Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump FINALLY Faces JUSTICE in Most IMPORTANT Legal Week Yet

Episode Date: April 9, 2023

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this week’s edition, the anchors discuss: the aftermath and next steps following Trump’s indictment and arraignment on 34 felony counts; Jack Smith winning against Vice President Mike Pence forcing him to testify against Trump before the grand jury, along with almost a dozen more Trump advisors; a Texas federal judge entering a nationwide ban on medicated abortion while a Washington federal judge ruled in opposite fashion; the DC Circuit Court reversing the decision of a trial judge reinstating the DOJ’s ability to charge insurrectionists with the highest criminal charge of obstruction with an official proceeding; the revelation that Clarence Thomas and his wife have been showered with millions in lavish gifts and travel from a right wing donor (and nazi and hitler memorabilia collector) and whether that is a crime or basis to impeach, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! BETTERHELP: This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Give online therapy a try at https://betterhelp.com/LEGALAF and get on your way to being your best self. ZBIOTICS: Head to https://zbiotics.com/LegalAF to get 15% off your first order when you use LEGALAF at checkout. AG1: Head to https://athleticgreens.com/legalaf to get a FREE 1 year supply of Vitamin D and 5 FREE Travel Packs with your first purchase! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump was arrested and arraigned this week in Manhattan. Now that the indictment has been unsealed and the statement of facts released, were there any surprises? What happens next? And how did Donald Trump and the Maga Republicans respond? Like you probably expected they would would despicable. We will discuss special counsel Jack Smith had some big wins this week in his criminal investigation into Donald Trump. Former vice president Mike Pence announced he would not be appealing a federal

court order requiring his testimony before the Washington DC grand jury. And the DC circuit court of appeals denied Donald Trump's appeal, trying to block the testimony of his other former top aides under executive privilege and some other big wins by Jack Smith that we will discuss on this episode of legal AF. Another major ruling was handed down by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals this week. The Court of Appeals reversed federal judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointees prior order, holding that the obstruction of official proceeding count could not be filed against January 6th and Syrectionist except in the narrowest of circumstances. This ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals confirms that federal prosecutors

Can bring this very powerful obstruction of an official proceeding charge and that the prior of an official proceeding charge and that the prior convictions of these charges will not be overturned, which could spell big trouble for Donald Trump as well. We will discuss. Speaking of Trump judges, a Trump judge, and I should add a man from the Northern District of Texas issued a disgusting order on Friday blocking the FDA's approval of Mifapristone, the very safe abortion pill. And in the ruling, this Trump-appointed man judge said, pregnancy is not dangerous.

It's a normal physiological function that should not be subject to the administrative rule procedures from the year 2000. And within almost minutes, though, of that ruling, another judge, a judge in the state of Washington, who was appointed by President Obama, made a conflicting ruling, compelling the FDA to keep its authorization for this very safe drug. What are the implications for these dueling orders? We will discuss. And finally, right wing Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was exposed, engaging in what

could only be called despicable criminal conduct in a bombshell report by pro-publica. He was caught taking millions of dollars and gifts over the course of many decades from a right-wing donor. We're talking about private jet flights. We're talking about trips on superyats. We're talking about luxury vacations every single summer, partying with leaders of the Federalist Society. So what happens next there? What can be done? We will discuss that as well here on legal a f

I'm Ben micelle is joined by Michael Popeye Michael Popeye. How are you doing? I'm doing great. What an introduction and Got a lot to cover but because I follow some of the social media, I made an honor of Tim Russell, a whiteboard, which I posted on my social media. This just keeps track of, we're going to need a bigger board, but this is just where we are with Donald Trump so far. We're going to talk about number one, Manhattan DA indictment already happened. We're going to talk about Fulton County, Georgia, which we expect to be an indictment in May. Three is Jack Smith and all his grand juries in the District of Columbia.

Four is E. Jean Carroll Civil Rape Case, federal court in New York. That's going to trial on April the 25th. Five is a New York Attorney General, $250 million Civil Fra civil fraud case going to trial in New York State Court on October the 2nd. And then at least two other major civil cases against Donald Trump involving Brian Siknik, the former capital police officer and his and his family under the KKK act and a civil fraud case involving things that Donald Trump and his family did when they were on the celebrity apprentice to sell video phones that was a fraud. That's also going against him. This is what this guy has to wake up every day and think about and look at.

Yeah, you know, people were saying the wheels of justice, we've talked about it. They move slower than sometimes we would like, but as we've been keeping the legal a efforts informed about they have been moving, you know, and something that's not on that board as well, because it doesn't directly relate to Trump, although it indirectly relates to Trump. Jury selection starts next week in Dominions 1.6 billion dollar defamation case against Fox, right? April 13th will be the first day of jury selection there. And we will of course be covering that on legal AF there. Rupert Murdoch tried to avoid testifying a trial in this past week. The judge says, I ain't gonna quash that if Dominion wants Rupert Murdoch to testify and Lockland Murdoch, they are going to testify. A very historic week indeed,

Donald Trump was arrested and he was arraigned. Finally, finally, there should be no one above Finally, finally, there should be no one above the law. And this week demonstrated that very basic principle. There's nothing politicized about what Alvin Bragg did. What was politicized was the fact that for decades and decades, Donald Trump was not brought to justice that he got away with it, that the Republicans gave him political cover. And by the way, following his arrest, following his arrangement, leading up to it, the Magga Republicans continued to do that, right? You have the House Judiciary Committee, the House Oversight Committee, you've got Jim Jordan,

who's not even a licensed lawyer, who just like rolls up his sleeves and just starts yelling and screaming on TV about a bunch of nonsense and James Comer, the head of the oversight committee also, not a lawyer. So two not licensed lawyers, although Jim Jordan at least went to law school, but two non-licensed lawyers continue to try to interfere. And by the way, I believe their conduct is criminal, try to interfere with Alvin Bragg's now criminal case against Donald Trump. They subpoenaed Mark Pomeran, who used to be an assistant special DA, under Sivance, and who resigned under Alvin Bragg. They want pomeranhas to testify. They just subpoena Matt Kalangelo, who was a former DOJ official top DOJ official former

official at the attorney general's office as well in New York and is a deputy now as well within the Manhattan district attorney's office. So they want to subpoena all of the people who work for Alvin Bragg and Alvin Bragg just issued a response saying, you'd better serve your constituents if like you focused on real issues and stopped criminally interfering with the investigations that we're doing. And now a criminal case, this is an unprecedented effort by you to try to politicize and interfere with this. We prosecute falsifying business record cases every single day here. And so

that was some of the fallout. But Pope, why don't you go over to just just with there any surprises to you and the way the arrest went down, the way the. Arraignment went down, what you saw in the indictment, maybe just talk about the indictment briefly as well and any surprises other than when the police officer When Donald Trump was exiting after he got arrested and fingerprinted just didn't hold the door for him and just let the door slam on a Donald Trump any of them. Yeah, welcome to New York Trump you have a few that have come out including some reporting and we got a transcript now About 34 pages of what actually happened in the arrangement room the courtroom with judge Mershan you and I and your brothers and Karen and others we were we were

Commentating but we were getting a feed report from what was going on in the room And now we know what happened in that room. And I want to describe that as well. Starts at the beginning when they booked him, they asked Trump what his profession was. And you would have thought as much time as he spends calling himself the president and 45, he responded that he didn't say former president, United States president of the United States. He said, business man. He was already back to being just a businessman, and then he gave his height and weight six foot, six foot two and 240 pounds.

So he got back to where he needed to be. Supposedly he tells people he's six three. I think on his mug shot that he's using for grifting, for fundraising, it lists them a 65. But that's not true. So then he goes into the courtroom and we have to contrast Donald Trump before he got into the courtroom, social truth thing all along and attacking the presiding judge, Judge Mershon as a Trump-aating Democrat judge and family and all of that.

And the attacks on Alvin Bragg, you literally a photo of him with a baseball bat trying to bring Alvin Bragg before he got in the courtroom with what transpired in that 34 minutes or so in the courtroom and that what he did in Mar-a-Lago because in the courtroom, he was a small little whimpering man who just sat with hands folded looking for Lauren and angry at times who didn't say anything at all these shuffled papers. You got Joe. Here's the picture we put up for those that are watching and I'll describe it. You've got in the first chair the new lawyer he's hired Todd Blanch. He's that we he's what we call the first chair

lawyer. He'll probably be the lead trial lawyer for most of what's going on. Next to him, Susan Neckless, who lost his Trump organization or Trump cases against the Manhattan DA for 17 counts of felony fraud back in December, then Donald Trump, then Joe Takapena. He's got the seat usually reserved by a third level associate who has to sit on a witness or sit

on a client and just keep him busy. He's not really having a major role. And then you've got this, the current Michael Cohen for Donald Trump. What I mean by that is the in-house console, Yeri Boris Epstein, who he himself has had his own phone picked up by the feds because he's part of a criminal investigation by Jack Smith. He also brought Todd Blanch the new lawyer to the to the to the game because he had represented represents Boris Epstein.

