Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump FELONY Probation SURPRISE and LOOSE CANNON

Episode Date: June 13, 2024

Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back for the midweek edition of the top-rated Legal AF podcast. On this episode, the anchors discuss and debate: (1) Judge Cannon’s latest missteps in the Mar a Lago criminal prosecution of Trump, and whether it will lead to an appeal to the 11th Circuit; (2) the next steps in the criminal sentencing of Trump in New York, including his recent probation department interview and revelation about his illegal gun ownership; (3) the further decay of the US Supreme Court, with the Chief Justice circling the drain, and justice’s wives continuing to pose a threat to democracy and the rule of law; (4) the Hunter Biden conviction, putting it in context and what it says about the integrity of our justice system, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/LegalAF Thanks to our sponsors: Smileactives: Visit https://smileactives.com/legalaf to get this exclusive offer! Nom Nom: Go Right Now for 50% off your no-risk two week trial at https://TryNom.com/LEGALAF Miracle Made: 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. Beam: Get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to https://shopbeam.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF at checkout! 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 Coalition of the Sane: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/coalition-of-the-sane/id1741663279 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is brought to you by RBC Student Banking. Students, get $100 when you open an RBC Advantage Banking account, which includes no monthly fee, unlimited debit transactions in Canada, Avian points on debit purchases, and so, so much more. Unlock more perks for less with RBC Vantage. Conditions apply. Offer ends June 30, 2024. New eligible clients only. Complete criteria by August 30th, 2024. Visit rbc.com slash student 100.

You'll flip for $4 pancakes at A&W. Wake up to a stack of three light and fluffy pancakes topped with syrup. Only $4 on now. Dine in only until 11 a.m. at A&W's in Ontario. At Bet365, we don't do ordinary. We believe that every sport should be epic. Every goal, every game, every point, every play. From the moments that are remembered forever to the ones you've already forgotten.

Whether it's a game-winning goal in the final seconds of overtime, or a shot on goal in the first period. So whatever the sport, whatever the moment, it's never ordinary. At Bet 365, must be 19 or older, Ontario only. Please feel responsible. If you or someone you know has concerns about gambling, visit connexontario.ca. To support sustainable food production, BHP is building one of the world's most sustainable potash mines in Canada.

Essential resources responsibly produced. It's happening now at BHP, a future resources company. But you can get a chicken parmesan delivered a cabana. That's a no but a banana. That's a yes a nice tan Sorry, no, but a box fan happily. Yes a day of sunshine No a box of fine wines. Yes, the breeds can definitely get you that get almost almost anything delivered with ubereats order now alcohol And select markets product availability may vary by Regency app for details It's that time. It's the midweek edition of Legal AF here on the Midas Touch Network. We've curated the top four or five things you just have to know at the intersection of law and politics with my colleague and friend, Karen Friedman

and Nick Niflo. I'm Michael Popock. Here we go. Kick it off. Got to start with Judge Cannon. One day I won't have to say her name. But for now, and for the foreseeable future, what she does towards the administration of justice and Donald Trump matter. And it matters to the American electorate, even if it doesn't seem to matter

to Judge Cannon. We've got a motion to strike and a motion to dismiss brought by the Trump side of the prosecution. What'd she do with that? What do you think she did with that? What are the canon principles that I've developed to interpret all of her rulings? There's also a new concept that we'll drill down on today called spoliation. In other words, when the Department of Justice and the FBI executed the search warrant two years ago in August, did they intentionally or unintentionally destroy the boxes, the 34 boxes or so that the classified top secret documents were in so that Donald Trump can't mount a credible defense? Oh my! Lions and tigers and ripped up boxes, oh my! Did any of that happen? Or is that just another ridiculous motion

filed by Donald Trump and his legal team coming off their fresh loss of 35 felony convictions in New York? So that's canon, we'll draw a line under that. Then we'll talk about the New York sentencing process for Donald Trump, who as of July 11th when the judgment is entered, will be a convicted felon in the state of New York and have a sentence imposed on him

by Judge Mershon. But with contribution and information provided by the prosecutor's office on one side, Trump defense on the other, and then something we call the probation or, yeah, the probation department here in New York, who conducted an interview of Donald Trump down at Mar-a-Lago. And there were some amazing concessions, confessions, and revelations in that just 30 minute interview. That's all it takes Donald Trump to go off the tracks and jump,

and Trump jumped the tracks and go off the, uh, off the rails. It's all it took for him to admit a potential new crime. We'll talk about it all and what happens next as we lead into the July 11th sentencing. And no appeals, spoiler alert, by Donald Trump on this area until there's the judgment of conviction entered and the sentence has been imposed. So we don't have to worry about talking about that. But we will talk about the Supreme Court in crisis. We've got a Chief Justice in John Roberts who's circling the drain of history. He thought he would go down in history as the great uniter. How'd that work out for you, John? Especially, maybe when you stumbled

off the swearing in of a Barack Obama on the oath of the presidential office, that should have told us all we needed to know about the future. You've got a whole bunch of ethical dilemmas, including Justice Alito and his wife being caught on audio tape, basically saying that this should be a God-fearing Christian nation, and that the country is so hopelessly divided that the Supreme Court alone is the only one

that can drive home the moral center and clarity, whereas Justice Roberts, secretly recorded at the very same gala, said the opposite. We're going to talk about that and Justice Thomas finally getting around to partially disclosing some of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars of junkets he's taken, if not millions of dollars of junkets he's taken paid for by right-wing MAGA Fund Fundraisers right-wing sorry right-wing MAGA Contributors and that side of the aisle we're talking about that and of course the Republicans already opposing

Any kind of suggestion that there would be a stronger code of ethics as applies to the United States Supreme Court and then finally Because we don't blow smoke or sunshine We're gonna take a look at from my perspective as defense lawyer Karen's perspective as a prosecutor what happened in the hunter Biden? Prosecution we have a conviction down in Delaware down in Delaware, we got 12 Delawareans who ruled against the Biden family. See? Now the Republicans say the justice system works. I thought the justice system was a witch hunt. I thought it was lawless.

I thought it was election interference, except when they're going after the son of the sitting president. And then it's one of two things. It's either it works and we're starting to return a semblance of integrity to the justice system, or that's it. That's all he got. He just got convicted for the guns. What about everything else? Of course, they forget that this is only the first of two trials against Hunter Biden, the second one going to trial relatively soon in California on even more serious charges related to the Internal Revenue Service. And then you've got a grieving yet supportive father in the president, President Joe Biden, who as you can see in the photo there, completely as any human being on this podcast watching

us would agree, needs to be there for his son. Joe Biden didn't use the crack, Joe Biden didn't buy the gun, but Joe Biden gave birth with his wife at the time to Hunter. And so that's the kind of dignity and grace we want to see in a president. And he's already said he's not gonna pardon Hunter Biden. We're gonna talk about that and compare and contrast it

to the Trump crime family and their kleptocracy and do it all and whatever crime family and their kleptocracy and do it all. And whatever else Karen and I can think of on the midweek edition of Legal AF right here. It is such network. Karen, hi there. Loving you every day of the week now with Miss Trial with your new podcast that you're hosting

with Donnie Perry and others. I will have an opportunity to talk about that more. But really glad that you're here as always, last four years with me on Wednesdays doing, you can tell I'm already jealous, doing Legal AF. Sorry, I was muted. Hi. Sorry, I was muted. Hi. Hi. Always, I'm always, always, always a legal AF, first and foremost. So, you know, it's great. It's just good to have both a woman's perspective completely as well as three former prosecutors. So that's what we're bringing to the table and a former congresswoman. Kathleen

Rice is a member of Congress. So we just thought what an opportunity we all work together to be able to chat about things, um, where you and I do here on Legal AF. You know, prepping for this episode, this was one of the more bizarre episodes I've ever prepped for. I mean, just, I know we'll get to it, but Justice Alito's wife is kind of insane, right? This whole Virgonia and I mean we'll talk about it, but oh my god, this is a crazy one. I think we just jump right into it All right. You want to talk about that one first? I don't mind skipping around it. No, no, no I just I just I'm literally like

It's because you've got to that last just now so it got it came into my head. I was like, yes, she's crazy I mean her fantasy is to create a flag with The word Bergonya on it, which means shame in Italian with flames around it. She's crazy Anyway, let's just but let's go in your order that you said See order the people demand and little known fact, none of the podcast hosts for mistrial have ever actually committed a mistrial. I've missed trials. No, no, I've had mistrauma. All right. Okay.

Another word for a hung is another word for a hung jury. So I've had, I've had two hung juries. Uh, actually it may be, yeah, I might have only had one hung jury, but one or two hung juries. That's very interesting. Your world of criminal, you do 99%. Well, no, you don't know what your percentage is, but you did a lot of criminal and you did all criminal for a long, long period of time as a prosecutor. In the civil world, we never talk about mistrial because we're not usually talking about criminal and we are the defense. So we always talk about mistrial as you did something to cause a mistrial,

which is a bad thing generally. Like you blew through a motion in limine or an order, you asked the wrong question, you introduced evidence, you said something wrong to the jury, you caused the mistrial. So see already the two worlds collide here on this podcast. Well, that can happen criminally too. That's true. There can be a mistrial if something happens, but also if you have a hung jury.

Yeah. So let's talk about canon. Speaking of potential future, pardon me, mistrials. Let's, let me kick it off to you. I've talked enough and I plus I need a swig of water. Let's do there's a whole bunch of motion practice. The judge seemed to grant some that seemed to favor Jack Smith. Then she then she granted some for Donald Trump about certain allegations of the quote unquote speaking indictment that

she seems to have a lot of trouble with. Why don't you talk about that and also from your prosecutor standpoint, because you've done this before but for this audience talk about speaking indictments and what they are and then what Judge Cannon is all riled up about in her in her order related to a motion to strike a certain allegation in the indictment about Donald Trump showing Suie Wiles, who runs his PACs, an Afghanistan war map and declaring out loud that he knew it was top secret when he showed it to her.

