Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Forced to PAY UP in NY, Supreme Court Ruling IS IN

Episode Date: February 29, 2024

Defense attorney Michael Popok & former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back with a new episode of the midweek edition of the Legal AF pod. On this episode, they debate: the Supreme Court’s surprising ruling to grant Trump’s appeal and set oral argument for April on whether a president can be indicted for crimes while in office, and the impact the ruling will have on the DC Election case and its scheduling before the election; Trump’s lose at the NY appellate court to stay the enforcement of the $500 million dollar NYAG fraud judgment and why he disclosed that he might have to sell real estate to cover the bond; the new filings made by the Manhattan DA’s criminal trial of Trump that starts in less than a month, the only likely criminal trial of Trump before the election, what Judge Cannon will do on Friday in the Mar a Lago obstruction case regarding the May trial date, whether Judge MacAfee will remove Fulton County DA Fani Willis from the Georgia election interference case this week, and so much more at the intersection of law, politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! PolicyGenius: Head to https://policygenius.com/legalaf to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. Smileactives: Visit https://SmileActives.com/legalaf to get this exclusive offer! BookShop.org: Use code LEGALAF to get 10 percent off your next order at https://bookshop.org/?utm_source=meidas-touch&utm_medium=youtube&utm_campaign=meidas-touch-legalaf&utm_content=brand SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF. There are just certain topics at the intersection of law, politics and justice. We have to talk about. We want you to know about and we want you to understand. And here's where we are for today. Donald Trump told the world earlier this afternoon that he was out of cash, that he didn't have enough money to post the 450 million running with interest plus another 20% for a bond didn't have that money In fact, he only had he can only scrape up about a hundred million brother. Can I spare 400 million dollars? That's all he needs and that's just talking about the New York Attorney General judgment In the civil fraud case. What about the $85 million judgment, which will be about $100 million with interest and with the bond fee over in the E. Jean Carroll case?

Nobody ever talks about that. And I thought Alina Habba got on Newsmax. Here she is with her thumbs up. Newsmax are one of these shows. Instead of course, he's a billionaire. He's got the money. We'll play that clip as well. Apparently he doesn't have the money. And just before airtime, we got a ruling

in record time on an emergency application by Donald Trump to only put up $100 million of the $450 million he owes, and to stay the enforcement of the judgment, meaning that the New York Attorney General wouldn't be able to execute on her judgment and go grab property and assets and Levy and garnish and take Melania's clothes off her back or whatever it would be During the penancey of the stay but the stay was denied Denied as our partner likes to say Ben myself and well, I mean it just came out and we will talk about that Here and what it means and what what is Donald trump's end game here besides delay if that's it Is he really out of cash? Is he trying to get to the point where he gets more money at the end of march?

from the truth social Acquisition or are going public where he may have accessed up to four4 billion, we will break it all down here. Then let's talk about Fawnie Willis because apparently we have to. There's going to be a big hearing this week. No, not the evidentiary hearing where we got to hear from witnesses that have no idea what's going on and no relevant knowledge to anything that's at heart of whether Fawnie Willis and Nathan Wade should be disqualified. Let's not forget here. Let me just remind everybody. A grand jury in Georgia, not named Nathan Wade and Faudi Willis. A grand jury after hearing months of evidence on the backs of seven

months of work by a special purpose grand jury indicted Donald Trump What does that have to do with who she sees or doesn't see after she's done with work? But judge McAfee has made it about that and he took last testimony From a former law partner of Nathan Wade that everybody thought was going to be up Oh, he's gonna he's going to contradict Fawney Willis and about when the relationship started and whether she hired him when he was a boyfriend or she hired him when he wasn't the boyfriend

to the extent that that matters. But it was all a much ado about nothing. We'll report as we did yesterday on the Midas Touch Network about the testimony of this key witness Allegedly a key witness and what it means for the hearing this week about whether she will be disqualified And if so what would happen to the case then we need to go Right to the heart of the matter and who better to take us there than our spirit guide for all things

Manhattan District Attorney's Office My co-anchor Karen Freeman Friedman, Nick Diffalo. We're gonna talk about the Stormy Daniels, Hush Money, Cover Up, Business Record Fraud case. God, we gotta come up with a shorter version of the name of that case, which is going to trial on March 25th, and now we get down to the molecular level.

