Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump FEELS THE HEAT as Jack Smith SMOTHERS HIM

Episode Date: December 14, 2023

Defense attorney Michael Popok & former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back with a new episode of the midweek edition of the Legal AF pod. On this episode, they debate: developments in the Trump Election Interference criminal case, including new briefing to the DC Court of Appeals to put Trump’s attempt to stop the prosecution on a fast track, and the US Supreme Court’s interest in the same issue, as the Special Counsel’s office moves forward with new “phone hacking” evidence against Trump; the Second Circuit Court of Appeals finding that Trump (and his lawyer Alina Habba) cannot raise “presidential immunity” to avoid the next E Jean Carroll defamation and punitive damages case because they were late almost 3 years in raising the issue; Trump’s latest attempt to have the NY Civil Fraud case ruled in his favor at the end of his defense case, as Trump elects not to testify in his own defense; Rudy Giulani’s horrible performance in the Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss $50 million dollar defamation case against him, as the Judge contemplates finding that he has perjured himself, and Plaintiffs’ attorneys raises to stop Giuliani from forcing a “mistrial” and delay a jury verdict against him, and so much more at the intersection of law, politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! AURA FRAMES: Visit https://Auraframes.com/LegalAF and get $30 off their best-selling frames with promo code LEGALAF MIRACLE: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. HUMANN: Thanks to our sponsor HumanN! Get a free 30-day supply of SuperBeets heart chews and a FREE Full - Sized Bag of Tumeric Chews valued at $25 by going to http://legalafbeets.com SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So you think you know sports? Points vet is the sportsbook for you, because we've got the features for true competitors. Like live, same-game parlays. Use your sportsmarts to make picks live on the players and teams you're watching. And qualified vets can use our early cashout feature. So you could take your winnings to play live blackjack

on the same points vet app. The platform that gives you everything you need. You know what to do. Bet on it. Point Spets Sportsbook and Casino. When you are Trump and you have to cite in your legal brief to that imaginary case of Grinch V. Christmas as grounds to stop the DC Court of Appeals from putting your own appeal to have the DC election interference case dismissed on a fast track, you've entered the world of

the unserious, just hours in record time after that Trump filing, and I'm not making it up. The DC Court of Appeals granted the special prosecutor's request to expedite the appeal to keep the March trial on schedule so that the American people know whether they are voting for a convicted criminal or not. All while the US Supreme Court is also interested in deciding whether they should take direct a pellet jurisdiction and decide whether Trump can dismiss his DC prosecution on immunity grounds.

Speaking of immunity, the second circuit, the top appellate court in New York ruled today that Trump waived his presidential immunity, whatever that is, and his defense to the E. Jean Carroll defamation and sexual battery case because he waited, well, Alina Haba waited, three years to raise the issue in one of his filings. Trump is apparently so busy preparing to write his Christmas legal briefs to try to stop

the March trials since the DC appeals court put a big lump of colonists stocking that he couldn't bother to show up and testify in his own defense in the New York civil fraud case. Even though judge Engoron will decide how much of Trump's business empire and assets he will be allowed to keep. The civil fraud case has come to an end as the judge was evacuated from the courthouse based on death threats no doubt by Trump's MAGA supporters. This show goes dark for a month and then we pick up with closing arguments in a rule and a ruling in January. And now the S show that is Rudy Giuliani. We are just three days into his trial to decide just how big a check a DC jury will write to compensate mother daughter former election workers, shame

moths and Ruby Freeman for defamation, assassination threats, and personal attacks they have suffered because of Rudy Giuliani's lies against them about committing voter fraud. And Giuliani has already been told by the federal judge that he risks a mistrial and perjury charges as Ruby and Shay look the jury and Rudy straighten the eye and tell their heartbreaking authentic story of pain and suffering at the hands of Rudy and his henchmen. We discuss the likelihood that the jury will award more than the $50 million requested by their lawyers. All this and so much more on the collision corner of law, politics and justice, only on the midweek edition of legal AF, on exclusively the Midas Touch Network with your co-anchors, Karen Friedman, McDiffalo,

and Michael Popock. Karen, it's the holiday season. And the appellate courts are holding up their end of the bargain with their rulings against Trump. But forget it all, forget all that. How are you? How's the family? Let's start it off right. Hello, Popock. I'm great. Everything is good here. The family is great. Everything is really, really good. I have to say, though, tonight's going to be a tricky one for me because there's so much going on. I'm actually finding it hard to keep it straight.

And so hopefully we can break it down for people so that they can understand it because there are so many cases going on that are asserting presidential immunity in different levels, right? We've got civil cases, criminal cases, appellate cases, the Supreme Court, you've got requests to go fast, requests not to slow it down. It's just, it's so hard to keep track of and hopefully we can simplify it so that everybody

can understand what's happening and keep track of and hopefully we can simplify it so that everybody can understand what's happening and keep track of it because it's important. I'm going to check the chat. I want people to say things like if Karen can't figure it out, there's no hope for the rest of us. We will figure it out and we will present it here on legal AF. Let's kick it off. Let's talk about because it's on everybody's front burner. We're getting decisions left and right from the US

Supreme Court, the DC Court of Appeals. We got a ruling just before we just before we got on the air. I'll tell everybody later why I'm laughing. We have a sidebar chat among salty me and Karen while we're doing the live, and he wrote something funny, which I will share at the appropriate time. Okay, now, let me frame it and turn it right back over to my illustrious partner, Karen Friedman-Ignifala. We worried, and there was some misreporting earlier in the week, that the computer generated order that spit out a pellet or an appeal schedule for Donald Trump's appeal of Judge

Chuck Ns ruling a couple of weeks ago, finding that he had no presidential immunity or immunity to dismiss the indictment in Jack Smith's DC election interference case. He took that up on appeal. Okay, no surprise there. So far, so good. Everybody's following along. And we expected that appeal.

We also expected that at the appropriate point that Jack Smith, if the court of appeals didn't do the right thing and kind of expedited on their own, he would file some sort of paper somewhere and maybe in multiple places to expedite the appeal. To put it on a fast track, was we got a March 4 trial date and we know that Donald Trump is just trying to burn the time, right? Burn the candle at both ends

between now and March 4th to avoid the trial, right? He wants to push this out and kick this can so far past November that he's up for that he's the voters have voted. That's exactly the opposite of what the public demands, what justice demands, which is that the voters know when they go to the polls. Are they voting for a convicted criminal or one that got exonerated and acquitted? Who knows? We don't know yet. That's the beauty of our justice system. I mean, I can hazard a guess

what's gonna happen at a jury trial, but that's just my speculation. And so when the first order came out, like, that's my printer, printer noise. I was like, oh crap, they're gonna require the appeal, not even get started until late December. It's too late, Donald Trump is won. All hope is lost. And people on legal AF like me, you and Ben relax. There's no panel yet. The three judge panel

hasn't even been selected. They're the ones that make decisions on the briefing schedule, not the clerk or not the clerk's computer. And let's wait to see what happens. If they don't form on their own, then I assure you, as I said, on legal AF recently, Jack Smith will file a piece of paper to make it happen. So he filed two pieces of paper, his office, one with the DC Court of Appeals, which is the intermediary, intermediate, a pellet court that sits over Judge Chuck and Judge Chuck and his bosses in the District of Columbia. And they also filed a paper with the US Supreme Court, hoping that one or both of them would

bite and both of them bit. The DC Court of Appeals said, this is a very interesting issue now that we have three just judges in place. And I'll let you care a comment on the judges. It's a great panel. Great for democracy, not terrible for Donald Trump in terms of who's been selected. And at the same time, they said, this is really interesting. Let's hear from the parties as to whether there should be ex-buddyed briefing on this faster

than normal, normal being six, eight months to a year. Obviously, we need faster to keep the trial date. And tell us why. And we'll make a ruling. And then at almost the same time, on the same day, the US Supreme Court said, this is very interesting. Your request to have the US Supreme Court be the first court of appeal.

