Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump faces TOTAL DEFEAT with CRUSHING Legal Blows

Episode Date: July 13, 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. Trump’s efforts to delay the Mar a Lago criminal trial until after the Presidential Election; 2. Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice deciding that Trump is NOT entitled to presidential immunity after all for any statements he made against E Jean Carroll to defame her while president, as E Jean Carroll’s fire back with a scathing motion to dismiss Trump’s retaliatory defamation case against her for statements she made about the trial verdict; 3. Fani Willis and the Fulton County DA finally seating the regular grand jury which will start its secret proceedings on Tuesday to consider the criminal case against Donald Trump and many others for election interference in Georgia and other states, with an indictment likely by the end of August/early September, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! Lomi: Visit https://Lomi.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF and checkout to save $50! Rocket Money: Cancel unwanted subscriptions – and manage your expenses the easy way – by going to https://RocketMoney.com/legalaf Miracle Made: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGLAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Green Chef: Head to https://GreenChef.com/LegalAF50 and use code LegalAF50 to get 50% off and Free Shipping! Start Mail: Go to https://Startmail.com/LegalAF and join tens of thousands of people who trust Start Mail for their email security needs! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Judge Eileen Cannon supervising Trump's current federal indictment regarding Mar-a-Lago and all things espionage drew a line in the sand and said, Trial in August, like Christmas in July, but better. The Department of Justice said, we like where your heads at, Judge, but December is more reasonable, given the six terabytes of data and classified documents at the core of the case. And now the skipper and little buddy you're heard from Trump at Walt Nauda

with a filing this week in which they asked for an indefinite trial setting not until after they file motions to dismiss the indictment and teach the judge the law according to Trump regarding presidential records act and the crimes charged. And certainly after the primary and presidential election season, so let's call it 2025. The court will make a decision on the 18th of July and we discuss what we think will happen next. Hint, we may have a disagreement between the anchors on the show. 7-11 is usually a lucky date, but not for Trump in the E. Jean-Carol defamation case, based on statements he made while president and at the CNN town hall in May, just yesterday two major events, the Department of Justice after

three years and two administrations, has told the parties and the court they're out and will no longer seek to protect Trump with presidential immunity for the defamatory statements he made while president against E. Jean Carroll. And they're exiting the case. And on the same day, E. Jean Carroll's lawyers filed a scathing motion to dismiss his defamation case against her as the victim of sex abuse because he wasn't a sex abuser. He was a sex abuser, not a rapist. That's his defense.

So and based on statements that she made on CNN. Well the judge dismissed Trump's retaliatory suit against E. Jean Carroll this summer? And what does it mean for the trial? Now the Trump can be sued and has no immunity for his comments that he made while he just happened to be president of the United States at the time.

Finally, Georgia peaches aren't the only thing in season. Georgia indictments by the Fulton County DA in Atlanta are in season. Georgia indictments by the Fulton County DA in Atlanta are in season two. Fawni Willis just sat her grand jury of 26 Fultonians to start their work on Tuesday with a target window of August 11th through September 1st to get an indictment against Trump. How many make up a quorum in a grand jury and how many are needed to vote to indict? Why are there two grand juries in place? Why do we see pictures of the grand jury now? And what about the special purpose grand jury report

and indictment recommendations from March? All this and oh, so much more on the midweek edition of legal AF only on the Midas Touch Network with your anchors Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifalo sizzling indictment summer, maybe the reason that the Earth's global collective temperatures that are record this week, Karen, thoughts.

It's, you know, I'm feeling very patriotic because, you know, I feel kind of wrapped in the flag right now. You know, I was walking, I wanted to go for a walk before this podcast and get my head cleared and kind of just get myself ready. And as I was going for a walk, a neighbor of mine got sick and we had to call 911 and an ambulance came and just watching publics like heroes, truly absolute heroes. They come, they come in an emergency, these are people who devote their life to helping people, they come and they help you and they're nice

and they're just, it just makes me feel very kind of warm and fuzzy inside. And I really, whether it's police or fire or, you know, EMS or to me, those are the people who are the heroes of our country and who need to be celebrated. Just the exact opposite of the people we're about to talk about, Donald Trump, and all of his mega, America hating, you know, they want to just steal our democracy. But it just, it made me feel so good about people and about just the heroes. Yeah, it's, it's, it's, people think this is weird, even though you and I are in the same city.

We had a very similar event happen, unfortunately, a couple of weeks ago in front of my office in Murray Hill in New York where we sport a giant American flag that proudly waves. My office administrator had a help in an emergency basis, a man who had seized, had a seizure, in the middle of the street on 38th Street, and he lost teeth in hitting his head on the ground. And she sat with him. He didn't know where he was. He was out cold for most of it. And we waited for EMS in the fire department,

the police department to come. And a lot of it and a lot of Manhattan people and tourists and others came to his rescue and sat with her as well. And that was an amazing heartwarming thing. Although there was one moment that was like out of a filini film, a woman in full clown makeup got out of a car to come over to assist, which gave it a whole nother's only in the long moment. Yeah, but you know, that's Manhattan.

That's what New York is. That's what I'm talking about. That's what New York is. Right. You can be anything here. You can love who you want. That's right. You can marry who you want.

And we all live together and get along. It doesn't matter what color your skin is or anything else. We all come together and that's why I love New York. You know, New York's not perfect. I'm not from New York originally. And sometimes, you know, it can be challenging. But the reason I'm here and I've stayed here and work here and raised my kids here and hear my whole adult life is because of the people.

It's because the people who are here are diverse. They're interesting and they all come together and live together and accept each other, and it's what's beautiful about New York. Yeah, we're just so weird that we're gonna be talking throughout today's podcast about people like Rudy Giuliani, who used to be the mayor of this great metropolis,

and boy, have the, have the, have his, he fallen, and we'll talk about all that when we get to Georgia. And Donald Trump used to be, it was from here too, I can't believe, you know. Yeah. He's from, and he was hatched, he wasn't really from, from anywhere, he's from a spaceship, but, but let's talk about Donald Trump and Walt now to the skipper and little buddy for those that are Gilligan's Island fans. And the Mar-aa Lago proceedings that are going on and where are we with it. So I'll kind of give the highlights, the 5,000 foot level and then we'll dive in with our

resident former prosecutor Karen Friedman-Ignifala. So the court had said a long time ago, at least at the end of June, a hearing that was going to be on July the 14th for both Nauta and Trump and their lawyers talk about a few things. One, a proposed trial date, the judge having, as I said in the opening, the judge having drawn the line in the sand and said, all right, speedy trial act and constitutional rights with fast trial. How about August? We'll do August. And then the, I think that even caught the Department of Justice a little bit by surprise. And they said, well, we're ready. But the

defense isn't going to be ready by August because we're about to dump on them about seven terabytes of data just to put a little fine point on that in a recent government filing where they gave the sheer, oh, no, it was actually in the filing by Donald Trump. I'm going to correct myself here. They listed what the government is giving them. It's 430,000 records comprised of 833,000 pages of documents. 305,000 additional documents, documents coming from 90 custodians of record, 90 different sources. 57 raw hours of closed-circuit TV footage. And up to fifth, I said six, it's 57 terabytes of information, which for those that don't, you know, no, that's a lot.

That's like multiple servers worth of just data that's coming to them. So based on that, the government said, you know what, let's do December. December a very cany choice because as you and I were talking to our producer, Salty tonight, the first primary for the Republicans is January. So this would be before the primaries.

Let's get this trial going. And let's not even worry about the March 2024, several months later, trial up in New York, related to Donald Trump. Let's not worry about the October civil fraud case up in New York. Well, through December, that seems to be a lane that we can occupy.

And the, as expected, I think Ben, my cellist, our co-anchor and colleague put it best, they were gonna ask for 2025. And they basically have. They said, Judge, there's so many complicated issues here. We're gonna have to teach you. Remember the way we taught you last time, related to when we asked you to stop

the criminal investigation and its tracks, and you got slapped by the 11th Circuit, your bosses on the Appellate Court twice. Remember that? Remember when we misled you about the law? Well, we're going to do it again. This is my words, not theirs. And we're going to teach you about the Presidential Records Act, which by the way, is not applicable. And the S.B. and Osh act and all the crimes and how they fit together, PS, they don't fit

together. And so we're gonna confuse you, and we're gonna play that game, and maybe we'll file a motion to dismiss, so it's really premature, and this is a candidate for office, and Joe Biden runs the DOJ, and so let's call the whole thing off.

And I mean, I'm giving you a summary, but that's basically what's in the papers. And of course, we're waiting on the department of justice, usually their lickety split, we get a filing from them with like within hours. They already have it like ready to go in the computer pre-pre-pre-pre-prepared. Okay, they file, okay, file, let's file ours.

So that's gonna come in the next day or two and Betonail covered that on Saturday. And then you have the judge agreeing to push the hearing off until the 18th, where she's going to do two things. She's going to discuss this trial setting process, and whether she does or she doesn't set it. And then she needs to have a required classified information procedures act hearing, a CIPA,

CIPA, A hearing. To talk about everybody getting their security clearances in place and how they're going to use documents and share documents, who's going to have access to those kind of classified documents, what are they going to do at trial? So that everybody's better informed about how to put on this trial and do depositions or any kind of statements under oath between now and the time of trial before the trial setting. That's why you usually have a trial setting so you work backwards from there.

But Karen, prosecutor, you've got a different view about all this. Tell our audience. So let's just talk about in general how cases work when you're in court. Now, we've seen the arrangements, right, where you are told what your charges are and whatever the bail is that is, both will or will not be set or release conditions. And then there's also at the end a trial, okay, but there's a lot that goes on in between. And those are adjournments or court appearances. And in criminal cases, that is usually

ones that require the defendant to be present, unlike civil cases, which you don't necessarily need to have. And so there are these adjournments, and they can be for all sorts of reasons. They can be for to just update the judge. They can be to ask something of the judge. They can be to have hearings. They can be for all sorts of reasons.

And there are different ways that that can work in a case. So civil, for example, this is criminal, but in civil cases, normally the way they do it is they set a trial date and then they work backwards and have all the dates in between of when things are due. You know, this motion is due and this piece of paper is due or the depositions have to be done or discovery has to be done. And if you want to change those dates, it's all kind of preset. There's like this, you know, calculator that sets the dates.