We're less than a month. The trial lawyers on both sides are filing motions, fast and furious, all to be decided by Judge Mershan. We've got motions in limited to prevent Donald Trump from putting on certain testimony about certain witnesses and certain alleged offenses. We've got Donald Trump filing motions to prevent people like, oh, I don't know, Stormy Daniels

and maybe Michael Cohen from taking the stand against him. We've got the Manhattan DA a Requiring or asking the judge to in to Institute a another gag order where we heard that before against Donald Trump and to Anonymize as much as best as he can the jury for their own safety and their own protection This this will now be the fourth jury. I believe that, that's been anonymized by a state or federal judge to protect them from Donald Trump and people around him. So all of that got filed.

We're gonna unpack all of it right here. And then we're gonna end with Mar-a-Lago. Yes, that case is still going on. You wouldn't know it. Pardon me by how slow Aileen Cannon, the federal't know it. Pardon me by how slow alien can on the federal judge makes decisions. I joked with our producers and my co anchors the other day that why does alien Canada when she writes orders sound like a magic eight ball or the Oracle of Delphi? Why can't

you just write a straight order? Why do we have to like try to read tea leaves about what it means? What's going to happen at the next hearing? Well, there is another hearing around the same time the judge McAfee in Georgia is gonna decide whether fauney Willis And he are gonna get a divorce where they're gonna stay in the case together and let her be the prosecutor Alien cannon is finally gonna talk about whether she's gonna go forward with her May trial date Newsflash, how is she ever gonna try this case in May when there's still major issues like motions to dismiss dozens of them that have been filed by the defense

that haven't even been ruled upon, let alone appealed, let alone up potential to the United States Supreme Court. How is she ever gonna try a case in 53 days? She's not. And we're gonna know that for sure this week, but that will also impact this as Karen did a nice hot take on this one, the checker board and the dominoes of all the other trials and cases that have yet to been set. And she's got to decide whether she's going to get

reversed by the 11th Circuit or not on a key issue about whether Witnesses' names should be disclosed, secret grand jury Witnesses to the public are not having already made a terrible reversible error decision. And I'm sure there's other things we'll come up with, like, what is the Supreme Court doing about the immunity case? And are they ever going to let it go back to Judge Chetkin so she can just try the darn thing before the election?

All that and so much more, one place at the midweek, legal AF on the Midas Touch Network with two people, Karen Freeman and Nic Nifolo, who's slightly under the weather, and Michael Popo. Karen, I'm sorry you're not feeling well. My wife has a cold. I think all of Manhattan has an upper respiratory infection. I'm sorry about that. But just to show what a trooper you are, you and I did coverage with Ben, and I think we had Dean Adahl on there for the evidentiary hearing

that was a much do about nothing. And I know you have a very strong opinion about it, I wanna get it. On the last witness, I think in the case now, before the judge McAfee makes the decision about Foney Willis, you were there, you were there at the beginning the middle of The end you closed the whole thing and then like like the rest of New York you woke up with a cult

So thank you for being my partner and being here with us today I'm thrilled to be here. I wouldn't miss this for anything. That's right good. Let's dive right in Let's not waste any time or your energy At this rate exactly right. Yeah, I might ask you to take a little bit of the lead today. You would do it for me and then we've done it for each other. Do the heavy lifting today. I'm Cal. The laboring ore, as we like to say. Let's start with easy. So Donald Trump doesn't like the fact that he's staring down the barrel of about 500 million in change, probably closer to 600 million in double judgments, back to back, one state, one federal.

Eugene Carroll's rape punitive damage defamation judgment for 83.5 million, now probably up to about 85 million with 9% running interest in New York. And a bond that has to be posted, if you have to post it, it has to be usually 120% of the judgment amount, plus also a kind of prepayment of interest running. So that's a big bond. And but the bond we're gonna talk about here is the one that Judge Angoran just entered the judgment on in the New York

Civil Fraud case when he entered his, you know, when he issued his 93-page ruling, finding that Donald Trump and the others committed persistent fraud for years and installed all sorts of remedies or imposed all sorts of remedies, the money judgment got the big headline, you know, $450 million, which includes $100 million in interest, running with interest at about $3.4 million a month. And then what do you do about it? Now everybody's become like what I am,

which is a creditors rights expert. What do you do with a judgment? Once you get it, how do you execute on it? And I've done hot take after hot take on this, which is you take the decision in order, which was the 92 pages, you get a judgment from the judge that you usually submit a copy of,

and they did that here, the New York Attorney General as the winner. The judge signs the judgment along with the clerk, and then you have it executed judgment. You then take it and give it to the sheriff's department, and you give them a list of assets that you believe exist. If you have the list or your own sleuthing and your own investigation or, I don't know,

calling Barbara Jones the monitor and asking her where all the bank accounts are and how much money is in them, then the sheriff goes literally and knocks on the door or sends the garnish mitt or the levy or the whatever to their various departments of the bank They freeze the account and then there's a process by which that money is sucked out if it's real estate They put a big padlock on the building and they schedule it for a sheriff's sale issuing a sheriff's deed to the winner in

