Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump FLEES COURT After ATTACKING Judges and Prosecutors

Episode Date: October 5, 2023

Michael Popok & Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back with a new episode of the midweek edition of the Legal AF pod. On this episode, they discuss: the first 3 days of the Fraud Trial of the Century against Trump, including all of his bad behavior and gag orders; 5 different judges’ attempts to control Trump and why they have all failed as we await Judge Chutkan’s expected gag order in the DC Election Interference case; the US Supreme Court has opened its new term as it comes off a prior year filled with ethical violations, lack of public trust, and the highjacking of the Court by the right wing; developments in the Georgia Election Interference prosecution, including more plea deals being offered to cooperating defendants, and more breaking news from the intersection of Law, Politics and Justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSOR! MIRACLE MADE: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGLAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. RHONE: Head to https://rhone.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF to save 20% off your entire order! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 MAGA Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Salesforce, we're all about asking more of AI. Questions like, where's the data going? Is it secure? Are you sure? Are you sure you're sure? Get answers you can trust from Salesforce at AskMoreVai.com. The fraud trial of the century has begun against Trump at all his entities coming less than a week after Judge Angoran granted summary judgment on the one count in the New

York Attorney General's complaint that he could. The standalone, persistent fraud claim under Executive Law 63-12, but the rest of the claims in Attorney General Leticia James' suit require findings of intent and materiality and require a trial. A bench trial. And the bench on the bench for it, Judge Arthur and Goron. Trump has showed up for the first of the expected 100 days or more of trial, but has already returned to Florida.

And he's treating this just like any other campaign stop, with calls for violent attacks on the prosecutors, law clerks, and judge mourning, noon, and night at breaks in the trial, even coming back late from breaks in order to further attack the New York justice system, giving press conference after press conference in the hallways of 60 center street. And the Trump team has been chastised by the judge a number of times. And Trump has been warned and a gag order entered before the second day was even over. All this to distract from what is going on inside Judge Engoron's courtroom. The slow, methodical presentation of witnesses and evidence by the New York Attorney General like a cobra slowly squeezing the life out of her

victim. The first witness for the OAG, the accountant, of course. Al Capone was famously brought down by his accountant, Will Don Bender, be the undoing of the Trump empire, he helps sustain for more than a dozen years. And why is Trump acting out this way with so many other criminal cases and other judges watching? And how is the case going so far for the Attorney General? Next we discuss various judges' attempts to control and contain Trump while trying to balance his First Amendment rights to campaign, but of course not to interfere with the administration of justice or violently attack witnesses, judges, clerks, grand jurors, jurors, and investigators. Many have tried.

Judge Mershon, McAfee, Chutkin, and Goron, even Judge Wallace in Denver, Colorado, and all have failed so far to stop his attacks and pressure campaign on our justice system. We take a look at all the gag and other orders out there against Trump as we consider judge Chuck Gens upcoming ruling in the DC election interference case on the special counsel's motion for a limited gag order. Finally, it's not just the fall, Apple season in Georgia, it's also the Fulton County flipping

Coke and Spiritor defend season to cooperate as witnesses in the trial against Trump and others. Get in early and get a sweetheart deal like Scott Hall looking at probation and no jail time. Come in late and maybe no deal at all. This is Fawni Willis's MO. She flipped eight fake electors before she even obtained her indictment. And then just flipped Scott Hall, a leader of the coffee county voting machine, break in and data

download part of the conspiracy. And now is going for more. In her last big conspiracy trial with 35 defendants, she ended up trying only 12 of them and plea bargaining with 13. Well that happened here, and which of the trumpers are least and most likely to take a deal. Chesbro and Powell, the two disgraced attorneys for Donald Trump have a trial that starts in three weeks and Thonney's office has told Judge McAfee that plea deals are going to them too and Mike Roman former Trump election day ground operations leader and fake certificates mule has Reported reportedly turned down a deal a deal that disgraced New York police commissioner and confinant of Rudy Giuliani, Bernie Kerrick, has also turned down for now unless he gets immunity.

All this and so much more on the midweek edition of Legal AF exclusively on the Midas Touch Network with my co-anchor and friend Karen Friedman at Nifalo. We sit at the intersection of law, politics, and justice so that you don't have to. Karen, how are you doing? I'm good at dog sitting right now, so I'm just going to show everyone my little velcro dogs that are next to me. Here's Boogie, often comes on to the pod. Here's Billy, so I apologize in advance if you hear any kind of dog-like noise. It's because the Velcro dogs don't want to leave my side. They keep me company all day, but it's nice.

If I heard growling, I'd be like, or a cariner, are you hungry? Have you not eaten today? What does that sound? That's great. If I took my laptop and showed right next to me in my office, it would not be as interesting as the two dogs that you This showed so once again hats off to how you do your podcasts, but I see a tale Yeah, that's why I expect that they're gonna make some

Some cameos during this. That's why we had to just mention it in advance. We had a great, we always have a great show, but I just want to remind our audience, because we still pinch ourselves over this. About a year and a half ago, you and I did an episode of Legal Auff right at the beginning, almost at the beginning, where we had 5,000 people watch us, and we were like, high five, and we were like, 5,000 people that we don't know,

well, maybe 4,500 people that we don't know. Well, maybe 4500 people that we didn't know were watching our show exactly that is what our family was also, you know, really like, is that your cousin Kenneth again? You know what I know that's 5,000 a year and a half ago. Our last episode that you and I just did on YouTube alone did 550,000. Wow. Look at those numbers. And that doesn't include the audio. So now we have gone from like 10,000 a week of people watching our show in the millions,

not including all of our hot takes. It's extraordinary. And it's not something that you may bend the brothers, take lightly. We pinch ourselves every day about the network that's been built, the content that we do, the movement that we're a part of. It could have easily just been the three of us getting together semi-regularily on Zoom and a cocktail, talking about things that matter to us, but instead we're part of something and it's important and we're really grateful for it.

So for anybody that thinks, you know, oh, Popoq this or Ben that or Karen this, we are very humble and grateful about our success and it motivates us to do better, get better and bring quality product on our podcast. So I think we're ready to jump in with the fraud case of the century. Donald Trump, oh, look at that photo. Donald Trump, salty warn me before you put that up. Will you? That was hard stopping. You know, the picture of Donald Trump staring at his Fisher Price Play School computer monitor there in the courtroom. At 60 Centra Street, a place where Karen, you and I have spent a lot of time in our career at the trial, a nice little courtroom there that we're showing with Alina Hobb on one

side and Chris Kaiss on the other and some other lawyers for Donald Trump. We never thought it would come. It's hard to believe that it was just about 13 months ago that Leticia James, the New York Attorney General, actually filed the suit and within a year She got not only a filing she got a judgment last Tuesday in her favor Some people who were tuning in late or or or don't follow us regularly might be thinking well if she got a ruling in her favor Finding persistent fraud in the operation of Donald Trump's business affairs. Why are we having a trial? Because it was a multi-count complaint that was filed,

the first count under 63-12 of the executive law, very powerful statute, I've talked about at length over the last year, probably the most powerful set of remedies and law that any attorney general has in our 50 states is held by the occupant of the New York Attorney General's seat. And she's used it. It goes after persistent fraud.

And the first count doesn't even require a finding of intent that Donald Trump or the others intended the fraud. It's just that it is a fraud. And as misled, the marketplace and the public, which is the ultimate victim here, that's why all the money, if she's successful, whether it's 250 million, 500 million, a billion, whatever the final number is that she asks for, it goes back to the people of the state of New York because of the fraud has been perpetuated on them. We in New York don't like fraudulent businesses, fraudulent business records, fraudulent financial statements, fraudulent insurance conduct.

