Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump DESTROYS Entire Defense on LIVE TV & Prosecutors LOVE IT

Episode Date: September 21, 2023

Michael Popok joined by Ben Meiselas filling in for Karen Friedman Agnifilo, are back with a new episode of the Midweek edition of LegalAF. On this episode, they discuss: Developments in the Georgia Criminal Prosecution of Donald Trump and his co-conspirators, including Judge McAfee allowing grand jurors to be interviewed if they want to be by the defense, and disgraced former DOJ official Jeff Clark’s terrible day in Federal court in his efforts to get his case transferred; Rudy Giulani being accused by Cassidy Hutchinson of sexually assaulting her; Hunter Biden hitting back in two recent new lawsuits about his privacy rights as an American citizen; Rupert Murdoch and his family getting sued for Billions of dollars in new Delaware case brought by huge pension funds because they allege they presided over a corrupt business model, and other breaking legal news from around the US. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSOR! EIGHT SLEEP: Go to https://eightsleep.com/legalaf and save $150 on the Pod Cover HUMANN: Thanks to our sponsor HumanN! Get a free 30-day supply of SuperBeets heart chews and 15% off your first order by going to https://getsuperbeets.com and use promo code 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

At Salesforce, we're all about asking more of AI. Questions like, where's the data going? Is it secure? Are you sure? Are you sure you're sure? Get answers you can trust from Salesforce at AskMoreVai.com. Developments in the Georgia election interference criminal casing, it's 19, including Trump.

Show that Judge McAfee is strengthening his hand and indicating he is firmly in control as it becomes much less likely that any part of the case will be dragged away from him and two Judge Jones and federal court. Just this week, Judge McAfee focused on the only two cases likely to go in 2023. The October 2023 trial of members of Team Crazy Ken Chesbro and Sydney Powell. He allowed Chesbro and Powell and their defense team to try to obtain voluntary interviews of grand jurors who will talk to them, but not abuse them to see if they can see if any

were bullied or there was misconduct in the grand jury process. But only under the watchful eye of the judge and DA Fony Willis in court with questions pre-approved by the judge and DA Foni Willis in court with questions pre-approved by the judge and signed off by the DA's team, while denying their efforts to obtain the underlying notes and records of the special purpose grand jury to continue to protect their secrecy and confidentiality. While over at federal court in Atlanta, Jeffrey Clark, disgraced former assistant attorney general for environmental and resource management who decided to oversee the election results for Trump had an embarrassingly

bad day with Judge Jones on his motion to move the case from state to federal court. As Clark's attorney had both both his major pieces of evidence stricken and got the timeline wrong about when his client wrote the now infamous letter on DOJ letterhead to try to convince states like Georgia that the DOJ had evidence of voter fraud that should delay the certification of their results when they did not. Rudy Giuliani has had a summer harry bless of his own making, indicted in Georgia on 13 counts of criminal conspiracy. He's an unindicted, for now,

co-conspirator and Jack Smith's DC election interference case. A default judgment has been issued against him by a federal judge for defamation worth millions brought by election workers Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, his own lawyer and former best friend and colleague Bob Castello is suing him for over a million dollars in attorneys fees. His former assistant and colleague is suing him for sex assault and harassment for $10 million and now the real bombshell. Cassidy Hutchinson, Mark Meadows, former chief aide in the West Wing, and Oval Office,

hero, courageous witness to history, who fired her Trump bot and paid for lawyer, and is cooperating with Fawni Willis and Jack Smith, says in a new memoir, Enough, that Rudy sexually attacked her at the Jan 6th ellipse speech of all places under the leering eye of co-conspirator and co-yuck John Eastman. Enough is an understatement. Fox Corp and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, thought that paying off to minion voting systems with $737 million dollars what end their woes, think again. First of all, Rupert seems to have lost his fastball by believing that the suit would only ultimately cost him 50 million. As is now fired, General Counsel kept telling the board that things were going great in that case when they

weren't and telling Rupert he did a great job in his deposition as he confessed that his Fox News talent kept endorsing fake stories against Dominion. Now a group of large institutional investors have filed suit and Delaware against the board of directors, including Murdoch's, seeking that they or really their insurance companies pay billions of dollars back to the company's coffers for this and any other future defamation cases like the almost three billion dollar smart mad at case still pending in New York. It's called a derivative action for a reason and we will break it down for you. Finally, Hunter Biden gets off the canvas and fights back finally. Filing two suits this week, one against hackers of his cell phone and laptop in California

federal court, and one against the internal revenue service, and by extension, the two agents who testified for the MAGA House committees for breach of the Privacy Act in revealing confidential information about his tax returns and criminal investigation on TV more than 30 times. All this and whatever my guest anchor and co-founder of Legal AF, Ben, my cellist that I can come up with in the allotted time on the midweek edition of Legal AF. Karen Friedman, Ignifalo is on assignment. Ben, welcome to Wednesdays. We have a lot to be here. A lot to cover. Great to be here on the Wednesday edition of Legal AF.

And, you know, as you were going through that opening, specifically the portion involving Rudy Giuliani, who Donald Trump won't pay Giuliani's legal fees directly, but apparently held a fund raiser at Bedminster, which clearly didn't raise enough money for Giuliani to pay his lawyers who just filed that lawsuit for $1.36 million, although perhaps he was able to raise 240,000 because that's what the lawsuit says was paid. You know, I think about this revelation in Cassidy Hutchinson's book, again, Cassidy Hutchinson, a Republican,

Mark Meadows, former top aide. And what she writes about in this book, as the insurrection is taking place as Giuliani talks about having combat during speech in front of the insurrectionist as you have terrorist organizations there who are leading the charge or the tip of the spear people who have been convicted by seditious conspiracy, as all this chaos and our democracy is under assault. Rudy Giuliani is sexually assaulting Mark Meadows, top aid, Cassidy Hutchinson at the time. You know, and this isn't hyperbole when I say this.

I think about the type of conduct and atrocities that are committed by other terrorist organizations like ISIS, like the Taliban, and again, the behavior of these Maghari public in, particularly Maghari public in men in these leadership positions towards everybody, but particularly to women is so heinous, is so despicable, and yet it is normalized within that party. So I want to talk about that. I want to talk about all these other issues, but Popeye, I think we should start by talking about, we both saw that interview on Meet the Press.

My own view of the interview was, I thought Kristen Welker, the interviewer did a horrible job, but in doing a horrible job, she asked one question and because it was such a terribly framed question, Donald Trump's instinct was to also just say the opposite of what the question was. So she actually threw him a softball to allow him the defense of counsel, defense as part of his claim. She teed it up to him to say, so were you relying on others? She should have asked the question, who were you relying on and started with the premise

that he was doing this on his own. But the weakness of her interview actually lends itself where he got confused in the sense of how the question was framed to actually open up and then tell the truth and have this damaging admission. We have this clip. I want to play it. Then let's get your thought on it.

Play the clip. Called some of your outside lawyers, you said they had crazy theories. Why were you listening to them? Were you listening to them because they were telling you what you wanted to hear? You know who I listened to myself. I saw what happened.

