Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump FEELS MORE HEAT in Criminal and Civil Cases

Episode Date: September 3, 2023

Anchored by Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok, the weekend edition of the top-rated news analysis podcast, Legal AF, is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. This week the anchors discuss: 1. Developments in the Georgia Trump criminal case, as all 19 co-defendants struggle to escape either the prosecutor, DA Fani Willis, or each other; 2. Former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows committing the crime of perjury on the Federal stand while trying to convince a judge to let him take his criminal case to federal court, while committing state and federal crimes in the process; 3. Developments in the Mar a Lago Florida criminal prosecution of Trump, as his coconspirators and witnesses struggle to obtain independent counsel, and the Special Prosecutor forces them to go through a hearing with Judge Cannon to point out the ethical conflicts of interest present when Trump's Save America PAC buys and pays for lawyers to represent parties in the case; 4. Four more Proud Boys are sentenced to some of the highest sentences issued out for sedition, but the Trump appointed judge finds a way to cut their sentences in half; 5. Trump's civil fraud trial scheduled to start next month brought by the NY Attorney General, including new motions for summary judgment filed by the NY AG and Trump's side as they both try to reduce the amount of issues at trial, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSOR! POLICY GENIUS: Head to https://policygenius.com or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.  RHONE: Head to https://rhone.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF to save 20% off your entire order! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 MAGA Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump and his co-defendants waved their arrangements and entered pleas of not guilty this week. What does that mean? Will break it down. But more notably for me, Michael Popock, Donald Trump filed an opposition to the speedy trial demand made by some of his co-defendants and former lawyers like Ken Chesbro and Sydney Powell Donald Trump also asked to have his case severed from the other co-defendants. And with that, kind of launched total chaos and disorder among the various criminal defendants in this Georgia case, each pointing fingers at each other, asking their case, be severed or separated from this

case, and so on and so forth. And finally, failing to understand, I think, Pope, the sweeping power of Georgia's Rico Law, speaking of failing to understand Mark Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff and co-defendant in the Georgia Rico case made the shocking decision to wave his fifth amendment right and testify in Georgia federal court as part of his effort to try to remove the state criminal Rico case to federal court. But clearly Meadows either did not understand the risk he faced in doing this, or once again underestimated Fulton County District Attorney Fawni Willis. Note, do not underestimate Fulton County District Attorney Fawni Willis, and Mark Meadows has found himself now in a perjury situation where he lied on the stand he was exposed on cross examination and Potentially a new criminal charge could be brought against him and the case could likely be

Remanded back the state court as well Michael Popeye and I will break that down and let's not forget that this week Began with another major hearing in Trump criminal cases a trial setting conference was held in Washington, DC, felt like that took place a year ago. Nope, that was this past week. I had a check my calendar again in Washington, DC before federal judge, Tonya, Chutkin, Trump's lawyers during this hearing were rude, abrasive, and consistently misrepresented things, facts, and cases, even cases that Judge Tanya Chukkin presided over.

And Judge Chukkin was not having it. She set trial for March 4th of 2024, leading Donald Trump to whine like a petulant third-grade child, and call her names and say that she is a Marxist. Also, special counsel, Jack Smith, had a significant breakthrough, I think, in the Southern District of Florida case before Judge Eileen Cannon. It was a bit buried in this Garcia motion opposition filed by one of Donald Trump's co-defendant, but it's big news, I think, learning for the first time that three additional witnesses are no longer going to be represented by a lawyer paid for by Donald Trump's political action. Arm, and with all of these criminal

cases taking place, let's not forget that the civil fraud case against Donald Trump, the Trump organization and his adult kids other than Ivanka, that's still set for trial in early October. Yes, this October. Yes, that's one month away where New York attorney general, Etisha James is seeking at least $250 million and an injunction to shut down the Trump organization. Donald Trump and his adult kids from doing business in the state of New York. The Tisha James filed a summary judgment motion. So did Trump. What does that mean and what happens next?

We discuss here. And finally, for terrorists who are part of the proud boy extremist group were sentenced this week for crimes on January 6th. 18 years for Ethan, the Norton 17 years for Joe Biggs 15 years for Zachary, Rell and 10 years for Dominic, Pizzola, each were described as crying crocodile tears in court, begging to be able to see their kids one day But as soon as those sentences were handed down at least in Pizzola's case, he started screaming, we love Trump Which up one this goes to show you the level of maturity and criminality of these individuals and why we do legal AF. I've been my cellist from legal AF joined by cohost,

Michael Popak, Popak, how are you doing, sir? I'm doing great. You know, I love the photos before they go to into the court system, like the 19 mug shots that you put up where everybody's got some version of Jordan Peel's us movies photo up there. So happy to be by the by the look of the picture to be in the criminal justice system in Georgia

until they're not just as the proud boys are all excited when they're storming the capital and trying to hang Mike Pence and killing people on the steps of the Capitol until they're then put through the grinder of the justice system convicted of their crimes and then have to face their maker in the form of a federal judge giving them sentencing and then they're not so happy anymore. I'd like to do split screens. We can do it on the Midas Touch Network of the photos of these people in their mug shots when they're goofing around for cash and what they look like the day they've got to bend the knee in front of a federal or state judge to be sentenced to prison.

You know, I've had a lot of people say, hey, Ben, you should do some merch regarding the mug shots and here, but pull up the mug shots right there. One more time. That's Donald Trump. Pull up the mug shots of all of the co-defendants together. There's the us. I'm not wearing that ever. Okay, I made the exact, I am not putting that on any shirt that I would ever wear. Put the children away. That's scary. And nor do I want to put it on a mug

because there's yes, I could say like their traders and all of these things which they are. But it would put me in a very bad mood if I woke up every morning and so those faces so I made the call Absolutely not with respect to with respect to that and by the way Pope I I want to give you a special thanks for filling in on the Mightest Touch Brothers podcast for Brett where Brett's been away for the past two weeks He's coming back over this weekend We did something really cool also where you joined us for the after show that we have on Patreon. At patreon.com slash might as touch. That's P-A-T-R-E-O-N.com slash might as touch. Remember to spell it right. M-E-I-D-A-S-T-O-U-C-H. So on patreon.com slash might as touch

we have our after show. and you gave us the origin story how you met me how you became a lawyer how you join the might as touch network I just will remind all of our legal a efforts on the outset go to patreon.com slash might as touch at some point and subscribe and hear about popox origin story we don't have outside investors here on the might as touch network or legal a episode the way that we grow this platform is through fun ways like the emojis that you see in the YouTube chat, which is the YouTube memberships and that separate and the Patreon memberships, but that's how we grow it because of fun, Donald Trump? And what does it mean that Donald Trump and his co-defendants waived their arrangements and entered not guilty, please? But then if you can, Popoq, after discussing that, maybe just break down.

There's been a lot of filings this week. A lot of some people have filed speedy trials, severance motions, a lot going on. Try to break it down so that everybody understands what's going on here. I think where it starts, and I did a hot tick on it, I think it's going up soon, is where I tell my legal associates to start. You start with the rules.

You start with the owner's manual for the court that you're in, and every court and every judge particularly has a chamber rule, that's what I call it, it's with a judge's particular rules for their courtroom. And August the 24th, a little covered, I don't think anybody covered it. Scott McAfee, the new judge, six months on the bench, he updated his standing order related to all criminal cases in front of him.

When he first got on in February, yes, he's been on less than a year, he had a kind of a standard one. As soon as he got assigned the Trump case with the 18 other Coke and Spirators, he immediately updated his rule book. And if you looked at it, and a lot of what we're watching now comes straight out of

the things that are required in to practice criminal cases in front of us, Judge McAfee, for instance. In his standing order, he says, if you don't want to show up at your arraignment, that's okay. I'll set a time for it. In this case, it was supposed to be on the 6th of September. And I still think certain of the defendants, kind of the on the lower tier and those that may not have much money and don't have attorneys yet, or maybe getting public defenders,

they will maybe show up for these 15-minute time slots on the on the on the 6th of September. But in the standing order for Judge McAfee, it says straight out, if you want to file in lieu of an appearance, a motion in lieu of an appearance to waive your appearance, that's fine. If you want to tell me what your plea is, guilty or not guilty in that paper, that's fine too. And so people are starting to do that. Donald Trump did it Rudy Giuliani, just did it. Others have done it, Ken Chesbro, Cindy Powell, and then some haven't done it yet,

because one just got out of prison, out of jail, because he's been sitting there this whole time, because he didn't have a lawyer and couldn't make bond. And so this is quickly devolving, right? because he's been sitting there this whole time because he didn't have a lawyer and couldn't make bond and so There's a this is quickly devolving Right as we as we slide down into entropy as we slide down into chaos This is what happens when Donald Trump can't pay or won't pay for everybody's legal fees with bought and paid for attorneys So he can coordinate strategy when you don't do that Which is what he's not doing apparently and everybody's legal fees with bought and paid for attorneys so he can coordinate strategy

when you don't do that which is what he's not doing apparently and everybody's complaining about it jenna ellis for instance who had been a huge trump supporter is now supporting to santa's after she got almost her bar license pulled and is now complaining on social media that why isn't magna incorporated the pack paying my legal fees and everybody's legal fees? Well, they're not. And so they're all getting their own lawyers. In fact, none of these defendants, we're going to talk later on about Mar-a-Lago where there are groupings of defendants and co-conspirators and witnesses behind one or two main lawyers.