So that's the Motley crew that's sitting there. But the reporting from in the room is that other than one comment, two comments that Donald Trump made, they were the following. Do you plead guilty or not guilty to the charges? The judge having kicked it off with, let's get to the arrangement of Mr. Trump. That's how he kicked it off. How do you plead? He said, not guilty.

At the end, the judge, after listening to Chris Conroy for the Manhattan DA's office after reading the indictment, say, there's where worried about Mr. Trump and his attacks on prosecutors, prosecutors, families, the impact on the jury, the impact on the city at large, and having listened to that, the judge said, look, first amendment is important. He's got the right to speak, but he looked at Trump and said, you are not allowed to incite civil disobedience and civil disorder. And I'm gonna watch you carefully.

I'm not gonna put a gag order in place now, but he also lectured the president. I'm sure the former president, I'm sure Trump wasn't happy about it. And he said, if you are disruptive in my courtroom, in other words, I'm in charge not you. I will have no problem removing you from this courtroom. Do you understand that?

And Trump said, yes. And I want you back in December, and I will talk about the December date in a minute, which is the next time they'll all be back in front of the courtroom. Doesn't mean the next time anything's gonna happen in the case, it, the next time they'll all be back in front of the courtroom, doesn't mean the next time anything's going to happen in the case. It's the next time they'll be together in the courtroom and I'll talk about why it's December or why I think it's December.

But he said, I understand your lawyers may want to have you zoom in, but I got to treat you like any other criminal defendant. So I want you back here in December to get understanding. He said, yes. And that was the end. Donald Trump acted a couple of times like, oh, I don't want to see the indictment he handed. It's a Joe Takapina.

I'm above the indictment. I don't want to see it. Then he grabbed it back because he wanted to actually read what was in it. And then people are complaining about why December? Why is this going faster? Because the judge understands that there's going to be a lot of motion practice and likely appeals

in this case because of the nature of the prosecution and the, frankly, the nature of the defendant. And so nine months between now and then allows the inevitable motion to dismiss the indictment practice, the motion to attack the grand jury minutes and the entire charging process that was used by Alvin Bragg. And then get through to pellet process, one or two levels of appeal in New York, either

the first level appeal at the first apartment for Manhattan, or the ultimate appeal for the highest level court in New York, which is the court of appeals. And then that's about nine months. It takes about six or eight months to get all that done. And then let's be right back here in December when all appeals are done, the indictment is I've resolved the indictment issues. They make a motion to move the case to Staten Island and the judge, I'm sure, will deny it.

We'll watch Donald Trump to see if he needs to be gagged from now until then. So it's about the right amount of time. I know everybody's upset about, you know, let's go to trial in three months, but none of these cases are going to trial in three months. I just did a hot take on a guy who interfered with the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton getting elected. And he just got convicted in a court of law now seven years later.

So things are moving as quickly as they need to and there's a lot of work for both sides, prosecution and defense between now and December. I think what the judge wants been, Judge Bershon wants is he wants sort of everything clear to way and all he's got to do is deal with setting the trial and all of that. In the meantime, Trump leaves the courtroom and goes right back at a press conference or whatever he did in that ballroom,

attacking the judge, his surrogates attacking and doxing daughters of the judge and family members of the judge. And let me just leave it on this and turn it back to you. Most courts and most judges run for election. Some at the highest level in some states are appointed by the governor, but even that is political. Most judges as in New York, especially Florida too, California, I believe as well, they run for office, usually under a party flag, either they're Democrats, Republicans

or their independence. So to say he's a Democrat or this prosecutor who's also an elected position is a Democrat, right, that doesn't mean you have to align only Republican prosecutors as one of our producers said today, salty. Are we at the world now where only Republicans can prosecute Republicans and Republican judges can hear those cases and Democrats, Democrats? No, that's not our justice system work. And I'm sorry that everybody's just waking up on the far, far mega right to understand that we have an elected judiciary where there are Democrats

that serve in office as law enforcement, prosecutors, and on the bench. But that's the world that we live in, just like we have to put up on the other side of the aisle with Clarence Thomas, we'll talk about it later, being in bed with mega, mega donors for the last 20 years along with his wife. And I'd push back on that slightly though because what we should have to deal with, it is okay that there are judges or injustices who come from the

side of Republicans, just as it is okay that there are judges and justices who come who are Democrat, who are backed by the Democratic Party. The issue with Clarence Thomas, though, of course, is that is exactly what should be avoided. That is not just unethical. That not only is he appointed by a Republican, but the fact that he's receiving millions and millions of dollars in gifts from Republican donors, tainting his ability to be a fair and impartial judge. I mean, set aside the mere fact that the appearance of impropriety is something that should be avoided on the bench.

You've got Justice Clarence Thomas just out there taking private jets in, private jet flights and super yacht trips to you know, you know, traveling around on exotic islands and wearing t-shirts that has the name of the yacht, the Mikayla, and go into these exclusive retreats like each and every each and every summer. I mean, they're right there for those watching. That's that's one of the ways pro-publica was able to identify this like Clareld's Thomas. He wears the shirts of all of the summer trips that they go on and has a photo of the yacht.

So it would say the Indonesia trip, the Greek island trip, so on and so forth. Popeye, I'll make this observation too about the December date and about the speed in which the Trump case is moving at. I can just say for my own experience, it's actually moving faster than other criminal cases that I'm aware about. You mentioned the case that was in the, that relates to election disinformation

in the Hillary Clinton election that now just went to trial. I'm familiar with cases that I have seven, eight, 10 years before they go to trial. And the judges now are on to Donald Trump's delay tactics, though. So they are moving these cases much quicker. I do not expect these Trump cases to go that like I would expect this case to, you know, probably go to trial sometime in 2024, that December date, I think is going to be a meaningful date. And the courts going to

have a very short leash, the same way judge Arthur and Goron had a very short leash judge Arthur and Goron, another Manhattan judge in the New York Attorney General, Leticia James Civil Fraud Case, who set a October 2nd, 2023 trial date and said, this is Edgerton Stone, you're not moving this at all. We know you're deleterian, delay tactics, this ain't moving. And by the way, all of these dates actually line up very nicely because before that December hearing, what we're going to see going back to your whiteboard there, Popac is

you're going to have the E. Jean Carroll case. And you're going to see a lot more of Donald Trump sitting in a court with his arms crossed like that because he's likely going to have to show up to that trial. And then you're going to see the New York Attorney General, Etisha James case as well, where that civil fraud case, there's a criminal investigation taking place as well by Alvin Bragg into the criminal conduct about that. So depending on how the jury rules there, I think one of the things Alvin Bragg is waiting on for those bigger charges, the fraudulent valuation

and the tax crimes that Trump engaged in is what's gonna happen with that jury in the New York AG case, how are they going to rule and is Donald Trump? And if there's a finding that Trump engaged in this fraudulent valuation scheme in the New York AG case, I think that's when you'll see the criminal charges also brought by Alvin Bragg,

which are even more serious criminal charges here. I know you got one final observation, I hope I can then what the next one. Yeah, the checker board you're talking about is really, really important. First to indict us, it means first to try. And then we've got the federal versus, pardon me, federal

versus state interaction here. I'm, I've done a hot take and we'll do a hot take on, even if you indict it first, who do I think is going to try first? And where does Jack Smith will, who may come out of the shoot third, but he may end up being first in line for his prosecutions, depending upon what he does. The other thing about the December date for Trump, that I want to mention is, I think it leaves plenty of time for what I predict will be a super-seating indictment or an amended indictment, because if you,

there's a little bit of a mismatch and Karen Freeman, Igniflo, our co-worker, did a nice job talking about it on Wednesdays, show between the statement of facts, which is not technically the indictment and the indictment, which is the 34 felony charges, all for business record fraud and tampering of the books and records, the check register, the general ledger, and the way they get it up to a felony is the second fraud, the second crime, which can be a Mr. Meater pardon me as well, is either tax evasion, if you read

the statement of claim, the statement of facts, tax evasion or election fraud, state or federal or something like that. The reason I'm a little bit loose on it is because the statement of facts talks about conspiracy, but there's no conspiracy count yet in the indictment. The statement of facts talks about tax issues tax fraud and manipulation by taking a deduction for legal expenses paid to Michael Cohen when it wasn't really that it was a payment to store me Daniels. So eventually I think we're going to have as this case develops over the next period of time as the statement of facts merges into the indictment as things that Alvin Bragg said in his own press conference about conspiracy end up in the indictment.

I think we're going to see a conspiracy count. I think we're going to see more flesh on the bone in the indictment, but he doesn't have to do that. Everyone's like, it's so bare bones and skeleton, the skeleton, the indictment, right? Because you want to have a very small target to shoot at when the other side moves to dismiss the indictment, put in your bare minimum, put the rest over in the statement of facts. But I think then before December, we'll see a superseding amended indictment that we'll bring in things like a conspiracy count.