I watched that election, and I thought the election was over at 10 o'clock in the evening. Were you calling the shots, though, Mr. President, ultimately? As to whether or not I believed it was rigged or sure, it was my decision. Popo. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of, well, first let me go to Kristen Welker.

She's just taken over and meet the press. She's not ready for that kind of interview. Let's be frank, the only person that could properly dissect, vivisect, and cross-examined Donald Trump is somebody in our profession. I'll be honest, that's just the truth. You have to have legal training and you have to have years of experience like you

and I do and Karen do. In cross-examining, difficult witnesses, and you and I and Karen have techniques that we are tried and true, that we're comfortable with, that we know how to interview. Journalists, frankly, don't do that. And they're not prepared to do that.

And against that, Donald Trump is going to blow, pardon me, is gonna blow through that, like a buzz saw through daisies. And that's what he did with Kristen Wilker. But she did get him, because he can't help himself, to destroy one defense that we thought was Gonna be used them. We you and I were just reporting I don't know a month ago that it looked like he was gonna try to throw the lawyers under the bus and claim that he completely relied on his lawyers

And you know, he had the right to do that and that was some sort of defense However, as we just heard in that particular clip And then I'll talk about one other aspect of that interview. He said no, no, I made my own decisions my own judgment You know, I didn't rely on all the law you the longer clip was I didn't rely on all the lawyers that I hired and vetted and put in positions like attorney general a deputy attorney general, White House counsel, lawyers that he knew from his time in New York that he put into the

White House like Eric Hirschman, who used to work at a firm called Casuitts Benson in New York that used to represent Donald Trump on everything before he fell in love, I'm sorry, before he started working with Alina Habba and the like. And then he went to exactly the premise of her question. He went to the people that told him what he wanted to hear and where the path of least resistance for his craziest thoughts of insurrection and overthrow, which was Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis,

Asidni Powell, Ken Chesparo, Troopus and the like. And so he just destroyed out loud in an interview, any attempt to then use a defense of counsel that I relied on my counsel as defense, because he said, I'm in charge and I made all those decisions. He also said, you know, in interrupting her a couple of times

that we should all go read Molly Hemingway's book, I did a hot tick on this. And he actually took time to be rude and interrupt, um, welcome to say, excuse me, excuse me. Molly Hemingway, there's a book called rigged. First of all, that book came out after the election not before. So he couldn't have relied on it, um, for his analysis. And when you go to the Molly Hemingway's book, she does not conclude that the election was rigged because of fraud. She says that the rules were changed because the Democrats and a lot of the state houses,

because of COVID killing millions of people went to more of a mail-in absentee ballot system to which the Democrats went right to it and early voted. And the Republicans, because they were scared shitless by Donald Trump about cures and vaccines and everything else and early voting had a wait in line. And the reality is that 7 million plus one less voters waited in line for Donald Trump and mailed in and did absentee voting, which are exactly the equivalent. Each vote is equal. I said in my hot

tick, it's not like the NBA, where, you know, if you vote in person, it's worth three votes. And if you vote by absentee or mail and it's worth a vote, they're all the same. That's what's called a system of election process that is secure, which is what we've had. And so that whole thing was another cluster F for Donald Trump. I'm sure a white knuckle moment for his defense lawyers who don't want him going on television. Canada Trump wants to go on television in order to win votes and money.

Criminal defendant Trump and his lawyers, at least his lawyers, probably don't. But let's keep talking about criminal stuff. Let's go to Georgia and do some updates there both in the state court, which every day increasingly looks like is going to be the only forum for these lawsuits. We reported a month ago, we're three weeks ago with all these filings of attempts to drag the case over to federal court. If if Jeff Clark and Mark Meadows had their way who were in the executive branch, the entire case we thought based on their filings, they were going to argue needed

to be brought to federal court, not just their own personal case. And we did some reporting on that. But fortunately, neither Jeff Clark nor Mark Meadows, nor their lawyers, are making any legal arguments that have any merit to them, nor are they handling their hearings properly, and they're going to be on the receiving end of losses. We've already reported on Mark Meadows testifying, because he felt he had to carry his burden, which, of course, he had, to convince the federal judge, in his case, prolonged in federal court, and went terribly for Mark Meadows, most of what he said in open court under oath will be used against him in the criminal cases that are against him. And that was not worth doing, if I were him.

Jeff Clark, the former number five on the totem, Paul, one of 10 assistant attorney generals who got elevated through the ranks in the waning days, the last gasp of the Trump administration because he told Trump what he wanted to hear and wrote that now infamous letter. That's all part of the Jan 6 investigation and all the indictments, which was he was going to send out on letterhead, a letter that said the Department of Justice has graved doubts about the election process in your state and to try to delay the certification process to buy Donald Trump and team crazy more time. And he tried to argue, I was just doing my job as a lawyer in the Department of Justice. And so he goes into court, not does not testify, because he sees it goes terribly for meadows.

So he tries to submit two affidavits, right, which can't be cross-examine. There are just pieces of paper signed under penalties of burgery, one from 91-year-old Ed Mies. Most people thought Ed Mies was no longer here, but he was the attorney general who got, who had a step down and disgrace under the Reagan administration. So a disgraced federalist society Heritage

Foundation board member Ed Mies goes has a has an affidavit ghost written for him telling the the judge Jones how the Department of Justice works. Not necessarily the job of Jeff Clark, but how the Justice Department works. And then they send in another affidavit for Jeff Clark. He doesn't testify. So Ben, why don't you take it from there? What happens to the two pieces of key evidence that his lawyer uses? And then we can talk about where we think Jones is going to end up on this. Well, you shouldn't commit malpractice when you go to a hearing like that, especially one that's going to be covered by all of the media. The failure to present live witnesses for a hearing involving live witnesses

resulted in federal judge Jones striking the affidavits that were submitted on behalf of Jeffrey Clark. Not only that, but the lawyer for Jeffrey Clark had to scramble during the hearing to try to avoid being sanctioned by even requesting the waiver of Jeffrey Clark's appearance, which he didn't file and didn't understand apparently the federal rules of civil procedure like this. And so a point of practice here and a very basic point of practice would be maybe you reach out to if you had any doubts about what the judge was expecting.

The default would always be you have live witness testimony. So for you to just presume as a lawyer that you're going to show up in federal court at an adversarial mini trial type hearing with just affidavits that can't be cross-examine, not the brightest thing to do. But if you had any doubts, I think I'd reach out to the clerk,

just as a practice pointer and say, hey, they expecting live witnesses or maybe you reach out to a posing council, come up with a stipulation. And if there is a stipulation, you bring your witnesses there. But this is the type of litigation tactics, Popoq, we're very used to with Maga.

And I'll say it's different. At least Mark Meadows, lawyer did a good job. Mark Meadows did a horrific job and destroyed it and torpedoed it and it was an uphill battle for Mark Meadows, lawyer there. But Meadows testified horribly, but the lawyer at least framed the issue as a statement.