Here, there's like 19 separate lawyers. And none of them are coordinating as of yet some Because this is like I said it on a hot take this is like crabs in a bucket trying to get out right and they're stabbing each other as They fight every it's every man woman and child for themselves And that's what we're watching so one group wants to go to trial and try to catch Funny Willis flat footed so that's so far that's Ken Chesbro who we're going to talk a lot about today when we get to Mark Meadows who wrote of two major

legal memos. If you want to call it that, pushing the fake electors scheme and the pressure campaign on Mike Pence, he said, I'm ready to go right now. And the judge says, fine, why don't you go on the 23rd of October. I'm talking about this 23rd of October, not some other 23rd of October. Like the same month that Donald Trump is already in that civil fraud case we're going to talk about later today. Ken Chesbro and Sydney Powell are going to go to trial. And rather than be caught at all flat-footed, the prosecutor, Fawni Willis and her team said, ready, we're ready.

And why don't we do all? Talk about the bravado here, which I love, the brass of Fawni Willis and her team. They didn't say, John, October, that sounds really early. They knew under speedy trial law in Georgia. It was a possibility. That's why we gave her some good, good, good natured ribbing between March of last,

between this past March in which you finally got around to indicted where are you funny? You said it was imminent. Well, she had to get ready for a trial. You see how quickly things move in Georgia. It's breathtaking. The velocity. So she said, not only did she say, I'm fine with October 23rd for those two. Let's do all 19, including Donald Trump. Now, of course, that freaked out. The others who aren't ready like Donald Trump. He never wants to go early about anything. He wants to go never. So he's, his lawyers are moving to uncouple. I, I referred to it.

If you're thinking about it pictorially, this is a 19 car roller coaster that is hurtling out of control at hundreds of miles an hour each defendant in a car. And now some of them like Donald Trump and others want to pull pins and take their car off the tracks and find out where it lands. And so Donald Trump wants to sever his case away from the others to have his own personal table for one trial related to the criminal cases. And the others are like, yeah, me too. I want to do it by myself too.

But that's not how a criminal rico conspiracy is done. Each one of them is responsible for the 161 overt acts that are listed in furtherance of the conspiracy in the indictment alone. They're each responsible for each other's bad acts. So even though there's 34 counts or whatever it is in the indictment, and only a certain subset against each person, a lot of them are like, we want to sever the indictment too.

We don't want the jury to know about the other bad things and counts of other people, but that is the very nature. That's why she brought a conspiracy case and a rico case to boot. So that should not fly. I think this case gets separated, but not the way any of them anticipate. I think it's just gonna be like basically cut down the middle if they can.

It'll be like nine here and 10 there. If unless there's a courtroom big enough to hold on 19 and then I think it's gonna be that. That's one group. Then the next group want wanna run to federal court. And we're gonna talk about how badly that is going for Mark Meadows. If he is the test case, if he's the canary in the coal mine, it is going terribly, the canary has died.

Do not run to federal court because Fannie Willis is waiting for you there also. And she is loaded for bearer. And she's ready to put on her mini-dryle and cross-examine you, if you're stupid enough to take the stand. All of this, though, to back up from what I originally said, Ben starts and ends with Judge McAfee's rules.

And some people might be saying, then I'll turn it over to you on this one. Some people might be saying, God, Georgia, criminal procedural law is so different, so alien to use something we talked about earlier today, then criminal law in federal court and you're right. In federal court, there's a hearing about everything. You don't like the order of the judge you ask for a hearing. You don't like the brief somebody filed you ask to file another brief and everything is done in this kind of fashion. We've had a dozen hearings in Mar-a-Log.

We've had two or three already in Jan 6th with Judge Chuck. You know how many hearings we've had in Georgia already, even though they've been arraigned, had their bond condition set, and a trial be set? Zero. Zero. There hasn't been what... I don't want people to think might as touch, and LegalAF has has fallen down on the job that we didn't cover a hearing that happened. Scott McAfee as set bond conditions told people what they can and can't do on release a random set trial dates and he's never had

anybody in his courtroom yet. That is Georgia procedural law and that is the rock and a immovable object that all of these, that vice, that they are all now in, that only one person really is expert at running, which is funny, Willis. They're in big trouble. When the hearings do take place, when the trials do take place, they will be videotaped as well. They will be streamed on YouTube. They will be streamed here, streamed here on the Midas Touch Network YouTube channel.

So that's also different that you get to actually stream things live here, unlike in federal court as well. Your analogy to the roller coaster, Popo, is so apt because if you think about it, sometimes you don't get to choose, most of the time you don't get to choose who's going to be on that roller coaster with you, right? But you all got on that roller coaster together. There are people in the front of the roller coaster, there are people in the back of the roller coaster, there are people in the middle of the roller coaster,

and your experience on the roller coaster may be slightly different depending on which seat that you take, but that's the roller coaster right here that we have on screen. And what was so interesting as well as you watch and you read these severance motions and you see the arguments that these co-defendants are trying to make about why they weren't on the roller coaster. It is some of the most frivolous and frankly at times kind of humorous and funny as they're trying to get off the roller coaster, the criminal fascist Rico

roller coaster that they all said, hey, this would be a good ride to destroy American democracy and now they're like, hey, I don't want to be on this roller coaster anymore. So with Sydney Powell, she was arguing in her kind of severance motion and her thing, she was saying, look, I wasn't even Donald Trump's lawyer. What are you talking about? That's like, wait, wait, that's your argument. Your argument was that you never represented Donald Trump

at any point in time. So this whole time, it was like Halloween, you were just dressing up as Donald Trump's lawyer, showing up on TV when people announced that you were Donald Trump's lawyer, you just allowed them to say that. You just created the false impression, like you were doing legal work on his behalf in lots of locations. So either directly or indirectly you were doing that, but that was one of our plans. So, so wait a minute, before you leave, you got a great photo up there. So, would Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis are standing there at a podium with her in the middle? Who are they representing? The camp, it's either the campaign

or Donald Trump personally. Who is it? Exactly. Well, that's why it was kind of laughably ridiculous argument. And then Chesbrow's argument, because Chesbrow invoked the speedy trial act first, I guess not expecting that others were going to invoke it as well, which requires that the case be tried before November 1st, but then Sidney Powell invoked the speedy trial act. And it's like, that's a disaster for Chesbrow because now he's going to be show, he's potentially sees himself shoulder to shoulder, right next to Sydney Powell in court to release the Kraken lady like the craziest most dangerous criminal of them all sitting next there and weirdest sitting next to him and and so he did a pleading.

He filed this document in court. Pull that up one more time, salty. Never met her. Never sent an email to her. Never physically met her. Never physically met her. never sent an email to her, never physically, never physically, never, never called her, never texted her, never received, you know, and then he talks about how he's never been to coffee county and a lot of the charges against her involve the theft of election data at the coffee county office with Kathy Latham, who was the former Republican chair of the

Coffey County Republican Party. And so he goes, I don't even know these people. And Popoak to your point, that's fine for purposes of Rico. You played your part in the racketeering scheme. Like in the in a sprawling mafia style case, it doesn't necessarily require that the mafia lieutenant in Boston know the mafia lieutenant in New Jersey. They can have their own separate terms and territories, but they're ultimately still working as part of this common plan and scheme for the crime family. And that's what exists here.

That's why I agree with you, Popok. You're gonna see these two groupings. I think you'll see October trial grouping, which will be live on TV streamed here on the Midas Touch Network. And then you're gonna see a later one. He said, and by the way, that whole streaming thing, back to what I said before,

right out of Scott McAfee's standing order. Everything he believes that live television, televised of judicial events is an appropriate transparency for democracy. It's baked right into his order. And then he puts it on YouTube, the recorded version. So I don't know how they're going to exactly do it here, whether YouTube's going to be the framework or it's going to be a court system of live streaming, but he believes in live streaming. And he knew he had this case when he issued that particular order. Chesbro goes even one step further, which shows that he either doesn't understand

rico-conspiracy and how it's pled and what needs to be proved by the prosecutor, or he does, and he's just lying again in his pleadings, because he says, and I want to know who the unindicted co-conspirators are and the ones that aren't named, and I have the right to know that too. No, you don't. The reason Rico coming out of the 70s in the hands of prosecutors like Fawney Willis is such a powerful and successful tool.

One that has been that power and that ability of a prosecutor to do it this way has been upheld in hundreds and hundreds, maybe thousands of cases, a state and federal. So we're not gonna go back and challenge what happened in 1970 when this law came out and the Georgia law came out, 20 years later, that's over.

It is constitutional, it is appropriate, but it is like no other individual criminal account out there. It is its own beast and it's the reason it should strike fear in the hearts of defendants when they open the indictment. It's one thing to say crap, I got indicted for a felony. It's a whole other world to say count one is a criminal Rico with 18 other people 161 over at X and a number of predicate acts. That is a bigger deal because it I'm not saying the burden

is lessened on the prosecutor, but her her burden of proof on the elements means that she can put on evidence as you just laid out then against all of them. And then the jury is left trying to figure out. And yes, there's a slop over effect. Some people might say, but what if they get confused and there's a little bit of a slop over about they're really mad about what Sydney Powell did in coffee county, but then they're less mad, but yeah, but it's one big conspiracy. So there is that slop over. That's why co codefendants fight like mad

to get out of re-co-conspiracies because they're gonna get tired and feathered with other people's bad acts in front of the jury and they don't want that to happen. And that's what we're watching now. This fight to the death to try to avoid it. And now they think like Jess broke, he gets to pick who's gonna be next to him, right?