In addition to right now, we have the 34 counts of falsifying of business records, essentially each of the checks being separate counts. And that's ultimately, and by the way, Karen Friedman, Agnipolo predicted that perfectly and you think the superseding indictment

will add additional conspiracy counts. So there may be additional counts added even before that December date. And so we will keep everybody posted there. Some big wins by special counsel Jack Smith that really spelled big trouble for Donald Trump. I want to talk about that. But first, let's take this quick break. This episode is brought to you by our sponsor BetterHelp. Getting to know yourself can be a lifelong process, especially because we're always growing and changing.

The last few years, especially a bit of wild ride, filled with my own personal self-realizations and growth. Therapy is all about deepening your self-awareness and understanding. Because sometimes, we don't know what we want or why we react the way we do until we talk through things. Better help connects you with a licensed therapist who can take you on that journey of self-discovery from wherever you are. I personally have benefited directly from therapy, allowing me to talk through and work through experiences in my

past that were unknowingly having a major impact on the way I go about my day to day. Therapy is an incredibly helpful tool for learning positive coping skills and how to set boundaries. Over time, I've truly learned to become the best version of me, and look, therapy is for everyone, not just people who experience major trauma, because what you're working through matters, never discount that. If you're thinking of starting therapy, give better help a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and switch

therapists any time for no additional charge. Discover your potential with BetterHelp. Visit betterhelp.com slash legalaf today to get 10% off your first month. That's better help help.com slash legal a f. Popock, you sold me on that better. You should be there spokesperson, not just for legal a f, but I didn't need it. I didn't need it. I didn't need it until the Trump era started it. And I need I really really needed it. Well, now we got special counsel Jack Smith, which in its way is very cathartic as well. And so special counsel Jack Smith had some really big wins this week in the multiple criminal investigations of Donald Trump.

I mean, you know, it felt like a footnote this week, but when you think about it, you've got a former vice president of the United States saying, I am not going to appeal any further a prior federal court order, which required me to testify before a criminal grand jury against a former president. Okay, like, let's just former vice president testifying against a former president in a criminal grand jury. And that seemed like a footnote in the week. And we've talked about it here on legal AF, just what that was even about.

So, Pence tried to argue that under the speech and debate clause, which basically gives a immunity to members of the House of Representatives and senators who engage in legitimate legislative activity from having to testify in any other forum other than what their normal duties and roles are as members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. In other words, they don't have to testifying other proceedings at all if they were engaged in legitimate legislative activity. And Pence argued, well, the Constitution says that vice presidents are also the president of the Senate. And there's this ceremonial role. So I should be treated as a senator. And my conduct was legitimate

legislative activity. So I don't want to testify at all because I'm basically like a senator. What we said here on legal AF when he made that objection is ridiculous. But what we said, the judge was probably going to do, and this is exactly what the judge did, is said, look, for the small time period where you have this ceremonial role as president of the Senate, where you were just counting the electoral votes on January

6th. Sure. You don't have to testify about what that what that process was like, but that's a pretty contained process. We all know what happened there. And that's not really the information that Jack Smith or I think the public really cares about. And what judge Bozberg who's the new chief judge in the DC federal courts, who oversees these grand juries, who made this very big ruling, was really the first big ruling by Chief Judge Bozberg. You may all recall, we used to talk about the rulings from Judge Barrel Howell, who used to be the Chief Judge and Judge Barrel Howell's term as being the Chief Judge ended. Judge Jeb Bozberg became the new chief judge.

Bozberg's an Obama appointee. And Bozberg basically said, sure, for that time period where you are in that ceremonial role, you don't have to testify about that. But all of the other communications with Donald Trump leading to the insurrection after the insurrection, when you were in your role as a vice president, you have to testify there.

There's no, it pens didn't assert executive privilege, Trump asserted executive privilege, and Trump lost that one right away. That was not a winner of an argument. And Judge Bozberg said, you gotta testify about everything else. So pens, that's what Jack Smith wanted anyway. So pens is gonna be testifying very soon before a criminal grand jury in Washington,

DC, which is monumental. And as we've been saying here on legal AF, you don't get that ruling of Pence unless you're diligent and build this case brick by brick by brick. And I know there's so many people who are frustrated about the pace and the speed of this But just think if you didn't have all of these other wins that we've been talking about on legal a F now for Over a year, right like if you don't get former vice president Pences top advisors to testify, right? Like his former chief of staff Mark Short and his former General Counsel Greg Jacob, right? If you don't get the winds where

Donald Trump tried to block the testimony of his former top lawyers like Pat Zipelone and Patrick Filben, if you don't kind of keep getting those winds and building and building and building, you don't get the testimony of former vice president Mike Pence. And so for anybody out there who was saying, you know, Merrick Garland or Jack Smith, they should have filed this nine months ago. Would you really want to have sacrificed the testimony of all of the key witnesses? You don't want their testimony like there is a practical aspect of being a prosecutor and being a trial lawyer where you have to introduce admissible evidence. And not only do you have to introduce admissible evidence, when you're in front

of a jury, you've got to present them with the best evidence. And there are jury instructions that just even ask the jury, hey, if a party was capable of bringing the witness and they did not, you can hold that against them. And you better be damn sure. If you didn't get the testimony of Pence or Sipaloni or Phil Min or Hirschman or any of these people or some of the big wins that Popeok, you're going to talk about some other wins that the special counsel, Jack Smith had, I guarantee you what Trump's lawyers would have said is ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Jack Smith had, I guarantee you, what Trump's lawyers would have said

is ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Jack Smith had the opportunity to bring these individuals in, but he rushed the case. He rushed it and he did not bring in. Therefore, there is reasonable doubt. You will have to find. You have no choice but to find Donald Trump not guilty here. And then imagine the fallout from that.

So I just want to put it in that context. But Popeye, give us some of the other big news to find Donald Trump not guilty here. And then imagine the fallout from that. So I just want to put it in that context, but Pope, I give us some of the other big news and wins by special counts next. You're so right about all of that. I mean, when you have 1,000 people that you're prosecuting, another 1,000 that the Department of Justice has told Chief Judge Boasberg that they're going

to be bringing, we're not done with the Gen 6 indictments. The first 9.50 are in, are in. Half of them have already been convicted. 40 different trials by the Department of Justice. And then you've got these other prosecutions. Jack Smith and his people are like 40 and 0, 4.0 and 0 in front of some combination of barrel, howl and Bozberg.

Well, now one with Bozberg, on all of these major issues, he could not have done that as you said been a year and a half ago or two years ago. And it's not just about getting an indictment. Dictments are important. It's about winning a case at trial. And so you have to have the evidence now developed so that you can do that. And that's what he's doing. And the last thing I'm pens, then I'll move over to the seven other people that have to

be paraded in to the grand jury now who fought and lost and were and an appellate court told him get into the grand jury because you're testify in record time. All the things that we know from the Jan 6th committee and even Pence's own memoir, so book, he's going to have to testify to under oath to a grand jury about the pressure that Donald Trump placed on him. The threats against him by Donald Trump calling him the P word, saying that the hanging of Mike Pence was an appropriate reaction, trying to get him to participate in the fake elector scandal and scheme. The mental state of Donald Trump leading into Jan 6th during Jan 6th and after Jan 6th, his conversations with these lawyers around Donald Trump related to these issues.

The secret service trying to whisk, pence away and pence refusing so we can go to his job and certify the election. That's all coming out in front of the grand jury. Plus whatever Jack Smith's prosecutors have developed from other witnesses and other videos and social media and witness testimony that they're going to put in front of him and that have his fingerprints on it. So, as you said, we can't, it's hard to keep calling everything blockbuster and breakthrough and breaking, but this is a big thing.

First time in our history of ice president will effectively be testifying against a president of the United States in a criminal matter. And now, right behind him, because a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court, a different three-judge panel, we talked about one related to Evan Corcoran two weeks ago, related to what we think is the Mar-a-Lago grand jury, where they in 72 hours record time had the both sides brief the issue, the Department of Justice and and Trump's lawyers and Corcoran's lawyers and make the ruling. This went even faster. The DC's as Karen Friedman McNipolo said on one of our podcasts, yeah, it's just the appellate court

has had enough with Donald Trump and is now giving him hours to do it normally would take months. You want to appeal? Sure, you got 24 hours to do it. Let's go. And so they literally gave Trump filed an emergency appeal to stop Mark Meadows,

Dan Skavino, Stephen Miller, his national security team of Robert O'Brien, John Rackliffe and Ken Kuchinelli and others, and the three judge panel, which was two Obama and one Trump, which was Millet, Judge Millet, Judge Wilkins and Judge Katzis. What we think is in a three O decision decision Said you got two hours Department of Justice to tell us what your position is literally two hours been and the Department of Justice was ready Ready working on those typewriter's those computers two hours. They filed and the palakortica look at it and said right emergency appeal denied and All of you guys get your stuff get your butts into the chairs in the grand jury

And that's been happening since the end of last week into next week And none of them apparently are gonna be taking an appeal and neither is Donald Trump because we keep talking about over the course of 200 episodes or more of legal AF about the right wing Maga majority super majority on the US Supreme Court and that is true and really bad things have happened because of it whether we talk about women's rights abortion the rights of, on immigration policy, and all the other terrible rulings and criminal justice and civil rights that have come out of this court. But the one place where Donald Trump does not have home court advantage is everything related to his presidency, his papers, Mar-a-Lago testimony, that apparently even the right wing of the Supreme Court is not in his favor. And now Donald Trump on at least two separate occasions in the last month has said

pass when it comes to trying to do an appeal to the Supreme Court. So you have, for example, former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. You got former Director of National Intelligence, John Radcliffe. You got former National Security Advisor, Roberto Bryan. You've got former Top A, Steven Miller. You got former Deputy Chief of Staff and Social Media Director, Dan Scavino. You got former A Nick Luna. You got former A John McKinney.