As a statement. With one exception with one exception I agree with you on meadows with one exception When his lawyer to Williger asked him under oath in a direct question not cross-examination by the prosecutor Were you involved with any aspect of the Organizing or coordinating the fake or alternate electors. He got an answer and the answer was no, not I can't remember maybe I don't know, no. And all funny well as how to do was pull out emails that were reported in the Jan 6th report, exactly the opposite and show that

he purged himself. How do you as a lawyer allow your client to, how do you not know about at least, if you don't know it's buried in the evidence already that's been presented, how do you not know it's in the Gen 6 report under the chapter about Georgia, about your client and that email and the electoral and the fake electors? That's not practice. Well, we could even go a step further and to say putting Mark Meadows on the stand in the first place, even if Mark Meadows says,

I'm taking the stand, you may as a lawyer say, I'm withdraw, if you're taking the stand, I'm withdrawing because you're about to incriminate yourself. But to be fair, I think the lawyer rehearsed that question with Mark Meadows, because the lawyer is known as being diligent. Because Mark Meadows and these Maggar Republicans live in this extrajudicial right-wing echo chamber where they just lie to everybody and whether it's Hannity or Laura Ingram, whoever, they

go, okay, okay, and there's no pushback. Their stories are so all over the place that it's very confusing for them. And I just think that he lost the continuity. He lost the continuity of his own story. He lost the continuity of his own story. He lied and then I'm sure the lawyer was like oh crap That's gonna come back in and harmless. You shouldn't have testified But going to Jeff Clark. Yeah, the affidavits were stricken so that evidence doesn't come in and not only does that none evidence come in you now have

Fulton County District Attorney Follin, Willis and I'll toss it back to you Popeye Yeah, who was so prepared with the perfect witness to provide admissible evidence. Yeah. And one, let me bring Ben back. It's all to you. I know. Let me ask you a question. I like this back and forth.

Sometimes, sometimes you and I do our own sort of monologues. We stitch it together, but sometimes we do this interactive thing, which I like. I think the audience does too sometimes. One of the other screw ups by Harry, not the Harry that we like on the network, Harry McDougald, who represented Clark, is he didn't even know the basic timeline for the now infamous letter. And so the judge did the cross examination of him, not, you know, you're a bad shape when the judge knows your case better than you. And he said, well, the letter that we're talking about

on DOJ letterhead claiming that there was election fraud that your client prepared was that done, and this is the judge examining him. Was that done, was that letter created before or after your client met with Donald Trump? He said, I don't know. He said, isn't it more likely that the letter was done first? And that got the attention of Donald Trump, this lower level attorney general. And that's how it happened. And he didn't even know his own timeline. And so when they were trying to pin the tail on Donald Trump, that Trump ordered him to do the letter, the judge was like, well, I don't even think Trump knew who your guy was until he wrote the letter. I mean, that's just unforced errors.

It was said to watch. I don't you assume, what are you, we'll talk about what's going to happen with Jody. Oh, let me do the Jody hunt thing. I know, I think that's where you're going next. Well, yeah, so if a first off just just just to respond there McDougal then Became essentially the witness because he didn't have any witnesses and there was no admissible evidence So then all the judge had was to basically ask questions of the lawyer and then the lawyer stepped in as the proxy for the client.

Now, the lawyer was still making arguments. It's not admissible evidence per se, but it certainly colors the existing evidence that was introduced by the state, by Fulton County District Attorney Fawney Willis. So when the lawyer got frazzled and confused and didn't know how to respond and essentially started making admissions that were very damaging to Donald Trump, Trump's lawyer Steve Seidau was sitting in the crowd and people said that you heard him just, and I like, learned how, oh shit, this is bad for us. And this isn't good.

This isn't good. And it wasn't. And it also just goes to show you because going into that hearing, I thought Clark was going to not prevail. Although I thought if Clark's lawyers framed it intelligently, at least you could make this argument you and I talked about it, there's this case involving an 11 circuit, FBI, the FBI agent's duty for purposes of removal, where a bribe takes place because FBI agents, as part of their job, sometimes have to pay off informants. So I was thinking to myself, well, if the FBI bribe could somehow be construed as part of a federal authority, maybe Jeff Clark, right again, unlawful memo. One can make the argument that that's like the FBI agent.

But then the lawyer didn't make that argument. And the lawyer didn't understand the law or the facts and really made a horrible record for appeal as well. So we always thought that the person with the best chance of trying to get the case to federal court was Jeff Clark, but as you just pointed out, and the hands of a mumbling, bumbling attorney, no evidence, no testimony by Jeff Clark. And then Fawri Willis, once again, anticipating a counter-punching, brings in Jody Hunt. Now, people might be saying, Jody Hunt, I know who that is.

That is the lawyer, the Cassidy Hutchinson, who we're gonna talk about later in the Rudy Giuliani segment, hired after she fired the Trump appointed lawyer when she was talking to the Jan 6th committee when that Trump appointed lawyer told her to basically lie and not remember certain things that she remembered as Mark Meadows assistant. She hired Jody Hunt.

Jody Hunt had been in the Trump Department of Justice in the job that Jeff Clark got for about 10 minutes towards the end of Donald Trump's tenure, which was the head of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. Jeff Clark moved up like five ranks in like the last three weeks. He was even, according to the Jan 6th Committee, offered the actual acting attorney general role. This was an environmental lawyer that should have been nowhere near the White House, by the way, who Donald Trump fell in love with

because he would do whatever he said he was gonna do. But Jody Hunt said, I had that job just before Jeff Clark, and the job description that they're offering for that job is wrong. As the only departments of the Department of Justice that would have been responsible for an election interference issue is two of them and they're not named the Civil Division. It's the Civil Rights Division, which would have dealt with voting rights and the Criminal Division, which would have dealt with voting rights, and the criminal division, which would

have dealt with election interference and crimes. In other words, not my job, not my job description, not what he should have been doing. And if he was doing things as either they head of the environmental resource management department or even the civil department for 10 seconds. He was all he was rogue outside his scope of his work. I'm telling you that is Jody Hunt. Jody Hunt is is an impressive person. He's the go-to white collar defense lawyer now in Washington. He was Cassidy Hutchinson's lawyer. I'm sure he was it was a powerful moment when he testified and will win the day ultimately.