You know, first of all, let's just talk about indictments in general. An indictment is a piece of paper, right? It's, and I say that because a judge will instruct a jury at trial that an indictment is nothing more than a piece of paper. It's just it's not evidence. It doesn't mean anything. And because there's an indictment,

it's nothing more than informing the defendant about the charges in a particular case. And an indictment comes from a grand jury. It means that 23 people, give or take, at least 23, or usually around 23 people, have heard evidence against somebody and have decided there's enough evidence to bring particular charges.

And in the grand jury, it's a different legal standard. It's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's just probable cause, which is a much lower standpoint or burden of proof. It just means there's reasonable belief that or probable cause to believe that a crime occurred. And there's no cross-examination of witnesses. There's no openings.

There's no summations. It's just literally you go into the grand jury and you present a bare bones, just enough evidence to get past the hurdle of that there's enough to charge someone with a crime. And so normally, because that's what grand jury indictments typically are, normally an indictment itself is very quote unquote bare bones, meaning it just usually lists the date, time, and place of the occurrence and what the charge is, and then one or two sentences about what the facts are.

So let's say it was an assault case. It would be on or about July 4, 1776. The defendant in the county of New York committed the crime of assault in the third degree by punching a red coat in the face. I mean, literally, that's what you'd say, punching them in the face and causing substantial pain and physical injury and bruising. And that's enough to be an indictment. That's what you would allege for an assault case.

So a speaking indictment is when there's much more than that, when there is more language that goes in and essentially it tells a story. And that usually happens in conspiracy cases, or in RICO cases. And those are the two places you'll get a speaking indictment, or you'll get much more facts. And the reason is because you want to be able to the the the elements of conspiracy, as well as the elements of RICO have this added thing, which is basically predicate acts or overt acts, meaning there are actions that you took in furtherance of the conspiracy or in furtherance of the RICO,

but they aren't necessarily criminal. So for example, if you have a conspiracy to rob a bank, let's say you agree to rob the bank and you agree that it's going to be a particular bank, but you don't actually go do it because you get caught ahead of time. You can still be charged with conspiracy to rob the bank. They're going to make you list what are the overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. And so you don't want to necessarily only say one overt act or two overt acts, you list them all. And then things that aren't necessarily criminal. So you got together and rented a storage facility where you were going to put the proceeds of the bank robbery. You rented a car, you know, whatever, all

those things that in and of themselves aren't necessarily criminal, but it's overt acts. And so I'm just backing up into why you would then tell a story, right? Because you list all these things out. And so you tell a story and that's what a speaking indictment usually is. And that's, and that's, and if there are other types of crimes, so in this particular case, you know, Jack Smith wanted to tell a story, right? And I think that prosecutors aren't permitted to talk about cases outside of what the filing is that you sort of enter in the record, like whether it's the indictment or something else. And so if you have a case that's a high profile case, that can be another reason that prosecutors will want to tell a story.

And here, I think that is partly why Jack Smith told the story in the indictment. He didn't have to, but he chose to. This way, the entire American people and everybody else who read the indictment would know exactly what Donald Trump is charged with, but also so that Donald Trump would know. Because Donald Trump is someone who will complain a lot about not having notice of what he is charged with. So if you'll notice in the January 6 case, as well as in this case, both indictments

are speaking indictments. And in the case that we just had, the case in front of the Manhattan DA's office with Alvin Bragg, although that defendant was not charged with conspiracy, that defendant, that case, Donald Trump in that case, was not charged with conspiracy, although there was a conspiracy, was an element of one of the crimes. But that was a bare bones indictment that is the type

that I just described. But they filed with it a statement of facts, because again, giving the defendant notice, that was sort of in place of a speaking indictment. So all of this as I, as I asked the question before you move on. So from your perspective as a former prosecutor, given Donald Trump's status as a former president of the United States, the public interest in the case and injustice, the due process

that you just talked about, and the public's right to know, would you have used what Cannon has sarcastically and critically referred to as a speaking indictment or what she referred to as a portable closing argument for Mar-a-Lago, New York, D.C. and Georgia against Donald Trump? Yeah, so it's clear what she thinks of it. And by calling it those things. I think, look, I'm the kind of person, and I was the type of prosecutor where I think more information to the defendant is better, right? I wasn't ever a hide the ball prosecutor.

I used to give over more of my files than I was required. I didn't think I had to play games and hide anything. And so I don't see, I think the prosecutors who actually take the time to do this is a good thing. It's a good thing for the defense. It's giving them notes. Cause if you don't do it, then they're going to complain, well, I don't even know what I'm charged with. I don't even know what I'm supposed to prepare. I don't know what the evidence is going to be against me. I don't know what the issues are. And by doing it like this and really spelling it, I mean, you know, by calling it a closing argument, which she's basically saying is, um, she's basically accusing them of trying to spin their case, which

is BS. Okay. Really? Cause if they didn't do this and they just did a bare bones indictment, guess what you'd hear? You'd hear the same stuff that Trump was saying in the Manhattan DA case, which is, I don't even know what crime, what crime, what's the other crime? I don't even know what I'm charged with, even though he did,

because the statement of fact said it. Okay. It was filed the same day as the indictment. He had the information, but he will complain that he didn't because the bare bones part of the indictment, which was just a separate document filed the same day as the statement of facts, you know, put them together and it equals one whole filing that everyone had

and can talk about. He still made that claim. So if I'm Jack Smith, I think it's super smart. Again, here we are trying to fend off things thinking, oh, he did this, let me do that, and it'll stop him from doing this. Then they do something else. So no matter what people do, trying to fend off the criticism of Donald Trump and give him what he purportedly is asking for, which is more information and to understand and

know what the charges are, he'll still complain. He'll complain and he'll get Judge Cannon to do his bidding and say, call it what she just called it and kind of skeptically and kind of accusatorily, claim that the, just there was so much sarcasm or innuendo in her language there. Clearly, she just favors it. And so she struck some of it. But she left it mostly intact and only

struck a small part of it. So it is proper. It is lawful. It is legal. And it's in an effort to give the defense more information than you're legally required to. Yeah, that's a great overview that really only you can give about the speaking indictment and the purpose of it. Instead, Cannon, who's never tried a case apparently in her life, she was an appellate

lawyer for the Department of Justice before she took that position. She only tried, she only had about, I think I counted them up one day, less than 10 total trial days under her belt as a new judge in the Southern District of Florida before COVID hit, and then this indictment. So she's very inexperienced. She of course never lets it show, right? She has this misplaced confidence in bravado about her own abilities, constantly chastising not Donald Trump's lawyers, but at every given moment, the Department of Justice and the prosecutors. Well, you use the portable closing argument in

lieu of a simple skeletal indictment that you could have used. You could have just downloaded a form from the internet. And I said in a hot tech recently, Karen, I thought her whole point when she tried to improperly interfere in the indictment process and prosecution and investigation of Donald Trump is that he was sui generis. He was a special case. He was the former president. He needed even more protections. He needed more of whatever. And now when it comes to looking at the indictment, it's less. Less is better. Why did you say so many things? And then the whole thing that she missed, I'll pick up on this one, is the 404b, rule 404b under the federal rules of criminal rules, what it means about unindicted prior bad acts. And they're not, but we all agree that that bad act in the indictment of, as alleged,

of Donald Trump showing Suzy Wiles, it wasn't identified as Suzy Wiles at the time, but we know who it is now. Well, the entire jigsaw puzzle is done except for like one piece, and we know it's the Empire State Building, okay? So it's Suzy Wiles. He showed Suzy Wiles the head of his pack a Afghanistan war map that was still you know kind of current And then told her out loud. I can't I should not be showing you this don't get too close In other words, it is classified in top secret which completely undercuts one of his defenses

Which was I magically made the classifications disappear with my mind. I thought about it. I said they're declassified. Poof. And they are. Like it's a magic trick of some sort. And so if he really thought he had declassified everything on the way out of the White House so that everything that he had in his possession that he was hiding doesn't explain how well he was hiding everything from the Department of Justice, the FBI, and even his own lawyers. But having said that, if he really thought that he had magically changed the character through a fit of alchemy of the actual documents, then what did it matter? And why did he just tell Susie Wiles, come on over here? I already classified this already. And so it doesn't go to prove another bad act that he committed the indicted counts.

That's the wrong way to use evidence against somebody. But motive and intent can be shown under the second aspect of the rule 404b. She completely ignores that argument. In fact, in less than three lines, she just dispatches it and says, you can't use that type of evidence under 404B to prove conformity with the criminal conduct that's been charged. Yeah, we agree. But that's not what they did. And that's not what the special counsel told her in the briefing that they were using it for. They were using it in the indictment to show intent and willfulness. Now, she said, I don't want to see it in the indictment to show intent and willfulness. Now she said, I don't want to see it in the indictment,

mainly because she hasn't made the decision yet as to whether the indictment as a document, as an exhibit, if you will, is going to go in with the jury on deliberation. So she's sort of bending over backwards, like, well, I haven't jumped from that bridge yet about that particular piece of evidence, so I need to have better context and understanding,

so take it out of the indictment. So she struck paragraph, I think it was 36 or 66, one of the sixes from the indictment. Thank you, salty, 36. Yeah, I was right the first time. On that grounds, leaving, but and then if we're trying to read the tea leaves, does this mean that when it comes

to other substantive motions to dismiss that are still pending before Judge Canada will be apparently filed since we have all the time in the world for this prosecution? You haven't brought all your motions by the appropriate date or deadline, that's okay. There's no date or deadline.