Return for money and every dollar that's collected from the sale of a boat, a masterpiece, a piece of art, Melania's jewelry, whatever they pick up. I've been involved with cases where they picked up the watch that the guy wore in to the deposition to find out where his assets were. Literally, the trustee took the watch off his arm. Literally the trustee took the watch off his arm

It was fact that guy wore a Rolex into a into a deader deposition was crazy But he left lighter he left lighter that moment So that's how you do it and that's what donald trump is worried about that as soon as the next I think it's about 25 days expire She he knows leticia james and her crew are lined up with the Sheriff's Department to go grab bank accounts and real estate, maybe even 40 Wall Street. And they get to start selling and liquidating and applying it with running interest. The interest keeps running until the last dollar is paid at 9% at them on the remaining balance on the Wasting balance as they say and so until she gets her 450 million plus running interest every last time She keeps selling assets now

She can't collect more that she's entitled to if she sells an asset like I don't know a building And it brings in five and a quarter and she's only owed at that moment for 75 She's got to give back to Donald Trump, the other 40 or 50 million, keep the change, so to speak. Donald Trump has won any of that to happen. So, and he doesn't have the money at the moment. So he filed an emergency application just today with the Appellate Division First Department,

which is in Manhattan, which sits over Judge Engor on all Supreme Court justices over on Madison Avenue. Karen and I have been there a number of times. I got sworn in there in the ceremonial courtroom, and they asked for this emergency, stay, stay everything, stay the judgment. I have a hundred million, I don't have 500 million, I'm going to win an appeal and stay every aspect of the judge's order. It's all going to be overturned and blah, blah, blah.

They pulled a judge, a judge, a justice. It was like a day judge, a duty judge, Judge Anil Singh, who I know and I've appeared in front of. And Judge Singh took a look at it and he said, hmm, denied as to the money judgment. In other words, I'm not gonna stay temporarily for now until the full appeal is heard by the sixth member of Pellet Pad panel. I'm just an emergency duty judge

I am not staying the money judgment. I'm gonna stay though. This is interesting. I'm gonna get your view on this Karen I'm gonna stay a couple of other aspects of the of the judgment for now until the full appellate panel Not the money I'm gonna stay the the ban on his ability, on Donald Trump's ability to go borrow money from New York banks. He can still do that right now or up until the full appellate panel rules. I'm going to stay the part about him being banned from running businesses or being an officer and director in a business. But the rest and the money not staying, which means it now has to go to a full appellate panel

and be adjudicated there, and they can ask for a stay again, but as of right now, there's only these three, I think, inconsequential issues that have been stayed by Singh. Why do you think, Karen, just to sing through him a bone and picked out those particular items, not to stay while denying the request

to stay enforcement of the judgment without bond. Yeah, look, the money part is really interesting because that's not going away. And so I think he has to come up with that money. He has to come up with the Eging Carroll money. He already put up the five million for the original Eging Carroll money. And I think he lifted the other stuff

so that he can borrow the money and put up the bod for the appeal. So that Letitia James with the sheriff doesn't have to do things like sell assets, sell buildings, et cetera. Cause that can be very disruptive to others who are tenants in the building or to other individuals who might have an interest in the building. Also, I have no idea.

Because you're much more of an expert in this than I am. But a lot of stuff is in his name, right? Some of it's going to be in the name of trusts or other legal entities. I mean, this is a guy who's declared bankruptcy, what six times? So he, I would say it's not his first rodeo in terms of protecting assets because he's filed bankruptcy so many times, that he must have, he must be an expert in somehow hiding maybe he's not hiding his assets, but somehow making them bulletproof or somewhat difficult if not bulletproof to penetrate.