One last thing before we move on to our next segment, Ben, what you think about how Scott McAfee, the judge, who's going to be the judge overall 19, that's obvious now, how did you think he handled the the grand jury issue and the other motions that the defense is scrambling to make, including motions to dismiss that Donald Trump has joined in in Georgia. I think Judge McAfee is again, look, McAfee is appointed by Republican Governor Brian Ken, let's just start with that premise. But he is a law and order judge. He hasn't made a single ruling that I've disagreed with. You mentioned, for example, Ken Chesbro wants to probe a conspiracy that grand jurors were

being threatened or intimidated and bullied into their position. I think it is appropriate if that is an issue that, you know, fundamentally, well, I think Chesborough engaged in criminal conduct, I think that he has as part of his six amendment rights and his other due process rights, speedy trial, get this information immediately. And I think the judge put the perfect kind of parameters on what that looks like, Fulton County District Attorney Fawni Willis can be present

when that takes place. The questions will not veer out into any ways to intentionally try to create taint. And, you know, I think that issue's been handled perfectly. I think he handled efficiently sending out subpoenas to the potential VW deer pool, the potential jury pool, get that out right away. I think his decision, although as many of us would like that Trump trial to start October

23 as well, I think Judge McAfee made the right call to preserve the due process rights of all of the remaining co-defendants outside of those that invoke their right to a speedy trial, moving those to a later date, but inviting anybody, you want to join the October 23 trial. You are free to join it if you want to. I like that he kind of rejected all of the nonsense regarding the special purpose, grand jury, and kind of getting into those conspiracy theories. I think he's like, that's nothing that we need to

get involved in right now. And the next thing I'm interested in seeing is how he's going to handle the state version of what we've been referring to as Garcia hearings at the federal level that special counsel Jack Smith has sought regarding the conflicts of interest where all of these mega-defendants are like all represented by the same people right. So at the federal level Donald Trump was paying for all these political Donald Trump's political action committee was paying for the lawyers for witnesses and co-defendants and all of that. And then there were witnesses who were going to testify against Donald Trump's political action committee was paying for the lawyers for witnesses and

co-defendants and all of that. And then there were witnesses who were going to testify against co-defendants. So Jack Smith wanted to hold a hearing and that's still pending before Judge Eileen Cannon. There takes her a very long time to rule on things. And we learned today, one of the interesting things like people like Lynn Wood is a cooperating witness, Maga Republican, Lynn Wood from the Georgia area, as a cooperating witness, working with the prosecution and working with Fulton County District Attorney, Fawni Willis. But Fawni Willis requested a state version of a Garcia

hearing pointing out the conflicts of interest because a lot of these witnesses and co-defendants were all paid for by whether it was Trump's political organization or the Republican Party or other groups that creates a lot of conflicts there. This is some, you know, here's the thing, Jack Smith, very surgical in the cases, he brought, because he wanted to avoid all of these issues. Um, but Fulton County District attorney, Fony Willis, while casting a broad brush and being far more aggressive, she's managing this, I can't emphasize enough. It impresses me beyond impressing me. What she's doing right

now, managing this and same thing about Judge McAfee. This is truly a lesson in how a court manages an efficient docket right here. I am thoroughly impressed at all of the moves. Well, one of the things I think is going really well is that Fawni Willis does have, I'm sure, the respect, the professional respect of Scott McAfee, they worked together. They worked in the Fulton County District Attorney's Office. He worked under her, not when she was the DA, but when she was the head of the litigation department within it, he knows that she, there's two people in that room in any given moment who know procedure and have good judgment about

Georgia criminal practice. That's Scott McAfee as we've outlined today, even though he's new on the bench, and it's Fondie Willis, who it's not, is all the other people that you identified, this various groups of people, including Donald Trump's new lawyer. I mean, he went out of his way to fire Drew Little, hashtag billion dollar, whatever. And he hired Steve Drew Felding. Oh, Drew Fielding, sorry. Look at him because Jennifer Little is the co-host. Right. I put him together. Drew Little, Right. His his colleague was a lit name little. And he hired Steve Sada, who at the time Karen Friedman, Agnip Loar, colleague said, you know, he's got a good reputation. That's a good addition to the team. And so far, all he's done is file literally one line motions that say,

hey, everything that Ken Chespro just filed, including all his crazy motions to dismiss that are going to go down in flames in front of Judge McAfee. I adopt, me too, I'll have what he's having. Every time Ken Chesbro has filed five motions to dismiss, including parts of it that actually undermine Donald Trump's case, because the heart of Ken Chesbarrows, Chesbarrows, motion to dismiss the indictment, is that I never told everybody to use the fake electors, I'm sorry, the alternate electors, if there

wasn't a valid court challenge, you're only supposed to break the glass and use them in that emergency. Otherwise, you're never supposed to break the glass and use them in that emergency. Otherwise, you're never supposed to have the contingent electors. And the problem is that there was no valid legal challenge. And that's not how the contingent electors were used in the hands of Donald Trump, Cindy Powell, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and Peter Navarro. It would they were used as phony electors sent in to the National Archive and to Mike Pence and apparently in Georgia to the chief judge of the Northern District of Georgia for whatever reason, because they wanted them to recognize this to true electors.

But that undermines again, and that's going to happen time and time again. As you've said, Ben, and I agree with you that if Fony wins in October into November, if Fony wins into November with Sidney Powell and Ken Chesbro, you'll hear the flipping. It'll settle like the international house of pancakes, all the other co-defendants who are going to flip. If they stay in the case, because they're maggots of core to the core and they want to protect their cult leader, there's going to be inconsistent testimony and evidence among all these people that Donald Trump won't be able to coordinate. And that's the problem. But for Steve Sade out to come in late in the case and just file not even his own standalone motion to dismiss

the indictment, which I guess is coming at some point, but just saying, me too, I like what Ken Chesper. I'll follow Ken Chesper again, just like I followed him into the indictment. And Sidney Powell, y'all adopt hers too. Her motion to dismiss, because it really went well for me when I followed her the last time. I mean, it's just incredible. We'll talk about Rudy Giuliani, Captain, co-captain of team crazy and what's going on in his summer his terrible summer including the new bombshell memoir by a Cassidy Hutchinson called Enough well speaking of enough. We'll talk about Hunter Biden finally having enough and firing back at everybody

To protect his own rights as a US citizen and then we'll talk about Rupert Murdoch and all the things that he's done wrong and why he's now, along with his family, and board member, subject to billion dollar lawsuits that have been brought by institutional investors into those companies, will do that in this edition of Legal AF. But first, a word from our sponsors.

I'm so excited to say that this episode is brought to you by 8th sleep. I can say from experience, 8th sleep is truly a life-changing product. My old mattress was old school and went overheat while my husband and I were in it together, making for a terrible night's sleep. If you're a woman of a certain age, like me, you know there's nothing worse than tossing, turning, overheating or freezing all night, because you have trouble regulating your body temperature.

The pod cover by eight sleep will keep you cool at night, all the way down to 55 degrees Fahrenheit, so you can wake up fully refreshed, or warm up with just the touch of a dial on your mobile device. The pod cover by eight sleep fits on any bed, just like a fitted sheet or a mattress topper. It will improve your sleep by automatically adjusting the temperature on each side of the bed,

based on you or in your partner's Individual preferences and needs it can cool down and warm up and adjust base on the phases of your sleep and the environment you are in I love eight sleep because we spend almost half our lives in bed improving our sleep routine habits and overall sleep quality will make all the difference in your day. I Love the temperature control and both me and my husband can set each of our sides to each of our likings. I also love the gentle vibrating alarm I set each morning to wake up. I wake up feeling refreshed after a great night's sleep allowing me to start

the day off right. Eight sleeps technology is incredible and while the temperature for me is the biggest game changer, the pod cover has other amazing features that my husband loves. For example, thanks to the pod's 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. It also tells you how much sleep you got, whether the quality of your sleep, etc. The pod cover by 8-Sleep truly provides the ultimate sleep experience and I've never experienced sleep like this before. The temperature regulation technology has truly been a lifesaver for me. So if you're a woman of

a certain age like me and you know who you are, invest in the rest you deserve with the 8-Sleep pod. Go to 8-Sleep.com slash legal AF and save $150 on the pod cover. That's the best offer you'll find, but you must visit eightsleep.com slash legal AF for $150 off. So get the eight-sleep pod cover now with shipping within the US, Canada, and the UK and select countries in the European Union and Australia, that's e ightslep.com slash legal a f and save $150. Hard health and staying healthy, especially when you have a family that you want to be able to spend as much time with as possible is so, so important. We all have a heartfelt reason to support our blood pressure. In fact, more than half the US population would benefit from blood pressure support.