In the way we operate our businesses, I'm sure most states would feel the same General, the OAG, the Office of Attorney General, last week on summary judgment on her first claim, the claim that he could rule on because it didn't require any kind of finding of intent. And they've now run off the Trumpers, I think late, I think they should have done it like a minute after he entered that order, but they filed their notice of appeal today, but they didn't ask for a stay and didn't ask for injunction. And there's a clock ticking because. Right. So what happens if, so they're in the middle of the trial, what happens if, if, in the

middle of the trial, like it's reversed or if there's a, what do you mean? Well, all right. So if it finish your thought and then I'll tell you what I think happens. No, no, it's just weird to be in this posture that he's appealing. There's a motion for some rejudgment as to count one and he's now appealing that,

but they're on trial for not only the same set of facts, but also the discouragement of profits for count one. So what happens if for some reason that it gets overturned on appeal, what happens in the middle of the trial and be what happens if he's found guilty and the trials over? Yeah, okay. So let me see if I can explain it. The most states don't do not allow an appeal without asking permission first from the appellate court

at this juncture in a case, but New York is not one of those states. States like Florida, for instance, if you get a summary judgment, partial summary judgment, against you, you got away to the end of the trial, end of the case in order to appeal. You can't generally take what's called an interlocatory appeal.

But New York allows appeals all the time. I mean, you don't like a discovery ruling by your judge, taken appeal. You don't like a summary judgment as we just said, taken appeal. There's so many, I mean, you're always going, if you practice them in Attila, the way you and I do, you're always going to the first department, a pellet division for an appeal on something that's not the final conclusive order of the court. This is the way I think of it work. He takes, he's taken his appeal on the first count of six counts and on two of nine remedies

that the New York, the OAG, is seeking. One, she wanted a monitor or a receiver appointed and she wanted his and all of his companies, business, not licenses, but certificates to operate in New York to be dissolved. Judge granted those on summary judgment and ordered for their immediate dissolution with a receiver within 10 days, which is why there's a clock ticking. But the rest of the case, the scoreagement, the amount of money that the judge is going to order be returned based on either count one or the remaining six counts is for the trial. What's on trial right now as the judge likes to remind the participants in the trial, I mean the Trump side, I'm not here to talk about what I ruled on last Tuesday. You got an issue with last Tuesday, you take it up to the appellate court. I'm here on counts two through six and remedies, you know, three through nine.

I'm not here about what happened last week. Now what that means is the following. If the appeal is going to take six to eight or nine months, this trial is going to be three to five months. I doubt there's going to be an appellate decision while this is still in trial. Could be, could happen, but as you can see, Karen, from prior appellate division rulings in this case, they're not bending over backwards to move on an emergency basis for Donald J. Trump. There's currently pending with the appellate division, and nobody's

talked about it recently because they're not doing anything with it. A article 78 petition by Donald Trump to sue the judge, to force him to slow down on the summary judgment, too late, he already ruled, and to abide by the orders of the appellate division, which is a ridiculous grounds to try to sue your judge. That's just been sitting there with the appellate division. They haven't set a briefing schedule. They haven't assigned judges to it. It's just sitting there.

They denied last week, two days after the judge ruled on summary judgment. They denied the earlier attempt to stay the case and let the trial start on Monday. The appellate division isn't giving no favors to Donald Trump. I don't think they're gonna move any faster than normal. That means six to eight months for briefing and an argument. If you're under your scenario though, your scenario, they somehow rule on some emergency basis in the next two months while the trial is still going on,

and they ruled in his favor somehow, it would just take count one off the board. The judge is trying counts two through seven. He didn't, he made his findings all about one. Some of it applies to the remain and some people might think, Pope, what are the remaining counts? Okay, here are the remaining counts. And they're all under the same statute, 63-12, but there's standalone counts about different types of fraud.

One is insurance fraud, that Donald Trump and his group not only defrauded banks by under collateralizing loans, right, and creating hidden risk for the banks that they didn't know that they were taking on. They thought they had $500 million worth of assets for this $800 million loan when they only had $50 million worth of assets. Insurance fraud same thing. The insurance companies thought they were ensuring a building that had a value of X and it was really Y. If there have been a calamity or a catastrophe and a building have blown up, they would have had a payout on a value that wasn't the thing wasn't worth. That's insurance fraud. There's business

record fraud, which we know from the Stormy Daniels case, the Hush Money Cover-Up case, is fraudulent entries in books and records for New York companies is a crime and a fraud. And then finally, there's financial statement fraud, things you put in your personal financial statements, and then conspiracies around each of those three things. That's what the judge is trying right now. And then the judge at the end, if he finds on any or all of these counts,

is gonna have to fashion the remedy. The remedy that the OAG is asking for is discouragement, calculate how much they made from their fraud and rip it away from them, Judge. That's discouragement. And then also the dissolution, the monitor, but the really big thing that's left is the ban on Donald Trump transacting business

in New York and buying real estate and taking out bank loans for the next five years. The permanent banning of his controller and CFO, Lyselberg and McConey, and replacing the trustee over the trust that controls all of his assets with somebody of the OAG's liking. So those are the remedies.

So the short answer to, or the long answer to your short question is, if they rule against Donald Trump, no, has no impact. If they rule for Donald Trump, no real impact. I mean, if they give guidance to the trial judge about something that he's been looking at incorrectly, that can apply to the trial that he's currently on before he issues his ruling.

Great. It'll be a ruling. But they're there only looking at the appeal is narrow. Did the judge make a mistake under the law and under the facts to grant some re-judgment on the first count of the pleading for what we call standalone, persistent fraud? Yes or no? They're not commenting because it's not on appeal to through seven of the complaint. And so I gave you sort of a glib answer, which is it'll have no impact.

It'll have an impact to the media. Oh, Trump reversed this. But to Angkoran, he's just going to keep applying the laws he sees fit, unless he gets alternate guidance from the trial judge. Now that we've gotten the weeds about the appeal, tell me what you've thought about Karen in watching the first two and a half days of Trump in the courtroom, out of the courtroom, the way they've approached the first witness opening statements.

Anything from your own trial experience that you think is really interesting to explain this to our listeners and followers, we're all ears. Yeah, so one really interesting thing is what you just explained, which is that they started with this interlocutory or intermediate appeal happening during the case. If this was a criminal case, for example, which would normally be in front of a jury, because of course this is a bench trial, which means it's only a judge trial. And so there's been a lot of talk about why it's a bench or a judge trial and not a jury trial. But if this was a criminal prosecution and the defense took an article 78 appeal or this intermedia step, you know, this interlocatory appeal where you don't appeal after the conviction

you appeal in the middle. As a prosecutor, I would have probably asked to hit pause and not continued with the other counts. The reason is several fold, number one, I don't want to try this case twice. If it comes back, it's a lot of witnesses, what a hundred and fifty or actually 25 fact witnesses, I think this one they said, right? But it's a lot of witnesses and a lot of tricky witnesses, you know, I wouldn't want to have to't want to have to put my entire case on. And also, don't forget criminals beyond a reasonable doubt, not my favorite in the world, preponderance of the evidence, which is a much, much, much lower standard. And so I wouldn't want to create that record.

And as a result, I would have pressed pause and not allowed it to have the risk of two possible trials. I would want to resolve this interlocatory part first and then do the whole thing one way or another. But so that's why I guess it was so confusing to me because I just strategically this is a new thing that for me I hadn't seen something like this before. But the trials, so it's really interesting.

The trials very, very heated and very fiery, which judge trials or bench trials typically are not. Usually defense attorneys save that for the jury, the outrage, etc. Really what all they're doing here is pissing off the judge and he's signaling that, right? He's saying, you know, I already ruled on that. Like how many times does he have to say, I've already ruled on that. That's not what this trial is about.