If you want to change them, you ask permission for the court. In State Court in New York, the way it works is after the agreement. They just adjourn it to the next date for the next thing without any thought about trial or what's going to be in the future. There's no sort of mapping out the whole case of, OK, the trial will be on this date and like, work backwards, like, do motions here and hearings here and et cetera.

So in state court, like I said, after a raiment, they will adjourn it for the next procedural thing that has to happen. And there's different things that milestones that you have to reach to get to the next step. But you don't know when the trial is going to be because you have no idea how long those procedural things are going to take. And in federal court, criminal, however, it's a different tradition. The tradition, criminally, in federal court, because that's really what this is. It's kind of the custom or the tradition of how courts typically do things, is they typically do set a trial date and it can be moved, but at least it's a goal. And it's a goal towards what you think, when you think it's going to be.

Now in state court also, trial dates rarely mean anything, right? You set it for trial. A case can be on for trial, three, four, five, six times. You'm not ready because my witness didn't show up or the defense attorney says, I'm on trial. Federal court's not like that. A trial date is a trial date is a trial date. So you are going to be ready both sides on that date unless you have explicit permission from the court, but it's much more serious and it's much more fixed in stone. And so here, what's going on is, as you put it,

Jack Smith is saying it's realistic that this will be ready in December, and the defense team, all of the defendants lawyers, so both Wal-Nada and Donald Trump's lawyers all said, there's no way we can be ready by December and they list all the reasons why. We don't even have our security clearances yet. We haven't even, but PS, they haven't even filled out the paperwork yet. And there's a little game going on here, I think, where Walt Nata is doing Trump's bidding by asking you know asking for these little adjournments like you know oh I can't I don't have a lawyer I can't be a reigned okay put it over well I couldn't make it to the arrangement because my

fight was canceled and so put it over again you know well I have a lawyer but you know she just got here so she can't possibly be ready by July 14th. And so then they all agreed, okay, how about July 18th is when this hearing is gonna be. And some people might say, oh, it's only four days. What difference does it make? But those small adjournments add up, and it's sort of death by a thousand cuts

that I think they're trying to do, because the more they can push it towards the election, even if it's four days here, two weeks there, three weeks there, these little tiny, we're not asking for that much, we'll just put it over, you're eventually gonna get into dangerous territory and that's exactly what they're trying to do. And I think what's going to happen here

is they're giving all these excuses, right? About why they can't possibly be ready. There's so many legal questions that are significant in a first impression, you know, the, as you said, the present, you know, the Presidential Records Act and criminal statutes have never been addressed by any court or, you know, we're going to question the authority of the special counsel. You know, this, this kind of thing. And so the question is, what is, you know, and we'll go into that in more detail about,

because I think it's worth going into these in more detail, but I just wanna answer your specific question of what I think that Eileen Cannon's gonna do, and I think she's gonna punt. I don't think she wants to get criticized by making the decision, sure, I'll put this over, you know, until, you know, whenever, because we're gonna get too close to the decision, sure, I'll put this over, until whenever, because we're gonna get too close to the election, but I think she'll say, look,

you guys haven't even, this 57 terabytes worth of data of discovery that's been turned over by your own admission government, you haven't even turned everything over yet, and we haven't gotten the security clearances yet. And we don't even know what we're going to do with these classified documents yet. So I'm not going to make a decision yet.

And I'm going to put, I'm going to punt it. And we'll see how we do. And she's going to just keep little by little. And they're going to try to, they're death by 1,000 cuts. They're going to push it, push it, push it. And then eventually, they're going to, he's going by a thousand cuts, they're gonna push it, push it, push it, and then eventually they're gonna, he's gonna say, well, you know, he's the nominee and he can't possibly, you know, he has to be,

at this primary area, he has to be given the speech, his first amendment rights, you know, you're gonna infringe on them by not allowing him to, by interfering with his rights to run for office, et cetera. So I think she's gonna punt, that's what I think. Popuck? Mm-hmm, back to you, Popuck. for office, etc. So I think she's going to punt. That's that's what I think. Back to you, public. Well, a couple of things. One, we went through a process like this under the state court proceeding procedures that you outlined earlier with Judge Mershan who's handling

a criminal case of almost as many counts, 34 counts. or as one of the cheeky pro-democracy websites like to say with a list of former presidents, with zero's next to their name for the amount of felonies they've been charged with and then ending with Trump 71. Um, Mershon, you know, he put it in March, he said, you, you want it in the middle of a election season in primary season? You're, okay, I'm not going to do it before, I'm not going to do it after, but we know She said, you want it in the middle of a election season in primary season? Okay. I'm not going to do it before I'm not going to do it after. But we know this siley and cannon to your point, you know, has bent over backwards

and thinks that she has some sort of person with special properties in front of her because he was the former president and now is the likely nominee for his party. I choke every time I come out with that. Once again, to my friends and I have Republican friends, this is the best you can do. The twice impeached, multiple indicted, a judged sex accuser of this is your candidate. Okay. Putting that aside for a moment, we know where her head was at and how easily distracted and she took her eye off the ball of the law when they ran into court, a different set of lawyers for

Trump at the time, ran into court to try to stop the criminal investigation and the search warrant in its tracks. And she made some comments in her rulings. Pardon me, everybody, in which she said, oh, he's special. This is my words. He's special. He's former president. We have to treat former president differently with kick gloves. He gets, I have to bend over backwards as federal judge. I don't know why I'm talking like Tarzan, but this is sort of the rudimentary observations this judge made all wrong, by the way. And then she was reprimanded and reproached by the 11th Circuit, her bosses in two separate

panels that said, I don't know what you're talking about, but your role in a criminal investigation is very limited. And you've crossed those lines and those boundaries and you're doing weird things. Stop it. And the search warrant goes forward. And if there's an indictment issue, and a suppression of the evidence issue, you'll deal with that at another time

if and when there's ever an indictment. Well, now there's an indictment, but we kinda know that our compass is already a little bit screwy, a little bit cracked. And they're exploiting that, these two new lawyers for Donald Trump, Chris Keiss and Todd Blanch, knowing that they misled her or the other lawyers led her astray last time. She's easily misled. We're going to try it again. Judge, presidential records act, really complicated stuff, judge. It intersects. It doesn't, by the way, with the S.B. and Aj act,

it only does in Trump's mind because he keeps saying it does. It doesn't. by the way, with the espionage act, it only does in Trump's mind because he keeps saying it does. It doesn't. He's not being charged with criminal violations of the Presidential Records Act. He's being charged with with compromising national defense information NDI and using it in places like Bedminster, his golf course to show off to friends and family to make his point showing Iranian war maps. That ain't a presidential record, but they're gonna try to confuse her shiny object judge look over here and It's so complicated judge We can't even really get to our motion to dismiss the indictment and and

Dispositive motions to get rid of it under presidential records act application for months First of all, why? This is July. He doesn't start his campaign in earnest until the primaries in January. He's already told people he's not going to the Fox News debate because he hates Fox News right now. He thought a favorite with them. He picks and chooses which of these crazy events he goes to, you know, mom's Christian moms and moms for Liberty and mothers for justice and all these made up grassroots

grassroots places where he basically has to pay people to attend and and yell his name. And so, you know, as other judges in the federal system have noted, you know, we just had a ruling by Judge Amy Coney by, well, you can see I got the three judges, three names wrong, by Amy Berman Jackson. Sorry, everybody. A democratically appointed judge in the DC circuit, who said in the case, involving Peter Strock, the FBI agent who got canned for expressing his first amendment rights that Trump is corrupt while he was working on the FBI investigation of the Russia collusion project from Mueller in his civil suit against the government and everybody else for getting canned.

He wants to depose Donald Trump. The Donald Trump, you know, and even the Department of Justice said, well, maybe not the former president at this moment. Amy Burmichaxon said, well, I've looked at your trial calendar. You're giving depositions up in civil cases up in New York and you're sitting for them in the class action fraud case that's been brought against you and your family and a civil fraud case and a defamation case. You look like you have time to sit for a deposition here. So not every federal judge treats him with this, this, you know, this effect, this, this

halo effect, um, the way that, the way that Canon used to. I'm the jury's out a little bit about what she's going to do on the 18th, but having listened to you, I told you, I wasn't quite sure what I was going to say on the podcast. I think you're right. I think she's not going to set a date far out. She's going to punt. She's going to say, let's let me set a status conference. Let me everybody check your calendars. Let's set a control date of let's all get to back together in November or December.

And let's see where we are with the, with the, the classified documents and the security clearances and the exchange, you know, the documents that you've given over to the defense and the motion practice. Well, we'll set some motion practice dates and deadlines and then we'll all decide in December or January or whoever about the trial date. Now, for those in our chat that are jumping up and down with, she's corrupt, she's going to make the terrible decision. We need to take an appeal. It's going to be very difficult. And the DOJ knows this to appeal a ruling,

a decision by the judge about which date for the trial. That's not a pellet grounds. The judges are given tremendous autonomy and discretion to set and control trials. Especially if she doesn't make a decision. That's the number one job. Right. Well, the decision not to set a trial date is making a decision about the trial date. And that's going to be an abusive discretion standard. The DOJ is never going to win that on an appeal. So we're going to be stuck.

So that's why I'm come back around Karen to your view that the safest place for her to both of peace people on the far political right and whoever else is to just say let's reconvene in November or December and We'll let everybody check her calendars in the Department of Justice is gonna be like okay, great They're gonna have to do it because there's no place else to go on the trial setting issue It sits with the trial judge and you can't get her bosses at the 11th Circuit to overturn her. The Department of Justice will, Jack Smith's people will bend over backwards though to absolutely give them everything as soon as possible to point out to them exactly what they're going to, where are the relevant, you know, there's, there's nine months worth of CCTV tape

is how they call it, right? Not, so, you know, they were saying, there's nine months worth of video, how can we possibly watch all that so quickly? They will point out, okay, you know, this is nighttime, nothing's happening. Right, it's an hour. It's a hour.