Superbeats heart-choose are an easy and convenient way to support healthy blood pressure, and they promote heart-healthy energy. Paired with a healthy lifestyle, the antioxidants and superbeats are clinically shown to be nearly two times more effective at promoting normal blood pressure than a healthy lifestyle alone. And with over 30,000 5 star reviews and counting, superbeats heart chews are having their moment. Superbeats heart chews are incredibly delicious and so much better than any alternative supplements out there.

I take my superbeats heart chews each morning and it really kick starts my morning routine. After taking my superbeats hard-choose, I feel like I have more energy and I'm ready to take on the day. Superbeats hard-choose are effective and clinically studied. They are the number one pharmacist-recommended beet brand for cardiovascular health support. It's blood pressure support you can trust. Double your potential with superbeats hard shoes. Get a free 30 day supply of superbeats hard shoes and 15%

off your first order by going to get superbeats.com and using promo code legal AF. That's get super be E E T S dot com code legal AF. All right, we're back. Thank you to our sponsors without which we wouldn't be on the air. And we legal AF. Right, we're back. Thank you to our sponsors without which we wouldn't be on the air. And we really appreciate their support. Speaking of somebody that shouldn't be on the air, ever, ever again, is Rudy Giuliani.

What a fall from grace for whatever perch he was on when he was America's mayor and the wolf of Wall Street, the sheriff of Wall Street, gets so long ago and he's done so many terrible, terrible, criminal things since then. It's hard to believe we talk about the same, we're talking about the same person. I know people, I'm one degree of separation from people that worked with Rudy in the US Attorney's Office. One of my mentors, when I started my law career, was Rudy Giuliani's right hand long,

well not with Bob Castello, we'll talk about him in a minute, but they were in that same group. He was either the first deputy or the second deputy. And when I asked that person, not, and I won't out them here, when I asked that person about what happened to Rudy Giuliani, all they do, and I've been with several people that had worked with him,

they just looked at it their shoes. They're just like, we don't know who this person is. It's not the person that we work for. It's not the person that we looked up to. Something terrible has happened. You know what, what something terrible has happened to Cassidy Hutchinson? I mean, this is a summer where not one but two women have come out and said that they've been sexually assaulted and abused and harassed by Rudy Giuliani. People might have thought

I was about to say Donald Trump. They're basically interchangeable. And now talk about life imitating art or vice versa. I mean, we thought it was sort of funny in the Borat movie when he went into a bedroom with a hidden camera, thinking he was going to make it with the reporter who was Borat's fake daughter in the movie and put his hand down his pants to get ready on the bed. But now it is completely par for the course. It's what this man does as part of the misogyny of the Republican or Maga Party than that you mentioned earlier. And so you've got, so just this summer,

since you and I went on the air in May, till now, it's summer's not even over yet. This is what's happened to Rudy Giuliani. I'll just do the rundown that I'll turn it over to you He's been indicted 13 times in Georgia For his role in the criminal conspiracy So he's in that case we've talked about today. He is he is not named But he's obviously a unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment in the DC

Election interference case brought by Jack Smith in front of Judge Chutkin. And based on the track record of Jack Smith who likes to do a mended or superseding indictments, we could see Rudy Giuliani who is obviously not cooperating with the government in that indictment as well. Then he, because he screwed around and violated all good faith obligations in federal court in a civil case in which daughter and mother Ruby Friedman and Shea Moss, who were Fulton County election workers, it's all they were just doing their civic duty, mercilessly doxed and attacked by Donald Trump,

Rudy Giuliani, and others hundreds and hundreds of times, including recently, about the fact that they claim that they were shoving fake ballots for Joe Biden into the voting machine, a lie, that they were using a thumb drive with data and sticking it in in order to turn the election against Donald Trump and Ford Joe Biden, a lie, all a lie using doctored video clips, run backwards, showing the opposite that they were, all they were doing is taking discarded votes that they were counting and putting them in a lock box underneath. You run the video in the other direction,

it looks like you're taking the ballots out of the box and putting them into the machine. I mean, that was easily caught by everybody, including the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the investigators for the Secretary of State for Georgia. So we've got that case, he's already lost that case because the judge has said because he screwed around and didn't produce all your documents and foot drag for so long and

put them at a disadvantage, I'm going to find that you don't have any defenses to the liability case at all. You've lost. Now we're just going to go to a jury on how big an amount of damages they are going to force you to pay. So it's just a case on damages. Then you've got the new case brought by one of his former colleagues who says that she was in a perverse sexual relationship with him

that he forced her into and sexual harassment and sexual attacks. And he's she's suing for $10 million. Noel Dumpfe and we thought, God, could it get any worse for this guy? He gets sued by his, I almost said, by his, by his laboratory retriever. I mean, he's got everything by his best friend, the dog leaving him. Bob Castello, who he worked for and with in the, in the, in the US attorney's office for New

York back in the day, who represented everybody. Like he represented Michael Cohen at one point. He went into the grand jury in the Stormy Daniels case against Michael Cohen. This guy is everywhere. He's also had a law firm that I know well in town, as I've been against them. And apparently, among the many lawyers that Rudy Giuliani has in paid, is one of his buddies, Bob Castello. So Bob Castello's firm filed a $1.3 million case because he claims that he hasn't been paid for

attorney's fees to which Giuliani fights back, oh I'm really disappointed that my buddy Bob Castella would sue me but he overbilled me, he overcharged me. Okay great I thought that was it for the week. I was gonna draw a line under the Rudy Giuliani stories and then the memoir gets revealed in the Guardian with an early copy by Cassidy Hutchinson. It's called Enough and in it, speaking of enough, is that she was sexually attacked by Rudy Giuliani while John Eastman watched on Jan 6 before the ellipse speech. Okay, Ben, I can't.