You know, move along, Miss Habba Miss Habba, that kind of thing. They're just, they really want to just play to Donald Trump. And it's very clear that that's what they're doing, that they are rehashing and recycling the same old tired arguments that have been rejected over and over again and grandstanding. And as the judge said, wasting his time hashing things, rehashing things that have already been decided upon. And all that's going to do is irritate the judge who is the ultimate fact finder here.

So again, makes no sense whatsoever. Why they're doing that? But I think they're doing that because that's what Trump wants. And they just do whatever he says. And one thing that I found also very interesting in this trial was that he would make these public statements but on his way in. You know, this was, this is a civil case which means he was not required to be present. He chose to be present. If you recall, he was not present at his e.g. Carol defamation trial. He didn't show up. So why

did he show up to this one? And a lot of people are theorizing that it's because, what Trump cares about the most is his money and that goes to the heart of who he is. And so he really cares about this case. I suppose that's a possible reason why he showed up. I think another possible reason is so that he can use this as a campaign stop, if you will, right? You know, he could go wherever he wants,

Iowa, New Hampshire, where he says he's gonna go, or where he says he'd rather be. And you wouldn't have news, you wouldn't really have news coverage of those speeches that he's giving. You know, that would be something that you would, you would maybe Fox would cover, but nobody else would.

But here, every station, all they do is talk about and cover what he says on his way into court and on his way out of court. And because there's no cameras in this courtroom, and it's not audio fed, the public doesn't have any sense of what's going on in the courtroom. They don't know other than what is reported, which is very different than hearing it yourself and seeing it yourself.

So when he comes out and says things about what happened, that's what a lot of people are gleaning from what's happening inside the courtroom. And interestingly, there's now a blending of inside and outside the courtroom because apparently he went out and said that the judge ruled something and he said it on TV and then he goes into the courtroom and the judge puts on the record, I did not say that. And basically called him out and said, you're a liar, you know, for what you said outside a court. So it's just very interesting to watch what's happening here and why he's doing what he's doing and why he's using this as an opportunity to get as much and maximum coverage to get his side of the story out.

And the defense that they're trying to shop around in the court of public opinion, not in court, because this won't fly, is that there were no victims here, that the banks made money and they got all their money, they little loans got paid back, they made money off of this, I'm a good businessman. So what's the harm? Why is this case being brought?

This makes no sense. It's a witch hunt. And that's his defense, his emotional defense. It's not a legal defense, but it's what he's trying to win over hearts and minds in the public. And so it made me really think about something you said earlier, Popok, about, you know, the difference between theft and fraud. And there are two completely separate concepts in the law,

right? And there are statutes, criminal and civil that cover each of these things, right? And so theft involves the direct physical taking of property or money. You know, it's literally taking something tangible from somebody with the intention of permanently depriving somebody of that property, right? That's what theft is. And he is not charged with theft. He is charged with persistent fraud. And what is fraud? Right? Fraud is about manipulation, deception, misrepresentation. Right?

That's what fraud is. And I think, Popoak, you've done an excellent job at really describing why fraud is such a cancer on our economy, on our markets, on our free markets, on just fair business dealing, right? And I think that's the thing that really needs to be hit home and needs to beat back when he says, oh, but they made money. Yeah, but they made money based on false pretenses, right? It's not okay to pump up the value of a stock based on false pretenses, right? It's not okay to pump up the value of a stock

based on false information. Oh, but we all made money. No, that's not the way the markets work, right? And fraud is just the worst. Our economy, our free society, our free market capitalism does not work if fraud is allowed to be one of the elements that allows people to make money. Then suddenly, you know, that's the opposite of what we stand for, and that's what this trial is about is his fraud.

And so I think that that is something that the Attorney General's Office also has been really doing an excellent job at covering by putting on their witnesses, you know, so far the accountant, Donald Bender, I think his name is from the Maysars firm. You know, he's, they're basically, I think he's been on the stand for three days and they're cross-examining him and throwing him into the bus. Well, you know, you're the expert. We relied on you and you should have done your job. That's what you made millions of dollars for was to do these statements of financial condition, but you didn't even do a basic audit.

So they're throwing everyone under the bus and not trying to take responsibility. Let me ask you a question about that. Let me from your trained eye. Do you think the putting Don Bender on trial as a way to show lack of intent? Because this is a whole fight about these counts, about intent.

And it sounds odd to those who don't practice the law, but there are certain claims in fraud that you have to prove in order to prevail, whether you're the attorney general or you're just a former business partner who's suing, you know, somebody they used to work with or whatever, you got defrauded, you have some, there are some requirements that you show that the person intended to do that. It wasn't an accidental fraud. They didn't back into it. And so there's that fight, right? Chris Kiesin is opening for Donald Trump said there was no intent to defraud.

And that's why they keep focusing on that because they're trying to ring the bell for judge Angkoran who's sitting, presiding over the case, to say you might have been able to grant the first one because there is no intent element under New York law for that, but for the rest, you can't show intent. And we're gonna go beat up Don Bender because who also testified successfully for the Manhattan DA's office, your old employer, the tax fraud case that Alvin Bragg successfully brought

against Trump organization and Alan Weiselberg, he testified there. I mean, who better to testify? The guy that's not only spent 12 years doing the Trump org tax returns, he's been doing the tax returns for the kids and for Donald Trump himself and for Alan Weisselberg himself personally. Nobody knows where the bodies are buried more than Donald Bender. But what, my guess my question, I got a, I got a little sidetrack there, is from your perspective, do you think they're scoring points with Judge Angoron to make this people versus Donald Bender

instead of Donald Trump? No, of course not. And that's again what strategy makes no sense, right? The strategy makes no sense. They're just, they're not trying this, they're just don't care to try this case in any way that is serious. I mean, they just want to use it as a way to gripe, do their personal gripes and then claim being the victim

and grievances. And that's it. This is not a normal trial with normal lawyers who are thinking strategically about trying to win over the judge, trying to like just the real nuances. I mean, there's some issues here that I think they could potentially play with, right?

The intent and materiality elements of the remaining counts, that the intent to defraud or the intent to deceive or were these, some of these lies, were they material to, you know, the, to the, to the business deal. And that's something that they might be able to have some legs if they tried it seriously, but they're really not trying this seriously. They're using it as a great, a place to grandstand and continue to shop around their grapes. Yeah, you know how I know you're right besides the fact that you're generally right, is I had

a case once where in arbitration where the opposing lawyer who had a really bad reputation started off his opening statement attacking the arbitrator. He had done his research, hated this arbitrator from the moment he got selected, and he said, for once in your life, perhaps your rule in favor of the plaintiff, instead of the defendant, which you've spent your entire life. And I'm thinking, I thought, this, this is either genius or this is insanity in my head. I had to go next. I'm thinking, he's either going to make this guy rule in his favor or hate him forever and not rule in his favor.

I wonder which it'll be. And it was what I thought. The judge, the arbitrator hated him, did not take kindly to being attacked. He had to defend his professional honor at the start. But at the beginning, I was almost a little bit, you know, tip of my hat like this is, this is an interesting strategy. Go after the judge from the opening bell.