I'll just let you keep filing things. Like Walt Nauta, remember that motion to dismiss? I told you to file, I invited you to file and you missed the deadline. It's okay. Here's a paperless order that'll cover you. You can file it now. We got all the time in the world. We're having a party in my courtroom. You know, we're going to have a hearing in about a week or two about whether, because she finds it interesting, Karen, whether the special counsel has been properly appointed and is therefore a valid delegation by the Department of Justice and by Congress and how

it gets funded. She finds that interesting. You know who doesn't find that interesting? Any of the other federal trial judges, any of the other appellate circuits, and implicitly the Supreme Court. And yet she's like, that's very interesting, this academic argument of whether there should even be a Jack Smith. That's a great way to get rid of the indictment and the criminal case, just get rid of the special counsel. So she finds it so interesting, she's inviting others who are not parties in the case or the lawyers there to argue in front of her, like those that filed their amicus briefs. I'm like, what in the case or the lawyers there to argue in front of her like those that filed their amicus briefs. I'm like what is the what in the af is going on in Fort Pierce? We're just letting drive

by strangers to the case who just decide to lob in a brief to come in and argue in front of her. And of course two out of the three are trumpers, two out of the three are MAGAs. She lets in one that really supports the coherent, legitimate exercise of that delegation. So, oh, Cannon. I thought when you said you were all jazzed up about this episode, you know, there's so many things to get jazzed up about in this particular episode. But what does that mean?

Give me your own review. Yeah, give me your own review. You have strong opinions about as a prosecutor about judges. Have you ever seen a judge who seems to be looked at all? Let's just let's just put our cards on the table. I've been in front of hundreds of judges in my career. So have you. They are, by and large, especially the federal court, They are by and large, especially the federal court, they are very, very credits to the legal profession and to the bench, by and large, with some exceptions. I've had some magistrate judges, I've slapped my forehead over, I've had some federal judges

and I've had some state judges. But I've never observed a judge who's administrating, at least that's what he calls it, justice, the way this particular judge is doing towards Donald Trump and putting her thumb on the scale of justice in favor of the defense and against the prosecution. But have you? So look, back in the early 90s,

there were some state court judges. We had Turn'em Loose Bruce. He was a defense-oriented judge. You could just predict what he would do. You had some other hardcore people's prosecutor. We called them prosecutors, judges. You could kind of tell what they were going to do. But that was a long time ago.

You don't see that anymore. And you never saw that in federal court. Federal court, judges are supposed to rise above all of that. And it's interesting because, as you know, people were criticizing Judge Morichan for donating that de minimis amount of money to the, um, to some, some, uh, left wing, you know, vote blue or something, you know, uh, and I think

$15 of it went to judge Biden or, um, the Biden campaign. And, um, and everyone was criticizing saying, well, he can't be, he can't be, um, he can't be fair and impartial. And it made me really think about this because judges, the whole selection of judges is partisan in no matter where you are, state or federal. And how is that the case? Because the president nominates the federal judges, right? All the way from the Supreme Court down

to the appellate courts and the trial courts. And that all comes from the president, right? So if the president is a Democrat, they're gonna be somebody who's a Democrat. If they're Republican, it's gonna be someone who's a Republican. And yet judges can still put their politics aside or their political affiliation aside and rise above it

and do the job that they're supposed to do, right? Especially federal judges. I mean, federal judges are notoriously above the fray. They are, it's the most elite, you know, it's funny because people always say federal prosecutors are elite and why would Matt Colangelo have left the Department of Justice to go to the Manhattan DA's office, that lowly office to prosecute Donald Trump?

Why would he do that? It's clearly, he's clearly went just to prosecute Trump. And I took issue with that because I don't view the Manhattan DA's office as beneath the US Attorney's office or federal prosecutors. I know I'm biased, but I disagree when it comes to judges. When it comes to judges, there is definitely a prestige to the federal bench over a state court bench. And that's nothing above,

nothing against state court judges. It's just, that is the most prestigious, the most prestigious lifetime appointment you can get. And it's pretty incredible. And it's a very rigorous vetting process to get there. And the judges, almost always, if not prior to the Trump appointed judges, have really risen to the occasion and will call the balls and strikes as they see them, will make reasoned, intelligent, brilliant decisions,

which is why there's concepts about stare decisis and things that precedent matters. And then you get these Trump appointees, right, who just make these crazy rulings. Like, I forgot the judge's name now, but the guy in Texas who outlawed nationwide, myth oppressed on the abortion medication, or you've got Judge Cannon. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Thank you. You know, you've got these judges that really don't fit the mold of the position of this, they

don't rise to the occasion of what they're supposed to do. And they're these activist judges, if you will, who are allowing partisanship to come in and infect the judiciary. And I've just never seen that really before like this, certainly not in this day and age and certainly not in federal court. And I say that, and I go back to just really quick, Judge Mersha, and he's just not partisan, just because the small donation

and every single judge in that courthouse will either have been appointed by a Democrat or appointed by a Republican or elected under the, uh, the Republican line or the Democrat line in, um, New York state court. And every other judge position in this country is similar, right? You have to either be elected by a party or nominated by a person. And they all can put that aside. The Trump judges are different and the the Trump appointees are different and and not all of them but but but Judge Cannon I've just never seen anything like this and

I Said many times on this podcast. I struggle with Criticizing a federal or any judge because I revere judges. I'm taught to revere judges. You know, they, they, they, I'm an advocate, right? When I'm either representing a defendant or I'm a prosecutor, I'm an advocate. I go and I give my strongest position, but I do it partly because our system, you know,

depends on, you know, the push pull. And then the judge from the top, you know, sits on top of all of that and does what's fair, you know, and does what's right and kind of sifts through all of that. And Judge Cannon, unfortunately, she's like a second defense attorney in this court. She's not being the neutral arbiter that justice requires of a judge, especially a federal judge, especially a federal judge sitting and sitting with one of the most important cases of this country, right? Not only is he a former president, he was in possession of some of our nation's most

most secret information and nation's most secret information and really not taking care of it. So, and potentially waving it around and leaving it in boxes, spilling all over the floor, you know, in unlocked rooms. I mean, you know, this case is so serious. It really demands it to be taken seriously and Judge Cannon just isn't, you know, she's not doing her job. Well, one of the things that surprises our, I think our American audience and those from around the world

is that we don't assign the best and brightest to a particular case. So people might be thinking, well, why isn't like the chief judge or the best suited to handle a case of such import being being assigned to the case and we just don't do it that way. In this country you know maybe it's our Democratic streak we almost always do random assignment of cases especially when there's more than one judge in a

particular circuit. I mean now if it's a one judge district which is what the Republicans we have rightly accused them of trying to do, which is to funnel cases to judges like Judge Casmeric, who you were talking about before in Abilene or Amarillo, Texas, in this one horse division where there's one judge. And if you file there, you're gonna get the one judge. But generally when there are two, three, five, 10, 20 judges

in a particular district, it is a random assignment. By all, if we were doing best and brightest, I assure you I could give you the top ten, the top five, and the top two in the Southern District of Florida who should be handling this case starting with the Chief Judge of the Southern District of Florida, who's got a vast amount of experience at the trial level, in state court at the trial level, as a trial attorney, and as a well-respected federal judge. But that didn't happen. Instead, as it happened in Georgia, both of the cases, just to prove my point, against the former president, the first time in 257 years or whatever it is in our republic, of a former president being prosecuted, we have the two least experienced judges assigned to it.

McAfee, who was on the bench for six months at the time he took this case, and and Cannon, who I outlined earlier at the top of the segment, had literally 10 trial days under her belt in total before she took this case, and it shows. We're gonna talk about the conviction of Donald Trump, but more importantly, the sentencing process. We're gonna be getting a sentencing memo from the defense on Thursday. We're gonna be getting a sentencing memo

from the prosecution on the 27th of June. And we're gonna be getting the judge making a sentencing decision on the 11th of July. We're going to talk about that process, including Donald Trump's interview along with his lawyer at Mar-a-Lago with somebody back in New York who's trying to prepare the sentencing report on behalf of the probation department. We're talking about the Supreme Court in crisis, not just the wives, although the wives are a symptom of the crisis that is on the United States Supreme Court ethically, where the American people no longer believe in one of the three branches of government, in the integrity of it, in the honesty of it.

And we're going to talk about why and how little Chief Justice John Roberts has done to try to promote confidence in that particular institution, which I will posit. We can't operate where one of the three branches of government is, and especially the judiciary and the United States Supreme Court, its reputation lies in tatters. We'll talk more about that. And then finally, we'll have to talk about the Hunter Biden conviction and compare and contrast that to the Republicans' attacks and MAGA attacks on behalf of Donald Trump on our justice system,

to try to destabilize it, calling everything a witch hunt, calling everything lawless, calling everything election interference, except when Joe Biden's child is convicted in record time. So fast, that jury returned its verdict so fast that Jill Biden didn't even make it back into the courtroom in order to support her step-daughter or son. And, but we're going to compare and contrast that, the justice system at work, the justice system that works, a jury that rendered a verdict that we will support. We'll talk about what we can about the presentation of the evidence and all, but there is a jury verdict. And we are here not to say, oh, it was wrong, and it was lawless, and those jurors,

and this and that. We can take some, we can kibitz and talk about the defense strategy and if that worked or didn't work. We can talk about why the special prosecutor brought the case, why there was a special prosecutor. We can talk about all that and whether the justice system and a full trial is an appropriate way to handle a guy, a person, the son of a president or not that was in the throes of a drug addiction for a number of years, including crack that possessed a handgun for all of 11 days. We'll talk about that's the proper use of prosecutorial discretion and of resources in our justice system. But first, we've got an amazing collection of curated sponsors pro-democracy for this network that

Jordi and others put together, mainly Jordi, and we're proud to have them support our podcast, Legal AF. If you ever wish you had whiter and brighter smile, well, before you've been visited dentists, you should know that their whitening treatments can be very expensive and it's not just the price. You also have to book an appointment, schedule the time away from work or family

to sit in a dentist office chair while undergoing a procedure, it's hassle. And fortunately, now you can try Smile Actives at home or anywhere, anytime. Smile Actives offers safe and affordable alternatives to those expensive whitening procedures. I have had bad experiences with whitening agents. It's made my teeth feel sensitive.