I just can't. That's the list. Well, what are those would you like to talk about? I think overwhelmingly the legal aeifers get the point on Rudy Giuliani. I'll make the broader generalization though about Rudy Giuliani and it's the same with Donald Trump and as you discuss before they could be used essentially interchangeably, which is they don't follow rules and rules and evidence and decorum and all of the things in a courtroom and of course the conduct by Giuliani outside of the court is heinous, despicable, unlawful. But if you want to prove or disprove facts, we have a system for it. We have our judicial system, and it relies on evidence and admissible evidence. So when we spoke earlier in this episode about Jeff Clark's lawyer not showing up with witnesses,

I go back and say this over and over again here on the Midas Touch Network, which is witnesses, evidence, admissibility, facts, that shouldn't be unique to one political party. Unfortunately, that's what it is. You have Democrats in this pro-democracy coalition tending to be more focused on, let's deal with the evidence. Here are the facts, here's what it says. And then, mega-republicans focused on hearsay on top of hearsay and just imputing people's

reputations and just making these slander statements outside of court. And then they whine about it when they step into a court of law and they are laughed out or sanctioned or lose or default. And then they go, oh, the judge is picking on me. Judge Barrow Howell's it's a default. And then they go, oh, the judge is picking on me. Judge Barrow Howell said, it's a default. This is the deep state.

It's just show your evidence. And I go back to an order from, no, close to a year ago at this point from Judge Arthur and Goron on the Trump Civil Fraud valuation case when New York Attorney General, Letitia James, was seeking a preliminary injunction and judge and gore-un said, Donald Trump hasn't put forward a centilla of evidence

to rebut the hundreds of pages and affidavits and evidence that was put forward. Same thing here with Giuliani, same thing with Jeff Clark. And as we talk about more and more of these cases, put forward your evidence so that I can, and if you put forward compelling evidence on legal AF, Popok and I will say the same way we said about Jeff Clark, hey, here's the 11th Circuit precedent. It could have proved to be a bit of a tricky one for the federal judge to decide.

And then Clark put forward no evidence. If you put forward evidence, then I'll say, here's the evidence on one side, here's the evidence on the other side, that's just simply not what we see, Michael Popak. And we see time and time again, not paying bills, not bringing evidence into court, missing every deadline, not showing up, defaulting, and then whining and saying it's a massive conspiracy

against them. Those are the hallmarks of Maga litigation back to you Popeye. Yeah, and then we can we can use that to transition to our next segment on Hunter Biden. It's just this is hypocrisy that goes on I would have thought that since the Maga are so in love with guns and I have a I The MAGA are so in love with guns, and I have a position on personal safety and guns that I've expressed before, but at the end of the day,

I'm in favor of all forms of gun regulation, licensure, investigation, identification, tracking, tracing, and the like, and taking army and defense contractor style weapons off the street. For sure. I would have thought that after the ruling by the US Supreme Court that basically said that if you don't have a regulation that was in place during our founding fathers or during the Wild, the old West.

As a precedent, you can't regulate that gun ownership this way. I assure you in the wild, wild West, and during the founding fathers, they did not have regulations on the books that said that if you had a drug problem, you weren't allowed to own a gun. Which Hunter Biden was now indicted

by the special counsel, and Merrick Arlen had to be grilled for an hour and a half or two hours today about the Hunter Biden investigation, which isn't even being handled by him. It's being handled by the special counsel, which was a Trump appointed U.S. Attorney in Delaware. That didn't stop Maga from trying to make their fundraising points during this ridiculous hearing today when they had the time with the attorney general.

But I would have thought that the NRA and Maga would have come out and said, 100 Biden has right to own a gun. He owned, by the way, he owned that gun for 11 days. He had a gun that he bought for 11 days. His girlfriend or ex-wife, I forget what it was, hit the gun from him because she was afraid that he was going to use it to harm himself. He had 11 day ownership.

You would have thought everybody would jump out of here. He's allowed to have it. There's not a law in the books back in the 1800s so you can't have that. No, it's because it's the president's son and they want to make political hay out of attacking him to get to Joe Biden. It becomes, he's a criminal, he should be prosecuted. That is the hypocrisy that we see over and over again, which fails miserably in courts of law. You can do what you want, as you say, extra judiciously,

outside the courtrooms, but it all fails epically in courtrooms because that's where you and I and Karen, that's where we practice law, and there's where you and I and Karen. That's where we practice law and there's rules and there's evidence and there's judges and there's juries and all of this other stuff actually is BS. That's why when all of these people say what they want to say on the steps of the Capitol or in rallies when they're before their maker, a federal judge sentencing them, they burst into tears because it's caught up with them. So Hunter Biden has finally decided to fight back.

He's got a new lawyer and Abby Lowell and they're doing what they need to do to protect his rights as a US citizen, the same as anybody else. You wanna treat him the same as anybody else? You want to treat them the same as anybody else? Then everybody else has the right to have, for instance, their personal confidential private internal revenue service information, not broadcast on network television and the far right cable news channels over and over again by special investigators for the Internal Revenue Service cooperating with Maga House and their lawyers in order to promote ratings

and to go after Joe Biden. That is not supposed to happen. My personal confidential IRS is not supposed to be broadcast for a political game, nor information about my criminal process or proceedings that's not already public. And so you did a hot take on one of the lawsuits. I did a hot take on the other.

Why don't you do the one that's in California about in your backyard about the hacks into his cell phone and laptop and him going after the people responsible for that. And then I'll do a brief one about going after the IRS and the IRS agents. Yeah, I mean, federal lawsuit, California, what Hunter Biden's saying is, is that there was a concerted effort by a nonprofit organization, as well as a former aide to Peter Navarro, to hack into not a laptop, but a hard drive.

And I think that's an important distinction that's made in the lawsuit that we're not talking about any laptop that's ever been produced. They're talking about different hard drives and the hard drives demonstrate going back to the point about and missibility, chain of custody. One of the things that's alleged is that a lot of these people on the kind of the team that's devoted their lives to attacking,

Hunter Biden, all these people affiliated with Steve Bannon have manipulated and tampered with these hard drives, making it very difficult to determine actually what's authentic data, what's not authentic data. And this whole idea to about a laptop being turned over to a shop never really made much sense at all. And I think what this lawsuit is hinting at is that the efforts to kind of break into Hunter Biden's personal and private

information, manipulated tamper with it and spread it and mixed things that were both true and untrue, but in a way that's very hard to determine was part of this concerted effort and conspiracy that was taking place. And remember, Hunter Biden's new law firm brought lawsuits against the owner of the laptop shot I believe they've taken the deposition of that laptop shop owner and so the facts that they have Through the discovery process on this other litigation They have a significant amount of information. I'll tell you who else has that information, the FBI and the prosecutor, the Trump appointed prosecutor, David Weiss.