Let us decide on original jurisdiction right now without going through a lower intermediary court. It's unusual. We get where you're going with this, special counsel. We like to have that briefed. So we got simultaneous briefing going on a very close calendar here, very fast track. Tell us at the US Supreme Court level why we,

in the nine people in black robes, why we should make this decision firsthand without having the benefit of a lower intermediary of pelvic court. And the appellate court going, we're gonna, we're, let's hear the briefing on the, on the expedited appeal, which closed today with a final brief by Donald Trump, citing Grinch,

that stole Christmas, Arbor Collins 1957, I'm not kidding. On their brief, they wasted ink on that and said that was one of the reasons they couldn't have this case go so fast because Jack Smith was a big big fat Grinch. And within hours, the appellate court ruled, the DC court of appeals ruled. And I'm going to let you take it from there. What happened with the DC court of appeals? What's happening with the US Supreme Court next on these two parallel worlds of appeal related to whether Donald Trump is ultimately going to be able to use immunity of some sort to dismiss his indictment. Yeah, so the DC's circuit Court of Appeals granted the expedited briefing essentially and so Everything's due in December with a rep, you know the the balance brief is due late December the app heli's brief is due December 30th and the reply briefed

The app heli's brief is due December 30th and the reply briefed January 2nd and then they'll talk about when oral arguments is and hopefully it'll be done very, very quickly. But if you, if the reason, look, look, think of this kind of, I like the way you were talking about this and how you were explaining what's going on and really what the stakes of this are. And I want to just really simplify it for people so that they understand why this is so critical. The big issue here is presidential immunity, okay? And what he's saying is, because I was president at the time and I was doing my job as president,

I should be immune if I got it wrong, you know, like that that's essentially what it is, you know, if I make a mistake or whatever, I should be free when I do my job to make tough decisions and therefore I shouldn't have to worry about watching my back because I could either get sued or get prosecuted and that that's really what he's saying. And there is a presidential immunity in the civil context. And because of that, right? Because of that, if you're acting as president within your job or within the outer boundary of what could be your job,

you know, we're going to stretch those limits a little bit because we want you as president to act freely and not worry about whether or not someone could sue you or would sue you. And that's what the civil presidential immunity is. But the question about, is there criminal presidential immunity? And I think ultimately, the Supreme Court

is going to have to rule that there is not. It makes no sense that there would be, otherwise, you know, just think of all the things one could do as a president and never have to be held accountable. It would fly in the face of everything this country stands for. But it's never been ruled on before. So as a result, it is something that is going to have to be ruled on. But let's just have a little academic exercise. If he is immune from prosecution, criminally, then this case goes away. 100%. If he's not, then the case proceeds. So this is truly foundational, right? Foundational. It's whether or not the case can go. And that's why he is permitted

to appeal midstream while the trial is going on. He doesn't have to wait until after he's convicted or if he's convicted to appeal the way you typically do with most appellate arguments. And so what Donald Trump is doing, because this is so foundational, right, what he's doing here, and this is why this is such a critical, important juncture that we're at. He's his long game, his chess game is, don't go to trial, don't let anyone see what the evidence is, don't get convicted, get elected, right?

In November, get elected, become president, and install my own, a elected, become president, and install my own Department of Justice head, the Attorney General, who will dismiss the case, and I'll pardon myself. Period, full stop. It's terrifying. What is that state here? And if this case doesn't go in March,

because we're still waiting on the appellate courts to determine this foundational question, what will happen in March? March, then March 24th comes around, and Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney, his case will be on the calendar in front of Judge Juan Mershon, and they'll come to court.

And the prosecutor will say my three favorite words, the people are ready. And that means the people are ready for trial. And in New York, we say the people in federal court, we say the government. So that will go to trial March 24th. And because that's gonna go, and so for all the people who are like,

why this case, why, why did he bring this case, why is this the first case, this might be the only case. We are all going to look back and say, you know what, thank God for Alvin Bragg and this case. Because that might be the only case we see that holds him accountable. Because we all know that Eileen Cannon has no desire to bring her case in May, right? But she's not going to also say, hey, you know what, let's put it off. Even though we know that's what she's going to do. And so if this judge-chatkin case doesn't go forward in March, on March 4th, the way she was trying to get it to do, she won't be able to put it into March, into May, because that's where

Judge Eileen Cannon is, right? And so it would get pushed to what? June, July, and then it gets so close to the election. And then it becomes really complicated and it can't go before the election. And so there's no way you're going to have a criminal trial right in the heat and heart of a presidential election. And so this is really, really important. And what's happening right now is Jack

Smith is basically saying to the Supreme Court and to the DC Circuit in parallel, which is unusual. So highly unusual, the way it always goes in 99 out of 100 times is you go to the district court, you go to the appellate court, and then you go to the Supreme Court. That's the way it always is. There's been I think 45 or 50 times in our lifetime that was reported this week, where the Supreme Court allowed them to leapfrog the middle portion of this, right, the circuit, and go straight to the Supreme Court. And since 2019, the Supreme Court has done it many times.

I think it was almost a dozen or two dozen times, have allowed that to happen in some really foundational, fundamental cases that have been faced with. So they do this, unlike in the past, where this wasn't ever done. This current Supreme Court does this. And so hopefully they'll take it and take it quickly and keep the March 4th date.

Because if it doesn't go March 4th, I would venture to say it's likely to not go before the election. And then we just played out the long game that Trump is looking to play. So this is extremely, extremely difficult and this is extremely important. And so I want everyone to just really understand what is at stake here. Okay, let me be the devil's advocate in a couple of those points, because, you know, I got to hold up my end of the conversation.

First, I think the DC court of appeals, I think the Supreme Court's going to back out and let the DC court of appeals make the, make the initial ruling. I think that ruling is going to come based on the briefing schedule that they've set or going to set is going to come very, very quickly. I think they are going to be working over Christmas, despite Donald Trump's citation to the Grinch that stole Christmas as the reason by one of the reasons why they shouldn't be forced to work over their Christmas holiday. Here's the quote on page 13. I'm not making this up everybody. They wasted valuable ink in one of their key arguments to cite to Dr. Suce. What comes next? Hop on pop. Green eggs in ham. I mean, you're, they're, they're just exhausted intellectually. And this is what you're left with. They led in that brief just so

you know, this is why it only took the Eiffelic Court, Mitt Hours to decide. They were like, let's see what Donald Trump has to say. First paragraph in Donald Trump's brief was, this was a partisan attack by Joe Biden over the number one person who will beat him in November. Okay. And the public are saying like, okay, can we get to the point as to why there's not a substantial public interest in having this appeal and the decision on your immunity that you've raised yourself and the fact that you've asked for expedited appeal and got it for the gag order, why we shouldn't grant expedited appeal, especially since there's some there's some precedent that I think is pretty close to being on all fours, which has to do with the water gate days in which they ask the DC court of appeals during the water gate times to hurry up and rule on immunity and other executive privileges so they could get the water gate trial started.

Sort of on point. And so the panel took one look and said, what else has he got? And he looked at the brief and they said, no, that case doesn't apply. And the argument about there's a primary coming up and super Tuesday and the argument about there's a primary coming up and Super Tuesday and Donald Trump, you know, there's a first amendment, right, for the public that likes Donald Trump to hear what he has to say. We're not talking about a gag order anymore. We're talking about. And I also thought it was insulting. And I said this in a hot tick. I thought it was insulting to the three judge panel that's been picked to imply or to

actually say that you're too stupid to make a decision quickly based on full briefing. And you should give a more del- you need more time. You've got to be more deliberate. Okay, this is an appellate court at the highest level. This is like V major leagues of courts of appeal. This is their job. This is what they get paid to do. Fast, slow,

normal track, fast track. They read briefs, they conduct oral arguments, they do the legal analysis, and they make a ruling. It doesn't matter if it's a week, it's a month, it's six months or a year. And so to insult them and say, you need more time. So they love this argument. Give judges more time. It's not that they want to give the judges more time. It's as you said, Karen, they want to just burn more time off the clock because they want to get closer to and burn through March. And so I think the Supreme Court backs out, the Court of Appeals on fast briefing,

I think ultimately rules that he is beyond the outer boundaries of any argument of immunity here, and they do not dismiss the indictment. Because that's the question. How do you do you dismiss an indictment? And so, yes, Judge Chutkin today, just today. See, we had a lot of things happen just today. Just today ruled that, she agreed with both sides. Both Department of Justice and Donald Trump said to Judge Chutkin, while this appellate issue is in place, you must stop and not do anything else in this trial.