I haven't liked the way it made me feel. I didn't like the taste. But Smile Actives makes a teeth whitening gel that you can simply add to your toothpaste every time you brush your teeth. So there's no change in your routine, no extra time, no more messy strips, trays or lights, and it doesn't taste terrible.

Simply add Smile Actives Pro Whitening Gel to your regular toothpaste. It's been formulated with poly clean technology to boost stain removal and deliver active whitening ingredients into teeth, scruves and crannies and get better whitening. 97% of Smile Actives users in a clinical trial reported up to six shades whiter on average,

all within 30 days. Smile Actives is for everyone who's ready to invest in the next level of self-care. Tap into the personal power that comes from having a bright smile. I care a lot about my smile. I take care of my teeth and I use Smile Actives. Visit smileactives.com slash legal AF today

to receive a special buy one, get one free offer with auto delivery plus free shipping and handling. That's smileactives.plural.com slash legal AF. Terms and conditions apply, see site for details. Nom nom serves eye popping, jaw dropping, floor licking delicious dog food that develop to contain the nutrients your dog needs and the flavor they crave. Nom Nom's vet-developed meals burst with the balanced nutrients dogs need and the tantalizing taste and textures they crave

to add delight to their day. So Nom Nom is outstanding quality with balanced nutrition that creates actual meal time excitement. Plus Nom Nom is endlessly enriching. Recipes are made with 100% premium ingredients, which means 0% freaky fillers or funky stuff. Make meal time your dog's favorite time. Serve vet develop recipes as a full meal, offer as a tasty treat or exercise your pup's mind and trigger their drool mechanism by hiding a spoonful in puzzles or lick mats. Say goodbye to boring dog food

and give your dog a reason to run to their bowl with every meal every day. Nom face assured or your money back guaranteed. Nom face is nom speak for dogs deliriously excited about dinner. I love my rescue muddy paws dog, Lily, and she's an integral part of our family, which is why I'm committed to only giving her the best.

Don't settle when it comes to your dog's health. Switch to real, gently cooked dog food with ingredients you can actually see. Nutrient Pack recipes designed by board-certified veterinary nutritionists, freshly made and delivered to your door. There are so many ways for your dog to get their Nom Nom on.Nom is now available at Chewy.com and your local PetSmart stores. Or you can get 50% off your no risk trial box by going to trinom.com slash Legal AF.

Spell trinom.com slash Legal AF for 50% off your first subscription order. Welcome back. Thank you to our pro democracy sponsors. And we've got some others that help keep this network on the air. We are building this network with our very hands with your help and support.

And there's many ways that you can do that. One is what you're doing, which is watching us regularly on the mid weekend, weekend edition of Legal AF. And then on those Legal AF after dark editions, we use those to sort of promote and market and get and grow our audience. And you can help us by sending off those clips to your friends and family and people in your life and ask them to join us.

You can free subscribe to the Midas Touch Network and help them get to 3 million free. Yep, I said free subscribers before the November election. We are on all the major podcast platforms. Go grab us there, download and subscribe there. That helps as well. In the chat is an amazing way to contribute to the quote unquote algorithm as well, or as good as to go out and give a comment back here

on this particular episode and or thumbs up and then support our pro-democracy sponsors. Let's be frank, if they do well with us, they come back. That's a good thing. And then finally, there's other things that we do. The leaders of Legal AF have hot takes on a regular basis. There's podcast playlists. You can go over in YouTube for Midas Touch and look for each of us and all of our body of work. And then we've got new podcasts like Miss Trial. Hey, Karen, do we have a regular date for Miss Trial? When is it going to be going up? We're not sure yet. What we're doing is we're testing out a few things with our own schedule to see what works.

You know, Ben and I did that. To be fair, we started out as the Wednesday edition, buried and nestled within Midas Touch Brothers podcast for about 40 episodes. And then we did Wednesdays for a while and then something happened. And we were like, let's go to Saturdays. And I said initially to Ben, don't we know anybody at the network? Why are we getting buried on a Saturday night? You know, talk to the suits. And it turned out that Saturday night was the perfect place for a per-league layoff on the weekend until you and I came up with midweek,

which we started doing on Wednesdays and we found our audience and our voice on Wednesday. So I wish you luck on Miss Trial. I'm one of your biggest fans and one of your followers and supporters on that. I invite all of our audience to go find Miss Trial and look for it and set a reminder whenever it is posted. Why don't we talk about New York Sentencing, right? There it is. New York Sentencing, and I'll lay it out, then you kind of give the nitty-gritty, the molecular level from a New York prosecutor's standpoint. We've got, as I laid out before, we've got several dates coming up tomorrow, and then Ben and I will be able to talk about it on Saturday.

We've got the defense filing their proposal for sentencing. I'm laughing because we can only imagine what that's going to say. Some version of election interference, lawlessness, witch hunt, he shouldn't have been convicted at all, reversible error, we're gonna win on appeal, don't sentence yet, you know, First Amendment rights, you know, whatever. They'll sign that. You'll give your own comments about what they're gonna ask for. Whatever it's going to be, it's not going to be jail time. It's not going to be any kind of confinement. It will go from there. And then on the other

side, you've got your old office. And I can say this easier than you can, because I wasn't in the office. I have always considered, I think I told you this in another podcast, I've always considered the Manhattan DA before I even met you, to be the elite of the elite, and not this in another podcast. I've always considered the Manhattan DA, before I even met you, to be the elite of the elite, and not just in New York. In fact, when I was building my own trial team at a financial services firm, in recruiting, I told people that what I wanted to do was to model my office after what

Morgenthau had done in building an elite trial squadron of which you were a big part. And we were going to do this in my financial services firm and that was the type of best and brightest that I was looking for in my hiring. And I only used, not the US Attorney's office, I only used the Manhattan DA as my template and my role model for that kind of building. So you're not wrong, at least not my view about that's not a step down or a step up. I mean, they are, you know, if you're looking for the creme de la creme plum position in New York as a prosecutor, you can't go any higher or better than that at DA's office.

On the sentencing, you've got your old office trying to cook up what they're going to put together for their recommendation. And I want to hear from you, of course, on that. You've been involved with many of those sentencing memos. And as they try to get that information into the judge who makes the ultimate decision, you've got victims, if there are victims of the crime, and here the entire electorate was the victim of the crime. And so I'm not sure there's a victim impact statement, but there might be some analysis in the in the probation department and what they did and they did their interview and it was 30 minutes long and it was at Mar-a-Lago at

least by video and Todd Blanche was allowed to be there for the for for for Donald Trump which is slightly unusual but he was there and apparently said we got some new information that came out of there. Donald Trump and a missing gun. Why don't you take it from there, talk about your old office and what do you think they're going through now

to get together their recommendations for the 27th of June, the sentencing process, which we can touch on again, and then we can turn back to this interview, including the missing gun and what it means for Donald Trump potentially and his conditions of release around the country. You know, it's interesting. I go back and forth when I think about what is the prosecution going to do and are they going to ask for jail or not. And I say that because one of the things I've done the most in my career is sat with groups of prosecutors and gone over, what do we think we should recommend for sentence in a particular case?

And it's a hard thing to do, right? It's not an easy thing to determine and a lot goes into the decision making. I could see, for example, different people on the team having different opinions. There were four or five lawyers on this team. Alvin Bragg will have the ultimate say. They will take lots of things into consideration. They'll look at, the first thing they do is they start with what is the range of possibilities in here. The range gives the judge a lot of discretion.

It could be each count carries a sentence of one and a third to four years. And that's at the top end. Some of them, they can all run back to back to back, they call that consecutive, to make a total of 20 years at the top instead of the top being four years because it's an e-felony, so 20 is the max they could run them all, string them all together. And so the way one and a third to four works means that he would be sentenced to, he'd have to serve one and a third years after a one and a third, I guess one year and three months, he would be eligible for release, but the jail or the prison can hold them up to four years, depending on how he does while he's in. With, I think, he does seven eighths of the time with an eighth shaved off for a good time.

And so that's what it would be on the top end of what you're looking at. And at the bottom end, they could do anything. They could do a conditional discharge, which means essentially nothing other than certain conditions like community service or stay out of trouble or don't try to steal any other elections. You know, that literally you can make a condition anything you could make it truly. I think I've said this before.

I had one once where a defendant was sentenced to military service because that's what he wanted. He wanted to, to go into the military and said, make that my sentence so that I actually follow through with it. That's why I want you to, to be lenient and not put me in jail so I can go on, go on with my life and, and do something productive. And you know, you, you, it's, you have a lot of latitude. They can put him on probation. He could be fined. I think a fine is the least likely thing they would recommend

because he's a billionaire or certainly at least has access to a lot of money because he fund raises hundreds of millions of dollars off of these cases. So I would say that's not really punishment for someone like him. What would be punishment and a deterrent? And so they're gonna be looking at all those things. If I were them, I probably wouldn't even want probation supervision because that's just, what's he gonna do, report to a kiosk?

And that's just sort of a strange, especially given who he is and what he might be doing next year. So I think what really the big question they're thinking about is whether it's going to be, whether they're gonna recommend some form of incarceration. And I lean towards yes, I think they will recommend it. Cause that's a true punishment here.

The other true punishment I would say would be a conditional discharge with lots of community service, but the type of community service where you pick up trash on the subway. That would be, I think, a huge punishment that could be appropriate. But you know, jail could take a lot of forms, right? It doesn't have to be one and a third before. It could be weekends. They could make them serve weekends in jail. So you show up on, sometimes it's like Saturday morning and you spend the day in jail and you spend the night, Saturday night, and you spend all day Sunday and you're released Sunday afternoon.