And I think that, again, when you need admissible evidence, the data is not supportive of all of the things that these right wing people post on Twitter and social media and over and over again. So I think that's the problem right there, Popok, and let me toss it back to you. Yeah, and I liked the fact that he got a new lawyer and they're not taking it anymore. I mean, just another Ashley Biden, there's a social worker

and first daughter. She had her diary obtained and published. How would anybody out there like to have their deepest, darkest thoughts contained in their diary published by the enemy of your father. I mean, if the Democrats had done one-tenth of what the Republican and Mag are being accused of, I'd leave the party. I mean, seriously, I would leave my own party. And now we have the case that I think is properly brought really in, I think it's in Delaware, by a federal court, by the lawyers that we just talked about, Abby Lowell and others at Winston-N-Strong in favor of Hunter, about the IRS agents that have just decided that they're going to make it their career to have their 15 minutes of fame and sacrifice the right of privacy and violate the privacy

act within the internal revenue code and that supports the internal revenue code against Hunter Biden. Because they think it's interesting to reveal, as quote unquote whistleblowers, that they think that the Hunter Biden investigation got special treatment in a way that others hadn't just because the Department of Justice wanted it handled by the book and carefully doesn't mean that they were getting that he was getting special treatment. I mean there was some questions today insinuating questions that had no real answer. It wasn't done in order to ask a real question of

of Merrick Arlen by any of the MAGA right wing elected officials. It was done in order to plant a handy little snapshot that they could use in media of just the question, which was basically was Hunter Biden and his team tipped off in terms of search warrants or the gun charge. No, I mean, first of all, Merrick Arlen, I don't even know what you're talking about. He said, I'm not, I'm going to say one more time. I am not handling this investigation. It's being handled by the special counsel who is independent from me, pursuant to the statute. So if you want to ask questions, ask questions of Mr. Weiss or wait for his

report. I mean, I mean, I mean, I gave it, I'm, Merrick Garland sometimes comes off a little to drive for my taste, but he was, he was properly combative today during, and well, you and I'll do hot takes about it. And on the Midas Touch Network about the, the interviews being the, uh, testimony today in front of, in front of the house. But I like the suit to shut down, the IRS from continuing these agents, from continuing and their lawyers,

from continuing to talk about Hunter Biden, his personal tax information, information that they learned about the criminal investigation, that should not be splashed all over the front pages of papers. And it shouldn't be for any other American. That's the lead, that was the first line in the complaint filed by Abby for Hunter. The first line was Hunter Biden is the son of the President of the United States, but he doesn't have any less rights or more rights than any other citizen.

What country do we live in where the enemy can use the internal revenue service and the executive branch and all the agencies, oh, hold on, stays in the pod. I mean, I'm in the UN neighborhood. There's a lot of stuff going on this week with the UN being at the general assembly, being in session. But what world do we live in,

where you can use these agencies against your enemies? I don't want to live in that world. That was Hoover, the head of the FBI in Nixon and all the rest of the presidents. We're not supposed to have that anymore. Get off 100 Biden's back. If you got something to say about Joe Biden and you got evidence against him, bring it, but otherwise, I was going to say about Joe Biden, and you got evidence against him, bring it, but otherwise, you know, I was gonna say shut the F up, but that's my end of the piece on Hunter Biden.

Unless you have anything else, we'll turn to Fox News and Rupert. No, let's turn to Fox News. All right, so we got off-frame it, and then I'll kick it over to you. So Rupert Murdoch is doing a terrible job, managing the affairs, the financial affairs of the companies that he's owned and controlled with his family forever.

He underestimated the reliability exposure related to the dominion voting systems case, thinking that he could get rid of it for $50 million when he ended up having to pay almost $760 million. That's a big miss in corporate America because he didn't understand the just the sheer volume of evidence text messages and emails by people on his network like Maria Barneromo and Lou Dobbs and Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity and and the rest and when all that came out through the summary judgment papers with a judge, Eric Davis and Delaware, who had already signaled in prior motion practice that he had graved doubts about their defense and

thought that there was a very strong case for dominion, despite all that, despite Rupert Murdoch giving a terrible deposition in which he confessed that the network was out of control and that all of those on air people that I just named were endorsing false narratives by Donald Trump and his serratites that there was voter fraud. That even the general counsel for the company who's now been fired, I'm sorry, he's been separated from the company and given a $25 million pay package on the way out, even his deposition went terribly because there's a text or email in which he in observing Sean Hannity on election night say, well, I don't

think we'll ever get to the bottom of a fair report of the election results to which he said to people around him, I think Sean Hannity just crossed the line. All of that, if if Rupert Murdock thought by stroking a check for $758 million, he was going to make all his troubles go away and start firing people like Tucker Carlson. Wrong. Now we have the largest pension funds in America, New York, in another state, bringing a case in Delaware, because it's

a Delaware corporation, but we call a derivative action because they're not seeking money back to their own pockets. That's a direct case. A derivative case is you're suing on behalf of the company, and the company's name, to get money returned to the company's coffers. Meaning they want every dollar that the mismanagement bad stewardship reach a fiduciary duty by Rupert Murdoch and the Board of Directors that led to the payment of you know $800 million to dominion whatever is going to be paid to

smartmatic the tens of millions of dollars of legal fees the operating the company in a way under a business model that exposes them to these kind of defamation cases. They want all that back and they want it back from the board of directors, the officers and directors, and the Rupert Murdoch and the family, the Murdoch family. Now, generally, because I've done these cases, and so have you been, that means you're going to get it from the insurance companies because a company like Fox has probably over a billion dollars of an insurance stack by insurers and re-insurers to protect them from this. There's a certain amount that a company insures for itself, right? And so they have money, hopefully, set aside to pay for it and to contribute.

It could be a couple of hundred million dollars. The rest is insurance. And these plaintiffs law firms representing New York State pension fund and all of that and the other states like Colorado are suing in Delaware to get all that money back for everybody for all of the shareholders. Then what do you think about this and where it leads in terms of the fall and demise of Fox and the Rupert Murdoch Empire.

Well, you have some of the biggest and best law firms on the plaintiff side, handling all of these various lawsuits. So the first step is going to be the leadership fight over step is going to be the leadership fight over which group of plaintiffs lawyers will take the lead. Regardless, you are going to have the dream team of lawyers doing this case. As you pointed out, this is in a securities fraud case. It is a derivative case. So how leadership is picked is slightly different than in the securities context where it is the fund that has the biggest loss usually is the leader,

which is usually the big pension funds, whether it's Oregon or New York or wherever, but you have the top pension funds here, which are all shareholders of Fox. And by the way, who do these pension funds represent? Who are the constituents of these pension funds? Well, the firefighters, police, teachers, other types of workers who have their 401Ks tied to funds

that invest in places like Fox. Their expectation as shareholders is that when the company is presented with obvious breaches of their fiduciary obligations, they don't entrench themselves in those fiduciary breaches. Now, here's where the threat is even more than just the dollars and cents.

Because as you pointed out, Popok, Rupert Murdoch thought the case was going to be valued somewhere at $50,200,000,000. And ultimately settled for $787.5 million. The evidence was so devastating against Murdoch that he was terrified to have to testify in Delaware and potentially in a public setting. Obviously, the court would be open to the public, but they didn't want all these other documents to get out. What we said when that case settled, just wait what's going to happen with smartmatic.