Then he shouldn't, I said it on a hot take. If he wanted to pick who's going to be next to him, right? Then he shouldn't I said it on a hot take. If he wanted to be tried by himself at a table for one at the prosecution, then he should have committed the crime by himself. But because he's alleged that she has to make back to Fawni, she has to make out to the jury with all the elements that this was a sprawling conspiracy that had multi level parts and multiple participants. That's her burden. And if they find there was no conspiracy,

which I find it hard to believe, given the weight of the evidence we've seen already, if they do that, then she has lost. It's all, or it's binary. The switch is either on, there's a conspiracy enough. They could find a conspiracy, the jury, and find certain people weren't part of it. But if they don't find the conspiracy,

which I think there's absolutely no chance of that happening, then she's done, she's out, she's lost, all 19 go free. Well, look, the conspiracy, the hard work's been done. Now she just has to introduce the evidence and she lays it all out in the indictment. I mean, you can literally read from the indictment

as your opening statement and then say, okay, here's the email, here's the document, here's the communication, and here's the text messages, here's the video, here's the tweet, here's all of that. You know, in Chesbro just wants to be like, all I did was send 18 emails. He says that in that motion to sever. All I did was do 18 emails. Well, look, if all you did was one email and the one email was a crime, that's a crime. So he doesn't want to be anywhere near Sydney Powell, because I think he thinks that the types of crimes, that the way he's going to put on the defenses, this is just what lawyers do. They write emails, they write memos, and he's going to try to confuse the jury that that conduct is just what lawyers do which it's absolutely not and then you've got Sydney Palo released

the cracker you know and then like breaking into election offices and I think the Jerry's gonna look what what what what is going on here that's what's happening and by the way that same look that I just did, what's going on here? You know what that was like? Popeye, it was Mark Meadows when he took the stand. What a humiliating performance on this stand. Now, I don't, it still could be a potential close call because 11 circuit case law on removals

consistently emphasizes that there is a very, very low threshold to remove a state court case, to criminal, in a criminal case, to remove a state court case, to federal court. But, regardless, he's further incriminated himself. Here's basically the standards for removal of a state to federal case. Number one was the individual, a federal official, two were they acting under the color of their federal authority. And number three, do they have credible federal defenses? And an evidentiary hearing was held earlier this past week

before Judge Steve Jones, an evidentiary hearing, is what it sounds like, evidentiary evidence. So you can't just do what these Maggar Republicans do on Fox or Newsmax and just, you know, beat their chest and say, whatever, you have to show facts and evidence. And so apparently Mark Meadows figured there's no other way to try to get the case removed to federal court. or he was just so deluded by buying his own crap that he sells people that he didn't think he was gonna get cross-examined.

I'll get your take on it. You know, so he took the stand and it did not go very well for him as he tried to establish those elements and the cross-examination from Fulton County District attorney, Foney Willis's team was fast, furious, and fierce. And they got him stumbling and mumbling. And he didn't know what his job was.

And he acted like he was confused about what the chief of staff was so much. So that in the post-evidentiary hearing briefing, there was a footnote where Fulton County District Attorney, Fony Willis, is like, you don't even have to credit anything, he said, post-evidentiary hearing, briefing. There was a footnote where Fulton County District attorney, Fony Willis, says like, you don't even have to credit anything, he said, because he perjured himself. He lied about everything. He claimed he didn't know about the fake electors,

then we had to show him an email where he said, I'm the one coordinating the fake electors. He consistently used the term, we, in all of his emails. And then when cross examined on why he used we, he's like, that's just what I used, but I didn't actually mean to say that I am part of we. So she's like, that's just ridiculous. Okay. When he says we, it means we, he lied consistently and we had to show him emails that demonstrated while he was on the stand that he lied.

Judge, this case should be remanded. The criminal enterprise has nothing to do with official federal duties. It's purely political and criminal political, trying to change votes from the winning candidate to the losing candidate. It has nothing to do with the chief of staff role at all. Popo, what'd you make of all of this? Yeah, I have a new name for Mark Mendoza. It's Mark Mummy.

I don't know what he was doing up there on the stand. I'm not sure he knew what he was doing up there on the stand. And it was legal malpractice and maybe more for his lawyer to let him take the stand to testify as he did. Because as you said, and we'll talk about the criminal act of perjury, we talk about it a lot, perjury, perjuremself, it's perjury. It's a crime, and I think it's a crime to waste. I think it's a crime federally because you just lied to a federal judge.

And I think the northern district of Atlanta, the northern district of Georgia, sitting in Atlanta, the US attorney's office, should be opening up an investigation as to whether Mark Meadows lied. And I'm going to go through some things that Mark Meadows knew or should have known from his from the Jan 6th report that came out in December on this very issue that if his lawyer had seen this and let him take the stand, it's legal malpractice. If his lawyer didn't see it, that's legal malpractice. And if he let him lie, that's subordinate perjury, which is a crime in itself.

But I think it's a crime two ways. I think it's a perjury crime for federally. And I think it's a crime in state because it's ultimately a state proceeding. He called it a civil proceeding, a state proceeding involving Fonney Willis. I think she can also prosecute him. Why does that matter? Because if Jack Smith wants to continue to squeeze Mark Meadows, he just got a major unforced error for Mark Meadows to use against him to get him to testify.

Because everybody wants Mark Meadows to flip. We sort of thought he flipped with the feds, but then we read the indictment for Jack Smith and we didn't really see him mention much in there, not even as an unindicted co-conspirator. So we were a little concerned. Then Fony Willis indicted him, and we're like, okay, well, he's not, doesn't seem to be cooperating appropriately. How is he cooperating with the feds if he's being indicted by state? So this is actually, she must, Fony Willis's team must have been salivating when they heard

that Mark Meadows was going to take the stand. And because that is a rare opportunity for a prosecutor to get a defendant under oath and be able to show that they're committing a new crime, which she can then use, she could revise the indictment now, amend and supersede her indictment to bring account. And I think based on what you put up on the screen, she will. Now let me explain why we know he lied and what he lied about. He said a lot of things that were not true, but the one in particular that she was able to show perjury, she will be able to show perjury, is he said he had no involvement in the coordination of the fake elector scheme. That's the sentence, no involvement in knowing it all. He wasn't

like, I can't remember, I can't recall, maybe I did. He didn't equivocate at all. He said point blank, I have no involvement. And that can't possibly be true if he had read section Section 3.2 of chapter three of the Jan 6th committee report on this ferry issue, which I will now read aloud because it's right out of the cross examination of Fawni Willis. We know her team read it. And then I want to talk about Cassidy Hutchinson in a minute, who's also cooperating with Fawni Willis, the former assistant to Mark Meadows. This is from Ben, this is from the report. In early December, the highest levels of the Trump campaign took note of Chesbro, Ken Chesbro, who we talked about, fake-elector plan, and began to operationalize it. On December 6th, White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, forwarded a copy of Chesbro's November 18th, 2020 memo to Trump campaign senior advisor Jason Miller writing, this is Meadows. Let's have a discussion about this tomorrow.

Miller replied that he just engaged with reporters on the subject to which Meadows wrote, if you're on it, then never mind the meeting. We, there's that we again, just need to have someone coordinating the electors for states. I don't know how we can mean anything but we in that sentence. Miller clarified the report continues that he had only been working the PR angle and that they should still meet to which Meadows answered got it. Later that week Miller Miller sent Meadows a spreadsheet get this been from the Trump camp that the Trump campaign had compiled. It listed contact information for nearly all of the 79 GOP nominees to the Electoral College

on the November ballot for, we can fill in the blank here, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. And on December 8th, Meadows received a text message from a former state legislator in Louisiana recommending that the proposed get this. Here's the quote, proposed electors for Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Nevada all meet next Monday at their state capitals, call themselves to order elect officials and cast their votes for the president. Then they certify their votes and transmit their certificate to Washington.

Isn't that a very pithy recitation of the conspiracy? Meadows replied, we are. There's the way you get. So I don't know how you don't know what your own reports and people have testified against you and then get on the stand and say it didn't happen and you weren't involved. I'm not even going to read because it'll take too much time The whole other set of text messages and emails that are reflected in the Jan 6th report I tell people to go online and look it up

Related to Mark Meadows in chapter two on the chapter entitled I just want to find 11,780 votes like it's not hard to find this in the report. So, let me just end it with Cassidy Hutchinson because she will turn out to be the ruin of Mark Meadows and put him in jail. Cassidy Hutchinson, his former assistant, who once had to continue our theme for the show, a botan paid for a lawyer by Trump Pack,

who told her not to remember things that she told them she remembered. She then switched counsel, hired Jody Hunt out of Washington, a very well-respected former DOJ official, who actually worked with Mark, who was Jeff Sessions lawyer at one point. And then she flipped her testimony, cooperated with the Jan 6th Committee, testified in November to Fawni Willis' special purpose grand jury didn't just testify. The reporting is she is cooperating, meaning she turned over willingly all her texts and emails.

I am sure Cassidy Hutchinson has been guiding all of the strategy and cross examination. And that's the witness that when she comes through that door, that wooden door in a trial, Mark Meadows is cooked. Somebody of this 19 then is gonna have to cut a deal. They can't all go to trial, and then they're gonna start turning on each other. First among them, the person who just committed perjury

and has another set of crimes and a lead witness against them. He was, I mean, I've never seen anything until your point and I'll turn it back. You said at the top, maybe under the specific law of the 11th Circuit, he made skate, skate free, but it's like that old joke, then, you know, the operation was a success, but the patient died. Thor, you may get your removal, but look what you've done to you in your case. Exactly. You've now, even if it's removed, you then have to address your motion to dismiss.