Yeah, down to the hour. And, you know, and look, and that's what prosecutors do a lot is they'll say this is the only this is the stuff that I'm going to be using a trial this is what's relevant but you know defense attorneys regularly what they do is they watch everything else they look at everything else you know the the 31 documents that that Jack Smith wants to you know the classified documents that that are going to be the subject of the SEPA hearing you know those are going to, you know, the classified documents that are going to be the subject of the SEAPA hearing. You know, those are going to be, you know, that's gonna be very interesting

because Jack Smith has already cold down the documents, the he thinks both that are in the sweet spot of, okay, these are national defense information documents, right? So NDI, so it pursuant to the SBNAA, Jack Statute that doesn't require it to be classified, just that it requires it to be national defense information. And it's not so secret that even if it comes out at trial, it's okay because really that's what's going to happen at the SEPA hearing

is they're going to establish what are the procedures that we need to put in place to keep these documents safe and secret. And sometimes what they do is they'll say, okay, the jury can see it, but it won't be public, so the public can't see it, but the jury can, the defendant can, so they can make their decision. The defense has already signaled in their papers that they're gonna object to that. They want everything public.

They think that, you know, defendants have a right, and they do have a due process right to an open and public trial. And I'm sure the press is also going to make motions saying, no, we want to see it too. And I'm sure, Jack Smith is smart enough to have already thought of that. And so even if these 31 documents come in and everyone gets to see them, I think that that's going to, I think

he's already made that determination that that will be okay. The problem with that, however, is a couple of things. Number one, you know, the argument the defense is going to make is, well, either it's national defense information or it's not. If it's not that secret, if it's not that big of a deal, then actually it's not that big of a deal that everyone that he had it, and that he kept it. So you say that this is the espionage act,

this is so dangerous, but here it is. The New York Times published it because it was a matter of public record. And I think that the only needs one juror to buy that argument, but it's an argument that I think is a pretty good one that he has. Why do you think, well hold it, why do you think the government,

why do you think the department of justice is gonna just not try to protect all the NDI? Cause you have three levels of things here, just to be clear for the audience. Espionage Act is not based on top secret of classified. We like talking about it in shorthand, cause ever since we were kids, we've known what top secret classified is like Boris Natasha for the Rocky and Bullwinkle show, you know, like a folder, Acme Top Secret, we get it.

But for S.B. and Ojac, it doesn't require that somebody takes, retains, disseminates, uses, discloses, or whatever, top secret and classified. The classification system doesn't matter at all. The reason for that is the SBNOTCH Act was passed before there was a classification system, so it certainly could not have related to that, and Congress then made a change related to it. All that's required is national defense information, NDI, which has only been defined through a series of cases in case law about it.

That big pile of documents that Donald Trump talks about on the Bedminster audio recording, and where he whips out the Iranian, you know, war map or whatever it was, it starts unfurling it. You can hear it. And people, oh, I'm a coke. You know, remember that, that audio? That is NDI. And other things probably in that pile are too.

If I'm the prosecutor, why don't you just say everything is NDI, everything has to have protection at the moment from prying eyes of the public, sorry, we have to put it all under SEPA, otherwise you're right, does it completely be the argument? They are gonna say that, but I think judge canon potentially is going to rule otherwise. Now the government can appeal that to the 11th Circuit.

Trump cannot. Yeah. Fast track appeal. But the government is going to have to decide, at a certain point, do you want a trial? Do we want to have a trial? And if they appeal it, you're again, death by a thousand cuts, right? That fast track, even a fast track appeal that can go up to the Supreme Court, by the way, even that can take weeks, if it's probably not days. And so again, that's going to just

be a strategic question that the government is going to have to decide, do we want a trial or not? And the funny thing is, to me, this is a little on its head, because if I were the government, or if I were Trump, I'm not sure I'd be so afraid of a trial in this case. I mean, the fact that he drew Eileen Cannon forget her. If she has this trial in Fort Pierce, right? If she has it in Fort Pierce,

and they draw the jurors from her five counties that are all read, including Okicobi County, which voted 72% for Trump, he has a great chance of pulling a jury that it has at least one person who will hang that jury. So I am not 100% sure. Like if I were canon, I would probably push the case and push it for Trump. Let the jurors do the bidding for her. You know, okay, let's just get this trial out there.

Let's get these documents. I'm gonna call your bluff government. We're gonna get it. I'm gonna put some red meat jurors on there. Let him actually run for president saying, see, it was a witch hunt. I was acquitted. It was, you know, but there's an inter-arram thing here that we're missing having practice

in the Southern District of Florida. No, I'm not calling you out because I'm just telling you. It's okay. Go ahead. I want you to. There is a reason that the final decision about where the trial is going to take place has not been decided yet. And that's going to be in consultation with Judge Altenaga, who's the chief judge of

the entire Southern District, who sits down in Miami. We speculate as to why the arrangement took place there. A Miami grand jury that used to be a West Palm grand jury, but because, you know, as far as I know, there's no skiff, which is a place to go look at classified documents in Fort Pierce. I know there isn't. I don't believe there's one in West Palm. There is one in Miami. That's next to the Miami courthouse. So be careful what you ask for. If they're too smart by half and they go, gosh darn it. Let's have an entire jury pool of Okachoby County, which is the sugar cane capital of Florida, right? Where that, when you take a shot of Florida from space and you look down, you see that big hole

that's in Florida, right? That's the Everglades. That's where Okachobi County is. But they're worried. They're worried that, you know, the rug gets pulled out from them, because you're right. If they're 100% sure and they're not, that this could take place in Fort Pierce, where the Fort Pierce jury, let's go. You want, let's have a trial. We're going to get at least three trumpers in there if we do it there, but they're not sure. And if it moves to West Palm, it's not a Trump place, even though it pulls from Palm Beach County because Palm Beach County is, it went heavily Biden, Clinton, Obama, Fort Lauderdale, worse, and Miami. But Miami picks up some red again. It's a weird, it's, you know,

some district of New York is so much easier to talk about than the Southern District of Florida. But that's that I think is the reason that they're worried that Altenaga at the last minute goes, you know, who can't handle this case? The court system in Fort Pierce. Let's all come down to Miami. She'll come, she'll give her a hotel, we'll rent her an apartment. Judge Cannon, you can stay down here. We'll do the jury here. We have the security, we've got everything right here.

Let's do, and then they're, then they're F'd. Except Trump's lawyers might say, I want, my, that's fine. I don't care where it is, but I want the same trial I would have had. So you're going to bust jurors in from there, which they do in other jurisdictions. You think you're going to bust them down a hundred miles? You know what they do in another jurors, they do it in other jurisdictions. Busting in Florida. It's happened before. You know, so I just don't know. But anyway, I just think that it's, to me, the world's a little bit upside down

because if I'm Jack Smith, I push this trial, we'll see how it goes and I go for, I would get in there with, you know, whether it's a bedminster case, whether it's get the Jan 6 case going, and I would push for a better judge, a better jury. I mean, the worst thing that happens is a trial and an acquittal or a hung jury, I think. the worst, the worst thing that happens is a trial and an

acquittal or a hung jury, I think that's worse than putting the trial off. I think we're going to start if, if you and I and Ben are right, and we've, we've been known to be occasionally right, if we're right, this is a portfolio theory for, for Jack Smith. He doesn't have, well, he doesn't have, where's my finger? He doesn't have one in time. He has two or three. One could be in New Jersey related to Bedminster Bed stuff. One could be in District of Columbia, which is where all the grand jury, all the grand juries have been related to Gen 6 and everything that happened from the ellipse to the White House, the dining room to the assault on democracy. That's all, that's all DC. That doesn't belong in Miami. That's, there. That doesn't belong in Miami.

There's no way in heck that the indictment that we know is coming any minute now. Any, there's this calm before the storm again. We thought you thought last week, I thought definitely this week, somewhere in July, especially now that Fawty Willis, and we'll talk about it coming up next. Fawty Willis has hers, her Fulton County grand jury seated.

Somewhere in there, there's going to be multiple indictments in different venues against Donald Trump. And is he going to run the table, Donald Trump and win all of them, including DC and New Jersey? I doubt it. But one last thing I want to mention to you, Karen, I don't know if you saw the poll, but there is a poll out that most Americans, meaning all Democrats and a handful of Republicans, want to see the trial happen, not only before the presidential election, before the primary, which is very, 57% of Americans believe that it should be before the primaries and 62% think it should be before the election. Even 42% of Republicans think that.

So that's very, very interesting. I'm not sure, Canon's reading these polls, but that's very, very interesting. We're going to talk next about Trump definitely having terrible, a terrible day in court. Too bad things happen to them on 7-11 in New York, in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. And Karen and I are gonna talk about that and then talk about Georgia is on our mind for good reason with the seating of the new, the real indighting grand jury down in Georgia.

But first, a word for our sponsors. And now let's take a quick break to talk about our next partner, Lomi. Now I've never been able to compost before. It was always too complicated, too much work, and frankly, I don't think I even knew exactly if I was doing it right. Then I got a Lomi. Lomi allows me to turn my food scraps into dirt with just the push of a button. Lomi is a countertop electro-composter that turns scraps to dirt in under 4 hours. There's no smell when it runs, and it's really quiet. Thanks to Lomi, I have way less garbage each week. My family worked down from 3 bags per week to just 1.

And here's something pretty cool. My wife, she recently started gardening, and we've been able to use the dirt that Lomi produces to help fill the garden. And since I got my Lomi, I threw out way less garbage. That means it's not going to landfills and producing methane. Instead, I turn my waste into nutrient rich dirt that I can feed to my plants.

I feel so great knowing that I'm composting and creating soil instead of waste. And I have basically a limitless supply of dirt for my garden. The other week I had my in-laws over for dinner and the food cleanup process was such a breeze. Plus, they all think I'm super eco-conscious now. If you want to start making a positive environmental impact or just make cleanup after dinner that much easier, loamy is perfect for you. Head to loamy.com slash legalaif

and use the promo code legalaif to get $50 off your low me that's $50 off when you head to l o m i dot com slash legal a f and use promo code legal a f at checkout food waste is gross let low me save you a call trip out to the garbage can we've all heard the famous lie try it 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 rocketmoney.com slash legalaif. That's rocketmoney.com slash legalaif. Green Chef is the number one meal kit for eating clean. Feel your best with delicious nutritionist-to-proof recipes featuring clean ingredients with no artificial colors, sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup, and limited added sugar and processed ingredients. Choose from recipes featuring lean proteins like turkey, sakeisamen, baramundi, tilapia, scallops and shrimp, certified organic whole fruits and vegetables, organic cage-free

eggs, and plenty of whole grain options. Eat the clean, easy way with recipes that help manage your weight and support your wellness goals without skimping on flavor. Feel your best this summer with seasonal recipes, featuring certified organic fruits and vegetables, organic cage-free eggs, and sustainably sour seafood. Also, Green Chef is the only milk kit that has both carbon and plastic offset. Green Chef offsets 100% of the delivery admissions to your door, as well as 100% of the plastic in every box.