Don't decide anything else. I mean, the Department of Justice was a little bit different. There's a couple of things you can still decide, but anything that deals with immunity, you got to stop. You got to just put a pin in the trial. And she's done that just so everybody knows. As of right now, as of this time at 821 PM Eastern time, there is no further activity in the trial to prepare for trial. I mean, Jack Smith's team can prepare for trial. But in terms of

her making decisions, rulings, there's still motions that are pending all stops, which then gives additional weight and credence to the decision by the DC Court of Appeals to do this quickly, because they don't want it to stop. Remember, we, or this might be news to people just joining last week, another three-judge panel of the court of appeals buried on page 47 of their decision about the gag order, regagging Donald Trump, basically implored their colleagues on this panel, the current court of appeals, not to delay the trial, do everything that could to get the trial back on track. That was like a voice. They were sending a message. They rather just passed them in the hallway or the cafeteria. They wrote it in their opinion last week. And so the court of appeals, I think, is taking this very seriously in the

historic moment of it. Now, let me just talk briefly about the date in March, May and self-parten. Just, okay, just to throw it out there. Can I add one more thing for you to also say? I want you to also weigh in on whether this will stay, like, say, Fani Willis sees the writing on the wall and says, oh, you know, let's move up my trial. Do you think the supremacy clause will require a stay of her case as well given that it's the same subject matter? So I just want to add that to your list of things to comment on please. Yeah. Thank you. It's like speed. It's like speed chess. Okay. Go.

I'll do that with less on the March May issue, you know, I Think if it's if she needs another month to get her trial going, Judge Shuckin under the judicial canon, she can pick up the phone and call Judge Alene, I think it's pronounced Alene canon. And Judge Shuckin can say, hey, Alene, I need to move my trial ahead. You've been jerked, this is my paraphrase. You've been jerking around with the moral logo thing

long enough, time to you know what or get off the pot Are you taking the trial date in May or can I'm where I'm gonna take my April date? So there there is a dialogue same dialogue that went on between Judge Shuttken's chambers and the Chambers of Judge Mershan up in New York for the Stormy Daniels case that you talked about and Judge Mershan said I'll step aside if you do me too All right, and then and then before I get to the Georgia thing, the, you know, this issue is not clear because no president in our republic has ever tried it to pardon themselves. Now, I don't think it gets to pardon themselves. I think Donald Trump pulls the plug on the Department of Justice if he can.

Now, if a special counsel is appointed, it's a little trickier under the special counsel law. That's why Bill Barr raced to put that, the guy in place, John, what's his last name, it'll come to me, somebody help. The special counsel looking at all things related to, salty say, which case, I'll get it. It's the special counsel that Bar put in place to protect him from being dismissed by Joe Biden

and by Marik Garland to go after whether, you know, the Russia hoax and all of that. And so there are protections within the independent. Don Durham. John Durham, I was gonna say, Raleigh, I knew it was in North Carolina. Oh, so, I'm like, he can't mean Mueller. So, I know.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, a fan friendly Donald Trump friendly attorney general. But we'll see that.

But that's what he'll try to do. Surely you're right about that. He'll try to gut the Department of Justice, hollow out, cut off resources, and not allow that case to go forward if it's not complete. And then we'll have to debate the issue whether he has the ability to pardon himself. And then what happens if he tries to,

of course, that'll go up to the Supreme Court in various ways. And we'll see what they may not even like that, like self-partening for crimes that have been convicted. So we'll see. As the Georgia, you raised a very interesting issue, and I've seen various debates about it. I know that Trump's lawyers think the supremacy clause applies. I know Trump's lawyers, like John, like Steve Seidow has said in court that he thinks the supremacy clause would eventually bar our ban this. I'm not sure about that.

And I'm not sure this is complete. You're trying to think of what the supremacy clause is just in case they don't know what it is. Well, I mean, where there is an overlap between subject matter and the federal, the federal, in our federalist system of states and federal government, the federal government can oust the state. And in this case of justice, criminal justice, can, as you said, make them stop their state case because they have a federal case overlapping subject matter on the same. There's going to be a fight over whether it's overlapping subject

matter. There's going to be a fight over whether the indictment could be narrowed, for instance, for funny well as to do less, because they even though there is obviously overlap between the two. So that's the way that shakes out. Mac if he hasn't ruled on that in Georgia, it hasn't been brought to anybody's attention. We'll talk about whether there's waiver related to that. When do you bring the supremacy clause up? How far along do you have to be? We're pretty far along in Georgia here

and all of that. Why don't we pick up with your view on waiver supremacy clause and all that. But first, one of the highlights of our show besides you is a word from our sponsor. Do you remember your first holiday ever? Probably not, but I bet your parents do, and they have the pictures to prove it. Probably a lot of pictures to prove it.

But even if they have one or two on the wall, there's a ton they haven't seen in years. You can put all those amazing childhood holiday photos in a place where your parents can actually see them. And aura, digital frame. Look, there's sort of a famous photo in my family. photos in a place where your parents can actually see them. And aura, digital frame. Look, there's sort of a famous photo in my family. Every year at Thanksgiving, when I was three and four, we'd go to my grandparents' house on the island.

It was near my birthday, my birthday a few days after Thanksgiving, and there's this amazing photo of me, my mom, a birthday cake, and a turkey on Thanksgiving. It was so great people used it at my 40th birthday party. But look, I haven't seen it since. And what do you do with it? Think aura frames. aura frames was named the number one digital frame

by wire cutter, the strategist and wired. And it doesn't have to be just your pictures. In the app, you can add other members. So your siblings and cousins and friends can all upload their own photos to. There's unlimited storage. So you don't even have to fight over it. Visit or a frames dot com slash legal a f today and get $30 off their best selling frames. These frames sell out quickly though, so get yours before they're gone. That's a-u-r-a frames.com slash legal a f used promo code legal a f to get $30 off their best selling frame terms and conditions apply. You know that your temperature at night can have one

of the greatest impacts on your sleep quality. If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle MADE's bedsheets. Inspired by NASA, Miracle MADE uses silver infused fabrics and makes temperature regulating bedding so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long. Using silver infused fabrics inspired by NASA, Miracle MADE sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long. So you get better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with silver that prevent

up to 99.7% of bacterial growth, leaving them to stay cleaner and fresh three times longer than other sheets. No more gross odors. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands and feel as nice if not nicer than sheets used by some 5 star hotels. Miracle sheets are the perfect gift for your spouse, friends or family who doesn't want better sleep and luxurious feeling bed sheets.

And since these come with three free towels, you get two gifts in one just in time for the holidays. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores, causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with miracle. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF to try it today or gift it to someone special this holiday season. And we've got a special deal for our listeners, save over 40%. And if you use our promo legal AF a checkout, you'll get three free towels and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product, it's back to the 30 day money back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made.

Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF and use the code legal AF to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash legal AF to treat yourself, a friend or loved one this holiday season. I love these ads as I can track my haircuts on them. So we have, listen, there's just to turn it back to you. Kim P in our chat asked a very good question. She said, if the DC court of appeals makes a decision that Trump is not immune from prosecution, what's the next step?

All right, well, that's a good question. I think what we have is, if I'm right that the Supreme Court backs out, there'll be some briefing, or maybe Jackson Smith withdraws his request for direct appeal to the US Supreme Court. Now that he's got the attention of the DC Court of Appeals and they're putting this on the fast track that he wanted. It's all he wanted, it was fast track gets to a ruling.

Then if that's what happens, DC Court of Appeals rules, whoever loses will take an appeal to the US Supreme Court. Hopefully, again, on an emergency fast track, a writ of cert basis. The first stop on that train is John Roberts, the chief judge who presides over all things

District of Columbia. He'll decide, yay or nay, whether there's an emergency appeal, if he wants to be sort of transparent. He'll turn it over to the full nine member group instead of making the decision on his own. And then I think that all still gets shoved into before middle to the end of January, one way or the other. Because I think they're call me the Cacaid Optimist.

But I think there is a fair number of judges who are federal judges on all sides of the spectrum that think that the public policy and the public's interest of having Donald Trump tried. And they're being a decision whether it absolves him or convicts him before people vote matter. I may be wrong. We'll find out what the Supreme still. One way or the other though to answer Kim Peas question. It's getting to the Supreme. The question is direct or one stop at the DC quarter of a field. I hope you're right, because if it doesn't happen before January, then Trump wins no matter what the answer is because

he doesn't have a trial. And then he's not held accountable. Of course, if he loses the election, then the trial will proceed. But at least it's not before the election. So that to me is really the key here. What do you think about your service, I'm serving back the supremacist, it's like pickleball. I'm serving back the supremacy question, yes, me. What do you think happens with the supremacy argument? Yes, so I dealt with it think happens with the supremacy argument?

Yes, so we dealt with it all the time in, because I was the state prosecutor for 30 years. It came up fairly regularly. Mostly came up when the city council, which goes like federal, state, local in terms of the hierarchy of who makes laws. And it came up a lot when the city council tried to pass laws. And we would argue that it's preempted by state law, which is essentially a similar preemption and, you know, is the legal framework

that would apply if the supremacy clause applies, meaning that the Supreme Court's law would preempt the state court law on the same topic, or the same ruling, and that's a presidential immunity. So what would happen here? I think you were spot on. It all depends on what exactly they're talking, like what law and what conduct, right? And whether it's the same or whether it's different.