And now before judge, Steve Jones, you purge it yourself. And now you're going to claim that the supremacy clause gives you immunity where you've basically admitted to the hatch act violations. You basically confess to it and then committed perjury before the judge. That's his best case scenario right now. But ultimately, we'll see what judge Jones does. It's, again, it's emphasized over and over again in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal about removal being a very, very low standard. And so the argument by Meadows lawyers is even if there's some nexus to an overt act setting aside the underlying crimes, the mere fact that Meadows may have been doing something

a chief of staff does like as at a level of generality like setting up a call granted the call was on a topic that was a felony criminal conspiracy. The Meadows argument is look, he just set up a call. So therefore it should be removed to federal court, even if the actual crime, the call led to that he was involved in is not something in the Corsanscope. He set up the call led to that he was involved in, is not something in the Corson's scope. He set up the call and Fulton County District Attorney,

Fony Willis is like, no, you have to focus judge on the criminal charges and the criminal enterprise, not some centilla of a nexus to one of the overt acts where the overt acts led to criminal conduct. So there's an animal in the thing. Yeah, let me ask you something because we, I think we need to touch on it. Now, I get your opinion. So the judge asks for additional briefing on a particular point, show where his head,

his head is happy before he makes his ruling. And he asks particularly for the lawyers to comment on whether all of the overt acts that he's that meadows is alleged to have committed and further into the conspiracy. If some of them are clearly political, but others in the judge's mind may not be, may be ordinary run of the mill, non-political chief of staff stuff, what happens to the removal analysis under the statute? Ben, tell me what you think that means about where Jones is at and where do you think it should end up in terms of some

or all or bits or pieces of the act, some being clearly chief of staff stuff and some being no way political crimes. I read it as beneficial for Fony Willis actually in setting the record for appeal to make the issue as discreet as possible. I mean, I think it was kind of a softball toss. And then Fony Willis responded, a finding that at least one, but not all overt acts attributed to the defendant would not be sufficient to authorize removal and

What she's saying is look focus on the criminal conduct was outside the course in scope Not that there's some potential nexus to an overt act and again the reason why we're even in this like what why is he? Why is the judge asking the question, right? Like, why doesn't anybody know, hey, this other case is just like this, because this has never happened before in history. We've never had to look at the relationship between a federal criminal removal statute and the fact that a former administration that disgraced the White House engaged in a criminal racketeering conspiracy and tried to overthrow our democracy and then have the audacity to

use the federal removal statute to try to get the case removed to federal court by saying that their crimes to overthrow democracy were in the course and scope of federal law. Can I make one last comment on that? Sorry. Yeah. And Foddy Willis, Ben, put what you just said just so perfectly, when she's opposing this federal officer trying to get the benefit of going into federal court because in his

view, he's being prosecuted for just doing his job as a federal officer. She said in her briefing, you got it asked backwards. The reason for the federal removal statute is that the state shouldn't be interfering with a federal officer's duties or responsibilities. Here a federal officer and not just one are interfering with the state officers, duties and responsibilities. Here a federal officer and not just one are interfering with the state officers, duties and responsibilities. It's exactly backwards and that can't be the basis of federal removal. When he calls up, because one of the elements of his conspiracy is a conspiracy to have a public

officer, state officer in Georgia, look past his oath of office, right? And conspiracy to make him not abide by his oath of office, that's feds interfering in state, not states interfering in feds. And I think that's something that Judge Jones is really smart and is asking the right questions, is going to have to grapple with. But I love her point. Disregard everything the mummy just said because he's a liar. No doubt about it. And look, don't mess with Folten County District attorney.

Funny Willis because that briefing right there was some of the most sophisticated, intelligent, but also like pithy. It just got to the point in such a, in such a perfect way. I would put it on par with the briefing we've seen by Jack Smith's team and sometimes feds have the reputation of being kind of the better on paper writers and the state prosecutors kind of the more like better in like the trials and reacocases,

but her briefing right there, I'd put it on par and even potentially, I know, I thought stronger than even any of the other briefs that I read. Anyway, we'll speak a little bit more about special counsel, Jack Smith, some big news there as well. And then we should talk about New York attorney general, Latisha James. She has that civil case ready to go to trial. And like the next 30 days, I mean, let's not forget. And she's saying now that there were years based on the undisputed evidence, she believes where Donald Trump committed a fraudulent valuation scheme as much as $2.2 billion in one year alone.

We'll talk about that. And more when we come back from this quick break, if you have a family like I do, you know how much you love once depend on you. In a worst-case scenario, you wouldn't want them to worry about money. Policy Genius was built to modernize the life insurance industry. Their technology makes it easy to compare life insurance quotes from America's top insurers, and in just a few clicks to find your lowest price. With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $25 a month for one million of coverage. Some options offer coverage in as little as a week

and avoid unnecessary medical exams. Policy Genius has licensed award-winning agents who can help you find the best fit for your needs. They work for you, not the insurance companies. That means they don't have an incentive to recommend one insurer over another, so you can trust their guidance. Policy geniuses for parents, caregivers, and anyone else who has people who depend on them.

They simplify the process of getting life insurance so you can protect the people you love. There are no added fees, and your personal details are private. No wonder they have thousands of five- star reviews on Google and trust pilot. Your loved ones deserve the financial safety net. You deserve a smarter way to find and buy it. Head to policygenius.com or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com. This is Michael Popuck from Legal AF. If you like me, you understand the pains of choosing what to wear. Let's face it, most clothes are uncomfortable or too tight or are never actually the size you really are.

Not to mention the annoyance of trying to put a good outfit together. And when you do have a good fit, you can only wear it for a few hours before you have an important meeting or dinner. And then you got to change all over again. Everyone wants to dress the best and look good at all times because, frankly, it's a confidence booster. So here's the deal. Men's closets were due for a radical reinvention

and Ron stepped up to the challenge. Ron's commuter collection is the most comfortable, breathable, and flexible set of products known to man. And here's why. Ron helps you get ready for any occasion with the commuter collection, which offers the world's most comfortable pants, dress shirts, one-quarter zips, and polos. You never have to worry about what to wear when you have the Rone commuter collection.

Rone's comfortable for-a-way stretch fabric provides breathability and flexibility that leaves you free to enjoy whatever life throws your way, from your commute to work to your 18 holes of golf It's time to feel confident without the hassle with drones rakele release technology rakeles disappear as you stretch and wear the products It's that easy and with its gold fusion anti-odor technology You'll be smelling fresh and clean all day long and on top of that Rone is 100% machine washable so you can ditch the dry cleaner altogether. I absolutely love Ron. As you can see, this has truly become my go-to commuter fit and on the legal AF podcast recordings. We're on the move a lot, whether it's jumping for

meeting to meeting or catching a flight or an important dinner, the Ron commuter collection has never let me down. The versatility and comfort of the collection is undefeated. Even after I wear it all day, I still feel super fresh because of that gold fusion anti-order technology. The commuter collection you can get you through any workday and straight into whatever comes next. Head to roon.com slash legal a f and use promo code legal a f to save 20% on your entire order. That's 20% on your entire order.

When you head to our H O and E slash legal a f promo code legal a f, find your corner office. Welcome back to legal a f popax ad reads are just simply the best popax. There are sponsors and I make sure after those's ad reads that I buy anything that you're selling, that you're wearing, that you're eating, that you're doing, I just said popoaks. How can I be like popoaks is basically how I go about. So so so so popoak more more than how I can be like popoak though, I think about how can I be as efficient as federal judge Tanya Chutkin because not only is she being incredibly efficient with her docket in the Washington DC federal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith, she's really

asserted herself as a judge amongst judges here, really taking command of all of the Trump criminal cases, even though she's not involved on any of the other ones, other than the DC case brought by special counsel Jack Smith for Donald Trump's efforts to try to overthrow our democracy, but she's let it be known in a world of inexperienced judges like Judge Eileen Cannon and just other judges in general that she's the one who will be having her case go first and that the importance of that case but just how she is not gonna let Donald Trump

or anybody just make a mockery of the courtroom or get it, you know, be disorganized. It's just pitch perfect judicial work right now. And, you know, so much has happened that like I look back and I said, was this the week where she set trial because it feels like that was ages ago. But no, that was, that was this week where on Monday, the first day of the week, the same day, there was that evidentiary hearing of meadows.

And there was also an evidentiary hearing mentioned in passing of Peter Navarro, one of Donald Trump's top aides who tried to assert executive privilege in his trial next week. And there, another DC federal judge, Judge Am Maita called Peter Navarro's evidence, not evidence, it was a weak sauce. That was an exact quote from Judge Maita and denied Peter Navarro's ability to make this executive privilege defense in his trial in Navarro.