You got former DHS official Ken Kuchinelli, who by the way already has done, has testified now before the grand jury after that ruling, I believe he testified middle of last week. But the reason also why that order is handed out so quickly, right? There is because all of this precedent has already been established that Trump is not entitled to executive privilege, right? He's trying to argue that he's got this executive privilege claim that that's what keeps these communications confidential.

And the law has been very clear and has now been ruled on with these prior objections that he's made before this batch of witnesses that no. Number one, you're the former president. You're not the current president. So on that basis alone, you shouldn't be able to assert executive privilege. You know, there's a narrow, narrow, narrow line of kind of undeveloped case law where it is possible a former president can assert executive privilege and interbranch disputes. Maybe this isn't an interbranch dispute. It's the current executive branch wants information and it's a criminal investigation.

So former executive can assert it against the current executive branch where the current executive branch is not asserting executive privilege. And even if Trump was able to assert it, even if Biden, let's say, Biden wanted to assert it, which Biden's not asserting it,

Biden is saying, why would I assert executive privilege where the assertion relates to someone trying to overthrow our constitution? It's the exact opposite of what the constitutional duties are of a United States president, but even assuming you could assert it, it can be overruled if the Department of Justice shows a compelling need and a compelling interest in their criminal investigation. Of course, they're able to show it there. It's a real frivolous objection at this point to even assert executive privilege, but going

back to what I said before, brick by brick by brick, you have to build these wins in order to get to the place where we are today, where the federal courts just like the Trump stop wasting our time. These people got to testify. So just imagine again that you go do trial for everybody who was like, we need to file this case nine months ago. Okay. So you want to go to trial without pens, without meadows, without ratclip, without obryon, without Miller, without Luna,

without McKenzie, without Koochanelli. Okay, that is the height of prosecutorial malpractice, if that's what you wanted to do, but that is why Legal AF's an important show because we have to really talk about those types of issues, because it's very easy for me to just say to you, yeah, you know, screw it. Garland's taken way too long. Screw it. But I'm, but what, and to some extent, I feel the pain.

I, I do, I, I, I wish it went faster, but what Garland had been doing and then what Jack Smith did when he took over is you've got to build these things to where we are today where you can't poke any holes in it because Donald Trump is the ultimate hole poker and he's got all his people out there trying to poke holes and and do all of that. So this is great, great prosecutorial work. Pope, I want to move on to the next big DC circuit court of appeals victory right now. the next big DC circuit court of appeals victory right now. And we talked about this here as well. This obstruction of an official proceeding charge, it is a critical, critical charge in the toolkit

of federal prosecutors. And you had this Trump-appointed judge, Carl Nichols. I think this is going to be a theme in this episode because when we talk about the ruling by the Trump judge in Texas who just you look at those debates between Trump and Hillary Clinton she warned about every one of these things over and over again in those debates, but Popeyes, you want to walk us through What why this DC circuit court of appeals ruling was so important and also the composition of this panel was interesting though because it did seem like position of this panel was interesting though because it did seem like the Biden judge here, Justice Pan on the circuit court of appeals, got one of the Trump judges though to move over into, and a very young Trump judge, one of these really inexperienced Trump judges

who's basically like my age, who, do you think he's two years older than me, who Donald Trump appointed, by the way at least I like went to trials like this lawyer. I don't think had any trial experience, you know, he was appointed by by Donald and he has this position in the DC sir court of appeals, but judge pan abide in appointee. I think move this judge in the right place. Can you discuss what happened? Yeah, well, let's start at the top.

And we'll talk about that judge Walker, whose main experience before he took the bench and being appointed by Trump was to be the apologist for Brett Kavanaugh, when Brett Kavanaugh's candidacy was taken on a lot of water for sexual assault charges. They were being made against him. He went on TV 115 times to defend Brett Kavanaugh. So he's a far right person,

but Pan is the first Asian Pacific woman to ever serve in that position appointed by Biden, who wrote the majority decision. She had to get another vote. And Katzis, who is a right-maga trumper, was never going to go her way. So she found a way to thread the needle and get Walker to join her. The reason this is so important is because every judge, in every judge, in the DC circuit, that is hearing all of these Jan 6 cases, these 500 or so that are scheduled ultimately either

settled by plea or go to trial, every one of them, except for judge Nichols, has found that there's two giant charges, two big hammers that Department of Justice uses in the process that are appropriately charged. One is seditious conspiracy and sedition. And all of the major penalties related to that. But they reserve that for a small group, maybe 15 or 20 total of the entire 2000 that attacked the Capitol,

who really fit the bill, fit the elements of seditious conspiracy. The second biggest claim that they use in the appropriate matters is the obstruction of official proceeding 18 USC 1512 of our code, which really came out of the N-RON scandal, but has been applied in all sorts of criminal cases. If somebody uses obstructive conduct or corruptly obstructs the proceeding. The proceeding being the insurrection, the attack on the Capitol, stopped the count of the electoral count and the certification of the electoral count under the 12th Amendment

of the U.S. Constitution. As we all know well from the Jan 6th committee and the video, all members of Congress had a flee for their lives, Republican included, belly crawling, army crawling, to get out of the room, being whisked away, but whatever was left of the Capitol police that wasn't fighting on the steps and in the tunnels and in the portico to get them to safety, including Mike Pence,

who ran off and there's video of all that and Josh Holly and all of that. Okay, while that was going on, what wasn't going on was the certification of the election at that very moment. And so the Department of Justice and every judge but judge Nichols agreed. Not only that, there's already been convictions. There's people that have both pled guilty to this charge, which is a 20-year felony, up to 20-year felony conviction, or have had a jury of their peers find that they are, they violated this statute. So if Judge Nichols position held, and he took a very narrow reading that you and I talked

about at the time, Ben, you know, eight, nine months ago, took a very narrow reading that the only way this particular obstruction count could apply is literally if they interfered with the physical ballots, like the pieces of paper going into the box being certified and gavled by the clerk and by Pence, then if you're not like getting near or touching obstructing those ballots, those pieces of paper, then whatever you're doing outside, even though you blew up the room and you stopped the proceeding, that's not going to be obstruction. That was such a narrow interpretation of what that really said, literally, that we were

all scratching our head like, what is he talking about? That can't be the only scenario in which that statute applies. And the three judge panel, including now Judge Walker, a trumper who sided with Judge Pan two to one to vote that Nichols was wrong, said, look, if you look at the statute, there's three interpretations that are being offered. The government's interpretation, which is the most reasonable one, is that the words on the page say what they mean. They mean what they say. They say that if it's an obstructive conduct, whoever corruptly alters, destroys,

mutilates, conceals, or otherwise obstructs or impedes any official proceeding. Well, that's easy. The Congress certifying the elections official proceeding. Well, that's easy. The Congress certifying the elections official proceeding. The actions outside were intended and in fact did stop and impede that proceeding from happening. How else do you explain everybody running and crawling out of that chamber? Okay. So that's, that was the DOJ's position. We stopped there. Read the language, the opponent, the three defendants, all of whom were charged at least one charge of actually fighting with and beating Capitol police. So these were the worst of the worst.

They said, well, we think it's even, we think it has to be like impeding the ballot counting or any other type of counting, any kind of evidence impairment, and there's no evidence impairment. And so the court said, well, I see you're trying to make an evidence impairment or ballot impairment, but that's not what it says. And of those three interpretations,

the most reasonable one is the department of justice and that's the one we're going with. Now look, there was 127 pages and we're boiling it down to make it sort of interesting. And you can follow here on legal AF, but the result is the following. If they had sided with Nichols, and if this three judge panel by majority vote had ruled that that obstruction count for that, that scenario couldn't be used for any Jan 6th prosecution, that not only means future indictments,

that means everybody who got convicted of it, or maybe even pled guilty, we'd have to talk about that, would have there, possibly have there convictions vacated, and maybe a do-over in a trial if there was a trial setting. So it would have been disastrous, apocalyptic results, and the Department of Justice would have lost a giant hammer in their arsenal because we're not done. Everybody forgets. It's the first thousand are in. But the Department of Justice has said we're still working around the clock and bet I learned something new from the briefing.