Now, you know, Bonnie Willis' indictment, you'd have to analyze it and really look at what were things that are alleged in there that was done when he was president and then things done when he was not president. And, you know, I think that will be part of it, but also to look at both the facts and a lot of make that determination. I do think, however, that it will get stayed. I do think an appellate court in Georgia will say that it is stayed until the Supreme Court

rules. That's what I think. I agree, I think we've got four, five appellate courts that matter in a particular order related to all things Donald Trump as we close out the year and the next year. The DC Court of Appeals is gonna be making a lot of decisions about a lot of things because they're the bosses for the judges that sit in DC.

Georgia Supreme Court, highest court of the land in Georgia, and whatever the intermediary court for Fulton County is, is that we're going to be hearing a lot about them or than we ever thought we would. We're going to know a lot about them, those judges and who they are and how they got there. The second circuit court of appeals in New York for all things related to civil matters related to Donald Trump. The court of appeals, I guess I'll add one more, the court of appeals, the highest state court of Pellet Court in New York for things related to the civil fraud case. And then the 11th Circuit for things related to the Florida matters, because that's the Florida federal bosses for Judge Cannon, and they're making decisions also.

So we're going to track this. Well, we do a pellet, state, you know, a pellet know a pellet trial level state federal and the intersection interplay of all those things That's what we're trying to follow every week for you and sort it out And it's not easy. I mean to credit and we joke about it But to credit what my colleague Karen said at the top of the podcast it is confusing It's confusing for you even people like Karen and me that were trained have been trained for over 30 years to Dissect and digest and understand these issues. And so, we're all in this together.

We're using our expertise and our knowledge, whereas I joke down one of my hot takes. You like lawyers who know what they're talking about during podcasts, you're gonna love what we do. On legal AF, and we try. And sometimes it's a head scratcher. And we gotta go back and forth, and we do. I mean, some people might wanna see maybe if we ever do Patreon, Yeah, and we try. And sometimes it's a head scratcher. And we got to go back and forth. And we do.

I mean, some people might want to see, maybe if we ever do Patreon, we'll show them the back and forth how we prepare for this show. We do a lot of prep, and it because it is hard, and our goal here is not to dumb it down, not to patronize, speaking of Patreon, but to have a good understandable simplification, a simplex, I think I read somewhere as the word for it, of these complex dishes and that's what we're doing. I mean, one of the reasons, you know, we do do it sometimes is because in that back and forth, we will say, oh, I think this and the other person will say, I think that and we say, let's have the debate or the discussion, you know, together and we'll do a duet.

And that's what goes into some of those why we do duets a lot of the time. Right on cue, my colleague, let's talk about a duet that you guys did. I'm not talking about the duet, but an issue that you use that method, that's so critic method to sus out the analysis using Ben or me, both of us all three of us, is that we've got another appellate decision, federal, this time the highest court in New York, the second circuit court of appeals, ruling today, I mean, I don't like to wrench my shoulder

padding ourselves in the back, but we did say that this was gonna happen, which is the E. Jean Carol case Donald Trump finally got around after three years to try to assert late Presidential immunity. I'm immune. You can't sue me for the things that I said when I was president when I said these terrible Horrible horrific the famitory things about the person that I have been a judge already to have raped in In April of or the spring of 1996. Can't do that. I have immunity to which we, you, me, and Ben, all did hot takes because we got the oral argument

off the second circuit and listened to Alina Haba, Gurgle, Gurgle, Flounder. I know I'm mixing metaphors here, drown in response to questions from a very hot bench. And one of the questions that was asked particularly, which showed up now in the ruling, which is that Donald Trump waived, bye bye waived any argument that he's immune from soup

because he raised it too late, that it's a wavable thing. You either use it or lose it, and you gotta use it fast early on in a case, and don't get three years into it. And then you say, oh, I just remembered. I used to be the president. Presidential immunity may apply.

And there was a back and forth with one of the judges for the panel to Alina Haba. And she said, well, your argument then is that presidential immunity in the civil context can never be waived. No one can ever waive it. It's no. Alina, no, it can never be waived. No one can ever waive it. It's no. It's automatic. It's almost like it's self-executing. Who would ever waive? It can't be waived. And the judge said, well, I could think of some scenarios where a president, maybe not your client, wants to waive any aspect of immunity because he wants his day in court to clear his name about allegations and doesn't

want to just rely on immunity. And she's in to Alina Habba. That was such a foreign concept that somebody would actually want to go to trial, testify and clear their name. But she was like, uh, so I was like flatlined. You could see the smoke coming out of Alina Habba's ears on that. And that became an animating force when the judge today, I think it was Judge Cabránis, right?

Yeah. I think Jose Cabránis used to be on the Southern District of New York at trial level judge as most of them are and they get elevated to the second circuit, along with Danny Chinn and one of the judges just escaped me. He wrote, it's wavable. It is a way, which is the third one.

Can I? Yeah, can. You're right. And I think it was con that got into with Alina Haba during the oral argument. And right out of the box, they said, this is a case of first impression. And the fundamental question is, do you have to raise the affirmative defense of presidential immunity early on in a case? Or have you waved it? And they said, you waved it.

Three years into a case is way too long for you to say that you are now asserting the privilege after you've lost the prior trial and all the other and on your third filing, your third pleading two and a half years into a case, you finally got around to growing a brain and figuring out that maybe, oh right, I was president. Maybe I should raise that as an immunity. And they didn't buy that. And they don't, there's really no good explanation.

One of the reasons that as a trial lawyer, you don't sometimes do your own appeals, and you let another law firm or lawyer do your appeals is because sometimes there's some very difficult questions that are asked about what you did at the trial level. For instance, why didn't you file it earlier? Now, if you're the appellate lawyer, you can say, well, the record is unclear as to why the trial, that's of no moment. Here, you've got to go, I didn't do it because, and it becomes problematic. I've been in a pellet arguments about cases in which the pellet court actually said, I know it's

not in the record. Now, they're not supposed to do this, but they do it all the time. I know it's not in the record, but what really happened? You know, was there a posting on social media or wasn't there? You know, and I'm almost like, you're not supposed to ask me that question. It's not in the record, but they do. Their human beings are trying to reach a proper decision. How did you read? I know you invented a hot dick on it. Jump in.

Tell me why, for instance, some of the people now, like tonight are saying, I don't get it. They're in criminal immunity land. In the world of a criminal prosecution, everything stops while the immunity issue gets decided on appeal. That's what you just told us, Popeye, Chuck, and stop the trial. Why then, if it's so fundamental to the jurisdiction of the court, why then, at least in the civil context, does the former president have to raise it at all?

Why isn't it automatic? Why doesn't matter when he raised it? He raised it and therefore it should have divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction. I say, good question, Chad. Turning it over to Karen. Yeah, this was a head scratch here. Just because there's, what did we get three or four decisions

on presidential immunity or opinions on presidential immunity in like three days? I mean, it was just crazy that these are all coming down at the same time and talking about the same issue. So, you know, don't forget we had Blazing Game, right, which is the, the civil case in Washington, DC, where it was Capitol police officers and others suing Donald Trump for January six and that presidential immunity, and that's a civil case.

Finally, that decision came down like an hour before Judge Chukkin's criminal presidential immunity decision came down. And then now we're getting the second circuit in another civil case in the E. Jean Carroll case. And that's so the D.C. circuit and the second circuit are parallel. They're the same level and they are both ruling on presidential immunity in the civil context. And the reason I to to me, this was like a little confusing or a little bit, I felt like it was a little bit

of a head scratcher was because on the one hand, the other case is, right, the blashing game civil case and then the Chetkin criminal case when they talk about presidential immunity. It's all about how, you know, you've got Jack Smith arguing, gotta go to the Supreme supreme if this is so important This is so foundational. It's such a big deal. You got Chuck and staying the proceedings You got Jack Smith arguing that the supreme court should rush this and hear it and

And we can it's such a foundational important thing that we're gonna leapfrog over the the DC circuit and go straight to use Supreme Court. And similarly in blashing game, right? Everything is about how this is such a foundational premise. And it's an all or nothing thing, right? It's if you're immune, there's no case. If you're not immune, you can go forward. I mean, it's truly that important,

that foundational. This is not, you know, this is not some like, interim small thing. And in fact, it's so important, which is why you're allowed to appeal while the case is pending, and you don't have to wait until after the fact. So you've got all these arguments being made by everybody about this issue being so incredibly important and foundational, et cetera. And then in the E. Jean Carroll case, I don't know how else to kind of sum it up, but the second circuit almost basically ruled on a technicality. I mean, that's what lay people would say, right? They didn't rule on whether or not what Trump when Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll, you know,

while he was president. They didn't rule on whether that was in the outer boundary of, you know, the, his job as a president. They didn't say, you know, he's therefore not immune or, you know, whatever. They didn't rule on the merits. What they said was basically that you waved it. You waved it, you waded three years to raise it, which again, and if that was Alina Habba, you know,

I know that there was some issue that she didn't check the box, you know, and therefore didn't get a jury trial in the, the Angoraan case. And she got a lot of flack for that. And, and Judge Angora get a jury trial in the, the, and Goron case. And she got a lot of flack for that. And, and Judge and Goron actually came to her defense and said, you know, that she did, you know, he said she didn't forget to check the box. She got a lot of flack for that. But if she did this, this is a huge mist. Like this is like, this is like potentially, you know, career ending kind of mistake.