Make them do a month of weekends. Or they could do home confinement. You know, those are the types of things that I think they're thinking about. And, you know, I've said this before, if his name wasn't Donald John Trump, they would recommend the maximum. I mean, this is a guy who has, he was arrested and then he had three other pending, currently open indictments in both state

and federal court. I mean, he actually stole an election. The jury had been fined beyond a reasonable doubt that this was about stealing the election. This was about election interference. And the fact that he, I'm sure they will argue because they argued in summation that Donald Trump won this election very narrowly in three swing states by 80,000 votes. That's what made the difference, 80,000 people, 80,000 votes.

That's what made him win the 2016 election and made him the 45th president of the United States. And what if this was the information that if this had come out, this would have put the people in the swing states over the edge into the other camp. This was pre like maga cult insanity, where these you've got these die hard, I don't care what he does, he could be adjudicated a rapist, which he is. He could be a convicted felon, which he is This was pre that time. This was still game show host or whatever he was reality show or beauty pageant show host Whatever shows he had

clown Trump, you know with the weird hair who Who had that access Hollywood tape come out and and people were like what the heck is going on here? You know and and you heard people at the trial testify that that was crushing, right? That was a very difficult time and they were desperate for this not to come out. And so, you know, that could have made the difference. So I say all that because I can't imagine, I can make the argument and I think the prosecutors will ultimately, because you're going to it with a straight face and you're gonna treat them like any other defendant. There is no more serious class E felony that exists. There just isn't.

This is one of the it's the most serious class E felony I've ever certainly seen. I've never seen one where the defendant and then committed this crime, he wrote these checks, he did all this while he was the 45th president of the United States of America. I mean, to me, it's atrocious, he deserves prison, and if he wasn't Donald Trump, let's be honest, they would recommend prison. And so the question is whether they will recommend that he be treated like everybody else, or will they take something else into consideration? And that's something, but I would argue that's the judge's job, that let the prosecution argue what they're going to argue, let the defense say whatever they're going to say say and it's up to the judge to to strike the balance

Um, so that that's where I land in terms of of the sentence Yeah, and then donald trump's got another problem because in the in the just the 30 minutes of his interview When he got to the point when he said do you or do you hold or do you have any guns any firearms? Now we were all shocked. Although I I should have remembered because because back in March Donald Trump turned in two apparently of his firearms. He had three under a concealed weapons permit that he held in New York, which was a scary thought. But then the question was, well where's the third one? Because he turned in two, not because he was being a nice guy, but because as a condition of his release, law enforcement and judges don't generally

like to have the person who is a criminal defendant facing felonies to have firearms in case there has to be the execution of a search warrant in the future. They have to be picked up for bond or bail violation or anything like that. It's a good rule. And where that hasn't happened or where a indicted defendant has illegally obtained or retained his firearms or firearms, bad things have happened to law enforcement. And so it's not a joke. And Donald Trump turned in two and it came up in the interview while he was in Florida that he's got a third one, but it's in Florida in Mar-a-Lago and his spokespeople came out with oh, don't worry. It's all properly

Being retained none of it's being properly retained by Donald Trump He is not allowed to possess or own a firearm unless he sold that firearm off to somebody else And that's for another day now the Palm Beach the Palm Beach the town of Palm Beach, I was at Sheriff's Department, police department, when they were reached for comment said, we're going to have to look into that. In other words, police departments that generally regulate firearms in a community, including concealed weapons permits, if that's appropriate. Florida got rid of and scrapped their concealed weapons permit requirement about a year ago under DeSantis, meaning you don't have to have one.

You can just own a gun outright and don't have any other requirements under their view of the Second Amendment, which is also scary because I've had my concealed weapons permit and you learn how to properly and safely use firearms and you learn how to store them and you learn how to keep them away from children and as a requirement and you register and you background check. You know it's a good thing. It's not a good thing when you don't know who's got weapons in your community especially if you're on the law enforcement side. And so Donald Trump just was like well I guess I'm in the land of DeSantis. I can just do whatever I want, except you can't. And we're not talking about the felony conviction, losing your right, even under the Second Amendment, to have a gun. We're talking about he is still subject to

conditions of release in four separate criminal proceedings, including the convicted one in New York, Georgia, D.C, Florida, and New York. And so he can't have a gun for any of them. And so this missing gun is not just a small deal, it's potentially a big deal. While the New York Police Department is going to be revoking his concealed weapons permit, they've already announced that, there's no way around it. There's no former president convicted felon exception pending appeal. You lose your guns and you lose your right to carry a concealed weapon. And then similarly, this is a different issue, which is has he violated the conditions of

his release? And we're going to continue to follow it. And all the prosecutors are going to have to now open up a new file about the missing gun and exactly what was disclosed. Now, we weren't on that phone call, of course, and there's been some reporting about it. So we'll have to make sure that that we think it's been corroborated. And that's actually what happened. There's already been statements by the Trump side about it.

But again, we've got the collision of Donald Trump, the Second Amendment, and everything coming out of the Supreme Court where we're going to go next. And you've got, we're waiting with bated breath for this week's, what we think is going to be the final release of those Supreme Court cases and decisions that matter. If you, you know, I've anticipated this and teased this for the last couple of weeks. But there's an announcement that they're going to be issuing orders twice this week, which is unusual. Thursday and Friday, they had dribbled out some earlier ones. They weren't the ones we were waiting for. First in the hit parade, immunity.

And what? They're going to rule about the Chutkin case, the case being presided over by Judge Chutkin, against Donald Trump for four felony counts in election interference brought by this special counsel. By the way, note to Judge Cannon, one of the issues is not whether the special counsel was properly appointed or whether he's being funded correctly. The Supreme Court doesn't seem to have a problem with that. And so we're waiting on that order, which we think will come this week, as will another ruling on abortion, whether MTALA and the Emergency Medical Procedures Act,

federal overrides and requires in cases of medical necessity, the life of the mother and other very good medical reasons for an abortion to be provided to that person, regardless of what the state and the state constitution and its law has now allows. Another abortion decision. We got a new gun case coming out. Should a person convicted of domestic violence be able to have a handgun or firearms under the Second Amendment?

It seems to be a no-brainer, but everything with this Supreme Court is a brainer. And so we're waiting on that decision. And then of course, we're waiting on whether one, at least two of the four counts against Donald Trump and charges that have been brought against 300 Jan 6 defendants, including those that have already served their time for obstruction of an official proceeding, was a proper charge, proper use of that crime as an indicted charge against Jan 6 defendants, including Donald Trump. Two of his four counts relate to that. And if the Supreme Court were to rip that count away, it has a tremendous cascading impact on sentencing that's already happened, convictions that's already happened among 300 Jan 6 people,

future prosecutions for the Department of Justice and of course for Donald Trump and all that we're waiting on and we will jump on hot takes and catch up with midweeks and on the weekend edition of Legal AF. We're going to talk about the Supreme Court in crisis. We're finally going to get to Karen's favorite story today, which is the bat as a hat or bat shit crazy wife of a Supreme Court justice. You thought I was going to say Ginny Thomas, didn't you? And we're going to talk about Sam Alito's wife, Marta, who loves flags and flag balls and wants to design, wants to be a flag

designer. She wants to be the Betsy Ross from MAGA, apparently. We're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about the Hunter Biden conviction, but first we gotta take more time for our pro democracy sponsors. Did you know that traditional bed sheets can harbor more bacteria than a toilet seat? It can lead to acne, allergies, and stuffy noses, and it's just gross. Miracle Maid offers a whole line of self-cleaning, antibacterial beddings such as sheets,

pillowcases, and comforters that prevent up to 99.7% of bacteria growth and require up to three times less laundry. Using silver-infused fabrics inspired by NASA, Miracle-Made sheets are thermo-regulating 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 five-star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Sleep clean with Miracle. Go to trymiracle.com slash Legal AF to try Miracle-Made Sheets today.

And whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today, you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo Legal AF at checkout, you'll get three free towels and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product, it's back with a 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 LegalAF and use the code LegalAF to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymiracle.com code LegalAF to claim your free three-piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash LegalAF to treat yourself. Thank you Miracle Maid for sponsoring this episode. Proper sleep can increase focus, boost energy, and improve your mood. Introducing Beam's Dream Powder, a science-backed healthy hot cocoa for sleep.

If you know me, you know that dream has been a game changer for my sleep and boy, do I need sleep these days. I drink Beam's Dream Powder each night in order to get my optimal sleep. And I gotta say, I wouldn't be recommending this if it didn't actually help me. And today, my listeners get a special discount on Beam's Dream Powder.

Their science-backed healthy hot cocoa for sleep with no added sugar. Better sleep has never tasted better. Now available in delicious flavors like chocolate peanut butter, cinnamon cocoa, and sea salt caramel with only 15 calories and zero grams of sugar. Other sleep aids can cause next day grogginess,

but Dream contains a powerful all-natural blend of Reishi, magnesium, L-theanine, melatonin, and nano CBD. To help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed. The numbers don't lie. In a clinical study, 93% of participants reported Dream helped them get better sleep. Being Dream is easy to add to your nighttime routine. Just mix Dream into hot water or milk froth and enjoy before bed. Find out why Forbes and the New

York Times are all talking about Beam and why it's trusted by the world's top athletes and business professionals. If you want to try Beam's best-selling Dream powder, get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com slash Legal AF and use code Legal AF at checkout. That's shopbeam.com slash Legal AF and use code Legal AF for up to 40% off. You know what I realized when I started doing ads and sponsorship for Legal AF, maybe you did too, Karen, how infrequently as an adult I spelled out loud in normal context, I almost I didn't you know, I'm having a child very, very soon.