And I also suspect they're highly leveraged right he? He doesn't own these things out, right? So if he has a billion dollar building, but the mortgage on it and all of the other debts on it is about the value or almost the value of the building, what good is a sale of it going to do, right? Most of the money will go to pay off and service the debt. So I think that the reason that the judge stayed the other part of this is to, number

one, not necessarily disrupt the status quo of what's going on in the various businesses. You've got Barbara Jones monitoring things so that they can't do any funny business. They can't really do anything criminal anymore because you've got Barbara Jones in there. So that's kind of safe, right? She's the special monitor. So in some ways, those things are protected and the risk isn't really there. And again, it might be kind of difficult to get this stuff given his expertise in shielding assets from given his expertise in shielding assets from creditors because of his numerous bankruptcies. And so I think that he is in some ways doing a favor

for the attorney general because this way, she doesn't have to do any of that. He can go borrow the rest of the money. He already said today he has a hundred million that he can put up. Now he can go borrow the rest, put the risk on a find one of on a financial institution, don't put the risk on on anybody else and to have to deal

with it. I mean, at the end of the day, it's the taxpayers who are the ones who are entitled to this money from this judgment. So, so put the risk with a bank, let him take out a loan, put up the money judgments, and go from there. I mean, he also recently, and you can talk to this pop-up about the SPAC, right? The Truth Social SPAC that was recently approved that I think it's what, in six months, money will come available to him. And that's supposedly going to be a significant amount of money that he could use towards this as well. So that's why I think that they did it. It seems

actually like they were doing the Attorney General a favor, frankly. Yeah. No, I agree with you on that. Well, it's also completely inconsistent. You know, whenever I see multiple lawyers taking different positions, it always concerns me. So Cliff Robert apparently is the one, because he's the New York lawyer on the team of Habba and Kais, who files these kind of motions. But he can't run away from things that Alina Habba said. I mean, we all saw Alina Habba in her one of these friendly softball interviews on Newsmax say that Donald Trump's a billionaire. Of

course he has the money to put up all the all of the bonds. Well, apparently he doesn't as Ben likes to say let's go to the clip. My goodness. So, Judge Engaran says that he wants this $350 million within 30 days. Now, I know that you're planning on appealing this, but you've still got to put up the full amount pending that appeal. Does Donald Trump have that kind of money sitting around? Yes. I mean, he does, of course, he has money. You know, he's a billionaire.

We know that. Yeah. Well, he's a billionaire that doesn't have, he apparently has about 350 million in cash. He's going to have to sell assets as well and sell real estate, a point noted by the New York Attorney General and her opposing papers today. She also pointed out in the papers that he's all read the reason she needs security, just like any other. When I say she, it's the people of the state of New York that's embodied by the New York Attorney General. So it's not the New York Attorney General's judgment. It is the people of the

state of New York's judgment. The money will go into the general treasury of New York and be used for other things, just not things that for Donald Trump's lifestyle. But she even said in there, you can't trust him. You can't trust him to get away with a hundred million dollar, you know, one quarter secure judgment for me and for the people of the state of New York. For instance, and she gave two examples. For instance, he moved $40 million while the trial was going on and the monitor was in place without telling her, which was reported by the monitor, Barbara Jones. And secondly, they said,

and judge, in just the last week, speaking to the appellate judge, in just the last week, all of a sudden Trump dropped out of the blue or mentioned out of the blue that he moved his businesses to Florida with new Florida addresses, which is exactly the kind of you know dissipation of assets fraudulent transfer that she's worried about as a justification

I'm sure that resonated with Judge Singh especially since you know, we've got the liar over here up there with Alina Habba So of course he's a billionaire, of course he's got the money. Well, of course he does not. Now let me talk about the SPAC that you raised. That's very interesting. I got a hot take, I don't think it's going up today, maybe the next day or so.

But there, the New York Times had a very good outline about this, we've talked a lot about the SPACs. I worked for a company that was a SPAC sponsor. So I sort of understand this world. So people might have lost track that Donald Trump and his truth social tried to merge with a special purpose acquisition company. That's what we call it a SPAC, which is a short form, sort of a fast track way to go public. But there were a lot of problems with that. No, this shouldn't shock anybody. Like there was illegal insider trading going on.