Well, that's what they're doing here. You got Alina Haba, gesticulating and, fff, harumphing every time something doesn't go their way. Chris Kai seems pretty normal. Donald Trump brought his hands up in the air. So my working theory, I wanna get your opinion on this as always, my working theory is that they, he's like Donald Trump once again here anyway,

is like a riverboat gambler with nothing to lose. He knows he's not going to win this trial. He knows, if he didn't know it before Tuesday last week, when the judge ruled against him, he certainly knows it now. And he probably knows the appellacore it's not going to be judge ruled against him. He certainly knows it now. And he's and he probably knows the appellacore. It's not going to be any better for him. And so he's getting in his shots. He's like, you know what, I paid the price of admission. I'm going to,

it's like when you go to a movie and all you want to do is throw popcorn at the screen and yelling scream instead of watching the movie. That's where Donald Trump is. He's just thrown popcorn at the screen, yelling and screaming because he knows nothing he's going to say or do is going to change judge and go on his mind based on the facts and the law that he committed persistent fraud in his entire empire was based on a lie in a series of lies consistently given over and over again. If you're going to do that, if you know you've lost, then you hold press conferences at every turn.

You come back late to the court. You show your disdain for the judge in a way that I've never seen a defendant quite do that because you're going to lose anyway. You might as well get your punches in while you can for your, like you said, your political audience. Is that why he's acting out and his lawyers are acting out? I mean, what do you think? Honestly, I think you're giving them too much credit. I don't think

there's that smart. I just don't, you know, because then that would, I think they're just, you know, they're just, I don't know, it's hard to, it's hard to understand how they think, you know, part of me was wondering, is Donald Trump is the only reason he's showing up, trying to get out of being deposed by Michael Cohen's lawyer, right? He was supposed to sit for a deposition on Tuesday, and he said, well, I can't possibly sit for the deposition because, you know, I was, I'm going to, I have to be on, I have to be here in court. So, you know, I think that's as much of a possibility as anything else.

Right. That's going forward on the 10th or the 9th or the 10th. But yeah, look, I think it's, I think it's what we've all said. He knew the media trucks were going to be all out in front of 60th center street. He had a he had a captive audience literally. He steps into the courtroom, flash of cameras, microphones, that's his favorite place to be. And he gets to do all the bashing, knowing there's nothing to lose, because he's not going to, I mean, I hate to be spoiler alert, tell you what happens at the end of this trial. He is not winning this trial.

He may prevail in one or two counts. I doubt even that. Judging on it. Yeah. I have a prediction. Yeah, okay. I think because judge and Goron has been attacked and accused so many times of being biased

and making his mind up ahead of time and not listening to the arguments, I think he's going to throw them one count. I think there's going to be one count at least that I'm Goron. I'm sure it's fraud. That would be the one I brought to you. Whatever it is, just say, you know what, I didn't and it'll show that he because that way he could it'll show and the appellate courts will say. Yeah, I agree. We didn't just, you know, go all the way for the attorney general. He's thoughtful. Yeah. It'll insulate him from the appellate from the appellate review. No, I agree with that. There's a vicious rumor out there that judge Angora knows about our show.

So welcome. Welcome if that's true. We hope that we started pronouncing your name right a long time ago, which is a good thing. So, you know, that was the first three days. You know, Don Bender wrap up. I agree with you. I think the trial of Don Bender is not going well for Donald Trump. I don't think that is moving the needle one, Iota, with Judge Engoron about the issues that are in play, and that he needs to focus on for the Trump fraud. I must say crimes because they are crimes too. The Trump fraud and the preponderance of evidence standard that the New York Attorney General needs to meet, which is just slightly more likely than not, that these things happened.

And you can't look at these records. And maybe there's a couple in there that they pinned on Don Bender, officially, like, well, why didn't you catch the size? I love this one. Well, why didn't you catch that the size of the apartment was wrong? He's like, I don't know. It was a mistake by the Trump organization and we didn't catch it, but you know,

we didn't think they were wrong. I don't know, I'd never been inside there before. Right, a bender might have been because bender's been around a long life. That's why the temperature went up and I have a comment as a trial lawyer like you about what's going on with Dr. Trump. The temperature went way up in the room.

You know, Eric, Eric Trump, who's a nail bider, go look it up, was biting his nails so much that the press commented on it while his accountant, Don Bender, was ripping down the family, you know, with, with all the charts and graphs and this kind of methodical, it can be mind numbing to the uninitiated, uninitiated, but to a trial judge is trying to get to the bottom of financial fraud. He's hanging on every word. Sometimes juries fall asleep during these kind of, let's go to check number 101. Let's go. What's on the endorsement of that check? And you're like, you look over at your jury and they're like, you know, you can tell they're sleeping with their eyes open.

But a judge, Judge Angora who's, let's be frank, he's kind of eaten up the media attention. He smiled for the camera, the start, the trial took off his glasses and looked over at the panel of photographers. He's hanging on every word. And so, but I have, from my, and I'm not a, this is just my armchair analysis doing this for 32 years Donald Trump is having to sit and actually watch evidence Be presented against him watch an opening statement watch methodically a skilled Attorney general

Mr. Wallace who's doing it for the, for Latisha James, walk through evidence and have to actually sit and listen. You can see him at his breaks. It's taking something out of him. He looks, if you, if you, if we lined up video from him a month ago and him at these breaks, he's flagging. He, it looks like they're getting their pound of flesh out of him. Because it's one thing to miss the E. Jean Carroll case, where you're being accused and eventually found to be a rapist.

And just do it from a Scottish golf course or bunker and attack everything. Because you're getting these reports by lawyers who are afraid of you, your own lawyers, and are afraid to speak truth to power. All right? And you're not getting the full report. It's another, quite another thing to sit in a courtroom and have the case presented against you, knowing that your fate is in the hands of somebody else, somebody who you don't like and you don't trust about all of your business operate. He's just turned the keys of his entire business empire

over to judge Arthur and Goran. I mean, and that is not something that I think is eventually, that's why I don't think I was surprised to learn right before we went on the air that Trump high-tailed it back down to Florida. And I don't think, as I said, on another hot take of mine, if we see him at three or four more occasions

that you have a speculation as to where he might show up again, if we see him in 10 out of the 100 days of trial, I'd be surprised. Yeah, I agree. So let's talk about something that's near and dear to your heart, which is criminal defendant's going after, or criminally accused defendants who have been indicted going after prosecutors, their families, judges, staff and clerks and all the rest and all the attempts

at gag orders by judges, various judges, federal and state against Donald Trump. I want to hear it from you because you've got a very passionate and really right on opinion about it. But first, a word from our sponsor. Did you know that your temperature at night can have one of the greatest impacts on your sleep quality? If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle Made's bedsheets, inspired by NASA. Miracle Made uses silver infused fabrics and makes temperature regulating bedding so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long.

Using silver infused fabrics originally inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long. So you get better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with silver that prevent up to 99.7% of bacterial growth, leaving them to stay cleaner and fresher three times longer than other sheets. No more gross odors.

Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands. And feel as nice if not nicer than bed sheets used by some five star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores, causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with Miracle. Go to trymiracle.com. Slash legal AF to try miracle mageetes today. And whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today, you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo legal a F and check out, you'll get three free towels and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product. It's back the 30 day money

back guarantee. And if you're not 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle made. Go to try miracle.com slash legal a F and use the code legal a F to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40%. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash legal AF to treat yourself. Thank you, MiracleMade for sponsoring this episode. This is Michael Popok from legal AF. If you like me, you understand the pains of choosing what to wear.

Let's face it, most clothes are uncomfortable or too tight or are never actually the size you really are. Not to mention the annoyance of trying to put a good outfit together. And when you do have a good fit, you can only wear it for a few hours before you have an important meeting or dinner. And then you've got to change all over again. Everyone wants to dress the best and look good at all times because, frankly, it's a confidence booster.