I was just gonna say it's because right, that's why. Could be in the next 12 days. But putting that aside for a minute, I you know, I very rarely I don't just spell in front of the dog like, you know, are we going to take Lily OUT? take like we don't do that until in that every time we do an ad we have to like spell out and it seems Simple. I will tell you how many ad Takes I have to take in order to get that to come out properly sometimes and the stuff that comes out the out takes That we should use on the side would make people's make people spit their coffee and laugh out loud. But let me, last way to support the show and you know this thing that we're doing here called a network,

Pro-Democracy Network and Legal AF is if you want to learn more about the law at the intersection of law and politics, then you can do it by coming on patreon.com slash legal AF. You'll get Ben and me and we'll be doing dive downs and molecular breakups and whatever you want to call it. It's a law school class meets a Ted talk and we're going to teach you about the law for non lawyers and lawyers in an informative and entertaining way. Topic by topic by topic exclusive content. You can only find on patreon.com slash legal AF the cost of membership the entry first level membership is the cost of a cup and a half of coffee per month patreon.com slash legal AF and

we're back. Carol why don't you lead on your favorite story today? I wouldn't deny you that. I wouldn't deny you that that pleasure. On the Supreme Court in crisis we've talked about it at length. People know about Alito, at least the basics. They know about Judge Thomas. And now we have to learn about, for whatever reason, wives of Supreme Court justice. Let me just leave it with this. I'll turn it over to you.

In my entire legal career, until about five years ago. I barely, if even, knew the names of the Supreme Court justices' wives or husbands. They were just that person that stood next to them uncomfortably during swearing-ins whenever the Supreme Court justice was nominated and then sworn in. And then you never saw them again. In law school, you could put a gun to my head as long as we're talking about guns on this episode. I could not tell you the name of Justice Berger's wife, Justice Warren's wife, just you name it, Antonin Scalia's wife. I have no idea. Except now, I have to know that right now frequently because of MAGA and the Supreme Court justices. We used to think that they were independent. We used

to think that they may not be our politics, but they were making the right decision for America. Forget all that. Why don't you talk about what's going on with Justice Alito and his wife. Yeah, look, so there's this whole flag controversy that's in the backdrop of all of this, right? People noticed that there was this upside down American flag in front of their primary residence and then they, I think the New York Times found that and then the New York Times also found that there was another flag at their beach house that is affiliated with January 6th and the insurrectionists. And, you know, as you said, they're supposed to be completely neutral. I mean, they're so neutral that if you've ever watched the State of the Union, no matter if there are, if the president is a

Democrat or Republican, it's in, it takes place in the House chamber and they literally will sit there and not stand or clap for any issue ever. You've got, you know, if you've got a Democrat president, you've got half the room standing up and screaming, you know, when he says certain things and the rest just sit there and then Republicans same, right? Like, it's just crazy to me. They absolutely, you know, they absolutely just sit there. Some, some even, Pope Hockey just pointed out in our private chat, some don't even go because that's how neutral you're supposed to remain, okay? So again, like that's how it's supposed to be. And you want it to be that way. You're a judge, you know, you're supposed to be above it all. You leave your partisanship at the door. Anyway, so that's just, that's the first thing

that's been going on, okay? So what happens after the flag flying? Justice Alito sends the most bizarre letter I've ever seen to Congress about it because they were asking about it where he says, it wasn't me, it was my wife. And basically threw her under the bus. I didn't like it, I told her to take it down, and she had different ideas and did it anyway. And PS, it was about a

neighbor, it was a dispute with the neighbor, and it had nothing to do with Jan 6 and the insurrection. Okay, puts that in a letter to Congress. And what happens next? The neighbor comes on to CNN and says, that is not at all how it happened. The flag was up first. It was up between the time of January 6th and the inauguration, okay? That's when he flew the upside down flag. So it was after the Jan 6th tried to take over, okay?

And prior to the inauguration, that's when the flag was up. That was what he was protesting or she was protesting. And PS, the issue I had with the wife, that wasn't until the next month in February. And guess what? If you don't want to take my word for it, there's a police report. I called the police because she came after me. And after that, there were these secret service cars parked out in front of my house and I felt intimidated. I thought maybe she's trying to intimidate me by putting her security detail

out in front of my house. So there's a date. So he lied to Congress, right? And in that letter, which is a crime, PS, and it's just not the truth. So you got that in the background. Then there's this dinner that's supposed to be this, I've never been, this really storied, amazing dinner where you go pay a lot of money to get there, and you kind of hobnob and rub shoulders with important people, including Supreme Court justices.

And there is a reporter who went to the dinner. Apparently, maybe you know more about this than I do, but I believe she hid her identity and kind of went undercover. And she got this woman, this wife, Justice Alito's wife, to say things that are better. If we can play what she said, I cannot even describe it because it's that crazy. So Salty, if you can play that clip if we have it loaded. Meow, meow, meow, meow, meow, meow. Okay, she's crazy. Okay,

was that the way we I'm sorry, was that actually I'm sorry, let's frame it. That was Marta Alito making a cat sound. Well, others will say she was talking about now as in Chairman Mao, not meow, but it certainly sounds like a cat sound to me. Where did you do this? Not meow, but it certainly sounds like a cat sound to me Where did she do this? This is part of the same Yes at the gala salty do you have the whole recording can you play the whole records not that long Okay, listen to talk about it while we while we pee it up. go ahead. So essentially, you know

Sorry, yeah, she talks about Essentially, I mean there's one part in there That she's basically talking about getting revenge to the media because the media Called out called one of her outfits. She looked like a lazy boy recliner when she was wearing her suit. Sorry. And she didn't like it. So she's like, I'm gonna get them. And how she called one of these reporters to say,

I hope you're wearing a Balenciaga. It's just weird, weird more than anything else. But there was one part in there, where that really caught my attention. So she was talking about the feminazi saying, basically, that her husband can't control her, okay, when it comes to these flags. So again, contradicting her husband. But then she says, after talking about the feminazis, right? She says, if they come after me or they come back to me, my heritage is German and they will know, you know? Like, I'm sorry, is she threatening?

Like, is this like a Nazi thing? I don't know. This woman is just absolutely fat shit, but dangerous, dangerous, crazy given who her husband is. I mean, if she was just anybody else, whatever, just be crazy, right? But the sad part is she's not any crazier than Ginny Thomas, who literally was in a cult and needed to be programmed before

she found the Tea Party movement. That's crazy. Absolutely crazy. Yeah. We promised the audience as soon as Salty's ready, he's gonna keep talking about it. Yeah, I want people to listen for three things. Number one, is she saying, now, right?

As in Chairman Mao, right? Or is she saying meow? Because again, very weird. Is this German reference on the heels of calling feminazi's? Is that kind of a Nazi availed, you know, Hitler Nazi reference? And then just listen to the frigging crazy, you know, her her dream flag. You know, because because this is all threatening. This is all threats over nonsense, over someone talking about her clothes.

And that's why I thought it was meow meow, because she sounds like she's a cat fight. These people are talking about her clothes, and then she's like meow meow. Yeah, exactly. But then just the crazy part of this. She's crazy. Well, before she brings it on, I'll give the Alito part.

So this gala that Karen has spoken about is one that frankly, the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo has used for years to rub elbows with the Supreme Court justices. It's their gala. It's a fundraiser for them. But it's a way in like, you know, like sitting ducks, the Supreme Court justices are all there and that's the way you lobby them. And so the Federalist Society has no problem coming in and overtly lobbying these right wing MAGA. It's not the left that's being or the moderates that are being lobbied. It's the six to three majority. They've been doing it for years.

lobbied. It's the it's the six to three majority. They've been doing it for years. He used to Leonard Leo and others used to brag about this gala as instant access to the Supreme Court. So to hear them clutch their pearls as we like to say on this podcast about, oh the journalist was underhanded. She didn't identify herself. She said she was a fellow Christian when she was when she was talking when she was setting up and then trapping Alito with the questions like I'm a I'm a I'm a fellow Christian and I just think the Supreme Court has a role in setting the moral compass for the United States. Don't you think so Justice Alito? Yes I do. Yeah that is one of our one. And we're against each other in this country. Justice Roberts, in fairness, said no. See, I always say that character is not what you do

when people are watching. Character is what you do when nobody's looking. And Roberts, even though he's circling the drain of history, is one of the worst chief justices we've ever had. When he was asked in a secret recording what he thought the Supreme Court's role was, he didn't take the bait. He said, no, that's not the Supreme Court's role is not to make this a Christian country. And I don't think we are a Christian country in that way. No, we're not here to set the moral compass for the country. We're here to call balls and strikes

and establish, you know, and declare law up or down.'s and he walked away not alito and not the wife okay so um are we okay that's the karen's asking salty are we ready for this now okay okay salty play the clip it's okay it's okay it makes me so angry don't get angry Don't get angry. Bye baby, bye cat. Meow, meow, meow, meow. She's a bad girl. Cat's escort, yes. Hi Lewis, good to see you.

Likewise. I'm Natasha, nice to meet you. Hi Natasha. Yes, we're never going back to Wounded Warriors, I'm afraid. That's awful though, right? Oh, because of the security. The security and all that. That's why we were able to come to this work at dinners and all of that.

We did that. We did that. Wonderful. You really did? Yeah, we did that. I was going to remove my little collection of flags for you. Do you know that they created and ran the Wounded Warriors program here? You would never know that because of how they're trying to pursue you.

Oh, ignore all that. The reality. The reality. I don't need their approval. I don't need their approval. I don't need their approval. I don't need their approval. I don't need their approval.

I don't need their approval. I don't need their approval. I don't need their approval. I don't need their approval. I don't need their approval. I don't need their approval. I don't need their approval. Wounded Warriors You know the problem is they use you Your environment. I'm Lewis, I like you. You deserve it. Thank you. They're persecuting you. They're persecuting you. And you're like a convenient game now where anybody who's religious. Look at me.