Plus nearly all packaging materials are curbside recyclable in most areas of the US. Green Chef delivers everything you need to eat clean the easy way this summer. Feel your best with nutritionist-to-proof recipes, packed with clean ingredients that support your healthy lifestyle, and taste great too. I love Green Chef.

My absolute favorite is the spicy chicken and broccoli stir fry. D-licious. Go to greenchef.com slash legal AF 50 and use code legal AF 50 to get 50% off plus free shipping. That's greenchef.com slash legal AF 50 and use code legal AF 50 to get 50% off plus free shipping. Greenchef, the number one meal kit for eating well. You know what's a hard word to say when you have to say it six times in an ad read. I never thought I had a problem saying the word subscription. And so I had to say it six times.

But that's the life of a podcast host or somebody called it recently. Oh, you're a lot tube. I said, we're a lot. I didn't even know that was a thing. Apparently, lawyers on YouTube is atube and there's a whole subculture related to it. Well, whatever it is, yeah, whatever it is, I think we're, because of the Midas Mighty and the Legal Aeifers, I think we're at the top of the lawtube, Jane, I hope we are. One of the things that our producer reminded me when we were talking about

that calm before the storm, which you so accurately used several about a month or two ago to say, you know, we haven't heard a lot about, we haven't heard a lot about grand jury work related to Chris, Jack Smith at that moment. And I bet you he's probably making his presentation to Merrick Garland, which he has to do before he gets his indictment. And boy, where you write now, we have for a while, like two weeks ago, like Rudy went in for a queen for the day. Proffer, I always love Rudy as a queen for the day. It's just completely.

But he gave his proffer with his limited immunity and a couple of other witnesses went in and then there was silence. Now we have reporting this week that the grand jury met, but no witnesses showed up. That's interesting, because why does a grand jury meet if it's not there to hear testimony? Now, there could be a records custodian who slipped in there. They could be doing documents. They could be doing some other type of presentation. They could have voted. Or they could have voted on an indictment. And so that's where we are. You know, we're trying to, we're trying to read, you know, there, there are just, and Karen, I know

you have it because I have it. You have alarm clocks that are just baked into your DNA as being a trial lawyer that just go off at different times. It's just a level of, of feel of touch and feel about cases. And we have it here that we apply to the cases that you and I follow at that intersection of long politics and things like no phone ringing sometimes is as important as a phone ringing, right? You know, you want to know what I thought what I thought of and I'd love to hear your thoughts. So, you know, there's been a lot of speculation about Rudy Giuliani and whether or not he's flipped on Trump. And we're not sure, right?

So what we do know, he went in and his lawyer said it was entirely voluntary. And so, let's talk about what it would mean if he were to flip. And then you'll understand why I'm saying this. So if he were to flip, which means he would cooperate with the government. And he was clearly a target. He's clearly committed lots of crimes. And he was going to be prosecuted, I would imagine. So for him to flip, he's not just a witness.

He's a defendant, I guess, not quite yet, but a target. And he'd have to plead guilty, and he would have to admit to all the things he's done, and really tie up all loose ends, and that's what they make you do in order to cooperate. So we heard this week that he's working on a settlement civil, but he's working on a settlement in the Shea Moss Ruby Freeman, remember the

mother daughter duo who, you know, who end up suing him for defamation because he and Trump and others accused them of, you know, taking out suitcases of votes and they got death threats and all this stuff. And, and we heard this week that that's in they're very close to a settlement. So I think that that means he's wrapping things up and he's going to flip and quite well, well, except for one I have to cut in because I just have a hot take running right now on the on the Midas Touch Network. It looks like the settlement fell through because in the filings that the lawyer, which I was going to, we can talk about, the lawyers for shame

loss and Ruby Freeman, the mother daughter team that were so mercilessly defamed by Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and everybody else claiming that they were committing voter fraud and stealing ballots and feeding in Chinese ballots into the Fulton County Atlanta when they were doing nothing of the sort. They were just counting ballots and putting already counted ballots properly in another pile under the desk in a locked case, which is what they're supposed to do.

But in the motion for sanctions and to seek a default judgment against Rudy Giuliani, which is what they've now done, claiming that he is not participated at all Rudy. In meaningful discovery in the last 18 months, he's produced next to nothing. And has claimed that he's lost it all or never had it or whatever. They've moved for the death penalty for him and civilly to have the case dismissed against him. In it, they said, we thought we had a settlement, but he walked away from the settlement

in the last couple of days. And I said in the hot day because he's both cheap and stupid. But I would, I agree with you. Or he walked away from it because he doesn't care because he's gonna be going to jail soon. I've always said the Rudy Giuliani definitely is gonna get indicted, whether he cuts a deal or not. That's a different story.

And if he flips along with Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's time as a free man on planet earth is coming to a precious few. Because I've never seen an array of people at the level of knowledge and culpability that are and lawyers that are coming out against one defendant more than Donald Trump. I mean, look, I said to somebody recently, the amount of evidence, witnesses, lawyers, ex lawyers and documents and video evidence and audio evidence and notes, contemporaneous that are now amassed in a raid against Donald Trump. It reminds me of like the parting line

I'm hopefully it's not a spoiler alert because the season's over. It's like the parting line in succession when when Shiv looked at the mausoleum that now housed her her departed father and said I'm curious to see how he gets out of this one Same thing here. I'm curious to see how Donald Trump gets out of this much evidence, the mountain of evidence against him. And he'll have to run the, you may be right. He'll get a hung jury here or there, but he's going to have to run the table in four or five different criminal prosecutions. All right. And I think that's, that is not only next to impossible. That is impossible. That's why he doesn't want to trial. That's why he's trying to put these things off. No, it's true.

His entire strategy is delay, delay, delay, delay. Hopefully get the nomination, even maybe get a president. And then he'll either pardon, he'll for sure pardon Walton Nado, which is what his strategy is. Stick with him, get him elected, and he'll for sure pardon Walton that out, which is what history strategy is stick stick with him get him elected and he'll pardon me. And you know Donald Trump is you know like just push this all off. And then when I'm president no one can do anything you know stay I can't they can't be president. And just this is what's in his mind. This is what he's thinking. And

so that's what he's hoping it hoping is is put it off put it off put it off. But Boogie has a better chance of becoming president of the United States. Boogie such a good boy. He's such a good boy. Boogie and Lily. Lily can my Lily can be the first lady. But let's talk about clearing the air here. Get back to some serious matters and serious jeopardy for Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case.

E. Jean Carroll, some people might be rubbing their eyes and their ears going, didn't we already do this? She won. Yes, she did win. She won the E. Jean, it's weird because she won the E. Jean Carroll two case because the E. Jean Carroll one case was put on ice while some issues related to immunity and scope of employment for Donald Trump, who was at one time employee badge number one for the federal government as the president. While that was going on, the judge says, yeah, that's interesting. But why don't we talk about and do a trial on things he said when against her when he wasn't president because we can do that right now. And that was judge, uh, that was judge Lewis Kaplan. And, uh, I think that was a shock to, um, then, um, the, the, the mastermind superhero,

lawyer Alina Habba, now a spokesperson, now been kicked upstairs and it's a full-time spokesperson. And Joe Takapino, who came in three or four months before the trial to take over, basically, because they were like, what, huh, don't we have to wait? Like, no, we're not going to wait. So that trial went forward in a Southern District of New York federal case with a federal jury being pulled from all different places around Manhattan and the burrows and Westchester and that kind of thing. And six men and three women found the Donald Trump for the special verdict form,

did he sexually abuse her? Yes, did he rape her? And because of the, as the former, as Karen, you'll tell our audience again, as a former sex, a sex crimes prosecutor, New York is the minority and you have to use your penis to rape somebody and not a finger. And most states don't have that issue. So they said, well,

she was a little bit unclear, she had her eyes closed, she didn't know if it was a penis or a finger. We'll leave that for another day. And therefore, yes, on sex abuse, inconclusive on rape, yes, on defamation, yes on punitive damages, where do we sign and that was two and F hours who had the tuna salad who had the taco bowl? Okay, everybody's out Fastest jury is they like set a land speed record in in in finding against him Only Donald Trump would then use that to say I've been vindicated Yes, I'm not a rapist. I'm only a sex abuser. And every time she says rapist, I'm not, because I'm a sex abuser.

See the distinction? Not really. I've been defamed, including when E. Jean Carol went on television with Robbie Kaplan, friend of the podcast, her lawyer, and gave an interview and was interviewed by CNN. But before we get to that, because that's

really interesting. What happened there and the new retaliatory defamation case that Trump brought against the victim of his sex abuse, um, E. Jean Carroll. The government had something to say after three years of, uh, sitting around about whether the U. US, the United States of America was going to intervene in the case related to when Donald Trump used to be president and whether his defamatory or statements against E. Jean Carroll, which are all the same. They're all the same as he's saying now, I don't know or I never know or I don't want to know her. She's a hack.

She's holding me hostage. She's shaking me down. I never, I didn't rape her. I didn't have sexual relations with her, whatever, whatever it is. He says it to this moment. All of that happened. He said that when he was running, when he was president. So now the Department of Justice has finally got around to saying, will they or won't they come in and give him presidential immunity for that aspect of the case? What happened? So, yeah. So, look, it's important to just in context understand how it works when you're a government

employee. You can't really be sued for actions that you take as a government employee if it's in the course and scope of your duties. And so what they do, so what happens is this is called the Westfall Act. And if the Department of Justice finds that if you get sued and in a civil suit, not criminal, right? If you get sued by somebody, if you were a government employee, and it was in the course and scope of your duties, the Department of Justice will certify under the Westfall Act and intervene.