Went out and started begging people for money and just whining and complaining. But back to Judge Chutkin, that status conference conference trial setting conference was held on Monday. You had Donald Trump's lawyers led by John Loro. You had the Jack Smiths team led by Molly Gaston there. And you had Trump's lawyers just saying,

Judge, you have all these other cases that have taken two years, and then Judge Chuckuckin says, excuse me, those are Mike The case that you're citing is before me. I know why that case took two years That was because of COVID or that was because they were multiple superseding indictments So don't misrepresent the cases before me, you know, and then you would have Donald Trump's or say this is a miscarriage of justice We are not going to be ready and then you'd have Jack Smith's team led by Molly Gaston and Tom Windham at this hearing saying, judge, these are the same lawyers who were on a media tour

saying Trump's ready. They said it three days ago. On the news, they said Trump is ready to go. Alina Habas said Trump is ready. He's smarter than anybody in the world. And so therefore, he's ready to go. They've had access to all of these things. I thought another interesting point

before turning it over to you, Popeye Kier, is one of the things that Donald Trump's lawyers did not argue, which just goes to show you all of the lies that Donald Trump, Magga, and Fox spew. They didn't say judge all of the January six committee records are destroyed. That would be a pretty good argument, right? If you wanted to delay a trial that all of the records are destroyed, that's the first

argument I would make if I was representing somebody is to say, all the records are destroyed because that's what Fox is lying about and Trump is lying about. They actually made the opposite argument, right? They said there are too many records we're not able to review, we're not gonna be prepared in time while they're doing the mediator and saying that they are going to be prepared. And so Jack Smith's team is saying,

well a lot of those records, it's like the January 6th committee records that we turned over are a million records. The Secret Service records are about three million records. The other records belong to them. So there really isn't that big of a universe of documents here. And by the way, they said that they're ready. So Chutkin set March 4th, 2024 as the trial date. And I'm pretty confident that's going

to stick. Popoq, what'd you make of that trial setting by Judge Chutkin, but also some of the other Jack Smith filings of late. Yeah, first of all, it's exactly what you and I predicted that at the appropriate time, and the appropriate time is now, Judge Chutkin would step forward and make her case the historically important for Justice case that it always was meant to be. And she is going to seize the historical moment that she knows she has. She'll go down in history as the judge that presided over the case that can, I believe that will result in the conviction of a former president for conspiracy and election interference.

And she knows it. And she knows the eyes of history are watching her. And I'm sure she's cringed a bit about how Cannon is looking like she's dust. And we knew at the appropriate time whenever her proceedings, when the moment turned to her, that she would take command. And as I said on a hot take, she's now bigfooted, which is the appropriate thing to do, all the other cases. As soon as she's watching mindfully what's going on in Georgia, and she saw that the March 4th date that Fawni Willis wanted for her trials looks like it was slipping because of Chesbro and Powell getting an October 23rd date,

meaning on this giant chess board, Fawni had to take the position, okay, we'll put everybody on October, that freed up March, but she knew, she knew, and you and I talked about this on a legal A.F. couple weeks ago, that she would have to reach out to some other judges to get the March date that she wanted. She sort of reverse engineered this. She wanted March because it was right before Super Tuesday, and she had already kind of

picked the date. She rejected both in her mind and in her courtroom with John Lorrow, the lawyer for Donald Trump. She told them point blank, she cut him off with the knees early on. I don't want to hear the words 2026 come out of your mouths in this courtroom. I'm paraphrasing. We're not talking about a 2026 trial.

She did say it that way. So she reversed engineered. She wanted March, Fawney cleared herself out because of circumstances in Georgia, leaving one state court criminal judge left. Judge Mershon, who was handling, was going to go to trial March 25th in the Stormy Daniels business record fraud New York state court

case. So as we predicted, she is allowed, all judges are allowed under the rules of judicial ethics and cannons, code of cannons to call each other, to coordinate for the purpose of coordinating related to a defendant or issue before them, as long as making that phone call doesn't give a benefit to either side, just to make that determination for herself. And she said, I'm going to call Judge Mershon. We know that because Judge Mershon, the unified court system of New York, spokesperson issued a press release that said that Judge Mershawn's chambers called two Tuesdays ago

to have a conversation with Judge Mershawn. And we don't know exactly the content of that conversation, but the result of it is the Stormy Daniels trial is not going in March, and the March 4th date is now reserved for the only case, let's be frank here. The only case that had a shot at going to trial before the election as necessary,

as justice and our democracy requires was the one defendant for count indictment by Jack Smith against Donald Trump, not 18 to other defendants, not even three or four other co-defendants like in Mar-a-Lago, one guy on the other side of the V, Donald Trump, four counts, I'm sorry, four conspiracies and four counts, that's it. And he knew if he lined it up that way, Jack Smith,

and did a very surgically precise on purpose, leaving out, editing out things that would get in the way of making this case go to trial on a fast track. He knew he got the indictment, then he got the right judge, and then he went for the kill, which is we want to, I'm going to push the case in our request back in January knowing, and of course they took the bait, the Trump's lawyers were going to ask for some ridiculous date making him eminently more reasonable. And the judge said, yeah, I'm not doing January, but I'm not doing 2026.

March, day before Super Tuesday seems perfect to me. I already cleared it out with other people. He didn't say that, but that's what she did. Now, I had a debate with Karen on our Wednesday show about whether she also has a courtesy called Judge Cannon to say, I'm doing my trial in March. It may bleed over to your May date. Do you have a problem with that? Karen doesn't think that phone call took place. Let me, before I go on to the other things that happened to the courtroom, do you think she called Cannon? Yeah, I think so. What do you think?

Yeah, I think she did. I think she's not going to ignore Judge Cannon and Judge Cannon because this could be a six or eight week trial. It would naturally bleed into an argument that Judge Cannon is going to see in her courtroom. We just got called to trial with Judge Chutkin. We can't do your trial in May, which of course, Cannon will be receptive to. All right, we'll reschedule. But I don't think, I think Chutkin is a mature, sophisticated, seasoned, federal judge with tons more experience. It's like we can't even compare.

She's like the Babe Ruth of judges compared to Judge Cannon, even in a row trial experience as a civil lawyer. As before, she took the bench. She tried 20 cases. She's had hundreds of cases that she's tried, including dozens of Jen six cases in front of her. She is the, she dozens of Jan six cases in front of her. She is the, she is the preeminent judge and we knew at the appropriate time she take control.

In the courtroom, Loro found himself running into a steamroller in terms of judge Chuck and having made up her mind. And when they said all these ridiculous things like judge, you know, the amount of data that we've gotten from Jack Smith, if you stacked it end to end, it would reach the height of the Washington Monument, which is a bizarre Freudian slip

to talk about the Washington Monument, which was the site of where the all the Proud Boys got 200 people together to attack the Capitol. Put that aside for a minute. And it would be the equivalent judge of reading war in peace every day. And she said, stop. You're acting like your client is some sort of poor person that doesn't have resources or financial means. And that's not the case.

Put more people, have him hire more people to review the evidence. And I'd said this in a hot take, Ben, and I know since you've been in your career too, the days of people looking through boxes of physical documents are over. They've been over for over 20 years. We're in the world of e-discovery, electronic discovery. There may be a piece of paper here or there, but 99.9% of what Jack Smith is turning over to, in terms of discovery, required discovery, information to Trump is in the form of a server. It's a hard drive. It's a thumb drive. It's electronic.

So, what you do when I've been involved with complicated cases with terabytes of information is that you loaded into a database, right? There are a number of vendors that I won't promote because they're not currently advertising on legal AF that you use. And then you sit on screens. And if you need more people, you hire them. Temporary lawyers, temporary paralegals. There's a whole industry cottage industry in India of all places because they can do overnight work where they look at documents. And you have them do the first cut. So you might have to put 40 people on this. But he's industry in India of all places because they can do overnight work where they look at documents and you have them do the first cut.

So you might have to put 40 people on this, but he's got money. He just, I just got through reading again the 400 pages of his testimony to Latisha James in the New York Attorney General case, which we'll talk about next. And he said, I've got tons of money. I've got lots of money. And more and more is coming in each day, he said, I've got tons of money. I've got lots of money. And more and more is coming in each day, he said. The only expense I really have is attorney's fees. So she said, stop acting like you've got a poor person

that you're representing like your some sort of public defender. You've got a rich guy, have him hire people. We're going to trial in March. And that's the end of it. You can make whatever else argument you want and good day. But again, you see the contrast ban, or at least our audience does between the rough and tumble world of silent treatment in the in Georgia procedural law, where you

almost never get to see the judge. He hasn't even scheduled one yet. I don't know. The judge hasn't scheduled the hearing of Georgia yet and look over. Look what you and I are reporting on on a daily basis between canon and chucked it. But I love the result because it clears out the path. Georgia yet and look what you and I are reporting on on a daily basis between canon and chucked him. But I love the result because it clears out the path.

It announces to the world there is going to be come heller high water, a criminal case about Donald Trump's clinging to power and his failure to transition peacefully and his involvement in leadership of a coup that needs to happen and 63 or 65% of Americans, Republican, independent and Democrat, wanted to happen to help them make their decision about who should occupy the Oval Office again before that election. And it's now a certainty. This should get much bigger press. Mar-a-Lago is interesting.

And if he did all the bad things of compromising our national security and hiding national defense information and participating in a conspiracy, I won't prosecute it for that. But has that have to be done before the election? No, this case does. And everything else needs to take a back seat. Now, Jack Smith's not going to dismiss or offer to stay the case in Florida and we'll get there eventually today on the podcast, but he'll just use it to whip saw Donald Trump as he focuses on the main case before Judge Chutkin in the courty wants, the jury pool that he wants at Home Court Advantage Department of Justice.

Yeah. And so to clarify my statement before too, I think Judge Chutkin reached out to Judge Cannon. I don't think that Judge Cannon necessarily has the maturity to return that phone call or to pick it up truly, but I think Judge Chutkin would have reached out and said, you know, hey, you know, just want to check on your scheduling. And I don't think that Judge Cannon is capable of handling herself. I really like the more you learn about her.

She really has a lot of Trump qualities, her inexperience. It's OK to be inexperienced. We all start inexperienced, right? I'm inexperienced on a lot of things every single day, but where an experienced person tries to deal with their inexperienced uncertain topics is to ask questions, to ask for help, to admit where you don't know things.