There was a whistleblower. There was evidence to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there was violations of the SPAC rules because the SPAC vehicle, the entity, is not supposed to disclose to the investors who take what they take their money in. That's why it's called a blank check vehicle, blank checks back, who their target is. In other words, they say to a group of investors, this is how you get around from securities

and exchange commission rules and regulations. You say, we haven't targeted a company yet. We're going to do do something maybe an entertainment Maybe in social media give us your money at ten dollars a unit will take your money and within a year We'll make the investment if you like the investment you stay in the investment You don't like the investment will give you your money back. That's the special world of facts you're not supposed to the The act the acquiring company is not supposed to have a target in mind and certainly shouldn't be telling the investors

But they did and the evidence was that they knew they were going to acquire Trump Social truth social and that but and that certain of the investors knew that too and that is a no-no And so the Securities and Exchange Commission held up that deal for over a year But now they gave approval to it so So on March the 24th, Donald Trump holds 79 million shares in this company. And at the current rate, you know, listen, MAGA, MAGA, MAGA created their own meme stock like GameStop, and they bid up that price to $47 a share. But when it was 10, well, do the math. 47 times 79 million is $4 billion-ish. The problem is, on the papers, he can't get to it for six months. There's a lockup provision. But there's always an exception. If he can get the shareholders to let him access the money right now, then he can sell the shares, crushing the price

and crushing those very investors that just gave him permission. Because if he sells 500 million or a billion dollars worth of shares, it's gonna tank the market. And even if he doesn't do that, right now, once he gets the little shares in his hot little hands, his fat little hands,

he can gift that to his family members. He can transfer it to close family members. So he gifts it over or transfers it over to Don Jr. And then Don Jr. uses that money to go get a loan and gives a loan to daddy. So, but look, there's a lot of pages left on the calendar, Karen, between now and march the 22nd And and the judgments will all be you know without bonds without stays are all going to be able to be executed on and that's where

That's what we're watching right now while he's continuing to be the leading, you know the the republican nominee for office Craziness, sorry. I had to find the mute button. That's all right, okay. That happens every once in a while. Right, so look, that's where we are there. I think the bigger problem for him, and we're gonna talk about it later

and you're gonna lead on it, is the Manhattan DA issue, because it's his first, we get fatigued with Donald Trump not on this network but in general and He's got his first criminal trial On March 25th that he has to go to every day and be a defendant in a criminal trial with a jury in New York about business fraud

So, you know, this is not you know,, everyone's like Teflon Don. Teflon Don, he's got a hundred million dollar judgment, a 500 million dollar judgment, and a likely conviction sometime in April or May in New York. That is not a Teflon Don as far as I'm concerned. So, I'll make it a pick up right here, Karen, because if you're not feeling well, you wanna do Manhattan DA first, or you wanna do Fawnie Willis first? What'll get you fired up? Oh, God. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha a little bit, we'll leave New York. So why don't you frame it?

I think Salty wants us to call, Salty says we have to go to a call. Oh, all right, all right, that's why we have a producer. You know what, I wasn't looking at the clock, I was having so much fun with Karen. So coming up next will be Karen Freemanignifolo's spectacular analysis from the vantage point of a former prosecutor about Fony Willis and what is

happening to her. This public, you know, to paraphrase the philosopher Clarence Thomas, this public electronic lynching of Fony Willis before our very eyes instead of being focused on the defendants in a criminal case. And we'll talk about the Manhattan district attorney's office gearing up and getting ready, you know, giddy up for a trial against Donald Trump starting March 25th, if you thought it was never gonna be here, it's gonna be here,

and then we'll end with Mar-a-Lago, why not? And talk about whether there's gonna be a trial in Mar-a-Lago, but first, that's some great sponsors this year, I'm really happy about. And here's a word for some of them. As most of you know, I'm married and a baby on the way. Finding the right life insurance to protect my family with policy genius has never been

more important. Make life insurance part of your financial planning this year. Start shopping now with policy genius to find a policy to protect your family. Getting life insurance today means you'll have peace of mind so that if something were to happen to you, your family can cover expenses while getting back on their feet. Policy Genius helps you compare your options

from top companies and their team of licensed experts is on hand to help talk you through it. Having the right insurance will give me the peace of mind knowing that my family will be taken care of in a worst case scenario. Policy Genius has licensed award winning agents and technology that makes it easy to compare

life insurance quotes from America's top insurers in just a few clicks to find your lowest price. With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policies that started just $292 per year for one million in coverage. Some options offer same day approval and avoid unnecessary medical exams. Policy Genius works for you, not the insurance companies. That means they don't have an incentive

to recommend one insurer over another so you can trust their guidance, save time and money and provide your family with a financial safety net using Policy Genius. Head to policygenius.com slash legal AF or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save.