And what they do, what that means is they substitute the United States for the defendant in the case. And the United States cannot be sued, in in a you know, can't be sued civilly so in this type of context and so what happens is basically it confers immunity on the defendant and so Bill Barr who was Donald Trump's Attorney General he said at the time that he felt that the Department of Justice was going to intervene

under the Westfall Act. Now Judge Kaplan, this head sort of a circuitous, went through a whole thing where, Barr invoked the Westfall Act, but then, which means, because this case was originally brought in state court. So when bar invoked the Westfall Act, it then got moved to federal court. And Judge Lewis Kaplan disagreed that Donald Trump was an employee and that this was in

this course in scope of his employment, but Trump appealed it to the second circuit, which is the appellate court above Judge Kaplan. And they said, no, he is an employee, the president is an employee, but the question of whether this is in the scope of his duties and in his job, that's a question that we have to ask the DC, the Washington DC state court of appeals to clarify under state law or DC law. And so we had to wait for that decision. And what they said in Washington DC, what that court of appeals said, you know what, that's a fact-based analysis that focuses on the state of mind of the individual. Okay, so Donald Trump.

And whether or not it was in furtherance of the job. So it's not automatic, just because, you know, on the one hand, you can make the argument that, look, you know, he was, he was president of the United States at the time, you know, when you're trying to decide, is this in the course and scope of your duties, right? He was working of the United States at the time, you know, when you're trying to decide is this in the course and scope of your duties, right? He was working that day. He was, you know, with his gaggle of press, you know, people going on to, I can't remember who's Air Force One or Marine One, you know, he was, he, or getting off.

He was, you know, in transit and he was answering questions about work. And, you know, it was clearly during a work event and he was answering questions about work. And it was clearly during a work event, and he was answering a question. And so there was a question there. Is that in the course and scope of his duties? And so what this now does is this says, you know what, this goes to the jury to decide. The jury, this is a jury decision,

and it's going to trial. But what's interesting that happened here is Merrick Garland, who originally said he was going to stand by Barr's determination and agree that the West Fall Act applies here, has now decided that based on new information, including the fact that Donald Trump keeps making these defamatory statements. So it's not like he was just answering questions and that was it. He keeps making these statements over and over and over and over again, including new ones that are in the complaint that that E. Jean Carroll added after the jury found for her. In the last case, he defamed her again.

He said, you know, the fact that this has continued and there's some other issues. You know, they basically said, you know, in light of the DC Court of Appeals clarification of, you know, liability here as well as new factual developments that the US will no longer under the West Fall Act of liability here as well as new factual developments that the US will no longer under the Westfall Act certify that Donald Trump was acting within the course

and scope of his employment. And they go on and say, was the employee motivated to serve the purpose of the employer and what was on his mind and what was his subjective intent. And there's no evidence about his state of mind, which is why it has to go before a jury. And they also said, look, even though these statements may have been made during his official duties

and using official channels in a work context, they were purely personal in nature. This happened decades before, this was a sexual assault, and again, his statements continued well after he left office. So, as a result, the DOJ is no longer there declining to certify. So bottom line is, the issue here that you've said all along, Popok, is because they've already found that he sexually assaulted her and these statements are defamatory, that it's really all about damages, you know, and what they will be and what the punitive damages will

be. But, you know, my question to you is, given the fact that he has made this malicious, horrific counterclaim against a sexual assault victim in this suit, basically saying that, look, she's not a lawyer. She might not know that New York Law is so precise. Most people, when somebody violently violates you andves their body part into her vagina. Most people would say, I was raped. And just because that doesn't fit the statutory definition in New York of the technical definition of rape, that is a rape, he raped her. And so the fact that he would claim is a rape, he raped her. And so, you know, the fact that he would claim, you know, that do a counter suit against her saying

she defamed him is so outrageous that, you know, I hope you can explain exactly how that works and what will happen at the trial with respect to his counter claim. Yeah, I do a hot take on it. I think we're running it a little bit later today to kind of really dig into it. But let me give the high level part of it here. Let me first pick up with something where you left

off on the immunity thing and then I'll bounce into the motion practice, the motion to dismiss against this retaliatory attempt to chill her first amendments, speech, her authenticity, her right to reclaim her dignity, which is all that happened on the CNN interview, which she had every right to talk about, which was her opinion and her feelings about the jury verdict. Without, that doesn't mean she defamed anybody. On the Department of Justice, I mean, look, two administrations starting with with Trump administration and then and then the Biden administration, at least the Department of Justice, on American Arlen, because they're trying to two administration starting with with Trump administration and then and then the Biden administration leased the Department of Justice on America, and because they're trying to they're trying to protect

principles that go even beyond this this former occupant of the White House, right? They they have to stand on certain principles like, well, we know we don't want to we we're holding our nose for this guy, but we don't like the precedent of having, you know, this issue, you know, having the West fall immunity not apply to certain things. So that that's why they've been for some people on the wrong side of the net related to people like Eugene Carroll and other rulings that that that they've taken positions on. That's why. But I do love the fact as you noted that they pointed out, well, that's why. But I do love the fact, as you noted,

that they pointed out, well, let's look at the continuum of his actions, both while he was president and after to answer the question that we have to answer based on the appellate courts ruling in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, not the federal court, but the territory of the District of Appeals, not the federal court, but the territory

of the District of Columbia's highest ballot court, which is, was the conduct, in this case, to faming her, actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the people in the US government. That's the phrase, actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve. So there's two components to that. One is the quantum, right? How much of what he said was because he was protecting the office of the presidency and doing his civic duty as president, and how much of it was just private BS about activities that happened before he was president.

And then what was the purpose? So it's a quantum element and purpose element. And they pointed to his continued social media postings in which he goes after her the same way now, the same way today, as he went after her then to say, well, well, if you're doing the same thing then and the same thing now and the same thing then, and hopefully we can put up some of these posts here while we're there we are right there. This was this morning, right?

So they compared that and earlier ones that were identical and I'll read some of these out loud to what he said as president and said, see, he's not serving as president in this role because he's doing it now when he's not president. So I love Donald Trump. He has a three-part social media posting and he puts it down as page one, I don't know why it's pages, it's screens if it's anything, page two and page three.

Page one, the Department of Justice will not defend me and the E. Jean Carroll civil case. You can bet your sweet ass they're not, which is a all a part of the political witch hunt loyered up by a political operative who I just beat in another case. I'm not sure who that is. Finance by a big political funder. So he's saying the political operative is E. Jean Carroll because her law firm took some minor cost funding from the founder of LinkedIn. Just like Donald Trump used a save America pack to pay millions and

tens of millions of dollars to people for his law defense. Okay. So that's who he's referring to there. E. Jean. On the way of Popo, I think he says who I beat in a prior case. I think he's referring to the fact that the rape, yeah. He thinks he won. He thinks he was vindicated because he was a judge, the sex abuser, and not a rapist. So that's the person he beat in the prior case. She's a political operative because she's a Democrat, okay? And she took, she didn't take it.

Her law firm had some of their costs afraid because they were doing this on a contingency basis meaning they weren't getting paid. And there's a lot of costs in case like this. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of deposition transcripts and experts and all this thing. And so Reed Hoffman from LinkedIn paid some of that, okay, so what?

Who takes that as a win? Just just who thinks thinks a narcissist make a a maniacal former president? He then he then goes on to say that he was and judged by a Clinton appointee. Okay. All federal judges are appointed by some president, including a number that were appointed by Trump, who truly

hates Trump. I love what he talks about himself the third person. The statements that I made about Carol are all true. Up, here we go. Didn't know her, didn't sexually abuse her, wouldn't, she's not my type. I didn't rape her. I won that at trial.

Here's your point, Karen. I won! I'm only a sex abuser. And other than for this case, I have no idea who she is, what she looks like, or anything about her. Then he goes on to say, the Carol civil case against me is a miscarriage

of justice and a total scam. Trial was very unfair. Trial that he did not attend. Trial that he chose not to testify. And either though, he didn't have a criminal case against him. So there was no fifth amendment problem. He just chose not to attend. He acted at a press conference in Scotland

when he was at a golf course, like, oh, I'm heading back to testifier to attend. He acted at a press conference in Scotland when he was at a golf course, like, oh, I'm heading back to testifier to attend. Never did. Can anyone, just really quick, can somebody point out? He says he's too busy, you know, to go to trial and Mar-a-Lago, he can't possibly do it because he's running for office. Well, how come he has so much time

to play golf all the time? He's always on a golf course. He's not that busy. Well, he's not employed. Let's be honest. He doesn't have a job. Then he goes on to say in this social media post. I was unable to, oh, the trial was very unfair

with the other side being able to and present virtually anything they wanted. Yeah, the judge ruled against you on a number of evidentiary issues. You had no witnesses. She had 11 witnesses. You had no expert. She had two experts. She testified and you didn't any wonder the jury ruled in 2 1,5 hours against you and

out of control judge. That's judge. The same judge is going to be deciding all these issues. My lawyers due to their respect for the office of the president Oh, here we go. He's the looted again skipper thinks he's the president again and the incredulity of the case Did not want me to testify. Oh, here we go. This is now if you let's blow that apart Joe Takapina said you know what I'm dealing with here, judge? And the judge says, yes, I do. I'm going to give you one more chance to get your, if he wants to testify, he shows

up Monday or not, or he's waived his right to testify. That's now been misinterpreted by Trump, in lying to his, his, his, his, the people that his synchofance, his cult followers, as being I wanted to testify, but out of respect for the office of the president, he did all this in 1996, when the only office he occupied was some bachelor pad, a Trump tower across the street from the department store where he sexually abused her.

And then he ends it with the net result of this horrible injustice injustice when a completely unknown to me woman made up a ridiculous story. I'll remind everybody that there is a nice photo of him meeting her laughing at a gala along with her husband who was that a very well known John Johnson. It was a very well known, do you remember him on ABC News? It was a very well known newscaster. And he was, and that's the famous photo

from the deposition where he mistook E. Jean Carroll for his other wife. He was standing next to Ivana, but mistook her for his other wife. Marlamaples. Marlamaples. He would be a virgin. He thought he was in a photo with his current wife and his future wife and some random

African-American men. Can you think of a greater gift? If you're Robbie Kaplan, deposing Donald Trump and you showat picture, and he mistakes her for Marlon Mates. Can you? Robbie Carpenter. They must have been like, thank you God, that is the greatest answer. Like that doesn't happen. That's a carry meason stuff that happens like, you know, on TV.