And when you look at how someone in a leadership position, for example, would handle COVID, you wouldn't say that you know everything and you're the one who can solve it and you're the one who can fix it and inject bleach into your arms, right? Or, or, or let's lock up the main expert, Dr. Fauci. That's where the Republicans are. That's when they attack evidence, they attack science, they just attack all logic. And Judge Eileen Cannon, to me, is really embodied in that. And on the other hand, Judge Chuck is evidence-based. And you know, it's like these mega people,

they like, they go and they do their interviews on Newsmax and Fox, as though that's not a thing that then has a repercussion anywhere else. That's also the stochastic terrorism and gaslighting that they engage in, where they think they just say it to their one audience, and then they go into a courtroom and they're like, we're not prepared, we're not ready. You just said you were ready. You just said you were prepared. You said you prepared the cross-exam of former vice

president, pencil ready. And so Donald Trump's now posting memes of Judge Chutkin calling her a Marxist. That's the, and reposting. She's a Marxist. She's a Marxist. She's a Marxist. It's just like, you just shut up.

There's an admission to this being a fascist, treasonous traitorous criminal, malignant, or it's just like, just be quiet. And you see this more and more with independence. I won't turn this into, I won't turn this into. So the Senate confirmed a Marxist 90 to zero when she was up to be a federal judge. I mean, I just can't even, I just can't even.

There's nothing in her past that suggests that she's a communist, a Marxist. But these things are really weird. I just want to mention this one thing, and I'm not defending judge, you can't at all. But it's really weird if she's become a Trumper because that's not her background. The reason she was picked, I just want to put this out there

because I know the people in Florida that were involved in this. Is Marco Rubio, who's the senator from Florida, who's really, I mean, I guess he could be a Trumper, but he's really not taking an active role. You barely see my, I kind of forgot he was a senator anymore. He so rarely shows up doing anything. But Marco Rubio had an opening in the Southern District of Florida when Judge Rosenberg moved off the

court and that particular position was open in the most rural hinterland of the southern district in a little town called Fort Pierce. And he needed a conservative, he needed a Federalist Society member, he wanted a Hispanic and the person that fit the bill who also happens to live in Viro Beach near Fort Pierce and was willing to work out of the Fort Pierce Courthouse was Eileen Cannon, a Federalist society. I don't know if she went to Georgetown or she went to Duke, she went to one of our schools, I forget which one.

But it was really a Marco Rubio pick, not before Trump became MAGA, but yes, why she doesn't acknowledge that she doesn't know what she's doing you're talking about and just get stronger staff to help her? Because I saw a federal judge, even Ludwig, the federal judge, former federal judge, who's a lion Mount Rushmore of conservative federalist judges.

Even he has said, you make mistakes your first year or so on the federal bench, you just do. But you learn from them and or you consult with more senior people. She's got Judge Altenaga, the chief judge who was a state court judge in Miami that I appeared in front of and then became elevated to the federal bench and runs the federal court. Go to her, talk to other judges to learn how to handle things. You don't have to hermetically seal yourself in some sort of, you know, uh, Fort Pierce thing and not take phone calls, pick up the phone and call the chief judge of your district

and ask her opinions about a handle things. That's what I would do. Well, I'll just say this. We'll have a respectful disagreement on Rubio there because I vehemently disagree with Rubio's a disgusting human being. Um, and I feel strongly about that. When Eileen Ken and assumed office November 13th of 2020, 10 days before that on November 3rd of 2020, this is what Marco Rubio said when that MAGA Republican caravan attacked Joe Biden,

then candidate Joe Biden's bus remember when that happened Marco Rubio said we love what they did and hope that happens in Florida that's what Marco Rubio said. That's true. Yeah he is a dirt. So let me give you that data point on Marco Rubio. Ten days later Judge Eileen Cannon who you mentioned Rubio appoints. I like that. That's a good connectivity. I like how wrong. I stand corrected. We get we get and part of experience is Popeye corrects me a lot part of experience. Oh, so so what other thing I'll mention though speaking about judge cannon. You've had all of these motions

being filed in her court because it's just so it's become such a shit show over there and so disorganized before her where you have like she's inviting questions about this and what do you think about this is like she like watches Fox and then asks a question. And then so you have this filing by one of the co-defendants lawyers, one of Donald Trump's co-defendant Carlos Deo Levera who's being paid by Donald Trump's pack, who spends the first, you know, few paragraphs of this opposition to this Garcia hearing regarding his potential conflicts of interest. Basically saying he doesn't think there's any conflict of interest

at all that he's representing. Carlos Deo Levera and that there are witnesses who may be testifying against Carlos Deo Levera. He sees no reason why Carlos Deo Levera should be briefed about these potential conflicts of interest, but then you go to the very bottom and it's like further undersigned counsel no longer represents the other individuals and new independent counsels being made available

to advise them going forward. So talk about burying the lead right there. He's basically saying that you don't need judge to have one of these conflict hearings about whether I'm conflicted to be representing witnesses who may be testifying against Trump and my client because I'm not representing the witnesses anymore, which you'd probably lead with that,

but he kind of buries that and you bury the lead when you're trying to, I don't know, I'm like, you think we're not going to read that or a Jackson, it's going to go, oh, you put that into eighth paragraph. You've tricked me. I'm a Jackson man. By the way, say now, did it too. The new lawyer for Trump in Georgia dropped a footnote that he's appearing in some sort of healthcare broadcast in front of Eileen Cannon in Florida.

Talk about the strange web that's been created here. The D all of the D all of the era John Irving saga, which is a similar saga as to Stan Woodward. You've got two lawyers. Trump bought and paid for through the Save America pack. One of the reasons the Save America pack is basically bankrupt and has spent 72% of every small donor's dollars on legal expenses is because at least in Mar-a-Lago and in Jan 6th related things related to the committee, Donald Trump ran around trying to get all the witnesses and all the indicted and unindicted co-conspirators behind lawyers of his choosing so he could be the puppet master. And that costs a lot of money. When you got to buy witness intimidation, it costs a lot of cash. He was busy

running around. Cassidy Hutchinson needed a lawyer. So he hired like 10 or 12 lawyers for the Gen 6 committee witnesses to put them behind a protective wall for him. And he started to do the same thing at Mar-a-Lago. The reason he's not doing a Donald Trump in Georgia is because the people in Mar-a-Lago and in Gen 6 are either still working for Donald Trump or work for his campaign or his pack. So those people he felt like he had to protect. But others like Rudy Giuliani even, even though there's going to be, I think, minus brothers, you guys are going to cover it.

There's going to be a $100,000 buy-in fundraiser at the scene of a crime. They're doing it at Bedminster to raise money for Rudy Giuliani's legal defense fund. At Mar, they should have done it at Mar-a-Lago, but it bent minister, another place where he hid documents. So there's no shame here, they're just shameless in what they're doing, but you got two issues that are being sorted out in front of a judge who's not that experienced

and or is incompetent and or is corrupt, which is, see, you got me to say that then. One is, and what word, which is, see, you got me to say that, Ben. One is in Woodward, who represented a represents Walt Nauta, had represented, yes, you sealed Tavaris, the IT worker, who's now cooperating with Jack Smith against the olive Vieira and Stan Woodward about the server, the destruction of the server at the boss's request to get rid of the video evidence and all of that. So this is what happens when Stan Woodward represents like five different people, including two former Aids for Donald Trump and one for Melania Trump and then Walt and then he had the IT director and then D. Oliveira's lawyer, John Irving, had him and until with this recent filing

had what's referred to in the indictment as witness number one, which is a former, the former head of maintenance, before Diolabiera, who basically cooperated with the government and told him that he's lying, that the other guy's lying. Witness number two, who was an assistant to Donald Trump, who picked Diolabiera out of the video and told the government that that was him when they had video surveillance footage of these guys hatching the video and told the government that that was him when they had video surveillance footage of these guys hatching the plan and the basement.

And then Trump employee number three, which is a personal aid or former personal aid to the president, who had a chat with Nauta, which led Nauta to high-tail it back to Mar-a-Lago to get on erasing the server. So how you represent all of these people, okay, who are all gonna testify against each other with all the cooperating witnesses now, this is the focus of the Garcia hearing. So to try to do it,

to try to clear out some of the brush, as you said, Ben, John Irving fired three of his clients. Now, I don't know if they say independent. I don't know if that means another MAGA paid for lawyer, or that just means somebody that's really completely independent. We'll have to see who appears on their behalf. And then John Irving said,

and I have a new council working with me, guy named Donnie Morel, and Donnie's gonna do the cross examination of one of my former clients, should that come up. Look, this is a cluster F. We see a lot of filings on the docket that are sealed sealed sealed sealed. There's a lot of activity going on right now with judge cannon that has to do I think with some of these issues. For instance, John

Irving has asked for the Garcia hearing about conflicts to be held in private in camera with the judge without the prosecution team present to preserve all of their rights. I don't know if that's going to be granted, but a lot of this stuff, you and I are going to be able to report on once things get unsealed. We can only speculate about a bunch of entries actually salty found it for us or producer that recently went up on the docket there. But you're so right, you've got, she invites chaos. She and because of her speculating about things

she should know or understand like how grand juries work, which I never thought I'd have to, a federal judge would actually demonstrate their lack of knowledge in that area, fundamental to her job. But, you know, oh, I'm interested, let's have briefing on this

and let's put the government back on its heels. She's spending so much time and she used to be a US, an assistant US on its heels. She's spending so much time and she used to be a US, an assistant US attorney. Okay. She's spending so much time trying to put the government back on its heels and making them jump through her imaginary hoops. Oh, you do, you do. Yes, for sealing with Jaden asked for the sealing of the document correctly.