That's policygenius.com slash legal AF. Are you self-conscious about your smile due to stains? Are your teeth aging you? Popular food and drinks are known to stain teeth. Beverage is like coffee and wine stained them over time. So what can you do to brighten your smile? Well, you should give smile actives a try. Smile actives is safe, effective, easy to use and will keep you smiling proudly. As you probably know because of all the videos we do, I'm a big coffee drinker and over time

I noticed my teeth lost some of their brightness that I was used to seeing. 97% of Smile Actives users in a clinical trial reported up to six shades wider on average, all within 30 days. Simply add Smile Actives Pro-Whitening Gel to your regular toothpaste. It's been formulated with polyclean technology to boost stain removal and deliver active whitening ingredients into teeth, grooves and crannies to get better whitening. Smile Actives makes a teeth whitening gel that can simply be added to your toothpaste

every time you brush your teeth. So no change in your routine, no extra time and no more messy strips, trays or lights. People will start commenting on your wider, brighter smile in just days. Smile Actives is the whitening boost your favorite toothpaste needs to give you the smile you deserve.

Visit smileactives.com slash legalaf today to receive a special buy one, get one free offer with auto delivery plus free shipping and handling. That's smileactives.com slash legal AF, terms and conditions apply, see site for details. And we're back. Let's dive right in. I want to hear all about my illustrious partner,

Karen Freeman, Ignifolo. We've got the last witness apparently in this bullshit evidentiary hearing that Scott McAfee the judge brought upon himself by the way he's handling this particular matter Not the way I would have Terrence Bradley. Why don't you tell our audience about? The testimony what do you think the impact of it is and what you can do some? Commentary of course about what do you think's gonna happen with Judge McAfee when he hears the argument of counsel and the decision about whether he's gonna get rid of Fonny Willis

and or Nathan Wade and or dismiss the indictment as a result of whatever she did in her off hours. Yeah, well, so this was a situation where Michael Roman, who is one of Trump's co-defendants, his lawyer, Ashley Merchant, used to be a huge supporter of Nathan Wade when he was running for office and I guess he was running for judge. She even, there's even pictures of her wearing Wade for, or whatever it said on her t-shirt. And she then made this block buster accusation in emotion on behalf of of Michael Roman, the defendant, that Fonnie Willis

and Nathan Wade were having an affair. And as a result, that that Fonnie Willis should be removed from the case. She should be disqualified from the case because of this affair and Nathan Wade is a unqualified and that he got paid so much money and she was lining her pockets and therefore there's a conflict of interest. You know, she only hired him so that she could make all this extra money and hired her boyfriend who was unqualified. So those are the, that was the accusation. Judge McAfee ordered a hearing.

And unfortunately he didn't limit the scope of the hearing. That the hearing should have been about whether or not there is a disqualifying conflict of interest. And a disqualifying conflict of interest under the law would be if there is, for example, a financial motive in a case. A case, so prosecutors are all public servants and they're all paid a salary, not hourly and not on contingency. Meaning they get paid whether they win or whether they lose, whether they work a lot or work a little. And that's a good thing because you don't want to incentivize

a prosecutor to do, for example, extra work or more work so that they'll make more money or you don't want it to be outcome-determinative, right? You don't want them to, you don't want it to be a situation where a prosecutor only gets paid if they win because you could imagine a scenario where they would not do justice and they would cut corners or potentially do nefarious things in order to try to win. And that is contrary to public policy, contrary to justice. And that would be disqualifying. So if for some reason she hired an unqualified person

and was paying him tons of money and then he was lavishing her with gifts and vacations and all of that, which is all that was laid out in this motion, that could potentially be disqualifying. Whether or not she has a relationship, whatever that means, by the way, because it was never defined about what that would mean at this hearing. That really has nothing to do with this case.

What if they had feelings for one another, but never acted on them? Would that matter? What if they had a one night stand? Would that matter? Would it be what if they had a one night stand? Would that count? What if it was just a kiss or what if it was just sexual with no feelings? Whatever. The point is that isn't either here or there. You could be best friends with someone and hire your friend or your cousin and or your sibling or whatever. You could hire anyone and there could be a financial conflict of interest.