I'm German. I'm German. My heritage is German. You come after me. I'm going to give it back to you. And there will be a way. It doesn't have to be now. But there will be a way. They will know. So don't worry about it. God... Alright, well first of all, the cat, it's a cat sound

because the person's name was Cat and she was playing off of, I don't know why it was Cat. And it was Malmau. And she is definitely making a Hitler reference about, she knows how to get back at people because she's German from Germany. And you know, revenge is a dish best served cold. And you know, at the end there, she's fucking batshit crazy. And the fact that, look, I'm all about spouses having the First Amendment right to do things. But when she says I'm going to get back at them, but you won't know how that suggests she's going to manipulate her husband, who is a sitting Supreme Court justice, to make rulings. And you're right, she can get

back at America in a way that Jenny and Jenny Thomas too, that none of the rest of us can. It's not about First Amendment rights. It's about her husband is a lawmaker and is an out of control, radical judicial activist for the Christian right and freely acknowledges it, except they didn't realize he was being recorded. Yeah, no, it's just, it's crazy. I mean, look, I think about when I was nowhere near the level, obviously, of a Supreme Court justice,

but I was the number two at the Manhattan DA's office. I was a public servant. I took that role really seriously. And my husband was a criminal defense attorney who is, a criminal defense attorney who regularly conducted business before the office had cases. And I would recuse myself completely, both at work and at home.

I'll never forget where I was when there was a really, really high profile case that my office was investigating and it was involving Dominique Strauss Khan, who was the, the chairman president, whatever he was of the of the of the internet, some, the international bank or something, I can't remember now what it was, but the huge position, right? The IMFF right? Yes, exactly. The International Monetary Fund. That's right. Yeah. Exactly. Thank you. I just I try to put these things like these things are in the past. I try never to think about them again. Anyway, I recused myself both at home and

at work completely. And it's a real recusal, you know, people, you know, we could whisper whatever be the easiest thing to do, but we didn't. and he took my job really seriously as much as I took his job seriously, so he never asked me weird questions I never asked him weird questions, and it wasn't hard. We respected each other I'll never forget where I was the day You know sitting at home, and I was on my computer and all of a sudden it pops up that The Manhattan DA's office is dismissing the case against Dominique Strauss, that was a huge case in my office, huge, okay?

Charged with rape. They stopped him from going on an airplane and that they're dismissing that case. That's a huge deal for the Manhattan DA's office and a huge win for my husband. I mean, my God. And I remember looking up and I looked at him and he goes, oh, did it just come out? Cause he saw the look on my face, the shock, okay?

He would never, ever put me in a weird position by sharing things with me, telling me things. You know, he did his thing and I had nothing to do with it anyway cause I was recused at work. And we took that so seriously in every case, that when I see things like this, when I see a wife who doesn't respect her husband's role in any way

and clearly he doesn't mind, it just shocks me. And as a nation, we can and should do better. And yeah, you have the First Amendment right, but you are his wife. And if your wife who you have a special relationship with, so much so that under the law, there's something called the marital privilege. You cannot be compelled to testify.

What you say is secret. What you say is in the sanctity of your marriage, it's protected by law. That relationship is special. And so it gives you an obligation. And if you can't kind of handle that, then maybe you shouldn't be a Supreme Court justice. I think it's outrageous, both him and Ginny Thomas, with her basically being part of the insurrection on January 6. Agreed. And you hit the nail on the head with the with the with the description of it as a special relationship You're not just Jane Doe

Citizen Doe and that's can't use that term anymore Because of other references, but you're not you you married somebody who is one of nine People that make up an entire branch of our government and one that is responsible to be our chief lawgiver when it comes to our constitutional principles. And so that special relationship doesn't allow you to have pillow talk with your husband or wife, depending upon the spouse, in order to influence policy. And you need to put up a wall. In the world of financial services, we call it a compliance wall.

And that's the problem. There are no walls that are put up between these justices and the outside world and outside influencers and outside MAGA and outside right-wing fundraisers and Federalist Society members and even their own wives. And that's the problem. And there, they show that they have no regard and a total disregard for, as the Supreme Court justices level, from basically putting up that wall and saying to them,

A, I can't do this, you can't do this, don't talk to me about this, and don't display things on the house that would give rise to people feeling insecurity about our justice system and an appearance of impropriety or of being partisan, can't do that. Can't do that at any judge level, and you certainly can't do it or shouldn't be able to do it at the Supreme Court level. But then you've got the MAGA right wing and Lindsey Graham,

he's always good for something, basically opposing the attempts to strengthen the ethics code, which just got put on about six or eight months ago, it seems to not be working for the United States Supreme Court justices. I mean, I want to live in a world where the justices are above reproach instead of you and I having to talk about not just the wives, I want to make it clear, we're not just talking about the wives qua wives, the wives as wives or spouses as spouses. We're talking about them influencing the outcome of cases by their domestic lobbying, pillow talk lobbying of their husbands. Ginny Thomas, for instance, is notorious for having said in emails

that she'll bring it up with the, I don't know if she said the big guy or the guy, and it was, we knew it was in reference and reading it to Clarence Thomas. You're going to bring that up with Clarence Thomas while cases are in front of him? I mean, if that went on, we would just call that what it is and what you would have called it in your prosecutor's days, public corruption. Whether you'd bribe somebody or you improperly lobbied them for a certain outcome, that is corruption at the highest levels. And I don't think, and I said this at the top of the hot take, the hot take, the top of the, I'm hot, so it's a hot take

podcast, that our democracy depends on the legitimacy and the integrity of all three co-equal branches of our government. And when we have a criminal president who's running a kleptocracy in the White House. And then maybe people are thinking about returning a criminal president, literally a criminal president, back to the White House. That delegitimizes, in a way the framers and the founding fathers never anticipated, one of the only three branches of government that we have for checks and balances. Just as when MAGA takes over Congress and makes them a do-nothing Congress and uses improperly their oversight powers to go after ordinary Americans like the children and brothers and sisters of

the Biden family or waste our time and our money and our scarce resources legislative resources instead of helping Americans with impeachment Impeachment matters by the way, we haven't heard about that impeachment process in a while from Majorca, so for Biden, have we? Right? And interfering instead of doing their job for which we sent them to Washington, going after and trying to do oversight improperly over the criminal justice system in different states.

And so you have that. And now on top of it all, like a cherry on top, as you said before, you know, the judge is supposed to be on top of this adversarial process. We've got to compromise Supreme Court. Not just because it's not in the numbers that I want in terms of the political leanings. I've been alive long enough where there has been a five to four and six to three Majority on what I used to call the Republican side of the aisle not the manga or the conservative side of the aisle and I still respected burger and Warren and and Sandra Day O'Connor

and and and others and Byron White and and and the rest even though they weren't my party, some of them. Because ultimately, I may not totally agree with them, and sure, they made some wrong decisions, but at the end, I could agree with the sanctity of the process and respect it. I always respected the office of the presidency until Donald Trump got in it my entire life, regardless of who was in there. Okay? And the same with the others, but not now. And now is the time the American needs confidence

in our justice system and in our judiciary. And we just can't have it with this current makeup. If John Roberts wanted to ensure his place in history in a positive way, he should step down now, step down now during the Biden administration and allow Joe Biden to appoint his own chief justice. That's what happened to Roberts. Roberts didn't work his way up

from the associate justice to be appointed to be, he was appointed directly to be the chief justice. Step down now, let Joe Biden take that spot, right? Yes, it'll be five to four, but the five to four with the new chief justice will be a lot better than what's going on now. But we know that that John Roberts is a coward and he'll never do that. But that is my fantasy and I did want to share it with our audience. Let's talk about Hunter Biden, close out our podcast, Karen. Why don't you take it from the prosecutor's standpoint? Let me ask

you a question. There's been a lot of reporting about how Abby Lowell and others for the defense handled the case. They put on the sister, they put on the daughter. This was about whether Hunter Biden, at the time he was a crack addict, lied on a series of forms into a gun dealer about his being a drug user and he got a weapon. He had the weapon, this is all established facts, for 11 days. His wife at the time threw the gun away. But he had the gun and he acquired the gun. And so that is the case.

The rest of these people that kind of went on, and some jurors have already been interviewed, what did you think about it? What did you think about what it says about our jury criminal justice system? Whether it works or doesn't work? Talk about it from the prosecutor using prosecutorial discretion to go after Hunter Biden for this. Merrick Garland appointing a special counsel for this. And then and then the outcome, I think it's from your perspective, will be quite fascinating for our audience. So a couple things. First of all, I just want to point out the irony. So 18 United States Code 922 is basically a federal gun possession statute that lists ABCD, all these different prohibitions on who cannot lawfully possess a firearm, despite the possession of a weapon essentially being a constitutional right.

The Second Amendment guarantees us the right to bear arms. But there are all sorts of prohibitions to that or requirements to that, even on the federal level. States all have different laws because you can regulate kind of how it happens in the state, as you pointed out. Florida basically says you don't need a permit, New York says you do, to have a concealed carry and it's pretty stringent. So, but the irony, the thing I wanna point out is there are a few people who cannot possess one emphatically. One is a felon, right?

If you're a felon, if you've been convicted of a felony and you're in possession of a firearm, it's called felon in possession. Those are cases that are brought every single day by federal prosecutors. It's, they call it trigger locks sometimes, you know, it's literally how do you put dangerous criminals away for gun possession?