So here's the deal. Men's closets were due for a radical reinvention and Ron stepped up to the challenge. Ron's commuter collection is the most comfortable, breathable, and flexible set of products known to man. And here's why. Ron helps you get ready for any occasion with the commuter collection, which offers the world's most comfortable pants, dress shirts, one quarter zips and polos. You never have to worry about what to wear when you have the Rone Commuter collection. Rone's comfortable for-a-way stretch fabric provides breathability and flexibility that leaves you free to enjoy whatever life throws your way

from your commute to work to your 18 holes of golf. It's time to feel confident without the hassle. With Rone's Rinkle Release Technology, Rl's disappear as you stretch and wear the products, it's that easy. And with its gold fusion anti-odor technology, you'll be smelling fresh and clean all day long, and on top of that, Rones 100% machine washable, so you can ditch the dry cleaner altogether. I absolutely love Rones. As you can see, this has truly become my go-to commuter fit and on the Legal AF podcast recordings. We're on the legal AF podcast recordings.

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

legal a f. Find your corner office. We're very excited about our sponsors. I watch your ads, I watch my ads. Sometimes you catch me because I'm watching my ad. But we, I'm just going to remind people as you're clinging on dogs there and move around. We don't have we don't have outside investors. We contribute our sweat equity to this and the way we keep this whole thing of float and keep the content coming is through a combination of Patreon, people donating and advertisers and the advertisers are a big key to our podcast. I did the podcast for a long time without an ad because, you know, I'm just kind of devoted

that way and I wanted to do it. But it wasn't sustainable speaking of sustainability. It wasn't sustainable business model, even a hobby model to do that. And I'm so thrilled that led by one of the brothers who will remain nameless, we've been able to build an infrastructure of progressive advertisers who support our show and what we do here. And I want to make their own connection in their own way to our listeners and followers. And so again, a little shout out to Miracle Made and to Ron. Am I wearing Ron today? No, but I do wear a lot of Ron.

So let's go. So let's go. And he loves them. Oh God. And the new one, the midweight commuter collection. Love it for the winner. See, free ad for Ron. Let's turn it.

I'll turn it over to you. We've got judges, judges, judges who've been trying conditions of bond and release, have put restrictions on Trump's conduct and behave. Your actual orders, judge and gore on ordering Donald Trump, thought to attack staff of his. And in this case, his principal law clerk. Every court, except for Judge Cannon, has entertained some sort of protective order or gag order, starting with way back when with Judge Mershan in the Stormy Daniels Hush Money cover-up case, and how he had a, you know, it's hard TARD sometimes being the first

navigate that minefield of First Amendment rights for a person who's campaigning, for a president, for President of the United States, of all things, and the non-interferring with the proper administration of justice. And Judge Chuckkin has a decision to make. She's got a fully briefed on a request by Jack Smith's special counsel to enter into a restriction on Donald Trump attacking all categories of stakeholders in our justice system, and that she's gonna rule on. And I wanna hear your opinion

by whether you think Jack Smith's gonna do a supplemental based on some recent things that Donald Trump has done just in the trial that we're watching. Although I'm sure Judge Chuck get an interstaffer watching these press conferences and all these other things and kind of coming up with their own opinions. Okay, that's the frame. Go after it. You're very passionate about it.

We want to hear from you. It's really interesting because this, the way Donald Trump acts and the way he attacks judges, witnesses, prosecutors, normal everyday civilians, right? Just anybody he wants, it's an and and and foments violence through his followers. And January 6, I think being the most obvious example of his rhetoric, his violent rhetoric, actually whipping up his followers into violence. And he does it constantly. And we discussed earlier before we started taping the podcast, we were discussing whether we had the resources at MidasTouch to create a digest, if you will, all in one place, of all his threats, all of his threats against judges, witnesses,

and chronological order, including the gag orders where they fit in, because it's literally, he's told not to do something, he does it immediately after. It's like this automatic reaction, and yet there are almost no consequences. And by having almost no consequences, it normalizes this behavior. It makes it seem as if this is okay, as if this is free speech, as if violence and threats is something we have a right

to do. We have a First Amendment right to do and we don't, right? The first amendment is not absolute and when your words turn into conduct and create violence and threats, it is no longer protected speech. And he absolutely utilizes the weapon of speech at every turn. And there are real consequences. There have been death threats. There have been all sorts of violent reactions from other people as a result of his actions. And you know, we talk about it all the time. What are some of the examples of these threats, right? Some of them, the one I always like to show or talk about is the baseball bat, the picture that he posts of a base, him holding a baseball bat.

And then the picture next to it is Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan de A's head. If that isn't a direct threat, I don't know what is. Or what he said about Mark, um, general milley, right? When he said he deserves the firing squad, the death penalty, right? Or he says shop lifters should be shot. That's what should happen, okay? I mean, look at what he talks about. It's violence. Or what he said about about attorney general, Tish James, I think it was a couple of days ago when he literally said, you ought to go after this attorney general.

How is that not an explicit call for others to attack, physically attack attorney general, Latisha James, right? He called Justice and Goron, a rogue judge, you know, who should be out of office, and that the case against Trump, obviously, he always says is disgrace, a witch hunt, et cetera.

And then yesterday, he started posting about and Goron's staff member, this poor woman who's a civil servant, like a public servant, who works for the judge and starts, it just reminds me of Sheamus and Ruby Frieden. Somebody just doing their job and he posts pictures of them with lies, you know, and he posted a picture of her online. It's essentially doxing her, and what she looks like and and and basically unleashing his followers on her. And the judge had to issue what they're calling a gag order. It's not a gag order. You know, saying, oh, you're no longer allowed to threaten anybody. And his, his, his, Trump's lawyers said, oh, there's no need for a gag order because threats are already

punishable by law. I actually agree with his attorney. Donald Trump should be prosecuted and punished for his threats. He should be arrested, prosecuted, and put in jail. I don't understand why we treat him with such kid gloves. I don't think it matters that he's running for president anymore. It does not give you a license to create violence, to encourage violence, and to put real lives in danger. Someone is going to get hurt, and there is no data about it. Somebody is going to get hurt. There are already 24-7 protection for the prosecutors here and for, you know, for the judges,

et cetera. But you know, go on comes with a security detail. That that bring them into the courtroom. But, but let me ask you, I like it. And I don't want anybody to think I don't like this. However, let's think of the imagery of the guy that's gonna run for president, sitting in a jail for a period of time, because he violated some order. And... Looks like he's not violating order. He's violating the law. You're not allowed to say, you know,

you should go after the attorney general because she's a racist. Like, you're not, that's not free speech. You're not allowed to hold a baseball bat to, you know, some, a prosecutor's head. But if a guy's... It doesn't come with a territory. It doesn't come with a territory.

Somebody who has had death threats, right? I had to have police cars outside my kids' school. I had a Molotov cocktail, was all because of my husband, not me. But I had a, who used to be, well, he used to be a prosecutor. No, I'm just saying, I did have death threats to myself I did and it's not fun

It's unsettling to have to be escorted in and out of a building The guy in an out home and it doesn't come with the territory You don't sign up for that We're serving but if a guy or if a person stood in front of the fountain of Washington square park If a person stood in front of the fountain of Washington Square Park on a soapbox with a speaker or microphone and yelled out and just repeated verbatim the things that Donald Trump has said, you should go after the New York Attorney General and run her out of town. And the Angkoran is a political animal. And you and you and here's a picture that I've made of me holding a baseball bat next to a picture of Alvin Brack. Are the New York police going to rest that guy and put him in jail? Depends on who he is.