I mean, you represent a former president of the United States. This is all or nothing premise, and you don't raise it for you forget, or for some reason you don't raise it. I don't know who made that decision, or if it was a decision. But the second circuit basically said it was waived because he waited too long and they held that presidential immunity is waivable in the defendant waived this defense by waiting too long. They cleared the way for the E. Jean Carol case.

It's really, I think it's just damages, right, the EGN Carol one, because he was already found to be defamatory. Yeah, 200 damages and cost-quential damages. Yeah, so they ruled that that can go forward in January, you know? So, you know, but then they go on to say this is a case of first impression, and it's a vexing question, a first impression about whether presidential immunity is wavable. And I don't know, there's by calling it vexing, to me that just kind of, the whole thing opens the door to the Supreme Court saying, no, you know, if you, if you can wave it, you can wave it, but it has to be intentionally waved. You don't wave it by not raising it. And you know,

it's not like forfeited, this isn't this isn't you can't rate like you can't lose something so foundational on a technicality I don't know if the Supreme Court will rule it that way but I what I was hoping that they would have done was they would have done which they do all the time which is we find that it's waived but in the alternative if it turns out it wasn't we also rule on the mayor you, like courts do that all the time. I don't know why they didn't do that here. And so that's, I didn't love that.

Yeah. Well, we had a ruling last week by another court of appeal. Maybe this doesn't set up a conflict. The highest court in the land without a conflict to rule on the issue of civil immunity for a, at the time, president that doesn't exist beyond the boundaries of his color of his office is blasking him. The case that came down by the DC Court of Appeals, the second circuit is not at variance with blasking him because it found as the first court in the land to rule that that is that extending blas him, that it's wavable.

The issue for me is not as important or fundamental because it doesn't deal with criminal justice and it doesn't deal with somebody's liberty. If you force, I talked about this before, you and I got on the air. Donald Trump's name is so suffused with extra baggage that you almost have to eliminate him from the discussion in order to try to get some clarity in the analysis.

If I said, for instance, John F. Kennedy, should he be forced to go through a trial that in where he was, for things related to him being president, even things that may have been criminal, or should the issue of immunity be decided first, people might say, well, maybe he shouldn't go through a trial, lose, lose his liberty, and then find out whether he was immune or not. When it comes to money, which is all that, frankly, yes, it's justice. I don't want to, I don't want to belittle at all. E. Jean Carroll would be Ruby Freeman, shame moss, those that are using the civil justice system,

appropriately to recover recompense money, which is really as shame moss Ruby, I think shame moss said it so eloquently and heartbreakingly, you gotta hit them in the pocket, because that's where they live, and that's why we have to do this. Then I'm less concerned about how big of a chequeous to write to E. Jean Carroll, and whether they got it right on immunity or not.

And I think they had a set, for me, I don't think you can wait forever. Let's take it to an extreme. You go all the way through the trial. Go all the way through the trial. You go all the way to jury deliberation. And while the jury is deliberating, you stand up and say presidential immunity. Sorry, I don't like the way the trial went,

I don't like the way that jury looked, I don't like the way the notes coming out of the jury looks for me, presidential immunity, everybody. That's pretty late in the game. And if it's not waveable under this theory, then you just let it, and that's I think what they're worried about. They're worried about this pocket immunity

that only pops up like they want it both ways. They want a person like Trump would want a double dip. I want to try to convince, I want to use the platform of this trial to convince the world that I didn't do those bad things to E.G. and Carol. Oh, it's going south for me presidential immunity. Do it early.

Well, a judge, but I'm fairness. And again, a judge could, and they do this sometimes, you know, a judge could put in an order that says if you have, if you're going to, if you happen to have someone who was president, you know, you're sewing a former president in those limited cases, a judge could say and force them early on. If you're raising any immunities, including, you know, these, you must tell me now, yes or no, and make them say yes or no. Okay, so do you waive that?

Like you can force them on the... Well, yes, but no, I didn't mean to cut you off, go ahead. No, no, I just think it's, you know, I'm thinking of all the other reversible errors that exist in the law, I just think it's, you know, I'm thinking of all the other reversible errors that exists in the law, and many times judges what they do is they will make sure that those rights are taken care of so that type of thing doesn't happen. Yeah, but you also had the unique situation where you had double eging carol cases going

on at the same time. One guy. You're right. Civil is different than criminal. You are right. You got through E. Jean Carol case is going on. One was frozen in time. The other one went forward for a trial. Same judge. He never he went through an entire trial and lost. You and I on vacation reported about it in May and lost E. Jean Carol, the other E. Jean Carol case about statements he made after he was president. And of course, he didn't raise immunity then,

because he couldn't. And then we restarted the case, but the case had been sitting around for two and a half years. And then he said, oh, that's a good time to be the raised presidential immunity. I think they're worried about the president, of course, of Halicore. So he's worried about the president.

How long can you wait for somebody to stand up, not play both sides and assert their privilege? And I think they fell in love right or wrong or indifferent with the argument that was raised by one of the judges in the oral argument, which was, I could see a president wanting to waive, as you said, not win on a technicality and win on the merits about something that happened to him. I wanted my day in court.

And so that's now the law. Now the Supreme Court will figure out whether they were right or wrong. I don't think it gets decided, frankly, they'll know what's the next step people are asking. The final Trump will move for a stay. And I asked the trial judge to stay at the trial judge, Judge Kaplan's going to say no, F and way. They're going to go to the back to the second circuit, the second circuit's going to say no, F and way. And then he's going to have to try to take an emergency appeal through, isn't the second circuit so the second circuit's gonna say no F in way, and then he's gonna have to try to take an emergency appeal through, isn't the second circuit so to Mojora or Kagan? See the Satsang Mojora Kagan, we'll look at that.

It's a it's a Mojora. Yeah, so we can write because she's the more senior. So to Mojora's gonna go, sorry, and I don't think she sends it over to the full panel. She's like, click, no, sorry, flush, no appeal, see you later, you can take it up later after you lose. And I think that's where this is going to go. So that's the good news about EG and Carol. Let's, in the time remaining, the two things I'd like to cover with you for sure is the New York civil fraud case, of course, and the conclusion of that case after 11 weeks, or to power phrase, what are the New York Attorney

Generals, Deputy Attorney Generals, we don't want more time, Judge. We just want this case to end. We can ask you one more question. Sure, of course. Sorry. Sorry. Supreme Court sometimes combines multiple cases

on the same issue and decides that. Yes. Can they do that with criminal and civil? I only ask because they're really going to have three different cases involving Trump and presidential immunity, two civil and one criminal literally at the same time. Can you combine criminal and civil? I don't think so.

I don't think they would from a jurisprudential standpoint. I think that's a danger zone to do that. I think they'd keep the bright lines between them, but you're right, they can say, yeah, these are similar issues. Let's throw them all together, we'll make one big fat decision, and we'll watch them do that.

You know, we're halfway through their term, it started in October, plenty of time left on the clock to make these decisions, and we don't have time today to talk about it, and it's not right yet for us, but they've just decided to take up a case related to Jan 6th, and whether obstruction of Congress is an appropriate charge, often appealed by one of the Jan 6th insurrectionists, which if they rule against it would vacate hundreds of plea deals and convictions resulting

in the Jan 6th insurrection world. So we're going to keep a close eye on that. And coming up next, I want to talk to you, of course, in our audience about the New York civil fraud case, what happened there, and the judge having to be evacuated. And then finally, we'll wrap up with Rudy Giuliani, um, under, you know, fortunately doing terrible in his trial so far with a jury who's sitting riveted watching a Shea Moss and Ruby Freeman testify about how their world has been turned upside down completely. I Rudy Giuliani tears in their eyes and tears in the jury's eyes as a result. We'll do all that. But first, another word from our sponsors. Heart health and staying healthy, especially when you have a family that you want to be able to spend as much time with as possible, is so, so important.