They charge them with the felon in possession. The reason I say it's ironic is because Donald Trump is now a convicted felon and he's been convicted in New York state. He is technically a felon in possession with respect to the one gun that we talked about, that you talked about earlier, that is unaccounted for, that is listed on his gun permit that is in the process of being revoked. It doesn't matter if he's in Florida or

anywhere else. If he's in possession of a gun and he's a convicted felon, he can be guilty of this federal crime. Now, there are two, there's really kind of, there's really one caveat to that. And then I'll get back to the hunter thing, which is, at what stage are you convicted of a felony? Is it upon verdict or do you have to wait until until after sentence and there's a case that says it's at the point of conviction, but I do know in other areas like if you are going to be adjudicated what's called a predicate felon in New York you have to have been sentenced for that prior felony so that's going to be a point of contention. But he better get rid of that gun before July 11, because then he will be a felon in possession. That's number one. But the irony with Prospector Hunter is they prosecuted him under a different subsection

of that same exact statute. It's an addict in possession. And so I think it's kind of ironic here that we're talking about that. And number three is we are gonna be talking in a matter of hours, days or weeks about a case in front of the United States Supreme Court that they're deciding right this very minute as we speak

on whether somebody who is a domestic violence, if you are a domestic violence person, you also, that's another prohibited category. Now, the Supreme Court has been narrowing that statute, or I shouldn't say that statute, has been narrowing certain, or there's a lot of restrictions that states and others have put on what you can regulate because it's a Second Amendment. And New York is one of those. There was a case, I think it was two years ago,

that came down, Bruin, which was a United States Supreme Court case that basically said that the way New York State regulated their licensing scheme was unconstitutional. I could see them in the case that's coming before, that's about to come down any minute, saying that, saying someone who has a domestic violence history, that that's over broad. Because what does that really mean, right? Every state defines it differently. Some people say domestic violence, you have to be married. Other states say it can be someone who you've been in a relationship with. Some other states say you have to have lived together, right? So they could say that that statute's overly broad or that

it applies unevenly and differently depending on what state you are in. And this all leads back to Hunter because I also think they could say that an addict in possession is also overly vague. And that's because what makes you an addict, right? And do you have to have used drugs that exact day? That's the defense that the defense attorney here, Abby Lowell, who's a very respected excellent defense attorney, set forth, which is, look, they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he used drugs that particular day.

And calling himself an addict, he'll call himself an addict until the end of time, because that's what psychologically you're taught in AA and NA, right? My name is Hunter Biden and I'm an addict. That's the first thing you have to acknowledge, because you'll always be an addict, you'll always be, you'll always be somebody who's struggling with that. But that's more of a psychological definition, as opposed to are you actively addicted to drugs at that moment? And their argument was they didn't have proof that he was and, and I think it was a decent defense, although they didn't buy it and he was convicted. But I think that statute could be potentially in jeopardy, especially depending on how they rule with respect to the domestic violence subsection of the statute. So look, it's a weird case. It's a weird crime.

It's a weird charge. I have never heard of it being prosecuted and most federal prosecutors Will say they've never charged this because it is so weird and so vague It's not like the felon in possession that they do every single day And look it's clear here that the only reason he was prosecuted Was a because of his last name and B because he wrote a. If he had not written a book about it and admitted it, they wouldn't have had a case. They wouldn't even have investigated the case.

They wouldn't have even have done anything with respect to this case. And, you know, I am hesitant to say there's a better use of resources and they shouldn't have done this. I've never really bought that as a... There's no reason to me, resources are unlimited. Like, I don't know, I don't look at, to me that's not when you exercise prosecutorial discretion. To me you exercise prosecutorial discretion

if something's in the interest of justice. And to me, what are you gonna do? You're gonna start prosecuting every single person who uses marijuana, who has a gun. Like, I just can't imagine in this country that you could actually enforce this law, number one. And number two, I think it's so vague, you know, again, what is an act?

And I think it's so vague that I don't think this withstands constitutional scrutiny personally. I think the statute, this particular subset, like it's different from either you're a felon or you're not, right? Like that's it. And this is so subjective and so strange. It could be defined in different ways

by different jurors, right? That to me is the very definition of unconstitutionally vague. The fact that different juries could apply different laws to the same facts. So I think this has a serious constitutional issue. I think it's the only reason they brought this case was because of who his father is

and whatever, it is what it is. I also think it's interesting that Joe Biden, when asked if he'll pardon him, he came out and said, no, I don't know why that struck me as odd. I think he wants to show that he believes in the rule of law, but he didn't say he wouldn't commute his sentence. So if the judge does something crazy and interferes with his recovery by incarcerating him, I could see his dad jumping into dad mode, frankly, and, you know, protecting his son. So, who knows what's going to happen. I think it was a weird prosecution. They, you know, had a lot of evidence that they used against him. I don't want to, it's so much easier to be a podcaster and comment on other people's

work than it is to do the work yourself. So I'm not going to criticize this phenomenal, excellent lawyer, Abbie Lowell, because he knows what he's doing, right? So the question about should you have put on his daughter, I know there was a juror who came forward and said they didn't like that. These are tough calls and tough decisions to make. He's a great lawyer. I think if I were to criticize any part of this, I don't think it should have gone to trial at all. They were in plea negotiations. Yes, they fell apart. I would have done everything I could to get that back on track and not go to trial and

not do this case and have it come out. I don't know. That's personally as a lawyer what I would have done. But once you're in the heat of battle and at trial, I think he made a really strong argument that I think on appeal could potentially call the statute into question. So the long national nightmare of Hunter Biden's trial is over. I mean that tongue in cheek. I mean, this is not something that's up. Well, well, well, right. But what I mean is that particular one should never have gone to trial. Nobody, like you said, nobody would be prosecuted.

I think it's constitutionally infirmed, the prosecution to begin with. You're right. The decision we'll get this week or so on the domestic violence application to the Second Amendment will have an impact on it. And we got another case in California that's going to be going forward by the same special counsel about tax issues where he faces a much graver threat to his liberty. It's about unpaid taxes into the millions during a period of time when he was earning money, and yet again was in the throes of a crack addiction where the money went for inappropriate

places. Let's be frank, he's not proud of what he did during his addiction, and it's been well documented. And whether the laptop is right or wrong and no one's ever denied that the photos are what the photos show but that doesn't mean that the country shouldn't have sympathy and empathy for somebody like Hunter Biden and who repaid his debt to society, repaid his tax issues. And again, these are not crimes that generally end up in the courtroom. They end up in plea negotiations that, like as you said, Karen fell apart in Delaware and fell apart otherwise. It looked like it's an embarrassed special counsel that got his dander up and decided he was going to go after with more verve to nail Hunter Biden. And that's what's happened. But look, I've had friends that have said to me, oh, something about, I've had Republican people in my life say things like, oh, like father, like son, or some other crazy, ridiculous

statements. And I'm like, I'm sorry. At the end of the day, this is the adult child of a person that I voted for president. I didn't really care when Billy Carter urinated on the runway when Jimmy Carter was president. I really didn't care much about what Hillary Rodham Clinton's brother did. I really don't care about any of the relatives. I got my personal opinions that Donald Trump

and his kleptocracy has crossed the line using his son-in-law and his daughter to violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution and to make money hand over fist like we never saw in the history of America while he was president. Yes, I have a strong opinion about that, but I'm not going to vote for the president based on what one of his relatives, no matter how close they are, did or didn't do. I like Sasha and Malia, but if it turned out tomorrow that they robbed a bank, it doesn't

change my view of Barack Obama or what he accomplished. So like this whole thing, like we gotcha. I'm thinking if that's the gotcha that the Republicans have, they're gonna be in for a rude awakening on November 5th. If their gotcha is, you know, I saw it in the New York Post today because I have to read the opposition papers, they had a thing. The air of invincibility around the Biden family is finally crumbled with this prosecution. What are you even talking about? Is this because last week you had a write that Donald Trump's air of invincibility and Teflon Don came crumbling down with 30 under the weight of 34 felony convictions? So you had to sort of balance it out? Is that

why? This is a child. And it's also the think about it. Why did it happen? Because he let it. He could have stopped it in its tracks. This is his justice. This is Joe Biden's Justice Department. Right. Right. And the criminal. That's a criminal. Right. The whole pardon thing, whether it's clemency down the road or a commutation of sentence will be for another day. But he's not going to pardon him. And that stands in stark contrast because we know that that Donald Trump has said, and I don't like, I don't like to do whataboutism on this podcast, and we don't do that. We don't trade in that. Well, that was wrong. But what about that guy? Okay, so we're, that's,

this isn't whataboutism. But Donald Trump has said publicly he's going to pardon Mike Flynn again Bannon again Navarro again if Giuliani gets convicted He'll be pardoned for federal crimes and the like and he's just gonna hand out Like you know like chicklets, you know like pardons on day one including for himself and You've got a Supreme Court justice like Justice Gorsuch who thought it was interesting during oral argument about the immunity issue

about whether self-pardon was possible. And he didn't say it in a bad way, like, well, self-pardon wouldn't be possible. He was like, self-pardon, that's an interesting concept for another day. Right, another invitation to a criminal president to use inappropriately powers that he was given by the founding fathers who never anticipated

that we would ever vote for and put back into office a criminal as president, not only a criminal president, but criminal as president. Oh, you guys watch my blood pressure these days. So we've reached the end of the midweek edition of Legal AF. We went a little bit longer than we like to, but we got a lot to talk about and we have an audience that's devoted to us. We appreciate that. We respect your time. We try to get

it all in four or five stories at the intersection of law and politics. We do it twice a week right here. But we appreciate you being along with us. You know how to support us audio versions of this podcast, video versions of this podcast, the Midas Touch YouTube channel, right? And then, which is great. And then, you know, anything that we do or the contributors to this show do, Legal AF, other episodes, Karen's new podcast, Miss Trial, only on this Midas Touch Touch Network and hot takes that we do about every hour at the intersection of law and politics. So Karen, I look forward to next week with you. Fortunately, my

little baby bundle arrival has, we hope, has coordinated herself where she will be born in between the midweek edition and the weekend edition of Legal AF. My future daughter has exquisite timing already and we'll report more on that offline. But until that and your next podcast for Mistral, this is Michael Popak, Karen Freeman, The Fuller signing off. Shout out to the Legal AFers, of course, the Midas Mighty.