Oh, you know, I don't normally give the other side another brief after the last brief in emotion practice, but I'm going to create another brief for this guy. It's just it's utter chaos and it stands again in sharp contrast to how things are being done up 95 in DC with Judge Chuck. Couldn't agree more with you there, Pope. Especially you agreeing with me. I appreciate that. But I know, but I get it. You're instinctive, especially as a Florida federal litigator, though, is collegiality.

I mean, look, I think it must be hard for you to, you know, like any Florida litigator, you know, in an evidence-based way, to not give a federal judge the benefit of the doubt. I think I would feel the same way if it was a central district of California judge, who I've gone before or could go before. You still want to have some hope that the federal judge is going to follow the judicial canons, but I think when it comes to the one named Canon, she does not follow the cannons. 18 years, 17 years, 15 years, 10 years, those numbers seem to be keeping Donald Trump up late at night. Those are the respective sentences for the terrorists

in the Proud Boys organizations. Ethan Ordean 18 years, 17 years, Joe Biggs, 15 years Zachary Rell, 10 years for Dominic Pizzola and Enrique Tario, who was hanging out at the White House before Christmas on December of 2020. His sentencing was moved to next week. The judge was under the weather. And so that one got moved. So I think that one will see the sentencing higher.

The theme here is that those who are convicted of seditious conspiracy got higher sentences. This was, the sentencing was handed down by judge Tim Kelly, a Trump appointee who I still think gave these terrorists the little bit of a benefit of the doubt that they didn't deserve. In most of these cases, the government was asking for twice as long as the sentences were and the government got there by asking for a terrorist enhancement.

And I think Kelly said, oh, well, these people are a terrorist. You know, they're white. I mean, he didn't say that, but that's basically as I read the art, what they did was terrorism. Okay. And if these people look different or had different last names, I think there would be a different outcome here. And then they'll, oh, I guess they are terrorists now. But, you know, nonetheless, we still have some significant sentences.

Wanted to talk about this one, Pope, before we went into the summary judgment, because the summary judgments in a civil case, but just briefly anything you wanted to add to that, the judge not applying the terrorist enhancement, but those things. I think he was wrong. And I know we're going with the people of different color

would have gotten different results. I mean, Kelly has given out some lighter sentences and even dismiss a misdemeanor cases. He's not been the friend of the Department of Justice and Sentencing. He got sort of, you know, he, one of his sentences ties for the highest sentence being given out that of Stuart Rhodes who also got 18 years, so he gave somebody 18 years, but he cut in half basically the Department of Justice's request. He agreed with the Department of Justice that the proud boys are worse than the oath keepers, that all right-wing white supremacists, soldiers for Trump are not built the same. As I said on a hot take, that the proud boys, if the oath keepers and the proud boys were in a dark alley together, the oath keepers would be scared of the proud boys. He agreed with

that. He acknowledged that they were worse that even though the oath keepers brought munitions into Washington, DC, the proud boys were at the heart and at the tip of the spear of every bad thing that went down physically in the attack on Jan 6th, having Donald Trump having lit that fuse. So he agreed with that. But he,, but he once again, and it is not the only judge. I mean, Judge Mayda got tied up with the terrorist enhancement too. They're low to do it because I just think back to this concept of reverse engineering, they don't want to give out 30-year sentences for this, even though they should. And so they find a way not to.

And the easiest way not to, in the way the sentencing guidelines are operate, we've done this before, it is literally a chart. You give number points, you give points for each type of thing, the crime as a certain base level offense number, you give enhancements up, and you give departures down, depending upon, oh, you know, the criminal acts of the person

has a criminal history, it's an enhancement up, numbers go up, get added up, and the terrorism one is a big one. And that's why these judges are like cringing about, well, if I do the, if I find them terrorists that they use violence to obstruct or influence government operations, which is exactly what they did,

which is also in the criminal elements, then I'm at a number I'm not comfortable with. So it's reverse engineering. The government wanted 33, 30 and 20 for all these people, and they got like a half. They got a tie with the Oathkeepers guy, but I don't know how we can do that, because how do you, as a federal judge, and the same breath as acknowledging that the proud boys are worse than the oath keepers, then why is the leaders of both ending up at the same number? That makes absolutely no sense. If I were the government, I would consider appealing the application or the failure to apply the terrorist enhancement at the appellate level and send another message. We'll see. Right now, they're busy convicting and they're doing an excellent job. They're running the table on all of their trials.

They haven't lost, as you said before, they haven't lost a jury trial since they've started this process, which is remarkable. I mean, let's be frank, the Department of Justice wins the vast majority of cases that go to trial, because people should try to settle their cases and plea them out and they don't. And then I think it's like,

you have a 90% chance of losing at that point up against the government. But I was disappointed. I had prepared myself for it with Kelly knowing his track record, but I was disappointed that he cut it in half. I think that's why the government went so high. They were like, let's just,

we're doing sensing guidelines. The number is 48, and the 48 means this amount of months, judge. And for the judge to undo it, this is why there was a big struggle in the courtroom about the terrorist enhancement, as you noted before. But they're going away for a long time. It's just not as long as I thought it was going to be. Now let's talk about the New York Attorney General, civil case. Civil means the case is about money. Money damages is what would be awarded

at the end of this process. Also an injunction to try and which would, if instituted, would stop Donald Trump and his adult kids from doing business in the state of New York. Lots of money too. New York Attorney General Let Tisha James is suing Donald Trump for at least $250 million, I think at trial she'll be asking for some, even significantly more than that. She filed what's called a motion for summary judgment, Donald Trump also filed a dueling summary judgment to try to get the case dismissed.

A summary judgment basically says judge. There are no disputed facts here, so you should just decide even before a trial that the plaintiff is the one bringing it, which is usually more rare, but plaintiffs bring summary judgment. Judge, you should find that the defendant is liable. We don't even need a trial, or we could just go to trial on damages, where a defendant brings a summary judgment. They're saying judge. There's no disputed facts here and such.

You should dismiss this case. We don't need a trial of fact to decide anything, just say that this case is dismissed based on the pleading. So that's what these dueling summary judgment motions are doing. Pope, I want you to break down what New York attorney general argued and why it's so important. Also, this case goes to trial in about 30, you know, the next 30 days. It's going to trial in early October.

And then before you do that, though, I just want to remind everybody, I was just thinking about the debate that we had over Judge Cannon and Mark Arubio. But I want to remind people to check out your origin story at the after show at Midas Touch as a Patreon site. So it's p-a-t-r-e-o-n dot com slash Midas Touch. You can hear all about Popox origin story and how he joined the Midas Touch. Now we're how I met Popox. That's Patreon, P-A-T-R-E-O-N, dot com slash, might as touch.

Popox, tell us about the... And I know we're thinking about a potential Patreon for legal A.F. We'll put a poll up tonight in the chat and see if people want to have some special stuff that comes along with that. That'd be great. But look, I'll tell you the interesting thing, is the thing you said at the top of the segment, Ben, is that nobody so far, and maybe we'll wake up on Tuesday or over the weekend even, and I will be proven wrong.

But the defense, the lawyer is representing Donald Trump with the New York Attorney General case, which used to be Alina Habba, but now is her partner, her firm is still involved, and I think Chris Kice, no one's filed a motion to continue the case. Six months ago, Judge Angoraun said, hell or high water, I don't care, I know there's other trials that could be scheduled, it's October the 20 whatever, and that's what we're going to drop. And you think, I'm sure they were waiting to see if any of these other criminal

cases were going to give them a good faith basis to ask for a continuation, a stay of the case, but nothing's happened so far. And even though the Tisha James, just a month ago in an interview on a podcast of all places, not ours, although we definitely invite the Tisha James to come onto our podcast, any of the podcasts in the Midas Touch Network at any time, whenever she'd like, morning, noon or night. But when she gave her interview, she said, no, I fully expect that my case is going to get bumped and that's okay. We'll pick it up at another time, but it's not going to get bumped because A, you've

got the immovable force of a state court judge that wants to go to trial and it said, I'm not moving it. And nothing has really happened since that would change the expectations of the to go to trial, and it said, I'm not moving it. And nothing has really happened since that would change the expectations of the case going to trial. So I assume they're up to their elbows and necks getting prepared for a $250 million plus discouragement case alleging civil fraud.

And in anticipation of that, they now have to deal with both sides, I guess, do with competing motions for partial summary judgment, which is a statement by or motion by the New York attorney general that says, at least on the issue of the fact that he lied about, of value of his properties, we don't even have to put on a trial in front of a jury in front of that. The undisputed factual record judge, as this judge noted in a prior hearing when he got frustrated based on representations that were being made in his court, and he said, the

value of Trump tower and his apartment there is empirical. It's either the number that he said it was or it's some other number. But we don't, I don't really understand what the debate is over. He anticipated the summary judgment or called for it, asked for it many, many months ago. And she's answered the call and filed a motion that has said, he said his apartment in New York is worth $300 million. Just to put that in perspective, the highest, the highest sale price for any unit in New York, even on billionaire's row, which is what it's called in Manhattan,

is I think $125 million by a hedge fund guy out of Chicago, okay, which is a beautiful apartment overlooking central park, like five story apartment. For Donald Trump to say his apartments were $300 million because he pumped up the square foot of jubIT. That's where the judge said, look, it's either 10,000 square feet or it's 50,000 square feet.