Maybe we could put the cover of the brief up. There is under Merrick Garland, a capital siege section that has been created at the Department of Justice, and the lawyers that argued this brief are the chief and an attorney for the capital siege section of the Department of Justice. That means there's a group of people that all they do morning, noon, and night. From the moment they get up in the morning to the time they hit their head on the pillow,

is nothing but capital siege investigation, prosecution. And there's another thousand people who think they got away with it. They haven't been captured yet and arrested yet, but the Department of Justice is coming for them because we know it because they told the chief judge, get ready, we're going to need more resources, we may bring another thousand through over the next year. You think about special counsel, Jack Smith's toolkit also in his criminal investigations of Donald Trump. If he had lost that ability to bring an obstruction of official proceeding count against Donald Trump, that's likely to be one of the main charges ultimately brought against Donald Trump.

And salty, if you pull that statute up one more time, this 18 U.S.C. 1512C, which is the obstruction of official proceeding, which says, this is what it says, whoever corruptly won, alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding or to otherwise obstructs influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so. Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both.

So an important point here is that it carries within a 20 year prison sentence, which is one of the most potent weapons other than a seditious conspiracy charge that could be used by prosecutors. But when you go through this statute, when you look at how judge Carl Nichols made the argument, it actually just makes no sense. You would have to take out the word or, and then literally cross out subsection two, and just read it as the only thing that exists is subsection one about, and then take out some of the other words, just say whoever correctly destroys

a document would be would be subject to the obstruction of an official proceeding charge. That's just not what it says so much so that the insurrectionists who were making the argument to judge Carl Nichols and who made the argument before the court of appeals, even they and this is what you were pointing out, Pope, they didn't argue that judge Carl Nichols was right because they knew that that was a, I'm not sure how we want to read. This was their honest thinking, not sure how we won that one. So I don't think we could go in on this whole document. Even the court, or pan said it was a half-hearted defense of judge Nichols.

They went off in a different direction. They went in and the direction that they went is they were just saying, Hey, if you just have obstruct influence or a pede, any official proceeding, what does that really mean? You know, it has to be narrower than just anything like and the and the court was like, not know, which not anything like what you did on January 6th is exactly the conduct that that statute is trying to protect against.

And it's exactly the type of conduct that, you know, that that is being criminalized. And you mentioned these insurrectionists were among some of the worst, most violent and vile and violent of the insurrectionists. But Popeyes speaking it, which Pope Box speaking of all of them. Which by the way, many of them just to round out this circle, square the circle. Many of them are part of the Jan 6th choir because they're still sitting in the jail in DC because they, because of what they did, including at least two of the three of them. The reason Nichols got wrapped around the axle and his analysis because he wanted,

it was as you like to say in the past, Ben, it was a results driven decision. He wanted to get rid of this, and didn't want the Department of Justice to use it, so he tried to justify it. It was originally passed to fight white collar crime. When Enron went down, the big scandal of a phony company that wasn't really generating proper

revenue, it was hiding it from its investors, they were also investigated by Congress, and before they could get to Congress, they destroyed documents that should have been produced to Congress and otherwise. And there was that destruction of the documents that Nichols got all wrapped up in applying it here. But that's not what the statute says. The statute doesn't say in its preamble or by the people that passed it. Congress.

This will only apply to a similar corporate matter where a company or a corporation. No, it's on the books. And it gets to be applied, as long as the elements are met, to all different scenarios that may come up, including the one that we couldn't even have contemplated back when this was passed after Enron, which was that there was going to be 2,000 Americans who were going to siege and attack the capital in order to stop the peaceful transfer of power. But there was a crime on the books that fit the bill when it came time to the charging

document for the indictment. And speaking, I was talking about how these insurrectionists so vile and speaking of just vile, vile things. I mean, this Trump appoint a judge in Texas who gave this tortured and tort interpretation of the administrative procedures act and extended statute of limitations into 2023 to block the FDA's approval of the abortion bill from 2000 and then shortly thereafter thankfully a judge issued an order basically saying the exact opposite, compelling the FDA to make sure that they do not change a thing regarding the abortion pill. And so you have these conflicting rulings.

I want to break that down. And just how is it that a Trump-appointed federal judge can do this? How could one federal judge have this power? Lots of people are even just asking that more basic question. We'll talk about that right after this break. Let's say a quick break to talk about our next partner, Zbiotics. Now, if you're like me, you've probably skipped a workout because of drinks the night before, like it happens.

But if you commit it to your healthy routine, you need Zbiotics. Zbiotics, pre-alcoholcohol probiotic is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's this byproduct, not the hydration that's the blame for your rough next day. Z-biotics produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down. It's designed to work like your liver, but in your gut where you need it most. Just remember to drink Zbiotics before drinking alcohol, drink responsibly,

and get a good night's sleep to feel your best tomorrow. Now I can't lie, after we hit 1 million subscribers, I may have partied a little bit too much that night. Luckily, I knew I had Z-biotics. Now, as instructed, I drank a bottle of Z-biotics before any alcohol, and I was amazed at just how good I felt the next day. Give Z-biotics a try for yourself. Go to zbiotics.com slash legalaif to get 15% off your first order when you use legalaif at checkout.

ZBiotics is backed with a 100% money back guarantee. So if you're unsatisfied for any reason, they'll refund your money no questions asked. So remember, head to zbiotics.com slash legal AF and use the code legal AF at checkout for 15% off. Thank you ZBiotics for sponsoring this episode. Our next partner is AG1 by Athletic Greens. Now I take AG1 by Athletic Greens literally every day.

I give AG1 a try because I want to better gut health, boosted energy, immune system support, and I hate it taking pills and vitamins and wanted a supplement that actually tastes great. I take AG1 in the morning before working out and it makes me feel incredible and just ready to take on my day. When I take AG1, I morning before working out and it makes me feel incredible and just ready to take on my day. When I take AG1, I know I'm doing something good for my body, like giving my body in the

nutrition that it craves and covering my nutritional bases. I've tried a ton of different supplements out there, but this is different and the ingredients are super high quality. I got started with AG1 because I used to take all these different pills and gummies and frankly what I was taking was Expensive and I didn't even know if it was good for me But with AG1 biothetic greens I know that what I'm consuming has the best ingredients and also taste delicious

AG1 makes it easier for you to take the highest quality supplements Period when I started my AG1 journey very quickly I noticed that it helps me with you know improved overall digestion It just seems like a lot of people have been asking me to do these adreads. Well, if I could only pick one thing, it's H.E.1 by Athletic Greens. Just one daily serving covers my day's nutritional basis and supports my long-term gut health with 75 high-quality vitamins, minerals, and whole-food sourced ingredients. I can't think of another daily routine that pays off as well as H.E.1, which is why I trust the product so much. If you're looking for a simpler, cost-effective supplement routine, Athletic Greens is giving you a free one-year supply of vitamin D and five free travel

packs with your first purchase. Just go to Athletic Greens.com slash legal AF. That's athletic Greens.com slash legal AF. Check it out. And now back to the video. Welcome back to legal a f. Ben micelle is here with Michael Pope, on Friday, two orders were handed down conflicting dueling orders, one from a federal judge in the Northern district of Texas, judge Matthew, Kismaric, a Trump appointee, another from a judge, a federal judge in the eastern district of Washington state,

Thomas Rice, and Obama appointee, that's a completely conflicting thing, meaning that this will eventually likely be fast-tracked to go before the United States Supreme Court. First, this idea, though, is how can a federal judge issue a nationwide injunction? The short of it is that they actually have that power. A federal judge has the power. One single federal judge sitting in the Eastern District of Texas, or the Northern District of Texas, or the Eastern District of Washington, or whatever district court in any state has the power to issue nationwide injunctions. It has been criticized as a practice, but it is something that

federal judges are permitted to do. So whether we like that or not, and I don't think we like that, but that is something that they are permitted to do. But just so you know, that is a power that they have. Another piece of information about Judge Matthew Kismarik, he's the only judge in Pope Bach, correct me if I'm wrong here, who sits in this specific division within this district in the northern district of Texas. You're 95% right. Every 95% of the cases in Amarillo, Texas division get assigned to Casamaric.

I think there's one senior status judge that takes a very small amount. So you got a 95% hit rate if you're trying to form shop in place, your case in front of Casamaric. And so by form shopping, that means exactly what it sounds, right? Like if you are a right wing group that wants to make sure that a woman can control her body, what you do is you shop your case literally. You file your case in this one area where pretty much you know you're going to get Judge Cosmeric and Judge Cosmeric has a history of saying some of the most despicable things about LGBTQ plus people.