Or is that first a memo political speech? Depends on who he is. If he's someone who in the past, when he said that, all of his followers, all of the people, his audience, turned around and and created extreme violence, right? If that, like on January 6th, if that person had a history of being able to what you would call incite a riot and incite violence, and he knew that that's what his words would do, and you can show that with a history of of this and that and then you were he is told over and over again and warned over and over again not to do it but he does it anyway you damn right would he be prosecuted for that it's it's it's it's both

objective and subjective you know analysis like it's both reasonable. It's not, everything is context matters, right? You could run into a theater, a movie theater, where no one is there, but you, and scream fire. Is that a crime? No. You go in, and it's crowded, and there's 100 people in that theater, and you run in, and you scream fire,

and everybody runs out and people get trampled, and somebody gets killed, is that a crime? Yes. So why haven't the judges done it? Because everybody is afraid of him. They are. They're afraid of, I don't know why he's being treated differently than every other defendant.

If there was another defendant on trial in any other case, any other case who threatened a judge, who threatened a prosecutor, who put a picture of the judge's court staff online, that person would be put in jail, period. I agree with that. That happens. In every case, in every courtroom, for every defendant defendant in this, in New York, I shouldn't say in this country, probably mostly in this country, but in New York, that is how people are true.

That is what happened when you do this, but not him. If he wasn't running for office, I think they'd pull the trigger. I do. But guess what? He ran for office as a, this is his teflon. This is his I know. I know that's why he's running for office. But if he was just former, if he was just real estate, whatever, what do they call him? I saw it said in the New York Post, real estate mogul, Donald Trump, citizen Trump. You're right. I don't think he'd be able to get away

with it. And what we're watching is the judiciary struggle to contain him, to treat him like anybody else recognizing that he's not anybody else because he's going to be the Republican nominee for president. And while that shouldn't give him a free pass, you can see you saw the struggle start with Judge Mershon. How do I thread the needle between his first amendment rights to campaign and to talk about the case outside the courtroom in a certain way. And then it not intimidate witnesses, my staff, you know, not the judges, judges never say them because they don't want to, they

don't want to act like they've got a thin skin. And now it's really going to come to a head with judge Chuckkin. He hasn't tested it with judge McAfee. Judge McAfee not only made the jury anonymous in Georgia. We're going to talk about Georgia next, but in a one-page order, like, okay, that's a good idea. We're going to make an anonymous jury. But suffused within that is a recognition, obviously, by the judge, that there's somebody that needs protection from whom from Donald Trump and the others And so he just did it on his own Sort of like Judge Kaplan making the E. Jean Carol rape case a non-emissary So you have the judges doing that. He hasn't Trump hasn't tested McAfee yet

Because McAfee has said don't interfere don't, Trump hasn't tested McAfee yet because McAfee has said, don't interfere, don't attack witnesses, don't attack, he didn't say prosecutors, but don't try to intimidate by social media or otherwise. This judge in Denver was handling the 14th Amendment disqualification case, also issued an order, but he hasn't gone after her. He acts out and these, andyn isn't going to issue one. The magistrate judge Judge Goodman, when he released Donald Trump in Mar-a-Lago, made it a condition that he not attack or go after witnesses. And so we haven't really heard violations of that because you know

Jack Smith would be the first one to complain if that were happening. So you have these limited orders, but the one that is the most on the nose to what you're trying to address Karen is being considered by Judge Shotkin. I guess the question for you is, is Judge Shotkin, does she have the cajonus given her background and her demeanor to finally shut Donald Trump down with a gag order of the Department of Justice's request. And secondly, do you think Jack Smith sends in as a supplemental all of the bad things and bad conduct that Donald Trump has exhibited over the first three days of his trial in New York to judge Chutkin to consider?

It's a great, I think it's a great question. I think Judge Chutkin will do something limited. I don't know if she'll even go as far as what Jack Smith is asked for. I think she'll say things like, you can't threaten witnesses, et cetera. I think she'll be very narrowly tailored, but she'll do something for sure. I mean, and yeah, I think, I think, if I were Jack Smith, I would want to expand my record with the rest of these threats, because again, context matters, intention matters. Yes, it's a separate proceeding, but look at what he does. And again, if I were Jack Smith, you know, and Goran doesn't have to worry about a jury

pool being poisoned. It's just him. He's worried about the safety of his staff. But Judge Chutkin and Jack Smith have to also protect a future jury pool not only from threats and violence, which is one issue. They also have to protect the integrity of the trial. And so that's kind of the two separate

issues at play here. And the protecting the integrity of the trial is one type of request, if you will, that Jack Smith is making about the jurors about, you know, etc. But really what I'm talking about is is protecting people's lives and protecting people from violence and from hate filled death threats. Because that's that's the thing that's happening. It happened to Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss. It's there's been lots of reporting about the judges and the prosecutors and even some of the witnesses receiving a lot of this type of threatening, what it calls, emails, etc. And if something God forbid happens and someone gets hurt, I think you're going to see people react and judges react much differently. And although I say that, but then on January 6th when the Capitol was being stormed and there was extreme violence and people were getting hurt.

And police officers were getting hurt and ultimately lost their lives. He sat there and did nothing, right? He did nothing for several hours. And if I were a judge, that would be enough for me, that he is reckless enough, that he knows what his words do. And he's shown that he is reckless enough that he knows what his words do and he's shown that he means it. He knows what they do and he means it.

And he's also making a mockery of the judges' requests and orders by the very next day, you know, with Judge Angora and specifically told the parties the day before that he cannot threaten his staff. And he did it anyway, he put that post up. And so if I were a judge, I'd be like, you can't do that. You can't just give the proverbial middle finger to the court. You have to have some respect for the rule of law and for the court process and for the authority of a judge.

And I hope, the judges are all, they all seem to be inching a little bit closer. It's like, okay, one does this, okay, then the next one will meet them there. And then someone else takes a little baby step forward. We're getting dangerously close. His rhetoric is escalating. Like this week, he says, you should go after the attorney general. I mean, that's not even, you know,

stand back and stand by. That was a little bit like, is that a threat? Is that not really a threat, stand by? This is affirmative. You should go after the attorney general. How is that not a direct threat? How is that not actionable? And I think that at some point if something happens, you'll see everybody's

going to play catch up and they'll say, okay, that's it we are with threats. And that's separate from the, like, not infect the jury pool with all this information. I think that's a little more in co-ate and a little harder to gag, if you will, in a free speech campaign cycle and world, because there he can stand running for president, and I have a right to defend myself, right? People ask me, I have a right to defend myself. So, and one of my opponents, Mike Pence, is a witness, yeah, but he's also my political opponent, and so I have a right to

speak there. I think that part of it is important, but trickier, but these threats, I think, are just appalling and he's making a mockery out of our judicial system. I agree with you. And I love to see a judge both write a strict order that he then violates and finds himself in contempt, allowing them to, through progressive discipline, do something about it. But we haven't seen it yet. Hopefully, baby and Goron's gag order, which he called a gag order, will be the license, the permission slip for other judges to do it the way that judge Alvin Brad getting the first indictment kind of for me broke the ceiling and allowed,

you know, people like Fawni Willis and then ultimately Jack Smith to feel better about there that, you know, well, he's already been indicted, they know that. We rip that band-aid off, let's move on. So Georgia, let's go, you know, it's as I said at the top of the show, it's Apple picking season in Georgia. We got a lot of seasons that's, as I said, at the top of the show, it's Apple picking season in Georgia. We got a lot of seasons that have opened, as you reminded me, at the top of the show, or before we started, the Supreme Court, US Supreme Court is back in session

for those that follow us around the world, or even here at home that don't recognize or don't realize that the Supreme Court has a term, starts in October, it ends usually in around June when they go on summer break. And we know which initially we know which cases that the Supreme Court is going to take at least for the first part of the term because they've already in caucus voted on that and decided on which ones they're going to take.