But that is a number that can be established. And she said, if you go through all of his trophy properties, the ones that he said in his deposition are the Mona Lisa or Renoir paintings hanging on a wall. There are whatever value people will place on them as trophy properties. Should have you go through all these trophy properties, Mar-a-Lago, Bedminster Golf Course, Forty Wall Street, down by the Federal Reserve, which is a half-empty building that's been half-empty for a long, long time.

Trump Tower, the apartment and Trump tower, there is value. There is a number that can be established for it. There is a size and square footage of it. And he lied about it on his financial statements. He lied about it about having independent appraisals. And we don't have to even go to a jury on it. There's no dispute.

The fact that Donald Trump spends 400 pages of testimony to her talking about, and I'm not making this up, that he just considers the price to be irrelevant as set by an appraiser because his buildings or in his properties are like a renwar or a piece of fine art, and it's whatever somebody makes up a number to buy it for, and it doesn't relate to the amount of revenue that the property generates or its expenses or its rent roll.

You can't put a number on it like that because I own it. I mean, that is not going to fly and that's not the law and that shouldn't go before a jury, right? His subjective thoughts about how much, listen, I got a car, this is true. I've got a used car that I'm about to sell. I would love to sell that used car for $35,000. Unfortunately, the market tells me it's worth 16. And so that is what I'm going to be able to sell it for.

And no amount of me talking about it is going to change the empirical truth of the value in transit. Take that car example. Take that car example. Take that car example. Yeah, fine. Because here's what Trump would do, right? He would say that the car is not valued at even 35,000.

He would say the car is valued at a million dollars. And then based on saying that he now has a million dollars in equity, basically, in this car, he would then go to a bank or a lender or whoever and say, hey, can you give me 80% loan to value on that million dollar car? So I'd like to have $800,000 on the million dollar car, and then I'll pay it back over 30 years, which then he then fights the banks and doesn't pay it back. But then he takes that $800,000 in cash that he's pulled out after making that representation

and then he spends it somewhere else and then does the exact same thing to that property. What then he'll take the $800,000 to do and say, oh, there's this piece of land over here in Westchester. I'm making it up. I'm going to go and buy that. And then he goes, well, now that's Trump land. So even though I bought that land with the $800,000 that I pulled out of the car, which is really worth $17,000, I now believe that my land

is valued at $10 million and that there's even a $20 million easement on that $10 million property. So you know what government, I now want a $20 million tax deduction on often my taxes because I'll give you an easement on the land that I bought for 800,000 that I now claim is worth $10 million. Then what does he do with the $10 million piece of property? He takes out $8 million, say 80 to 20, 80% loan to value, and then has repeated that his entire experience. That's how it springs, by the way.

That's actually, you know that. That's the actual property that you have. That's again, and I want to give it an example. But I didn't know what to do. And then what he'll say though is, well, hey, the banks are happy. I've paid back the loan on the car. They got their $800,000.

Well, first off, where'd you get it? Well, when you now inflated the price of the other property and you pulled out a loan there, you robbed Peter basically to pay Paul. So sure, Paul's happy, but Peter may not be happy. Down the line, they may not be, but their happiness is irrelevant at the end of the day if you're

basically using this Ponzi scheme style model, which is the way I just described it, which is kind of what's going on here, because who's getting screwed? Like all of us, like the people like Michael Popak, who's going to sell his car for 17,000? You at home, you're not waking up, people who watch League of LaF, I hope not, and thinking to yourself, how am I going to sell his car for 17,000. You at home, you're not waking up, you know, people who watch League of Legends. I hope not and thinking to yourself, how am I going to overinflate the value of this and extract this and do that? No, you're going about paying taxes that you're supposed to pay. You're going about your life and doing the things that you're supposed to do. And the bank has a finite amount of money. And if somebody takes out more than they're entitled to, it's less for the mom and pop to borrow from.

This is the problem with this number and this is where she got them. In the deposition, and I'm going to do a hot take on it later, the derailleur golf course, which has the blue monster down in Florida, which I've actually haven't played, but I've been over there. She said to him, well, what do you think the value of that is? He says, oh, it's, I don't know, two and a half billion dollars. He said, really, how do you come up with that? Now, you'd be thinking, you know, oh, well, he has appraisals. He's gone to a bank.

There's estimates. They've done cost-benefit analysis. They've taken the rent role and the amount that, he said, no. He said, I could build a lot of houses there one day. So if you've done any of that research, have you applied for any of the zoning variances to build a lot of houses on that? No, but any, this is what you said.

It's a Trump property. And when it's a Trump property, it's a made up number in my mind. And to say that it's victimless, which is what he's been arguing, that the banks don't mind. I paid back Deutsche Bank all the money that I owed them last year

when I refinanced everything else. As you said, it's part of the Ponzi scheme. But they are victims, because if it would be like to continue these analogies, it would be like somebody who robbed a bank and then paid it back and said there's been no crime. The fact that he took out a billion dollars when he really based on the value of the property was only capable of taking 250 million. That he paid back the whole billion doesn't mean he hasn't committed a crime

sure they've been made all but he they overlend to somebody who didn't deserve it that's called fraud and that's the basis of the case now he's filed his motion for some just around it out he's filed his motion for some rejudgment because they did get the defense one win recently they argued and the uh one win recently. They argued and the appellate court just above the court that this trial is in, the first department court of appeals in New York said that there is a statute of limitations that applies and

certain of these transactions, she didn't bring her case fast enough and they fall off the continuum. They can't be the basis of her case under her broad powers of executive law 63-12 in New York, which is anti-fraud provisions for the attorney general and they cut a vanka out Because of that because she sort of fell off the things the bad things that a vanka could have been charged with Happened before the statute of had things that Ivanka could have been charged with happened before the statute of limitations ran. They're arguing again that her case is too broad that many of the properties and valuation issues that she continues to raise judge are beyond what the pellet court said is the

proper statute of limitations. You should shrink or dismiss that at this case. I don't think he's going to grant that. He does have to apply the pellet court decision decision, though, and get the dates right about what properties are in and out of the case. And I'm sure he will do that. So the case will be tailored a little bit more, but it's going to trial. He's going to have to make this really bad.

They just filed these motions a couple of days ago. Each side gets the chance to oppose it and file us a last brief. And then the judge has to make a decision while they all get ready for trial. So, you know, that, that's the, the fever and activity that's going on while Donald Trump acts like nothing, nothing's going on in his world, even though he's got seven cases set over the next nine months. I said on a hot take recently, I assure you most, the vast majority of law firms in this country do not, I would say 99% of them don't have seven cases Set over the next nine months like Donald Trump does for himself and Expect it. I think no matter what the outcome there is Donald Trump to go to the appellate division on an emergency basis

Try to ask ask for a stay or you know, and something on an emergency So let's let's be aware that that's probably what Trump is planning to do as well. But I'm with you. Seven trials lined up like that, even for a large law firm of hundreds of lawyers, that would be a significant trial

calendar. But that's what Donald Trump has lined up. That's what we have lined up here to discuss on legal AF. Wanna, again, thank you, Michael Popack for just being my co-host. I appreciate you so much. And we appreciate everybody here at Legal AF. The audience is so incredible.

This community that you all built as the Legal AFers, the Midas Mighty, has been so strong and we're so grateful for everything that you do. Spread the word about this show. If it's even to one family member friend, coworker, colleague, whoever, one, two, five people, ten people, twenty people, post about the show, that goes a long way to help build this platform and spread these important messages about evidence,

about facts, about truth, and of course about our opinions, but our opinions are informed through a very rigorous analysis that we do here. And I don't think that really exists in many other platforms where we break down these filings in painstaking ways. And then we explain to you why we've arrived at our opinion. And you may agree or disagree with our opinions, but I hope ultimately what you'll respect is that they are rooted in what the evidence actually says. And that's where I think that shouldn't be unique to a political party. Unfortunately, that's the way it is right now that I think there's only one major political party right now,

which is the Democrats in a pro-democracy coalition with a group of liberals, progressives, independents, people not affiliated with political parties, and actual conservatives, not this mega-republic in mutation of people who go, hey, these are the facts, right? This is the evidence, right? And we could disagree on stuff, right? Yeah, but these are the facts. And we like our democracy, right?

Yeah, check, check, check. That's to me where I think things are most, you know, most important. That's what we focus on here on the network. Remember to now check out the after show that we previously have recorded with Michael Popak. And so that's posted right now. You can learn about Michael Popak's origin story. Go to patreon.com slash might as touch PAT our E O N dot com slash might as touch learn about Michael Popak's origin story. Now thank you to all of our sponsors. Make sure you click the sponsor links in

our description. Support them. We have some great sponsors and it's helpful that when the sponsors are supported so they can renew on the show to also help grow the platform and the show. And for everyone who became a member on our YouTube chat. Thank you so much for becoming a member. That goes a long way to help as well. Again, we don't have outside investors here, so it's kind of community-based support growth here. And thank you for all of that. And no worries if you're not a member, hopefully you've gotten gifted one, but if not, just share the videos. That's the best way that you can help and we so, so, so appreciate you anyway.

We'll see you next time on legal AF. Oh yeah, go to store.minustouch.com for all of the legal AF gear. Can I forget about that? 100% union made, 100% made in the USA. There are those Karen Friedman Agnifolo and Michael Popok design shirts. I love those legal AF shirts.

Thank you so much everybody for watching. We'll see you next time with them. Sure, some more breaking historic news here on Legal AF. Shout out to the Midas Mike. you