He is stridently opposed to women having control over their bodies. He is handmade, tall, extreme, and he is someone who Trump appointed and the right wing senators pushed through to a confirmation and so this case went before him We've been hearing about the oral arguments and it was kind of fade a compley right We almost knew the outcome once this case was brought before this judge and on Friday We got the ruling that he ruled that the 2000 order from the FDA that he ruled that the 2000 order from the FDA, 2023 years ago that the FDA's approval of Mifipristone would be blocked,

the abortion bill would block. We know for a long time it's been safe, we know its efficacy has been proven. In fact, one of the way the judge dealt with the statute of limitations in the order which to kind of challenge a administrative order, there's a six the statute of limitations in the order, which to kind of challenge a administrative order, there's a six year statute of limitations. The further findings of its efficacy over time and as more kind of generic drugs were brought

to the market later and further approvals were made because over the years, more science has developed the efficacy of the drug and how safe it is. Well, Judge Kismaric basically used that to toll or continue the statute of limitations to basically say, that's why I can go back to 2000 to block the FDA because the FDA also talked about this in 2017 and 2019 and 2021. But the, but I want to go back to what they did in 2000 and I'm going to say that that was arbitrary and capricious administrative rulemaking. So me, the judge, I'm going to substitute my knowledge for the actions of an administrative agency, the FDA and their their rulemaking procedures, and why.

And this part of the analysis, Popeye, I don't think has really been discussed anywhere, because you really got to get into the 67-page order to see it. But this is basically what the analysis hinges on when he's saying that the FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in 2000 for approving this drug. And this is the portion right here where in the order it goes, when the FDA originally approved it, the agency relied upon subpart H to play certain restrictions on the manufacturer's distribution of the drug product to assure its safe use. Thus to satisfy part H, FDA deemed pregnancy a serious or life-threatening illness and concluded that MIFA Pristone provided meaningful therapeutic

benefit to patients over existing treatments because the FDA characterized pregnancy as being something that is serious or life-threatening. And then the judge goes, but pregnancy is not that. The judge, this male judge goes, pregnancy is just a normal physiological state, most women experience, one or more times during their child bearing years. And on that basis, the judge said, FDA should not have made this rule to satisfy this subpart H because pregnancies, they're just normal physiological things that women have to go through

and they are not serious physical conditions. And on that basis, the analysis gets a little more developed than that, but the court basically says it's arbitrary and capricious. So I am not, we're going to rule that when the FDA put forward that rule, they didn't have the power to do it thus blocking it. But Pope, it didn't end there. Then there was a ruling from the judge, from the Eastern District of Washington. So, can you talk about these conflicting rulings now and what it means? Well, let me start back with Cosmariq for a minute and the forum shopping that's going on. The Department of Justice has actually filed motions in front of Cosmaric to argue there is no good reason why cases

like the medicated abortion case is in front of a Texas judge in Amarillo. For example, basically abortion is outlawed in the state of Texas by SB 8. I mean, it's down to like six weeks or less. The plaintiff here, which is this made up entity called the Alliance of Hypocratic Medicine, a doctor near Amarillo, who says his practice of medicine will somehow be impacted by the ruling. He lives in a state and operates in a state where they don't even allow the pills. They don't allow the abortion pills. They don't allow the abortion pills and they don't allow abortion.

So why are we in Amarillo? Why aren't we in Maryland where the FDA sits? Or why aren't we at least somewhere where the abortion pills are dispensed? Why? Because there is a friendly judge sitting in Amarillo where you have a 95% chance of getting him. The judge should never have taken this case.

It should have been removed from his courtroom, but he doesn't want it. He wants the case. He wants to do policy making, which is really for Congress to do, not for judges to do. And he wants to do it in the areas of women's rights, LGBTQ plus, all the things that he was against

when he was the general counsel for a super right wing entity called the first Liberty Institute, which got on the hit parade, the claim the fame because they're the ones that opposed Obamacare having a right of a woman to get contraception care. They wanted that removed from Obamacare and he's been on the wrong side of a number of decisions at the Supreme Court level who have slapped him back and said you shouldn't even have made these rulings. There's even a very good argument then that will come up on the appeal. I'll talk about that next when I talk about the Washington state ruling that happened four hours after his ruling, is that in order to find that there is a live controversy or a case

that's appropriately before a US Constitution, Article III federal judge, the first key into the courthouse, the first ticket into the courthouse, you got to have standing. You got to have an injury that's personal to you that's different than the general public. What injury does a doctor sitting near Amarillo, Texas, in a state where there's no abortion allowed and no pills are being distributed have to be able to bring this case.

Doesn't matter to Kaz Marik, because Kaz Marik is just looking for any case to come before him so he can make these social policy religious infused rulings and then buying the whole country at a national band and all the women related to it. In order to do that, he not only had to ignore the proper rulemaking 20 years ago by the FDA, but he'd have to ignore, as the New York Times reported, really good reporting by Amy Walker, Malika, Korata, and Ashley Wu.

There's been over 100 scientific studies in 26 countries, involving 124,000 medicated abortions, and they have found that in 99% of the cases, there are no serious complications. And in the course of the cases, there are no serious complications. And in the course of the difference between childbirth, which Judge Casamara Ben, you just pointed out, says it's just an ordinary normal thing that women do during their childbearing years, there is a higher risk of death in childbirth by four times than there is in medicated

pregnancy using these pills. The chance of death in a medicated abortion is 0.31%, and it's 1.4% if you're having a baby, if you will. Out of the entire history of the use of these pills, from 2000 until 2022, which was the last time, there have been 5.6 million women, because these pills, Medicaid or abortion, 57% of the time is the method of choice for women to use for abortion, okay? Not going to a clinic.

In those 5.6 million cases, in 22 years, there were 28 deaths. It's terrible for the families of those 28 people, but statistically it's 0.005%. Viagra is more dangerous. Tylenol is more dangerous. This is the drug that the judge has decided needs to be banned nationwide from women to use. So he sits in the fifth circuit, which you and I've talked a lot about. That sits generally in New Orleans, that covers Texas and his right wing mega conservative, some

of the wackiest, craziest rulings come out of the fifth circuit. So the appeal that the Department of Justice says they are going to take is going to have to probably, I'll give you another example of another creative way, probably have to go to the fifth circuit first, take another loss there, and then an appeal to the Supreme Court. But the one wrinkle here is, there is Washington State, which sits in the ninth circuit, which is the circuit that California also sits in, that judge said, not on my watch. In fact, I'm ordering in a 17 state injunction, a mandatory injunction that the FDA continue to authorize.

And it would be illegal under that order for them to stop distributing methapressed stone and basically what's called the second drug in the two drug requirement for medicated abortions. So now you've got this competing district court judges. You don't have a competing split of the circuits as we like to say, because the ninth circuit has it ruled yet and the fifth circuit hasn't ruled yet. If they were to rule, it's an automatic get to the Supreme Court for a ruling.

But there is an ability to sort of try to skip the it was in SB 8 in the Department of Justice's attempt to reverse the bounty hunter law that stopped abortion, basically, in the state of Texas. And that didn't work for them there. And they have already having gone through SB 8 and the Dobs decision. And they know that Alito seems to be the moral power on that court. And I'll talk about Alito in a minute. I'm not sure they think they got the numbers on the court.

They're going to take the appeal anyway. They're going to set this case up. But I think the Department of Justice is a little bit nervous, and that's an understatement, about what will happen at the Supreme Court on this ruling. If they say, well, abortion is abortion and there's no constitutional right to abortion. So I don't know what the FDA is doing. Hand it out, abortion drugs. That could be the way that Supreme Court goes.

Alito is, again, the kingmaker here, another, as you like to say, another white guy who can't produce a baby making decisions for women in their bodily autonomy. He is the circuit court judge that sits over and is responsible for the fifth circuit court of appeals. So any emergency appeal to the Supreme Court would first go to Sam Alito, who could either make the decision on his own thumbs up or thumbs down, or given all of the recent attacks on the secret docket and the shadow docket, he could instead decide, he probably will in this scenario, to turn it over to the full panel with

full briefing of all nine justices on some sort of track and maybe keep the orders in place, although they're competing, he's going to have to choose, well, he doesn't have to choose because he's only fifth circuit. Ninth circuit is one of the democratic pointed justices. So we're going to have to watch and play this out. This is going to move kind of quickly. You and I and Karen are going to have to do hot takes, keep everybody in prize of how rapidly these appeals are going to go because right now women in America,

where the approach of choice is this combination of drugs, 57% of the time. Right now, they, they're pharmacists and they're doctors and mail order companies don't know what to do. At this moment, there is a woman who would like to use that set of pills, but probably cannot because of what Kazmara did last night, and then Washington trying to bail it out with a ruling that seems to be completely counter to it, that the Department of Justice is still trying to unpack how these two things come together and what their appeal should look like. I mean, in Justice Samuel Alito, he wrote the Dobbs decision over turning Roe v. Wade. He then gave speeches internationally, bragging about it, and joking about taking away a

woman's right to abortion care. This is the individual who will be making the decision. This will ultimately go before the United States Supreme Court. And, Pope, I agree with you. I don't see how this current radical right composition that just overturned Roe v Wade in the Dobbs decision. They are now going to, they've seen the backlash, but frankly, they don't care. They don't care. And I was thinking about this.