And we know that things like the funding of the consumer protection bureau has already had oral argument. You know, the first day of October is the first day of the court back in session coming off a a reeling period in their history where they've been attacked properly and mercilessly for ethical violations. And a MAGA right wing took over the court held at hostage and started passing rules and regulations including You know ripping away a woman's right to choose after 50 years of being a constitutional right and We will follow everything at the Supreme Court level from oral argument all the way through decisions as this new term opens but for right now let's talk about Georgia and

particularly But for right now, let's talk about Georgia, and particularly what's going on with the October 23rd trial of at least Ken Chesborough and Sydney Powell to disgrace lawyers for Donald Trump. That's a picture of Chesborough and Fony Willis, just to be clear, that was not Sydney Powell on the right of that picture. But it may be other people because the judge Mac Judge McAfee has made clear that if others don't wave their right to speedy trial, they're going to be tried on the 23rd of October as well. And with the cooperation and the plea deal with Scott Hall, we're now down to 18 used to be

19 co-conspirators, including Donald Trump. Scott Hall has cut a deal. He's first one and he got the best deal. Five years probation and no jail time is the recommendation if he cooperates. He led the coffee county, or was part of the coffee county interference with election equipment and downloading of software from Dominion to get voter data and then use it for their fraudulent purposes.

He was caught on audio tape, confessing to his crime several months later. And so he's a bell-bondzman, it doesn't have a lot of money apparently, and took the deal. But he's not the last one. As I said in the opening, this is Fawney Wellas, there are any good prosecutor. You'll talk about your experience, Karen, in these mega cases. Fony Willis once indicted 35 members and other people related to the Atlanta Public School Board in a bribery scandal, also under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act Rico. The time she went to trial a couple of years later, she was trying the case against

12 because she pleaded, I was at settle, she pled out 13 of them who ended up cooperating. So what I'd like you to talk about Karen is the reporting we have, we know, Scott Hall, I did a hot tick on it, we showed the video of him pleading to the judge, Judge McAfee. Judge McAfee also asked the prosecutor recently at a hearing, a logistical hearing, about the trial in October, to do they expect to make plea deals to the two defendants, Sydney Powell and Ken Chesboro, and they said, yes, we're getting around to it. We're going to make them plea deals. We also know that they've offered a plea deal based on reporting because it's been publicly acknowledged to Bernie Kerrick, the disgraced former police commissioner

for New York, who was pardoned by Donald Trump for unrelated tax evasion, having nothing to do with Jan 6th, who was a bag man for Rudy Giuliani in team crazy and trying to pressure elected officials and election officials in various places. He has been offered a deal, oh no, I'm sorry, he's been subpoenaed to testify and his lawyer, Tim Parlatore, formerly a Donald Trump's team

has said he'll consider it if he's given full immunity. So we have that on the board. And then Mike Roman, who was not only the election day coordinator for the Trump campaign but was the but was the Mule that collected up all of the fake certificates Electoral certificates and had them delivered to the National Archive into Mike Pence He is also cooperating with Jack Smith, but that didn't stop Fannie Willis from indicting him in Georgia, and he has been offered a deal and has turned it down as of right now.

So what I'd like to do is have you from your perspective talk about sort of the plea deal first in getting the better deals, and then sort of it becomes less important because the prosecutors don't need your testimony as you, if you wait too long. And what do you think we're gonna see with these 18 remaining,

and then you and I can go back and forth about, who we think is definitely somebody who will flip and take a deal, and somebody who definitely will dig in and not take a deal before we finish this segment. Yeah, so whenever prosecutors do these gigantic cases, you know, I've supervised 100 defendants take down or, you know, 50 defendants, 20 defendants, you know, we've, when you do big cases that involve lots

of criminal activity, it often, it often involves many, many people, and you assume that there will be a group of people that will flip or cooperate, and you don't count on it. So it's not, you don't do it knowing that you have to be able to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt against each and every defendant, each and every element. So you don't count on it, but it certainly is something that you anticipate might happen and could happen

and sometimes could make not only your case stronger, but it's also sometimes the fair thing to do because there's different levels of culpability. And typically, the rule of thumb for prosecutors, you don't flip down, you flip up. So what that means is you never cooperate the really bad guy at the top of the chain to get the lower level people, but you'll flip the lower level people to get the top because the top person is usually the person who's most culpable. And so so there's different levels

in this particular case of culpability, right? Donald Trump probably being the for sure being the very top. And under him you have a stable of people who are probably next in line of most culpability, Rudy Giuliani, Ken Cheesebro, you know, Mark Meadows is somebody I would throw in that category. But you know, or Jeff Clark, you know, those types of people, I would say, are in that next tranche of individuals, and then you probably have another mid-level, and then you have the lowest level people, and that could be somebody like the fake electors, right? That I would say are probably among the lower level of individuals. And really, so they could either just plead guilty,

anyone of these defendants, by the way, can just plead guilty and take whatever sentence that they would potentially get. And you could even plea bargain that. But for some people, you will negotiate and you'll negotiate a lesser sentence in exchange for cooperation. And that is done in a situation where you think that the person has valuable information and that they're credible. So they can't lie, they can't only tell half truths, they can't give their version. If you're not telling 100% the truth, you are useless and worthless to a prosecutor. So a lot goes into vetting a potential cooperator because that could

blow up your whole case, right? If you put someone on the phone, you see what people on convictions or who, you know, who have checkered pasts, because those are the people who hang out with the bad guys, we always used to say, really bad guys don't hang out with priests and nuns and altar boys, although it's not really sure priests are in that category anymore to some people. But anyway, it's bad guys hang out with bad guys.

And so, those are the people chosen by the main actors, the main players. And so, what you do is you literally make that determination and some people will flip, some people will cooperate. And I think in this particular case, I'm not surprised that one person has, I'm actually surprised that more people haven't. I wouldn't want to go down with Donald Trump or even for Donald Trump. So I think that, you know, the first few that come through the door are going to be more valuable to Fannie Willis because they're going to provide information that potentially she doesn't have, right? But after a while, it becomes redundant.

And so the eighth person, you know, the eighth fake elector, for example, to tell about the same meeting and the same, you know, agreement, et cetera, is less valuable to her than the first or second one. And so you could imagine a scenario where that person doesn't get as good of a deal, but maybe you still make a deal because you want to cut some people out. So that's generally how it works and how it will likely work here. I think we're going to see this case. I think you're going to see a bunch of people drop off, you know? The ones who are less culpable and who don't wanna go down with the ship.

But you know, you got the true believers who they'll go down with Donald Trump no matter what, they don't care. Yeah, and I think she's been successful. She, if I didn't mention it before, she flipped eight fake electors even before she got her indictment, I said it in the opening.

And she's working around the clock to get people to strengthen her case, the ones that she needs. It's interesting that she wants character to testify. He ran around with Rudy Giuliani and pressured elected officials and election officials and try to hold phony special sessions of and all of that so he's got a lot to say If he gets immunity it sounds like he's gonna talk Of course, I'll vet him beforehand and my You know Bernie looks just let's just remind everybody who Bernie Karek is right

Bernie Karek was the former police and corrections commissioner for New York City when Rudy Giuliani was mayor. That's how they knew each other. And in fact, the local jail in Manhattan was always called the Bernie Kerrick Correctional Facility. He was convicted federally for all kinds of fraud relief. Taxidation. Yeah, exactly. And Donald Trump pardoned him. So he served four years in prison. So it'll just be interesting.

He's got a checkered, I mean, I'm just pointing that out because as a cooperator, you know, he's going to have to own up to all that stuff. He can't say no, I didn't do it or He's not valuable to her if he doesn't Go ahead. Yeah. No, no, I mean don't even cut you off good. Yeah, no, that's all I'm saying is he has to he in order for him to Co-operate he has to admit all of that right? Yeah, I think it's and yeah, and I think it's interesting trying to get inside her mind Microwman is interesting If that's her next, you know, she's making her wish list of those that she wants to have cooperate with her.