Smartmatic believes, and they know that Murdoch is not going to take the stand and toe. They know that the Fox executives do are terrified of having to admit under oath in a public setting like that. Now, in addition to smartmatic, think about all these other existential threats that are now being posed by these derivative lawsuits and also not just the liability, which is significant, and it will grow if there's a smartmatic settlement to the tune of billions of dollars, which may happen, right? But now the lawyers, these brilliant derivative shareholder lawyers, they now know Murdoch's

terrified of depositions in trial. And Locklin's terrified of more depositions in trial. So that also poses this existential threat as well that you just got to play chicken with Murdoch and you're going to win. The discovery was horrifying. Horrifying. And if you ever wanted to know what the Fox execs think about their viewers, they call their viewers idiots. They know they're lying to the people. They called Trump an idiot. They know they're doing this and selling out our democracy just for the money. So this existential threat will continue. We believe in the next 30 to 60 days, they'll be briefing and a hearing on leadership, which group, which pension fund is

going to be the head of this litigation. Then you'll get into more discovery. There's already been preliminary discovery because under Delaware law shareholders were able to conduct preliminary discovery. So they've got a lot of new data in addition to what's previously been turned over. Yeah, well, they do, they do a 220 demand, which is a pre a pre-suit books and records inspection. Exactly. And so now you'll have the leadership, a fight take place. And then I think you're going to have a costly multi year litigation. And what we need to look for though is with Rupert taking a more of a step back with Locklin and other family members taking a step forward. And with this reputation and

legacy of disgrace, will this cause Locklinlin' and others to alter their course? That's what I'm looking for as well. I agree with you. I think that they have the smart mad ex lawyers who are the software part of the hardware defamation have said after the settlement with Dominion that that's a floor. They're not going to settle for less

than $757 million for their $2.7 billion case. There's other defamation case. They settled one with the one that Sydney Powell, the poor Venezuelan businessman, who Sydney Powell said was part of a conspiracy to install software developed for Hugo Chavez to flip votes from Trump to Biden, that poor guy already settled an undisclosed amount with Fox. And these are all the amounts. Every time you hear for our listeners and audience, every time you hear a settlement

and litigation dollars wasted effectively by Fox, by Fox, that is a dollar amount that these lawyers and these pension funds, including, like you said, in New York, it's the teachers pension funds. I mean, talk about, you know, the assault of the earth unions that are being compromised here. It's the office of the controller of the city of New York. That's actually the one that's actually the party representing because all the pension funds sit under that particular position. But all of those dollar amounts, every time you hear

a dollar amount plus the attorney's fees related, that's what's being gone after. Yes, the attorneys are going to get their own separate fund of money. Could be 20 or 30 percent almost, or whatever the number of the judge finally approves, separate in, but all the rest, let's say a billion dollars, is going back to the Treasury of Fox to help support the the the the shareholder price and all of that and put money back so they can use it for proper corporate purposes. I think this this is my prediction because this is this is the M.O. for for Rupert Murdoch when he was in his 50s, let alone now at 91. When he got into trouble in London over a hacking scandal involving the royal family, celebrities, military veterans in which their confidential and private information from

their cell phones ended up in the mirror, one of the papers that he owned, he sold that paper because as part of the cleanup and close up of that scandal, it may be time for the Murdoch family, and this is the premise of Michael Wolfe's new book, it may be time for the Murdoch family to cash in their chips and get out of the news business in America at least and sell the company. And there's plenty of buyers for that, whether it's streaming services, cable companies,

traditional, non-traditional media companies that would chop at the bit to pick up the assets of Fox News and give the Murdoch family a big bag of money. And they just can't because they don't, one of the things that came out of the Dominion case and these cases will even make it even more obvious is this lack of management control by the stewards of the company over Fox news and its faux newscasters celebrities, whatever they are, they've lost control of their own content and they can't protect people from being defamed because of it. And unless they want to throw and just get which they haven't done, they fired the

mouthpieces, but they haven't fired the editorial people, the president of the network, and people that would be responsible for this ridiculous and defamatory business model. Unless they do that, they're not going to make any changes there. The next owner may make some changes because they don't want to be subjected in the cleanup. But I think this leads to the selling of major assets by the Murdoch family to cash out, especially while the old man is still alive. Well, you know, they phased out their entertainment properties on the sale to Disney and the

Eiger deal. And, you know, that hasn't really in a significant stock transaction, which hasn't really worked out all that good for the Murdoch, depending on how long they had a hold on to that stock for, because that price has gone down significantly of late. But they already had that estate planning in place. But look, at the end of the day, I just want unapologetically pro-democracy media. So what I want to really do do with this might as touch network with legal AF with all of the

programs here, is it's so important that we build something both short-term and generationally that's going to be a game changer. If you think about it, the poisonous seed that unfortunately bloomed into what became Fox News started with a Roger Al's memo during the Nixon era about having a GOP propaganda network and Al's continued that over many, many decades to execute that plan. I want to do the opposite here at the Midas Touch Network and which shows like this evidence-based, truth-based. I recognize it's important

that we do things right now, but I also have a long-term perspective in building this network and platform to be a generational difference maker for truth, objective facts and evidence. And so for all of those who wanna support the growth of this network, we don't have outside investors. So if you wanna to help out,

just go to patreon.com slash minus touch. P-A-T-R-E-O-N dot com slash minus touch M-E-I-D-A-S T-O-U-C-H. We have a lot of behind the scenes stuff there. The origin story of Michael Popock is posted there. The origin story of Karen Friedman, Agnifalo, my origin story, how we all met each other, all of that's posted there and so much more incredible content. Again, the address is patreon.com slash might as touch and it's just kind of a fun way The community could come together and try to Figure out ways we can build this like with MidasTouch.com. That's my one plug in Popeyes.

Yeah, that's a great plug. And the other ways you can support the network and this show are all free. You can free subscribe to the MidasTouch YouTube channel. They're so close to 2 million. Help them get to 2 million. It helps us in order to have that level of audience and support to continue to do what Ben has just outlined. Listen to this podcast. It's now, if you're watching us tonight great, but go over,

and a few hours will drop the audio version, and it'll be there forevermore for you to listen to. It helps. It's also a free listen. Follow, subscribe, wherever you get your audio podcast, and kind of go back and forth between the two. That helps us, frankly, as well. We've got a, um, might as touch store, might as touch store.com, where you can get, uh, and buy, uh, things about this show, including some newly revised logos and some new shirt designs that we have up there. You can mix and match colors and logos for legal AF. That's one way to show your support. A lot of our audience likes to post pictures and social media of them wearing it or commenting that when they're wearing it something good happens and we like to hear about that

as well. And then look at the end of the day, just being with us in the chat, being with us in the hot takes, the Karen, our co-anchor, Ben and me do, where we do little kind of podlets of information on an hourly basis at the intersection of law and politics, because we occupy a really valuable piece of real estate that Ben's just outlined at the intersection of US law and politics in a way that I don't think anyone else is doing. We have other colleagues that do something in the same vein, but not the way that we're doing it and not as regularly and religiously as we're doing it. And it's not that we're never wrong. It's that, but we bring you the facts without

blowing smoke or sunshine on a regular basis to let you make the call using our over 75 years of legal experience, it's hard to believe, between the three of us to talk about these issues. We've reached the end of another midweek edition of legal AF exclusively on the Midas Touch Network. My honor to have my co-founder and weekend anchor filling in for Karen, Ben, my cellist, Ben, great to see you and I'll see you on Saturday. Shout out to Legal, yeah, good, you do it, you do it. Shout out to Legal, I have shout out to the Midas Mighty.