And I think this is a good segue into this final segment on Justice Clarence Thomas here. I had mentioned this on the Lights on Podcast that I do with Jessica Denson. And I said, let's propose this hypothetical because we've talked about here, you mentioned earlier that in many cases, certain state court judges, usually in state court justice judge systems, those judges are elected.

Right? Federal judges are appointed to lifetime appointments under Article 3. State court judges are appointed, but then also there are state court judges who run for election. It's different in each state, but sometimes they're appointed and then they have to run in the next term. Sometimes they just have to run in general. It just depends on the state and the timing of it. But for example, like in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, Janet Proto-Sahowitz, who beat the Maga Republican candidate, turning the balance of power to a Democratic controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court

for the first time in 15 years. And one of the things that Janet Proto-Sahowitz ran on, Democratic Back candidate was a woman should control her own body. And that obviously resonated with the voters. And she won by over 10 points in that race against the MAGA Republican Dan Kelly, who gave the most pathetic non-concession speech. And basically said, my opponent, it doesn't even deserve the dignity of this concession speech is completely pathetic. But think about this for a second. Federal judges who are appointed by presidents and they're confirmed by the Senate who have lifetime appointments. What if they had to run for election? Okay. If you had a nationwide election for United States Supreme Court justices, do you think any, any of the right wing justices would win their seat?

I could guarantee you with a hundred percent accuracy. And if you gave the entire country gets to vote, you know, we're not talking about Jerry Mander this. There would be a nine to oh decision that a woman should have the right to control her body. You would have nine oh decisions that there should be common sense gun control, common sense gun control. You would have nine to oh decisions on all of these cases, right?

And so you have to think about it. Because it's not a both sides issue. Like let's just face it. Like I try not to make the show like a political show, but I don't think these issues are political. Like we're talking about human decency. We're talking about compassion. We're talking about an ability of a woman to control her body. Like that's shouldn't be a politicized issue. I know mega Republicans want to politicize freaking everything, including you mentioned the J6 choir, you know, with these terrorists who are in prison singing freaking songs with mega Republicans, which is utterly ridiculous,

but it's not a both sides issue. Imagine for a second, if any of the democratic appointed members of the Supreme Court were out having a ham sandwich with George Soros, were out there having coffee with George Soros, not receiving millions of dollars in gifts like the Maga Republicans are apparently okay with Clareld's Thomas getting just imagine for a second that took place because the reporting that we have this week and this is just completely

utterly despicable. This right wing donor, Harlan Crowe, who by the way, he like inherited all his money, Harlan Crowe. This is not like Carlin Croweows like some monumental real estate mogul. I think he got all his money from his dad and his grandpa. That's so familiar. He's got, just so you know, he's got in his house. He's got, and I, he's one of the biggest Adolf Hitler collectors.

So he has Adolf Hitler's paintings, original Adolf Hitler paintings. He's got statutes of Hitler everywhere. He's got Nazi memorabilia, including Adolf Hitler's teapot engraved with swastik or Hitler initials in his house. Just I wanna give you that, this part really hasn't been reported about who Harlan Crow is,

but he's the biggest Adolf Hitler collector, I think in the world. Well, this is the individual who gave millions of dollars in gifts to Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, putting him on his yacht, the Mikayla yacht. They would take trips to Indonesia, the Greek islands, every single summer. He'd go on this big private jet where like the costs of the private jet travel alone to take these international trips would be you know several hundred thousand dollars each way. The yacht with private chefs and these retreats at these camps that were owned by

that were owned by Harlan Crowe. And by the way, at these camps, who were the types of people who were present, Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society, Mark Paletto, who was in the Trump administration, was the General Counsel, to the Office of Management and Budget, who was one of these people who serves as basically the kind of talking head for the Supreme Court, saying that there shouldn't be any types of like ethical checks and balances on what they do.

That's the photograph. So for those watching on YouTube, that's the photograph in this camp top ridge in the Adirondex, which is owned by Harlan Crowe, where he would bring all of his buddies, including Clarence Thomas, like the head of the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo and Mark Paleta, and all of these people. And they would, you know, according to Harlan Crow, never sought any to influence anything at all, never, never, never even sought to talk about any judicial opinions or anything like that.

He's just a very good friend of mine, Clarence Thomas. Then Clarence Thomas would go around wearing these shirts that have all of the yacht trips that he went on over the past two decades. Now, Clarence Thomas' response to this, Popak, is that he thought this was legal, even though on the disclosure forms, where you're supposed to check if there's a gift or no gift, and you have to disclose gifts. It's a crime if you're supposed to check if there's a gift or no gift And you have to disclose gifts. It's a crime if you're a federal judge And you don't disclose gifts so we have the disclose the actual disclosure form right there of Clarence Thomas where it says gifts And it is none he checks none on each and every one of these over the years

He said well, I'm bull and by the way, it's a crime to lie on those federal forms. Clarence Thomas said, I just thought that it was hospitality. I didn't think that hospitality really was a gift. And I thought that this was perfectly legal. Okay, this is a judge. This is a person who's taken away a woman's right to control our body. This is a person who's taken away a woman's right to control our body. This is a person who is allowing weapons of war to proliferate on our streets. This is a judge. That type of judgment is is with someone who's on the highest court. And by the way, this is not a both sides issue.

Popo, this is not you're not seeing the Democratic back Supreme Court judges out there taking these types of lavish trips. By the way, it's not unique to just as Clarence Thomas, right? We know, for example, through a whistleblower who gave testimony when actual real oversight committee hearings were being held by the Democrats in the last term. Remember this person from faith and action, a reverend who was basically engaged in an influence operation over the Supreme Court, who talked about how they learned about the opinions before they would come out because they be friended people like Alito and lavish

like Alito with gifts and all of these things. And spoken front of Congress and then what was the MAGA Republicans response? Well, you have people like Jim Jordan roll up their sleeves and say, you're a liar. You're a liar without, okay, really, for three decades, this individual, this Reverend, who was fighting for, you know, these, you know, to take away a woman's right to control her body. He was what, part of a three decade op to now expose the truth after he finally realized, whoa, what the hell is going on here? So anyway, Popos, let me throw it to you.

But I mean, you don't get, you know, when these decisions are being made, they're being made by people like Justice Clarence Thomas, people like Justice Alito, and it's not both sides, it's coming from one side, the people are fed up, the people, the people aren't taking this anymore. And Americans are realizing what's happening there. Oh, and by the way, you know, they go and do their same tricks again, right? Like the billionaire boys clubs goes to their billionaire buddies. And so what's the story today that's going on in the Wall Street Journal? I kid you not, Popeye. this is actually a story in the Wall Street Journal from today, where they say, because the story about Clarence Thomas, Pro-Publica, broke the piece. And this is

the an op-ed by the Wall Street Journal trying to trash Pro-Publica. And it says, this Pro-Publica piece is loaded with words and phrases intended to convey that this is all somehow disreputable, words like super-yat, luxury trips, exclusive California, all male retreats, sprawling ranch, private chefs, elegant accommodations, opulent lodge, lavishing the justice with gifts and more adjective overkill. Adjective I'll overkill is the method of bad polemicists who don't have much to report. The pro-publica writers suggest that Justice Thomas may have violated ethical rules and they quote a couple of cherry-picked ethicists to express their dismay, right?

Here's the trick. The billion dollar boys club. What do they all do? They all go right back. They all go right back to their billionaire friends to write these ridiculous articles. Popo, what do you think? I think, um, I think Clarence Thomas has a big problem, but then I don't think his apologies could have make up for it. Let me just explain to everybody that all federal employees, forget about judges because we have a lawless United States Supreme Court

because we have a lawless chief judge, chief justice Roberts, who refuses in the last 12 years or so to impose on the rest of his members of the Supreme Court a rule of ethics. Every lawyer, every judge in America except for the nine that sit on the Supreme Court are bound by rules of judicial conduct or professional conduct. That's our profession. That's the one that you and I join Ben except for one the Supreme Court John Roberts as an apologist for his own bad behavior says

We're guided by it, but we don't want to have it imposed on us So he doesn't and then that leads to problems like we can't point to a rule of judicial conduct that he that Clarence Thomas has violated because they don't apply to him or to anybody else. And now you're left with that. But there is a way for the government to police these types of things by remembering that while they're judges, they also draw a paycheck and they're federal employees, just like, you know, the maintenance staff down the hallway, their federal employees too. And there are rules that apply to Clarence Thomas and everybody else about disclosure of gifts. There were until recently, I mean, recently

in the month of March, some loopholes about what you did or didn't have to disclose. If you were just being wind and dined in somebody's property even for weeks at a time, maybe that extended to a yacht, maybe that extended to a G5 jet or whatever. Harlan Crow has, I don't think it would, but that was the only place that you didn't have to disclose it. If he gave you a gift, which he did, Harlan Cropaid for a vanity project of a documentary on Clarence Thomas, which get this, Clarence Thomas looked the camera in the eye, even though he knows he's been lavished. Millions of dollars of gifts have been lavished on him, and all sorts of exotic travel. It sounds

like it's out of the next season of White Lotus on him on Ginny Thomas by this right-wing maga neo-Nazi collector guy. Obviously trying to influence the decisions that Clare's Thomas makes on the court. He looked the camera in the eye and he said, I'm just a poor boy from the south and I rather – and I'm paraphrasing here, but it's pretty close – I'd rather be in RV parks and parking – Walmart parking lots and explore America than go anyplace else. Really, every year you take an exotic trip that's worth a half a million dollars a year, okay? 10 times, 20 times what the average American makes.