It's like a law and order where you sometimes work. The, the, and then of course, everybody in that room knew that grandpa Trump, he keeps making fun of Biden because he gets tongue tied occasionally as a lifelong stutterer. And because he's 80, he made fun of him and say, oh, he's losing it. Really? How about you?

How about you, grandpa? You thought both your wives were in the same photo at the same time And it was so bad that Alina Haba jumped in like the nurse to say That's Carol You know, I mean and I you know, I would have jumped out I mean I give a lot of credit to Robbie for holding her fire because I would have said miss Miss Haba you are interfering with the you're littering and polluting my transcript

She just said miss Habba you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube That's Carol and then he said that's we have the transcript. That's Carol. Yeah, that's Carol That's E. Jean Carol you lump head just destroyed your own case. Are we gonna play this? Oh, God, please just destroyed your own case. Are we gonna play this? Oh God, please. Ha, salty doing, we're not gonna play. Salty just told me he just bursted my bubble. But there it is when he was testify.

All right, so now let's talk about the motion to dismiss briefly. He files a retaliatory strike against E. Jean Carroll because she went on CNN and in a five minute interview, a reporter turned to her with Robbie Kaplaner lawyer next to her and said, what was your reaction inside you when you heard the jury return the verdict and finding sexual abuse? Yes, but rape. No. And she very authentically and really to reclaim her dignity because it's true. Said, I thought, that's not true, he raped me.

But I'll leave it to my lawyer to talk about the legalities of it. She was very polished on this point. That is all true. Her opinion is true. What she felt is true, she can disagree with the jury that she's allowed to say that. And she's allowed to say also the other aspect of the

defamation case is that Joe Takapina came over to her at the end of the trial to shake her hand. I guess he was trying to be chivalrous in some way. And she said to him, he did it, meaning Donald Trump, and you know he did it. And she walked out. And that it for Donald Trump was the last draw because that's him. That's her calling him a rapist again. So the motion to dismiss which is scathing against Donald Trump and says, just repeats all of the evidence against him, you know, methodically painstakingly, what the jury was told about the sexual assault, the abuse, the rape, the whole thing. And then says to the judge, look, Southern District of New York sits in the second circuit for appeal. And second circuit has clearly said that defamation cases are special. And if you have somebody like

Donald Trump bringing a defamation case against a victim like this, power disparity. It's often seen as a chilling attempt to stop first amendment speech, proper first amendment speech. And you can decide this right now at the pleading stage. You don't have to wait for some re-judgment. You don't have to wait for discovery. Do it now judge, because otherwise you're going to be rewarding him for weaponizing defamation law. She was only fairly reporting what happened in the courtroom. And there's a privilege for that in defamation law. She was giving her honest opinion. And whatever she said was substantially true, substantially true because sexual abuse versus rape to the average person is really the same thing.

And the thing about Joe Takapina, she just said it and that can't be the basis. And then finally, because Donald Trump is Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll is E. Jean Carroll in order for her to fave him. He has to prove that it was done with actual malice, meaning that she knew what she was saying was false and or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity. And she, they told the judge in the motion to dismiss. He'll, he'll never, he'll never be able to do that. Dismissed the case now.

I think this case, that case against E. Jean Carroll gets dismissed right now by Lewis Kaplan. And then we move on. I think just for, you know, shits and giggles, we have the video of Donald Trump mistaking E. Jean Carroll, the woman he said he didn't know for his own at least second wife in a in the video. Let's go. And then Alina Habitch, I don't even know who the woman. Let's say I don't know who it's Marla

You say Marla's in the photo that's Marla. Yeah, that's my wife Which one? Here Oh, so you just pointed to it. Oh, I see who is that And the person the woman on the right is your then wife. I don't know. This was the picture. I assume that's John Jensen. Is that Carol? Because it's very blurry. Yeah. Okay. First of all, he stares at the photo. He didn't glance at it. He stared at it for a good minute or two.

And then he said, because you know, he's the smartest guy in the room. Well, that's Marla. The picture, which we can find also, he's standing next to Ivana, right? So you see Ivana with a big boof of blonde hair and her mint coat and he's there. And then you see straight in the middle of the shot a very young because she was young in the photo at around the time of it and he keeps talking about

you know I wouldn't sexually abuse a 78 year old well first of all you're 78 and we're not talking about now we're talking about in 1996 so here's the photo in and around 1996 or the late 80s, what she looked like. And yes, it is his type because he thought it was Marla Mapples. Only he's delusional enough to think he's got two wives in the same photo. That's what I'm gonna know. No, it was blurry. It was blurry. Oh, okay. Let's let the audience. That's the least. That's the least blurry photo I've ever seen. That is the clearest, you would think in 1985, this was like high death iPhone. Okay, that's because it was a photographer, a real photographer, a real camera,

for you kids out there, we used to have cameras. This is a real photo. That is John Johnson, who was a celebrity, local newscaster on ABC News here in New York, on the right with the big booth is the late Ivana Trump and on and looking right at Donald Trump and smiling along with John Johnson because Donald Trump said something funny, I guess is E. Jean Carroll, not Marlon Mapples. That's why he lost that's why he lost this case because that was put up in front

of the jury. And that's why he's a total buffoon in a liar. So that's what's going on on 7-11, two filings, Department of Justice gave him one gift, which is you're on your own, Don. No, no sovereign, no presidential immunity for what you said when you were president, because you're outside the scope of your employment duties and motion to dismiss, which will likely be granted. Next step is, I guess the Trump's gonna argue somehow that he's entitled to immunity, that judge is gonna have to decide, but that's up to the Department of Justice.

That's up to the US government, whether they're gonna assert immunity. They can't get in a pellet court. I mean, he can, he can try to take an appeal, but it's not happening. He's gonna go to trial in E. Jean Carroll, Roman numeral one on a $10 million putative damage case at least in the next several months. And you and I are gonna be here to report on it.

But before we go to of all places, thank God, Georgia, I got Georgia on my mind and talking about a real grand jury that's got the power to indict that has now been selected two separate grand juries side by side, we'll talk about those and what happens on Tuesday when they meet and start considering the evidence against Donald Trump brought by Fawni Willis, the Fountain County prosecutor. But first, we need them, we need them to keep the show on the air. A word from our sponsors. This podcast is sponsored by Miracle Mate Cheats.

Whether you want to get more fit, be a better parent, or get more done at work, there is one thing that will help, and that's better sleep. With Miracle Mate Cheats, you can tap into the power of self cooling temperature regulation, which has been shown to improve deep sleep quality by over 20%. Using silver infused fabrics originally inspired by NASA, miracle-made sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long. So you get better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with silver that prevent up to 99.7% of bacterial growth, leaving

them cleaner and fresher three times longer than other sheets. No more gross odors. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands, and feel as nice if not nicer than bed sheets used by some five-star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Clean sheets mean less bacteria to clog your pores and fewer breakouts and other skin problems. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF to try miracle made sheets today.

And with mothers and fathers day right around the corner, this is the perfect way to give someone you love the gift of better and more luxurious sleep. Save over 40% and be sure to use our promo code legal Legal AF, check out to save even more and get three free towels. Miracle is so confident in their product, they backed it with a 30-day money back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with MiracleMade, go to trymiracle.com,

slash Legal AF, and use the code Legal AF to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's try Miracle.com slash Legal AF to treat yourself. Thanks again to Miracle made for sponsoring this episode. When it comes to privacy, people tend to focus on things like tracking cookies and browsing history, but protecting your email privacy is even more important because emails contain a lot of personal and sensitive details,

such as financial and health information or log-in credentials that you don't want falling into the wrong hands. That's why I use StartMail, the secure email service that keeps your inbox safe. Every day, millions of people unknowingly risk their sensitive information through insecure email communication.

Regular emails are like open postcards, accessible to cyber criminals, companies, and even government agencies. Your free email provider has extensive knowledge about you, including your purchases, web activity, YouTube searches, reservations, subscriptions, and location history. Gmail, Yahoo, and the other popular services, they scan and analyze the content of your emails to generate targeted ads. They also keep copies of your emails sometimes for months

after you deleted them. This means that any email can be retrieved from your account if needed and shared with third parties, such as government agencies. If you're sick of all this nonsense, then you need to give StartMail a try. StartMail makes it so easy you can enjoy secure email communication without surveillance or ads. StartMail ensures your inbox is protected with advanced security features. Plus, you get 20GB of email storage, surpassing what free providers like Gmail offer. StartMail has world-class encryption for confidentiality, which allows you to send encrypted emails

even if the recipient doesn't use encryption. Your confidential messages stay private, and when you delete an email, it's gone forever. Switching to StartMail is hassle-free, and its easy migration tool allows you to move your emails in contacts from Gmail Outlook, Yahoo, and other providers, with just a few clicks. Our daily lives rely on the internet. Email privacy is crucial to protect personal and sensitive information from unauthorized access. Protecting your information is about safeguarding your rights to free speech and association, not

about having something to hide. Sign up today and say 50% on your first subscription year. Go to startmail.com slash legal AF and join tens of thousands of people who trust start mail for their email security needs. That's start mail with a T start mail.com slash legal AF for 50% off. And we're back. Support our sponsors. I know people are like, oh, there's another ad.

Thank God there's another ad because it keeps the network alive. It keeps the content coming to you flowing. The way that you like it, you don't pay for this. It's free subscription to the Midas Touch YouTube channel and an audio podcast are free, but we got costs. And so our sponsors.

And we got Salty. It pays for Salty who... That's a cost. Look how great. But no, but look, you and I go off on these tangents and we start talking about stuff and he finds the videos and the clips and we start talking about stuff and he finds the videos and the clips and he's just right up there with everything.

And these sponsors are supporting pro-democracy, progressive ideals, the way that we curate our sponsors. We don't take them all. We like the ones that are supporting us. And so, enough of that. Let's get to Georgia, Popok. All right, here we go. I'll frame it, turn it over to the prosecutor,

and then here we are. Fonney Welles in March, got it, was it March? Was able after seven months of the Special Purpose Grand Jury to get a report and recommendation and a referral, if you will, of Georgia election interference crimes committed by Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and others, including the fake electors, the head of the GOP, the Republican Party in Georgia. A lot of different people were targets of the special purpose grand jury to help Fawni

Willis make the ultimate prosecutorial decision, which is her decision to make in Atlanta about whether to seek the indictment of a president. Now, by the time that started, we are now talking about these things in the middle of July, that former president has already been indicted twice. So breaking the glass ceiling is a little bit less, it's important, but it's not as shocking as it was now that Alvin Bragg and the Manhattan DA's office and Jack Smith's team have already gone forward, but very, very important because Fonney Willis is not only we believe looking at Georgia election

interference, starting with the phone call that Rudy Giuliani, that Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, and Donald Trump made throughout the state, but particularly the Mark Meadows and Donald Trump phone call, searching for 11,758 votes between friends. Let's throw out some ballots, let's throw out some absentee ballots, let's throw out democracy while we're at it.