We could all benefit from heart healthy energy. one of the best ways to get some by supporting your blood pressure and circulation. Superbeats heart-choose are an easy and convenient way to support healthy blood pressure. They're plant-based and stimulant-free, so you get a green boost without the jitters. Paired with a healthy lifestyle, the antioxidants and superbeats are clinically shown to be nearly two times more effective at promoting normal blood pressure than a healthy lifestyle alone. Superbeats heart chews are incredibly delicious and so much better than any alternative supplements out there.

I take my superbeats heart che juice each morning and it's really kick started my morning routine. After taking my superbeats heart juice, I feel like I have more energy and I'm ready to take on the day. Superbeats is the number one doctor, pharmacist and cardiologist recommended beet brand for cardiovascular health support. It's blood pressure support you can trust. Superbeats HeartChoose, support healthy circulation so you not only get blood pressure support, you also get productive heart healthy energy without the crash. Double your potential with superbeats heartChoose.

Get a free 30 day supply of superbeats heart, choose, and a free full size bag of Tomeric shoes, value to $25 by going to legal a F beats.com. Get this exclusive offer only at legal a F beats.com. And for that one, I had a slight cold having nothing to do with the sponsor. Okay. No, but you made me in the mood for my super beats. So I went to get a super beat. I love them. They're so yummy. I'm going to go wrap myself at a miracle sheet. Let's let's finish off today with our goodness of all things that

are going really people are getting a little bit despondent in the chat. Don't get to spawn at things are going fine. This is the year, the wrap-up year of the pellet courts and into 2024 and then trials. 2020, the year of crimes, 2021 and 22, the year of investigations and indictments, 2023 and a half appeals and 2024-ish trials. And that's just what we're going to do. Continue to follow the life cycle of all these cases involving Donald Trump and others that followed him. Let's figure out Donald Trump and losing everything. The New York Civil Broadcast has finally reached its conclusion 11 weeks in. There was no Donald Trump testifying in his own defense.

There was no Eric Trump testifying in their defense. There were four experts, none of them were were very convincing except one got into a shouting match with the New York Attorney General in which a lot of how dare you and Unhand me sir and whatever else was going on there was going on because he didn't like the fact that he was called a paid What's the word? I'm looking for it starts with a W and ends with an e you guys can figure it out But that's what that was basically you applied. That he took $900,000 to say anything about things that he knew nothing about, which was whether banks actually rely on statements of financial conditions and making lending decisions. That's been the problem with the experts that have been so-called experts that have been

presented by Donald Trump. They don't go to the heart of any of the issues that the judge has to decide. How you buy insurance, that's not the issue. If you don't know how Deutsche Bank relied or didn't rely on the statements of financial conditions, then get out of here. Go. If you don't know those fundamental fact questions, or you've based your expert opinion on things that are outside the record or are not consistent with the record, you are going to be shot down. It's a waste of time. And as I tell people about jury science in teaching my lawyers about trial practice, jury science tells us that juries make the decision about who wins and who loses in the first week of the trial. This is about how long the trial is. It could be a 12 week trial. First week, they are ready.

Now, they'll continue to test their theories as the trial progresses, but they have a knee jerk gut reaction early on about the case. And now this is even more acute when it's just a judge making the decision. And so if cherries are just waiting for the lawyers to shut their pie holes so they can make their decision, what do you think the judges doing?

And you saw the frustration of the New York Attorney General at one point Mr. Wallace said out loud as they were wrapping up some logistics and Chris Keiss the lawyer for Donald Trump was going off the rails in this case really in a embarrassing fashion as a fellow Florida bar member. I will say that. Chris Kice said, uh, uh, Judge, uh, now that we rest and we want to move for direct a judgment, we win. We win. You don't even have to make a decision. We win. And we want to file a motion about winning.

And Mr. Wallace said, what's going on here? The New York Attorney General already won the persistent fraud count, the first count of the, of the petition of the complaint. We're just here trying to figure out whether there's more fraud and more counts of fraud. So another pointless PowerPoint presentation, masquerading as a motion for directed judgment, coming out of waste of time. And Judge Angora and already said, Chris, you can make it, but I'm going to deny it. Not because he's not giving it reflective thought.

He's thought about it now for weeks. It's because it has no merit. It's the fifth time that Donald Trump and his lawyers have jumped up and down and called for it, directed verdict or directed judgment. Michael Cohen testified, oh, Michael Cohen, oh, directed judgment. You know, another thing, oh, direct stop. You're not getting directed judgment. You're gonna wait for the judge next month

after oral argument to the final presentation a closing argument to make his ruling. And if you don't like it, go take it up with the first department of palliative vision. And if you don't like that, go take it up the New York court of appeals. And that's what's gonna happen. And they're gonna be on the losing side.

And this is one of the reasons that I'm Trump didn't show up. What did you think about sort of the last, we'll do it briefly. Your take away from that, and what do you think, and Goron does next month in this civil fraud case about Donald Trump's empire, is ability to hold on to it? Yeah, like this case, they kind of flamed out at the end, the defense, you know, they didn't call their star witnesses, you know, Trump, the Trumps. And but I do think they actually made a little bit of hay with the remaining counts.

They put on the two Deutsche Bank people who said, hey, we didn't rely on it. We did our own, we, you know, it was not material essentially. And we didn't rely on these documents. And you don't need that materiality or intentionality or reliance for the count that Judge Angora on has already found him liable or found them liable for the persistent fraud count. But the other ones, actually, the remaining ones require some kind of intentionality or materiality

and also have that added element that they committed certain crimes, right? It's civil, but it was crimes that Alvin Bragg got a lot of flack for not charging. But I have to say, when they testified and you heard what the Deutsche Bank people said about how, you know, we did our own analysis and we would have loaned to money anyway. We were looking for the whale or whatever.

They said, you know, I started to really think about Alvin Bragg's case and why he didn't bring that case. It makes a lot of sense now because, you know, there's going to be, they're having, they're struggling with proving that those remaining counts for a lesser standard. And so, to have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt when you've got people from the bank, basically saying what they said, I do think that makes a lot more sense now, while then Bragg was reticent and hesitant in bringing that case. And again, you got a lot more sense now why Alvin Bragg was reticent and hesitant in in bringing that case And again, he got a lot of flack for that because of the

Loud resignation of the prosecutors who did think the case should be brought And and so a lot of people gave him a hard time about that But but I thought that the defense case really showed that there are some questions about it I also think that judge Angoran is going to potentially, and I've said this before and you've said this before, he's going to potentially split the baby, if you will, and not necessarily give the attorney general the rest of the accounts, maybe give them some and say some for Trump, so that on appeal when Trump says this was biased and no one was listening to me and he had his mind made up from the beginning, they could, the pellet courts can say,

no, it's clear he was listening because he actually found for you and, you know, it protects the record. And I think that's what they're going to do. I also thought it was interesting. I expected that the attorney general on Rebuttal would have put other Deutsche Bank people higher up. You've always been, you've done a great job at educating us, myself included, about how banks work and how the people that Trump put on aren't really the decision makers, that it's other people. And so I expected the attorney general's Office to put those other people on rebuttal to just say no, it does matter.

I think they would have not to interrupt you. I think they would have if there was a jury. I think with the judge, there's already documents in place about what underwriting did, which is the processing place for the loans and what their requirements were. And I don't think you need it. But I am about to start a trial on Tuesday. It's a different thing. I have an arbitrary fight of jury.

I'll make different. And so will you calculate a decisions about presentation of evidence. I think they think that they have a very strong case. They do have a strong case, but you still have to prove your case, though. Anyway, I'm just, again, I'll give you an example.

I'll give you an example of the six counts that are remaining. You've got insurance fraud and the conspiracy around insurance fraud. Deutsche Bank doesn't help with that. I think they, I think I pull it across. I think they've won on that in terms of the evidence that they were able to present on business record fraud, very similar to what Alvin Bragg is doing and the conspiracy around business record fraud. I think they've got a problem with the records of the company related to those issues, regardless of whether Deutsche Bank relied on it or not, pulled that across. Now you're just left with statement of financial condition fraud and the conspiracy around

that. And maybe that's where, as you said, he throws him a bone and says, that one I'm not so sure about, unintentional and materiality and reliance. That one I'm not so sure about. Maybe that's what I'm talking about. But don't forget with business record fraud for Alvin Bragg. It's only a misdemeanor unless you were doing it to cover up another time. But this is civil. But this is civil.