It's interesting, Mike Roman. Mike Roman is cooperating, apparently, with Jack Smith. We already reported a long time ago that he went in over the summer and on an immunity deal, a use of immunity deal. Queen for the day gave his testimony to Jack Smith and wasn't indicted. He's an unindicted with Jack Smith as of yet, although we're all expecting a subsequent indictment to come out of the election case before Judge Chuck, and although maybe not, we'll see. But, uh, yeah, I'm going to get, yeah, yeah. Well, I said earlier who he was. He was the,

he's the head of the election ground, for Donald Trump, and he was the mule that carried the certificates. And it has a lot of information because it kind of ties him back into a number of these people that have been indicted. He puts them at the fake electors, it puts them with the Trump campaign, it puts them with Donald Trump himself, it puts them with Mark Meadows. He's a connector for a lot of the of the Kochin spiritors and just saying it out loud. Now I think I know why she wants Mike Roman.

Plus, he's he's already cooperated with Jack Smith, at least in a limited way. So he's turned down the deal for now, but we know the pressure, the pressure is on and and from a criminal and dieted criminal defendant standpoint, you can't wait too long because it just, you just won't get the deal. You just won't get, you'll get jail time if you keep waiting. So you got to, you know, in my, to round out this, this segment, my working theory is the, the true believers who were still drinking the Kool-Aid, like Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani.

I don't think Mark Meadows and Jeffrey Clark, who want to serve in Trump's next administration, got forbid, are going to go to trial know, and show the big man their loyalty. It's like a loyalty test. Like, like, like, what Steve Bannon did, like what Navarro did. And all these people are going to end up in jail because they're aiming at the wrong audience. They should be aiming at the prosecutor and then ultimately at the jury and judges and not at Donald Trump. That's only going to put them in harm's way. And then others are, you know, ripe for flipping. Who doesn't think that Jenna Ellis, who now has become a true believer the other direction

and says that she's stupid for a following Trump and why isn't Trump paying her bills? I mean, if we don't think that Fonney's leaning on her and she was literally the backman, back woman for Rudy Giuliani with all those crazy filings. So there will definitely be others that we will report on. And then when they watch what happens, on October the 23rd over a three or four month trial, how poorly it's gonna, I think go for Chesboro and Sydney Powell, it's gonna scare the crap out of a whole group of them.

Many of them are not wealthy people. Don't really, aren't in Donald Trump's inner circle, have nothing more to gain like Scott Hall, this bell-bond-spin, and they're gonna take a deal that she's gonna offer. So we'll continue to watch Georgia. It's just interesting as we get closer. We're spending a lot of time now because it's really, really fascinating to watch Donald Trump melt down and put himself in harm's way with the other cases in a performative theater piece in his first two and a half days. And now he's gone.

He's as we like to say in the might of such network. He's fleeing. He's fleeing. He's flown. He's in Florida. He's gone. He's out of here. You know, our audience likes that.

So he's gone. He's he's gone. He's pleased. But Georgia is gonna be a criminal case against two out of the remaining 18 Coke and Spirators. If she gets that win, she's got, this funny one says, tremendous wind at her sale for the remaining cases, which will be batched into probably groups of two or three, starting probably in March of 2024.

So Donald Trump could be tried as early as March or April during a break in his in his calendar, in his criminal calendar, which is rapidly filling up. So do you think they'll be batched? Yeah, I don't. You think she's going to do Trump alone? No, I think I think she's going to have one more trial. I think she's going to try to wait like get get. I think she's going to have one more trial. I think she's going to try to wait, like get, get, I think she's going to try to clean out really.

Oh, no, no, that's different. That's different. If she slims the group down low enough that judge McAfee doesn't flip out again about how big the trial will be because he's already said, I am not doing 18, meaning I'm not doing any giant number come up with me. If you're right, if what she's doing now is surgically reducing the amount and now she's left with eight. Yes, he'll do eight. He'll do 10 maybe. Exactly. I agree with totally agree with that. That's what I think

it's going to be. So you and I are like now that I know where you're going with that. Yes. But if it's still the remaining 18, no, it won't be. She's going to shave off some people. They're giving complete deals to just, it's worse to have more than one other trial. You don't need to, your witnesses to testify over and over and over again and be cross-examined by all these attorneys and great records that could have inconsistencies. It's just not something she's going to want. Some of my favorite parts of our podcast when you and I do it together is when you remind me that you were the prosecutor and you know so much more about certain criminal procedures

than I ever will. Take it. Take it. It is one of my favorite parts. I mean, some people like, or they interrupted each other. We're like, we're having a dialogue and a conversation. And hopefully it's interesting, we hope it is. But we've reached the end of another midweek episode

of legal AF. We sit. And the dogs were quiet. And the dogs were quiet. I was shocked. You know what I think? You know what I think? I have a working theory.

They were concentrating on our show. That was the sound of heavy concentration by the canaids. Look, I've got working theory. They were concentrating on our show. That was the sound of heavy concentration by the canines. Look, I've got pictures sent to me and on DMs, this sounds bad. Of our fans of like pets watching you, me or me and Dan are all three of us up on the screen. Which I thought was really funny. There we go for our audio only followers. Nobody is working hard right here. This is not a hard It's either It's either they're totally concentrated or we've so bored them the tears. Yes They are just super quiet. I don't know. It's one of the two. Anyway, we've reached the end

We sit at the intersection of law politics and justice so that we can report what we're doing. There's ways to support us if you like what we're doing. One way thumbs up. Give us a thumbs up here. Leave a review. Leave a comment. It helps with the ratings and the algorithm. It keeps the show on the air. Support our sponsors. That helps. Also, and everything else I'm going to talk about is really free. Free subscribe to the Midas Touch YouTube channel. Help them get the $2 million. The bigger they are, the more your voice is heard. And then if you're watching us now, which obviously you are, go over to the podcast platform

for audio and listen to us on this episode. Go back and forth between the two. And because we'll get credit for both of those, that's amazing. All right, that's the free ways to do it. Then we got some things that we're selling on the Midas Touch Store, which we'll put up a link for here. We got some T-shirts, the Karen thankfully redesigned came up with some shirt shapes that fit your real-life body styles, which I like at different logos that you can mix and match.

And you go on and you'll go on for that. And then if you want to do, you know, the Midas Touch Network overall, there's a Patreon. We'll put up a link for Patreon that you can go and support them and you get some sort of, you know, hidden Easter eggs about us and about the show and interviews and all of that. So these are the ways to support what we're doing. It's not like you're watching cable TV and there's a million ads or we have a big cable station that owns us. This is it.

I'm in my office, Karen's in some random multiple library she owns. She has multiple libraries that she operates out of. They're all different. We like books in our family. We're like, no, that's why I thought she is. There's a library of some sort. We like books. We're big book people. Yeah, but you're a superhero. I know if you pull one of those books off the shelf, it's going to revolve and then you're going to put on some superhero outfit and go save America. Yes. Yeah, exactly.

It's a scoop right here on the Midas Touch Network. But that's it. We're done Saturday with then my cellist and me and then right back again, and we do hot takes on that intersection of law politics and justice about every hour, especially right now, and you can go and they'll be Karen and me or Karen and Ben and all. And that's another way you can support what we do. But until the next midweek, LegalAF with Karen Friedman at Nifola, we're signing off, shout out to the minus Mighty and the LegalAEffers.

to the Midas mighty and the legal aid efforts.