You are, it's lavished on you for a trip with you and your wife with Harlan Crowe and the Federalist Society people and MAGA and everybody else that's around you. Now, there's been attempts by the Senate which really controls more than the House, really controls the purse strings over federal courts, including the Supreme Court,

and Sheldon White House, Democrat at a Rhode Island, especially Chris Murphy at a Connecticut. Chris Murphy has offered every year for 10 years the same ethics law to be applied to the Supreme Court. It gets shot down even when the Democrats are in charge year after year after year. Give him credit every year for 10 years, Ben. But Sheldon Whitehouse supervises by way of a committee that's under Dick Durbin and all in the Senate Judiciary Committee. And the financial disclosure and the judicial conference of the United States on the Committee on Financial Disclosure just two weeks ago, change the laws that will now require the very disclosure that is now required that for next year, this

summer's trip, it looks like Clarence Thomas is now going to have to disclose it. And there's not going to be any milli-mouth explanation that he got guidance from other colleagues in years past. And that's why all those questionnaires that you put up on the screen were blank He's not gonna be able to get away with that now. He's gonna have to list it because these rules do apply to the Supreme Court members There is a crime that we could talk about and then impeachment. I want to briefly touch on five USC 73 53 says that a judicial officer shall not solicit or accept anything of value from a person who has business before the court. So look, Ginny Thomas has all of these MAGA foundations and think tanks that she has founded

or she sits on the board of who then gins up these lawsuits because she goes out and finds the plaintiffs in order to change policy in their direction and puts those cases directly in front of her husband. And files amicus briefs or her organization does in front of Clarence Thomas at which he never sees a reason to disqualify or recuse himself at all. But there is a crime. If you can connect the dots, I don't think we're going to see the prosecution of Clarence Thomas, although we would all take special delight in that.

And for those that want the impeachment, and I know AOC has been very public about it, here's the problem with impeachment. It's called, you have to count, and you have to come up with the numbers. In order to impeach and all impeachments have to start in the house. That's the prosecutors for the impeachment process. The court and the judges is the Senate. So, articles of impeachment is the first step. In order to get articles of impeachment, you got to have the majority in the house and the Democrats don't have the majority of the house at present, maybe 2024, but not at present. So we're not going to see articles of impeachment. They may be offered AOC or some other representative may may draw up articles of impeachment just the way Marjorie Taylor Greene's constantly trying to impeach Joe Biden for no reason,

but it's not going to get through that process. And even if it got through that process, Ben, and there was an impeachment of Clarence Thomas for any of these things, it have to go to the Senate. And even though we have the Democrats have the numbers in the Senate, it would take 67 or two thirds of the senators, 67 senators would have to vote to convict. We've only got 51 votes. So we'd have to get like more than it doesn't, like 16 Republicans to cross over and convict Clarence Thomas, not happening. But look, if what is shining a light, as you like to say, the best antiseptic is sunshine. If that is creating a world where now Clarence Thomas has to look over his shoulder

and disclose his close relationship with the neo-Nazi collector memorabilia collector Harlan Crowe. And everybody else has to worry, I wonder who I'm going on vacation with next summer. This is all a good thing. I mean a lot of stuff is coming out this year, for instance, not just through pro-Publica, which did a great, great job. They didn't just talk to three people to corroborate a story about these lavish trips. They talked to 20 people, 30 people, the crew on the plane, the crew on the yachts, the crew in the hotels, the crew in Adironduct. I mean, they really did their job there. But look at all the other stuff, then, that's coming out.

That there's been an undisclosed relationship between Michael Churdov's law firm and the Supreme Court for years where they where he's been consulting on their behalf, even though the chief justice goes out to Michael Churdov to supposedly give independent advice on things. We find out about all of these incestuous relationships because at the end of the day, the Supreme Court is a business. They try to act like, you know, they're in an ivy tower, you know, an ivory tower and they can't be touched and they're in their infallible, but they're not. They're human beings that serve on boards and used to be Catholic law professors and have opinions.

And when they're out of the country like Sam Alito, and you mentioned it earlier, can say things like, wasn't it great that I ripped away and a woman's right to choose and he cracked a joke? Because he thought only the foreign press was present and everybody else wasn't. But look at all the things that are coming out now to really cast the Supreme Court in a proper light and put some sunshine on them so that we can properly police their conduct

and their behavior. Because all these federal judges from Cas America we talked about today to Clarence Thomas at the end of this podcast are all protected by lifetime appointments. Okay, they're on there until, you know, even when they go senior status, until they're dead. Okay? And it's very difficult to get rid of one. There's only been one Supreme Court justice in the history of America that's ever been impeached.

And it was back in the 1800s. There's only been 15 federal judges who have been impeached. And most of them have not been convicted. And the Supreme Court justice impeached wasn't even convicted. So we can't look to that avenue. We've got to use the First Amendment reporting, investigative reporting, might as touch network, talking about these things hourly, daily, weekly and bringing it to our listeners and followers so they can make educated decisions. Because what you're saying is in theory and impeachment could happen. However, the numbers aren't there

not because of both sides issues, but because not only do you have a lawless Supreme Court, not on both sides, on the six justices who are the right-wing justices, are the ones engaging in these crimes. It isn't, oh, but the other justice is, noices no it's not it's happening from these six right wing justices that's where it's happening from and then you have the lawlessness of these members of congress members like the gym Jordans and the Kevin McCarthy's and the go-sars and the marjorie Taylor greens and the Lauren Boberts. They're all like that right now. And because they wouldn't vote for impeachment because they are okay with this conduct, because

you've got Marjorie Taylor Green comparing Donald Trump to Nelson Mandela and Jesus this week because you have Jim Jordan attacking the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and because you have people like James Comer in the oversight committee who is fix a both sides issue. And as I said before, if these issues were put to the people, if the people of the United States of America were able to put nine Supreme Court justices in, again, you would have nine to oh decisions on all of these issues, which are now democratic back issues, not because it's a political thing, but because those

issues tend to align with basic humanity and decency and where the people are at jobs, education, healthcare, the right of a woman took control of her body, veterans are military, protecting social security, protecting Obamacare, protecting Medicare. I can go on and not protecting equality. I can go on and on and on. But that's where the American people are.

And so Popoq to your point there, what do we do? We have to continue right now to build systemically these forces of good and truth and this movement, the same way that serapticiously the Maga Republicans were building this network of evil and bad and destruction from the 70s and the 80s and the 90s and they built the Federalist Society. They engineered this situation and no one really kind of caught onto it until it was too late. Well, we're all, it's not too late though now. We all see what's going on. There's a real opportunity to stop this. That is why what we do here, what the mightest touch network does. And I consider when I say, we you watching this, you listening to this on audio, this is

an existential exercise in saving our country, in saving and preserving and protecting our democracy. That's what this is. It's more than a show. It's more than a network. It's not just, oh, It's more than a network. It's not just, oh, it's some sterile network. It's a movement and it's a movement fueled by you, people who love our democracy, people who love our constitution, who want to move our country

forward, who want to make our country better, who want to stop this idiotocracy, this fascism, this hate that is out there that is not both sides. It is clearly identifiable where it is coming from and it is coming from this Sick mega-republican movement, this lawlessness that we expose here. Those are the facts. No spin. Those are the facts, folks. Great spending this weekend with you a historic week. Indeed, Michael Popack always enjoy hosting these episodes with you with Karen Friedman Agnifolo in the mid week. You know, I am comforted that justice arrived this week. I'm comforted that as your whiteboard suggests, we're going to be seeing more and more of this. And if you go back and you look at all the other legal AFs,

though collectively, you know, you watching this at home, you listening to this wherever you're listening to this or watching this, you know that these steps, we've been talking about them for a while, where it's going, why it's going in these directions. And here it is, you know, it's now arrived. And we got us to deal with all of these other issues the same way we've been talking about Manhattan, the same way we've been talking about Fony Willis and Jack Smith, and collectively together you being the most important part of the Midas Touch Network,

the movement of the Midas Mighty of the Legal A-Furs is the most important part here in Popok and I, are so grateful for your support, we're so grateful for you, you are all so incredible, and it's just so special to be part of this movement with with all of you. We love you. So thank you so much for watching this. Until next time, I'm Ben Mysel, joined by Michael Popak. This has been this weekend's

edition of Legal AF. Shout out to the Midas Mighty. Shout out to the Midas Mighty.