No, I know. I'm just, yes, I'm just answering the Alvin's question. Of course. I'm just saying it's a business, I'm sorry, I don't mean to talk over you. No, no, you're not. It's a, having a discussion, Pope, I love it. it right and we're in a different room and a slightly different camera angle And so although in the same city I will say that if we could figure out a way to answer a question Nobody ever asked city more remember that time Karen and Michael got together in one room one time

But we didn't once it was a terrible studio will never do it again But if we could find a way salty to be in the same room at the same time with two mics a la Joe Rogan or something we would do it. I would do it. It would be a lot of fun I wouldn't even write what that's rude salty And I can by the way And I can, by the way. Okay. So, it's all he's going to break in a minute.

Like, wait a minute, that's not what I meant. Sorry, let me, I got the good old fashioned giggles there for a minute. But no, my point was that of, we keep talking about insurance, six, six fraud counts left. Those are the fraud counts, insurance, business record and financial statements and the conspiracies around each of those. I think the one that, if you're right that the judge is looking for a place to give,

it's gonna be on the Deutsche Bank financial statement fraud that they didn't prove the elements that are required, which is intent and materiality slash reliance. That would be good. I didn't hear anything that counter the insurance fraud. I didn't hear anything from experts or otherwise that countered the business record fraud. And so for me, there's going to be five total counts at least. Four, four total counts in four plus the one five, five total, five fraud counts total that this judge is going to find in January. And then just on the first fraud count, he could give all the relief probably that the New York Attorney General

was looking for, which is, as I did in a hot tick, dissolve all of the companies for Donald Trump under a monitor and receiver, liquidate the assets in order to pay whatever the Discouragement amount is and forget the $250 million we talked about a year ago. This is 500 or more million Dollars based on the numbers that were put up on the board by the experts for the New York Attorney General about how much Il got and gains how much overborrowing they did how how much benefit they got from lying, and that's the measure. And so, $500 million liquidate assets removed Donald Trump as a trustee for his own trust, bar and ban Donald Trump and his children, and the other executives from ever being New

York, corporate officers or directors, ever again, the Trump organization in New York corporate officers or directors ever again, the Trump organization in New York could never borrow money in New York and can't transact real estate in New York. That's is what is that is the the dystopian apocalyptic world that judge and go on holds in his hands. If that happens, will Trump look like like I love saying that by the way? No, but I love I love learning these things because it's fascinating to me. So let's say that happens and Judge Angora on says $200 million

and then they appeal. Well, he have to park that money in the bank the way he's doing with E. Jean Carroll already had to put $5.5 million in the bank while they have. Yeah, there's going to be an argument that in order to get what we call a super-seediest bond to stop the enforcement of the judgment, you gotta put up money unless the attorney general agrees. They already parked certain issues. I don't know if you remember that, right around the time

he issued his ruling on the first count, he was ready to dissolve. He was like, okay, let's go to dissolution of the companies and all their certificates and their ability to operate in New York and even the attorney general was like, let's go to dissolution of the companies and all their certificates and their ability to operate in New York. And even the new Attorney General was like, let's do the trial. Why don't we do the trial first, Judge? Zagari, we'll do the trial.

Okay, but I'm ready. That's why I think this ruling comes. He's going to be just to give Donald Trump's January. He's going to be in some sort of primary. At the same time, he's deciding, again, not to testify in the second E. Jean Carroll case. At the same time, at the ruling in the New York Attorney General case comes out against them for hundreds of billions of dollars. And that's just January civil. And then, and then all the criminal stuff. But, but you're right. I was laughing because

you were like, yeah, I'm not used to this civil stuff. Yeah, you're just used to putting people to rot in jail for the rest of their life, which is great. I appreciate that as well. I've never had that power. I only had the power to take money. That's why I love civil. Civil is like, I feel like it's the greatest thing.

It's like you're a private prosecutor, but with a much better burden of proof. No, it's like, it's the burden of proof issue. It was just so much. Can you imagine as a prosecutor if you could work on commission and take a contingency fee? Well, you know, right? For like for for civil forfeiture, you get 10% of whatever you bring in.

Well, then the mode the motivation there becomes a problem becomes problematic. Well, I know. Well, speaking of problematic, let's finish our podcast talking about Rudy Giuliani. He only is right. And so I'll give one minute, I'll turn it over to you for three or four and then we'll call our legal AF today a show. Rudy has gotten sanctioned so many times by Bar howl by with both ends of the stick.

I don't think he knows if he's coming or going, even his own lawyer Joe Sibley had a confess to the judge not in front of the jury that his client is losing it. He literally said to his, in response to a question from the judge when the judge said, I understand that your client was out on the courthouse steps denying everything that he has to admit as true and I've already ruled upon what is going on?"

And he said, a judge, he's 80 years old. I think this is taking a lot out of him. In other words, he's lost his fastball and he can't make decisions and then he said, I can't control him. The issue is I can't control him because he said to Joe Sibley, who's the latest and long line of trial lawyers for some reason lining up to represent Rudy Giuliani. He said to the jury to try to curry favor with them, let's be honest. He said Ruby Framitt and Shea Moss are very nice people. They did not deserve to have happened to them. What's happened to them? It's just not my

book guy's fault. You know, he has, you know, you've heard from the judge that he defamed them. And Fossil, he said that they committed voter fraud and two million people jumped all over them as a result. But it wasn't their fault to which Ruby Friedman said in her testimony, he was driving the bus and everybody was just jumping on board. And so he should not be able just to say, I'm not responsible for what other people do, which I thought was a very eloquent way to put that. So he said to the jury that and then the next day, or the beginning of the end of the first day of trial, Rudy Giuliani said, I didn't do any of it.

It's all a lie. They'll be proof one day. They did that fraud, that voter fraud, and the judge got wind of it because there's a video which we played on the Midas Dutch network. And the judge said, what is going on? And then of course, the lawyers, see, here's what's going on from the Popok perspective. There's a race going on that we're watching.

And it's a race against Rudy Giuliani's either crazy as a fox or he's just that shit crazy. And the plaintiffs lawyers who like their jury want to get done with their case and have the jury write a big check for $50 million or more want to outrage Giuliani's attempts inadvertent or otherwise to mistry this case. And so Rudy saying things that he's not supposed to say that the judges ordered him not to say that is perjurious, that's perjury, and the judges warn the lawyer about it.

And so if I'm on the other side, and I've been in cases, Karen, and civil, where things were going really well for me, but not great for a co-defendant, and they weren't really prepared either. And they didn't like the jury, and I loved the jury, and they wanted a mistrial. And something a couple of things happened that I like ignored

because they were mistrial technically, but I didn't want to mistrial. Until one time something happened in one of my trials and the judge said, Mr. Pope-Pock, for those that know Judge Barkthal in Florida, that's Judge Barkthal. Mr. Pope-Pock, will there be a motion on that? And I was like, oh, Jesus,

I don't want to have to do this. And so we had a whole thing and I convinced the judge not to mistry the case because I don't want it, Mr. Al, And so we had a whole thing, and I convinced the judge not to mispronounce the case, because I don't want it, misdrop. And then I got a great result. Here, same thing. These lawyers don't want to misdrop. And they're willing to put up with a level of crazy

by Giuliani to try to stop this case and start all over again, because he doesn't like the jury. He was not gonna like any jury, but he doesn't like the jury, anything. So bad things are happening, make them happen really, really slow. And so that's what that's the race we're watching right now. If I were the plaintiffs council, hurry up.

Yes, give Ruby Freeman and Shane Ross all the time in the world. But if you have a point made, don't bring in five more witnesses to make the same point. Move on, close your case, let the defense do whatever limited thing they can do, and then get to that jury. Because otherwise you're going to be doing this all over again three months from now. With Rudy, maybe in jail, because he's perjured himself on the stand and violated court

orders. What are you making of where they are right now on day three? I'm exhausted telling this story about Rudy Giuliani, and he's three days into his Trump. Yeah, now this is, you know, look, he thinks he's Donald Trump. He thinks he wants to be Donald Trump. He thinks he can, you know, say one thing in court and then walk outside and just say whatever he wants and have nothing happen to him.