And all the other things that happened in the state, including led by Rudy Giuliani and the courthouses and setting up the fake electors, and then plugging that into six other battleground states because like a Marvel movie, Donald Trump needed all seven jewels in order to have the power to destroy the earth. And so he needed Arizona and Michigan and Pennsylvania and and and Georgia. And so she is bringing a conspiracy, we believe, count case against Donald Trump. That's what she's fashioning. She has a civil rico expert racketeering influence and corrupt organization act, which used to go after the organized crime and the mafia, but it's going to be used against Donald Trump to tie together all of these disparate acts,

conducts and people in one speaking indictment. That wasn't in March because that grand jury was advisory, but then she takes that report Fannie Willis and her team in Atlanta, Fountain County And then she said indictments are imminent and by imminent she meant I guess August or September Because she's continuing to develop evidence in the case She's got more cooperating witnesses including a lot if not all of the fake electors who have all said we don't want to go to jail for Donald Trump. We'd rather cooperate with the prosecutor. Good idea.

And others Lindsey Graham is testified and Rudy Giuliani went and talked to the special purpose grand jury. So she's going to be able to use the 75 witnesses that already went before the special purpose grand jury and their testimony, which has been recorded in at least transcripts, and use that in Georgia, because Georgia, unlike other places like New York, it hearsay is okay. So you don't have to have the live witness. It's okay if one person in her office sits there and says, I'm now going to be Rudy Giuliani. This was Rudy Giuliani's testimony, question, whatever that, answer. And that goes on for an hour or two until you bore the grand jury to death.

But you also can bring in live witnesses, of course, to supplement all that work. She's not going to walk away from seven months of work and a report and witness transcripts of 75 people that you already developed, Foni Willis. She's going to bring that across the street to a new grand jury, a new grand jury that as of yesterday is seated. And there's two of them, 26 of peace.

You got 52 total grand jurors. And one of the reasons is, first of all, you need to have a, this is the regular grand jury, meaning guard variety crime that goes on in Faulten County needs to have indictment through grand jury. So you bring in the larst knee, the battery, the murder, the kidnapping, though whatever, you know, and on, you know, they meet twice a week for a couple of months. So these two grand juries are necessary, just because of the volume of crime that's in cities, they got to have these grand juries are necessary just because of the volume of crime that's in cities. They got to have these grand juries running and like one day they'll be or one part of the day. It'll be like, let's talk, you know, indictment related to, you know, like somebody brutally beat

up somebody else. Okay, fine. And then it'll be like, okay, now we're going to do the Donald Trump one. And we're bringing it into witnesses. Same grand jury. They just wear a different hat. In order for the grand jury to, and why there's two of them, is because one is gonna be doing a lot of full-time Donald Trump, and the other is gonna be doing the other ordinary crime, garden variety crime that happened in fault in county that needs to have prosecutor's seat indictments.

We don't know which is which yet, and they don't know which is which yet. On Tuesday, when they get to work, and there's a new judge assigned to oversee that process, we'll know which is which. But I'm gonna do one last stat and turn it over to our former prosecutor, Karen. For those that are wondering, as I opened the podcast,

how many do you need for a quorum? In other words, how many have to be there to meet in order to do business of the grand jury? And how many do you need for a quorum? In other words, how many have to be there to meet in order to do business of the grand jury? And how many do you need for an indictment? So out of the 20 out of the 26, you need at least 16 to be present. So 10 can be absent. At any given moment, when evidence is being presented at all of that, that's a quorum for the grand jury to do its work. If they got 15, they can't, they don't have a minion for the people that are Jewish out there. They don't, they can't, they can't do it. Oh, we got to get that 16th person, get that person in the box. Okay. Now I can present my evidence if I'm, if I'm the prosecutor, but if they have 16 or more

up to 26, they can go forward. And that's a, that's a grand jury day. That's a day of presenting evidence of witnesses, reading things from the special purpose grand jury, reporting all that. Then on the day they seek the indictment, they gotta get 12 out of 16. They have to be the 16 there for the quorum and 12 have to raise their hand and say, I indict. So four can hold out.

This is Fulton County, Georgia. This is a Democratic bastion. When she seeks that indictment of Donald Trump, what she's going to do, she is going to get an indictment of Donald Trump for civil conspiracy and election interference. No doubt. And we'll continue to cover it as we go along.

What did you make of the pictures that have come out about the grand jury process already, the seating of two grand juries? You've been in front of grand juries. You've done high profile, there's there's Faudi Willis right there real time coming into the courtroom for the grand jury with her team. You've done it, Karen, and talk about the grand jury process, how you interact with them. How does that differ from a regular grand jury in terms how you interact with them, how does that differ from a regular grand jury in terms of how you treat them, information that you give them, kind of let people in under the hood of the grand jury process from your perspective. Yeah, sure. So I presented, I would say thousands of cases before grand jury.

I've been in many, you know, thousands of grand juries. I've even empanelled grand juries, which is what the process is called when you choose a grand jury and you make them an official body. So I've done this more than almost any other thing in my entire career. So let's talk a little bit about what a grand jury is and what it's not. So a

grand jury is not the same as a regular jury or what they call a pedigery, a trial jury. They're very different. So a trial jury or what they call a petit jury, a trial jury. They're very different. So a trial jury in a criminal case is the jury that hears the ultimate facts at the end. And what they actually hear is a much more fulsome presentation where there's both direct examination, you know, the statements that from the the prosecutor side and cross examination. And they have to find unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that's the legal standard, right? It's beyond a reasonable doubt. A grand jury is very different. A grand jury is a charging body. It's literally what you do is you present evidence to see if there's sufficient evidence to charge someone with a crime. And the standard there is much lower. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's probable cause or reasonable cause to believe that a crime occurred. There is no opening statement, there's no closing argument, and there's no cross examination. It's just a, you, you, they listen to evidence

and the, and it's the evidence that the prosecutor presents and a defendant has a right to testify in the grand jury as well. If they want, they have to waive immunity if you're in a grand jury that confers immunity and that's what they do in New York. If a, anyone who goes into a grand jury gets automatic immunity for those crimes and so you have to be careful who you put in unless they waive immunity including a defendant. Now here what the way it works with a grand jury is

just like any other jury you get a summons and you show up for jury duty and you are told you are part of the grand jury or you are part of the you know pedigery, the trial jury. And you know the fact that they in panel two grand juries still not necessarily that much because in New York for example in men just in Manhattan alone, you know New York City is five different boroughs, right? It's Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island, and in Manhattan alone, we would have four or five, six grandjuries going at all times. It just depends, because of a volume. And so she has two grandjuries that are going in. And again, in Manhattan, they sit some of them all day.

Every day, some just the mornings, five days a week, some just the afternoon, five days a week. It's just really a matter of scheduling. But you will know when you are serving grand jury, exactly how long it's going to be, what days you are going to serve, and you are there to hear this evidence, and determine if there's probable cause.

Again, it's a much lower standard. It's not like, and so it's not like a, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt, like a trial. So, you know, you, that's why they call it bare bones, typically, because you don't have to present everything. You present just enough that the jury needs to make an indictment. Now, in a case like this, where they're going to charge RICO and or conspiracy as well as the other charges This is fairly complicated. They are going to here get lots of evidence whether through documents whether through live witnesses or whether through The reading of the report or summarizing the report or the witnesses that testified for the special grand jury that you talked about it's gonna take Take some time.

And the way it works is here, so they picked 26 grand jurors per grand jury. So there's 23 who are the actual jurors and three alternates. So the three alternates who are going to sit there aren't going to do anything unless they, unless someone who is a juror can no longer serve and then they are substituted in. And the way it works in the grand jury is grand jurors can ask questions and they can participate,

but it's really more of a passive. You sit there and you listen and the prosecutor asks questions of the witnesses. So there's really only 23 granders who are in panel at a time. And as you said for there to be an indictment, there has to be a quorum, which is at least 16 present. It's not just actually for an indictment, it's also to hear evidence. You know, the grand jury can't function as a grand jury unless there's at least 16 of the 23, that's called a quorum.

And if they have a quorum, then you can present evidence. And then as you said to get an indictment, you need 12 votes in favor. Now, a couple of things. First of all, nobody is ever going to take a vote if there's only, unless it's like an emergency, no one's going to take a vote if there's only 16 of the 12 present. You're going to want the whole grand jury there for a few reasons. Number one, sometimes occasionally a grand jury, a grand juror will miss a day here or there of testimony, right? The doctor's appointment, they'll be sick, whatever. And there's a roll call sheet.

And you can only vote, a grand juror can only vote on a case if they were present for all material evidence, right? Anything that's material. So, you know, prosecutors not going to take the risk. If there's only 16 present, that what if, you know, a couple of them were missing, you know, weren't there and a judge disagrees with me and rules that, you know, what this is, this was material that they missed. I thought it was ministerial, but it's material. No one's going to take that risk. The other risk a prosecutor's not going to take is you know you're counting on 12 people to vote out of 16.

You know you're not going to want to you know they're good odds but they're not perfect right. In a case like this, I think you're going to encourage the grand jury to all be there all the time and you're going to want as many as possible in order to ask them for a vote. So, you know, that's what's going to happen here. You know, next week, Judge McBerney is going, you know, well, he already explained to them the responsibilities and Well, he already explained to them their responsibilities and the purpose, etc. And next week when they start, if they haven't already, they're going to be sworn in. And then there's initial charging that happens.

Then in New York, I guess they are, Fanny Willis and the judge already did it. New York, the prosecutor does it. There is no judge. The only function that the judge does in New York is he's there for the selection and for the swearing in. And then they go into the grand jury and then the prosecutors, the one who charges them on the law in New York. The Ernie's out after yesterday. He's a new presiding judge. He'll be over the two grand juries.

