, all of us there, but you'll have daily, hourly, minute by minute content. We talk about it in a tight minute, it gets posted there. You know, we got writers, we got contributors, we got Brett, my Salas, keeping track of everything. It's one stop shopping for everything you want to know about news, politics, law and politics

intersection, minus touch.com. We'll put that up, you guys can click it while you're here. And then finally, drum roll, please. We have redesigned. Look at those. Those are so beautiful. I'm gonna bring a tear to my eye. Legal AF, new merch in Udisex and non-Udisex cut t-shirts.

Those logos were designed by a friend of Karen Freeman Agniphalos, who's designed a lot of logos for, look at these for sports franchises, and that person loves democracy, and did a freebie, and look at these things. You got a choice of four, you got classic, you got crest, you got emblem, you got round, and you can put the mix and match

on all the different t-shirts. We got blue, we got another shade of blue. We got fuchsia and we got the original old school OG legal a f logo there. This is outstanding. You go on, you pick your club, you pick your emblem, you pick your logo, you put it on your shirt, you get your size and there you go. And then I want to see people if they will please post these photos. If you're wearing this new gear on your social media, your ex, your threads, your whatever, your Facebook, let us see you enjoying what we have because we had a crappy set of products before and Karen put her foot down and now look what we have now. Karen, what do you think

about those products? I love it. So Todd Raidem, look him up. He's fascinating. RADOM. He's literally a graphic designer for most major league sports. He not only has redesigned the uniforms for most major league teams. He also does the events of any major league sport. So whether it's like the Super Bowl has a patch

and a logo, you know, he does all of that. And he's just fascinating and brilliant. And as you said, loves our democracy. And he designed these logos for us. And we wanted them to be flexible and nimble. Pick your logo, which one you like, pick your color shirt. Hopefully we have two colors now.

Hopefully we'll have more, you know, if these, if people like these and ask for them, maybe we'll even have other merchandise with these new logos like Mugs, etc. hats. So we're really excited to have these things. Hopefully people will buy them and I love it. I think it's great. So it's pretty easy to say. If you go on www.todratom.ru.com, you'll see the amazing Major League sports teams in every sport that he's been involved with, his team has been involved with, and he redesigned hours. When I say redesigned, we're just to be clear. We're keeping the album cover art,

you know, our original art. That's how you're going to find us wherever you find us on podcast. But for people that want to wear it, we thought these are so beautiful to wear along with the Midas Touch logo. So we've been teasing it for months. Karen's been working on it around the clock. I can't tell you how many text chains I've been involved with about look and feel and color. We need a pink. We need a blue. Why isn't this? What happened to Midas Touch name and the Jordy, I thought was going to blow whatever gasket was in his head, but we did it. And you've seen it. Now go on and might as touch store.com and go go help yourself. This is the end of the show. We've reached that end. I'll see you

Saturday with Ben, my cellus and watch us on all the hot takes that we that we generate Karen. Always pleasure to do it with you. Shout out, legal a-fers and the minus mining.