And that's one of the problems that Donald Trump, who keeps doing that and no one holds him to account, right? I mean, yes, they're gag orders now, but no one, you know, anyone else, and we've said this so many times, anyone else, any other criminal defended who acted like Donald Trump and did these things would have been put in, you know, would have been incarcerated pending trial and would not have been allowed to get away with this, but since he does get away with it constantly, and he does it all the time. I think it sends the message to Rudy who wants to be Donald Trump and you know is completely enamored by him and is going to go down with the ship to the end. And you know it's so that's what I think he

thought he could just go and say whatever he wants outside of court and have nothing happen. But thank God Judge Barrel Howell is a real judge. She's you, very, very smart and just a fantastic judge is not going to let him get away with it and is going to let Shay Moss and Ruby Freeman have their day in court. And you know, at the end of the day, you know, Giuliani is kind of a clown and you know, there's so many things he's done that you can, you you can talk about with the hair dye running down his face. He looks kind of pathetic and old and whatever. But I'm sorry, I think he's actually kind of evil. And when you are reminded of what he said about them and what it is done to their life,

and when they testified at try, I think Ruby Freeman testified, was the only one who testified today so far. It was absolutely, you're just reminded again of how horrific and dangerous what Giuliani did and is still doing today when he went outside of court and said the same thing. And, you know, it is absolutely just, you know, he deserves, they deserve all of his money and every other thing they can get from him because of what he did and said to them and what the consequences were. And, you know, look, the jurors were shown these racially charged threats that they received after Giuliani made the accusations that he's still making. And you

know, they did a very much like Giuliani said this. And then right after we got emails flooding our inbox and talking about lynching and the KKK and one email came from an account called the Grand Wizard and said the safest place for you is prison or you'll swing from the trees. Another said her daughter and she should hang from the capital dome and I pray I'm sitting close enough to hear your next snap, right? People began showing up at her house and she had to call the police. One, people were banging on her door while she was on the phone with the police. I mean, you know, at one point, I mean, you know, those are like, when you hear that,

that is just utterly chilling. And, you know, it's these things have consequences on real people. And I, I'm so grateful and thankful that finally, that is coming out in a court of law, under oath, you know, there'll be cross examined, you know, whatever it is. And, and they get their day in court, we get to hear about it and remind it of what it was. And he is going to face the music. I wish Donald Trump was a defendant as well and he deserves to be here. I also Freeman showed that the the USB drive you know that he accused her of

passing that was a gingerman, you know, right? Yeah, I think you're on mute, Popok. It was a gingerman and she actually gave one to the judge, you know, and she says yeah and she passed one to the judge who said she's going to use it, you know, it's just really sad. She said she used to go by Lady Ruby, you know, that was what her name was, but she said, you know, she can't go by that anymore. She says, I don't know who I am anymore. Like, this is real, the consequences here are real, and, you know, I'm glad that there's no mistrial. I think as a matter of precedent, I don't think a defendant should be allowed to cause his own mistrial.

I think that's bad precedent because for the reasons you said, but also, look, that would incentivize. If they don't like the jury that they got or the judge is ruling, what are they gonna do? They're going to do whatever, try to cause his own mistrial. So I'm glad that that did not happen and isn't happening. And I hope that they get, they deserve everything.

Alex Jones tried to mistribe his own case and it didn't work and got Chastis along with the lawyers who violated court orders frequently in front of that jury to try to see what would happen. And I'll leave it on this. Barrel Howell is the right judge for the right time presiding over this case. She was the chief judge of the DC,

all the DC courts of DC trial courts. She was the one administratively that made sure that all the Jan 6 defendants were tried and how they were tried. She also presided over the secret grand juries and the grand jury process. She's the one that made all the rulings that stripped all of the attorney client privilege away from Donald Trump's lawyers and forced them to testify and turn over their documents. She knows Jan 6th and things related to it inside and out. In fact, she said to Joe Sibley, the lawyer for Rudy Giuliani, how can, given the fact that the Georgia,

it shows you how much she knows from presiding and just being a carbon-based human. She said, given that the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Secretary of State of Georgia, investigative unit, all looked into this and cleared Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss, how can your clients say those things out loud? And wouldn't it be a perjury if he took the stand here? So this is going to be a high wire act, white knuckles for Joe Sibley. I don't feel sorry for him, I'm just giving you where he's at.

It's like that old Snickers commercial, not going anywhere. It's time for a Sibley. I don't feel sorry for him. I'm just giving you where he's at. It's like that old Snickers commercial not going anywhere. It's time for Snickers bar. To see Rudy elbowing him to take the stand, Rudy is not going to follow the script. He's not going to follow the judge's prior orders in the case. He's going to violate it. And then we're going to be in the world that you would describe care. And which is, can you mistry your own case? If I'm the plaintiffs, knowing that they have the jury probably firmly in their hands, especially after, I got choked up preparing a hot take about shame-os' testimony. That's how powerful it was. I had to like clear my eyes to do the hot take. That, you can imagine what's the impact on a jury? Okay, so they know they got this jury, and they know they're going to get a huge check. I think it could be more than the 50 million they

asked for. 43 million tops. I think it could be 60 million, and they want they got this jury and they know they're gonna get a huge check. I think it could be more than the 50 million they asked for. 43 million tops. I think it could be 60 million and they wanna get to that jury verdict as quickly as possible. And I agree with you, the public policy against having a defendant try to throw over the game board because he doesn't like it. And let's try it again.

You'll never get a trial done. And he could be, and now some people are saying, why does he have to be in the courtroom at all? He doesn't. And if he continues, especially civilly, if he continues to violate the court's orders, he can be bound gagged, removed, and precluded from his own trial and tried an abstentia, effectively on the measure on the amount of damages. And that's he's he's he's heading for that quickly. And didn't the judge find already defamation but not on the merits but as a sanction?

No both both and I I misspoke myself on a hot ditch did both. merits but as a sanction? No both both and I misspoke myself on a hot stitch did both she found as a sanction because all because of all his violations of her various orders that he had he was going to be found in default and defaulted him on the issue of liability but she also found as a matter of law that what he said about them was the family and so it was sort of a twin order and which is good for appellate purposes and then only issue is for the for the the jury to decide is punitive damages and actual damages and if you were for our audience she's giving the jury another instruction at the appropriate time

before they deliberate that they are to assume that Rudy Giuliani was hiding his assets and hiding his financials from the plaintiff in order to lower his financial net worth in front of them when they made their decision on how big of a punitive damage award. They are to assume based on an instruction by the judge that will come before deliberation as a penalty that she put on Rudy Giuliani for prior court violations. And his fellow to turn over documents about how much money he makes on his podcast, how much money he makes in his consulting fees, and how much money he makes on the internet, whatever, his sources of income.

He didn't do it. So now she's telling the jury, you were to assume that he's lying to you, he's lowering his net worth in order for you to write a lower check. That's a beautiful jury church. But how does she keep him from hiding that like how do we get how to say they get awarded the money? How do they get the money without him? It'll score a little bit.

It's called discovery at eight of execution. So the people that get the piece of paper called the judgment. Well, by the way, I'm not I'm not man-splating you I'm just doing our normal Explanation. It's not you. It's not you. It's me. I'm thinking this is look good. I'm telling you all this stuff I love running this stuff. I know I know they get a judgment and then and then when I get a judgment I then have to go get the money and And you're entitled to discovery and aid of execution, which means you get to put that person in a chair.

He has to turn over all of his assets, bank statements, checking account offshore. If he lies, it's a crime. He'll go to jail, which is the other penalty here. And if he doesn't show up, he can go to jail. He doesn't want to be the deposition. Oh, he'll be in jail until he gives them what they want at that point. And then, you know, he's got the apartment on the upper east side of New York. He's got the condo down in Florida. He's got, he makes money. He can guardish his wages until he pays the pays off the $60 million or more judgment. But

we'll follow it. There'll be so much better. I'll pick up on some on Saturdays, additionally, go lay up, but that trial will be going on next week. And you and I will, we'll follow up with that. And on hot takes that we've been doing all along the way about every hour here on the my- You have a ferry to catch. I know. People don't know this, but I almost missed my ferry.

The last ferry at a Manhattan, to where I live. And I sent sent salty and carrot a video of me and the Uber literally racing the ferry to the next stop and I did it. I don't want to do it again. So we've reached the end of another edition of the midweek at this shouldn't of legal AF on the Midas Touch Network. You know how to support us. Leave comments. Thumbs up. Really go back out and do the thumbs up. It helps with the ratings. Keeps us on the air. Go listen to us on the audio podcast platforms of your choice.

And then we got merchandise. You want to put up the store. That might as Dutch dot, dot, whatever it is. So, it's not that might as Dutch dot com. I don't know why I fumble on that every time. Buy the shirts, fly your flag related to legal a efforts. Till the next episode, which is going to be on Saturday. And this one with Karen Midweek,

next Wednesday, it's Michael Popuck, and Karen Friedman, Ignit Flos, saying, shout out to the minus Mighty and the legal A-affors.