Interesting. And so, you know, so that's what it it's that's how it's going to go. And, you know, I think that we will see, you know, Fannie Willis has very loudly signaled exactly when this is going to happen. She's shutting down the courthouse when it happens think she's also signaling to Jack Smith that, you know, if you want to go first, this is, you know, you better do it before. And I think there's reasons why she'd want him to go first. I think one of them is, you know, there is this policy at the Department of Justice called the Pettit Policy, which means if there's a state court went first, there's a policy to stand down. Now it's only a policy policy you can override it, but

again, Jack Smith and Merrick Garland, they're not going to want to look like they've done anything special here. They're going to want to go first. They're not going to want to say that we're going against our policy, even though they can, because it's not a law or a rule, they're not going to want to be put in that position. So I think we're going to see Jack Smith go before Fannie Willis brings this case. I think Fannie Willis' case is going to be sweeping. I think it's going in addition to all the charges that you talked about. I think it's going to be lots of people.

I think you're going to see lots of defendants here. And I think it's going to be a you know, a sweeping indictment that focuses on the nation-wide fake electors scheme that Georgia was one of the, you know, was one of the jurisdictions where it happened with the, you know, find me the 1100, 11,780 votes. Yeah, no, that's where that little bit of competition for justice is going to happen because we know Jack Smith is looking at the seven battleground states and the fake electors and Fawni Willis signaled. I mean, I'm not sure how much dialogue the Department of Justice and Fulton County, D.A. have had, but she's told the world that she's also expanded hers because she's right.

Georgia was one of seven places that Donald Trump tried to falsely and fraudulently interfere with the election. He didn't make just one, you know, when we first started the show, you know, I don't mean this show, although the show is going on. When we first started the show, you know, we were always talking about the phone call that Donald Trump made to Brad Raffin's perger to talk about, you know, Kim, I just find 11,000 votes. Turns out that wasn't the only phone call that Donald Trump made. He made one Arizona. He made one of Pennsylvania. I mean, Donald Trump violated every rule that

he lived his life by that Roy Cohen had taught him, his former fixer before Michael Cohen. Roy Cohen told him, don't put anything in writing, don't make any phone calls yourself and use buffers. And he did that his whole life in business. That's why he was ripping up presidential records, you know, to the, to the, to the, to the, a gas response of his staff staff who who then scurried to like paste it back together again after he left the room when he was president because he'd always

done that when he was in business. He never wrote anything took that stupid sharpie and would write a one-liner on it but he never made phone calls. He got so desperate and thank god he did because that's the evidence we need to convict him. He got so desperate at the end to stay in power when the reality that to quote him, I can't believe I lost that guy, that guy being Joe Biden and the proper election. Yeah, you lost, but he couldn't accept it. He started picking up the phone himself,

multiple phone calls, some of which got recorded, all of which got noted in some way, and that is great for justice. And that's that battle between Foni Willis and Jack Smith, but who's going to do the big giant Rico civil case, the sprawling case with witnesses and documents and states involved him or her. And I think you're right. I think it's going to be Jack soon. You know, I know you thought last week, I thought this week, maybe next week, but I think you're right. I think it's going to be Jack soon. You know, I know what you thought last week. I thought this week, maybe next week,

but I think it's a July before funny gets out of the shoot completely case. And so to answer the question in the chat, what happens to funny? Funny Willis says hers will be stayed. It'll be abated while it doesn't get canceled out necessarily until the federal case goes forward.

And then Fawny Wells continues to try her case after she's reached her indictment. But look, Karen and I will follow these things the way we have, hopefully, meticulously putting together and tying together and painting together all the little dots that, you know, we're discovering our fan base, our followers, listeners and audience are following and sending to us. We, you know, we have a lot of dialogue with people that are here on the chat tonight and also, you know, in our own, our own social media. You can follow me on all things social media, including threads at MSPOPOC. Karen, I know you're on threads as well.

Give your social media handle. I think I'm Karen Agnifolo on threads because your handle has to be the same as your Instagram handle, that's how it works. So, I don't know. Your KFA legal everywhere else. On, yeah, on threads, you're what? Kareneg, at Kareneg Nifolo.

Oh, okay. So, you know, we're trying to use threads. You know, I'd love to get off a Twitter, but for right now. I would love to get off of Twitter too. I, you know, it's funny because people are like, I don't understand, you know, you're just going from one, you know, Magal Maniac billionaire to another. And I understand the concern and the issue, but, you know, just the hate speech

and, you know, other things that Elon Musk is bringing into Twitter, I do think at least threads says they're going to be much more responsible and have a policing function for the H.B.H. and the misinformation. So I think for that reason alone, I think it's just time for something new. We're all scrambling to try to figure out what's the next thing that's going to be where we, what's the reef that all the cool fish can hang out on.

We don't know what it is yet. I mean, back when LinkedIn, LinkedIn is now the dominant business, you know, social network, okay? But when LinkedIn first came out, I don't know if you remember this, Karen, because you were, you know, I would do the same thing. There were so many competitors for LinkedIn, and I get all these weird invitations from join me on this one and join me on. And I was like, oh my God, how many are there? And then LinkedIn left to the left to the front, crush the other ones. Everybody just stayed there. And that's what happened with Twitter. It wasn't that it was the best of greatest. You with the word limit, the whole thing. It was sort of hokey, but it's where everybody just gravitated to and it got it got, you know, a center of gravity about it and everybody just stayed there. We're trying to find the next thing.

I'm not here to plug anybody else, but, you know, you know, um, uh, threads just did sign up 150 million people in a week and a half or whatever it is. So yes, it is one evil billionaire against another, but that's who owns media companies, except for the Midas touch network, which we don't take outside money, which is why we have sponsors. Haven't I rounded that out nicely to Endarsha? Yes, and you can always find us on YouTube as salty just reminded us in the chat. And you can always find us on YouTube for free subscription only on the Midas Touch Network.

We've reached the end of another midweek edition of Legal AF. I think we're coming up between the two the two shows on the one the one podcast we're coming up on like 300 in terms of our episodes. It's amazing coming into summer season again, but justice does it sleep or rest neither does Ben neither do I apparently neither does Karen. So we're going to keep it coming every week just like this one at the intersection of law and politics. We are so grateful for our audience who's been with us through thick and thin. It started thin.

It's getting a lot thicker, which is, which is good. Shout out to the mightest mighty, the legal a furs in Karen. As always, a little people say, yeah, you're like Ben though. Sometimes you tell Karen she has last word, but then you take it back. All right. it's a phrase Get over you know, it's like Ben's giving me the last word and then goes on for another 25 minutes and some rant it happens It's the show. It's the beauty of the show. So why we like doing it Karen a word I have two questions and then I'll comment okay question number one. What was the first date of the first legal AF with you and Ben?

And is it still available on YouTube? Well, it depends. All these probably scrambling right now. I hear I hear fevered fingers on, on, on clicking around. I know you just said I have a chat to me. Um, it depends what, and depends on how you define it. We started, bed and I started something called just terribly named legal round up. It's just terrible.

It's better than raw law. No, it wasn't raw law. Trust me. It was legal round up. Thank you, salty. April 6, 2020. April 6, 2020. He dates it as April 6, 2020, which is like people,

it was, it was a pandemic project. Okay. You know, Midas Touch had just started. It had like 3000 people on it. It was so Midas Touch, I'll tell secrets now. Midas Touch was really a website before it became a podcast and then a YouTube thing. And it had people on it. And they were so, they needed so much content that I used to send videos from New York of like random things and then Brett and the brothers would get it up immediately because they needed content desperately. So I'd be like, look, super Mario gokarts going down Fifth Avenue because of the pandemic

and they'd be like, super Mario takes over New York or like People not wearing masks remember when that was a thing in the middle of the pandemic in Washington Square Park Look at this video and they put it up eventually bed and I were like, you know we're lawyers Maybe we should do something related to the law and I would do these little whatever's We didn't know what they were and then we did legalup, which was much better on graphics than it was on content because Brett, my cellist, did the graphics. We didn't have salty then. And we had 275 total, not, I'm not, not thousands.

We had 175 total views. I think our first episode, our second one, I think was 250, something like that. And now if you and I and Ben don't do half a million, we get, we're like, what did we do wrong? What is the matter? We're doing something wrong. I'm like, doing something wrong. I was at a closet with, you know, 254 for all I know cats and dogs watching. And we were high five and we're like, this is great. That's people I didn't know. They tuned in. That was the way it worked. And then as I said before, we were a special edition. Once the Midas Brothers podcast got popular, we were a special edition of a funny story about

the YouTube part. And we just started the first 15 episodes, was just me special edition with Ben on the regular Wednesday, Midas Touch. It was like, and we didn't have a name yet. And then we did legal AF, tried legal AF, which I came up with. And then the funny part is, Brett, I noticed that they have the brothers were doing YouTube and I used to get dressed up for the podcast until Ben broke it to me that we were only doing audio. I'm like, well, why am I wearing a nice sweater then? Because I don't know. So we were only audio and I was like, well, why are the brothers YouTube?

Oh, yeah. And I think Brett thought that it would be better. Like I, that I had a face made for, for radio, maybe, and maybe Brett then did too. So he was like, no, you guys were doing good. Do audio only. We don't need to see what you guys look like. And then we said, well, no, let's try YouTube.

And then YouTube took off and the rest is history. And then you and I met and the rest is. What was that? What was our first episode? I don't know, maybe four months later, five months later, I was like, I want to do a I want to do a longer as this has become. I want to do a longer version where you can really drill down on things and we want to get some other voices on here. I think it was like you were like 50 episodes in to the beginning, but you're a founder.

I can say, I can say, you're not like the second Darren on Bewitch. You're like, you're the first Darren. Second Darren on Bewitch. Oh my God, that's the best ever. You're the first Darren, you're not the second. Wait, what was his, they had the same first name, both of them. It was, one was Dick York and the other one was Dick Sargent. And don't ask me how I remember that. Okay, and how I remember that they had the same first name. Okay of them. It was, it was, one was Dick York and the other one was Dick Sargent. And don't ask me how I remember that.

Okay, and how I remember that they had the same first name. Okay, that's crazy. All right, we gotta go, the salt is gonna be good. We gotta go, we've lost all the audience. Okay, shout out to the mic, Smitey, the legal AFC, and next week, see you on Saturday with the Saturday edition. you