It has nothing to do with whether or not somebody had sex with each other. But for whatever reason, Judge McAfee did not keep the hearing focused or tell everybody to keep the hearing focused and have it be on this financial conflict of interest that could be disqualifying. Instead, it was like an episode of Real Housewives

of Folton County. And I thought it was kind of appalling that they spent, I don't know, 90% of the time talking about whether or not there was sex, whether or not there was these vacations and who paid for them, and whether or not anyone saw them romantically, etc. But they never got specific or precise in the questioning. And so a lot of things were left

open and vague. And it was things about, well, yes, they were in a relationship. Or yes, their relationship started before they said it did, but no one ever defined what they meant by that, right, by a relationship. So the hearing was just all over the place and the hearing was over after two days worth of testimony where there was an ex-friend slash disgruntled employee of the Fulton County DA's office, she believes that the relationship started before Fonnie Willis and Nathan Way said it did and they said the relationship started after he was hired that it had nothing to do with hiring him by the way. And so this woman testified without any specificity, I saw them kiss, I saw this, nothing like that.

It was very speculative. And then Nathan Wade testified very clearly that he, the relationship started afterward and it ended before Trump was even arrested. So it was a somewhat brief romantic relationship. Fonnie Willis testified the same. They called her father to the stand to show that Fonnie Willis always kept cash

because one of the things they talked about was she paid her own way and she always paid Nathan Wade back in cash. And it was clear that nobody believed, I mean, these are two officers of the court. These are two lawyers. She's the elected district attorney. I mean, she has a sworn duty to tell the truth, to be honest.

And just by allowing all this extra testimony to impeach them, it just shows that really, Judge Bacchofi, I don't think believes what he heard because again The defendant here did not meet his burden that there was a disqualifying conflict of interest yet The judge is allowing all this collateral impeachment material which is typically not allowed for collateral information and so What just when we thought everything was was done we get we find out and we're just waiting on summations and then a judges decision about whether Fonnie Willis is taken off the case. We suddenly find out that

Nathan Wade's divorce attorney and ex-law partner, Mr. Bradley, that where previously, I guess, the source of Ashley Merchant's information about this relationship looks like it was Terrence Bradley, or at least that's what it seemed like, that he's the one who said that. And so they wanted to call him to the stand, but he said, look, every all the conversations I had with Nathan Wade were privileged. He hired me in the context of being a divorce attorney. And so at first, he wasn't going to be allowed on the stand to have to disclose those communications.

Well, the judge spoke to Mr Bradley in his chambers without the parties. It's called in-camera is what they call that. And they had a conversation and the judge made inquiries and determined that number one, the communications about the, when the relationship started were A, not privileged and B, the other thing we found out was that Delta Airlines had complied with the subpoena and gave the judge information about airline tickets

and all of that to potentially, I guess, support or corroborate or impeach Fonnie Willis and Nathan Wade. So they reopened the hearing and they called Mr. Bradley to the stand and we watched another installment or episode of Real Housewives of Fulton County and it was ridiculous. And the other thing too is, first of all, some of the worst lawyering I've ever seen, they absolutely did not once again, especially Mr. Roman's lawyer does not know how to

ask a question, does not know how to get specific information. And so it was just torture to watch. And the other thing that was torture to watch was he couldn't have been clearer. Mr. Bradley was that he's like, I was speculating, you know, yeah, I believe that the relationship started earlier and started before he was hired, but I was speculating. And it just struck me as typical gossip, right? Typical gossip, people think, oh yeah, that relationship must have started a long time ago. They're two very good looking, very successful,

very powerful lawyers and judges and DAs. They've had many hats, each of them. And I could, of know, of course, I can imagine a scenario once they do get together, somebody thinking that the relationship started sooner. And so he was very clear that that was all speculation and that he was not precise when he, when Ashley Merchant asked him, so is this true?

You know, did the relationship start sooner? He said, yes, but I could tell you right now that a lot of people thought he came across as not credible, that he looked cagey, that he was like he was lying. He said, when asked, did you lie to Miss Merchant when you told her that the relationship started earlier? He said, I don't believe so or something kind of sketchy like that, something that was a little bit hedging. He really didn't emphatically say, no, I'm not a liar, that's what I thought.

And so he did come across, I think, not great. He clearly did not wanna be there. And I would say it was kind of a, he was neither here nor there because he didn't seem credible. He didn't really provide any information under oath, right? Just because he said something in a text message, if he doesn't say it under oath, it's still, even if he's not credible, it still doesn't prove the point they're trying to make, right? It doesn't prove that this relationship started when they said it did. And again, who gives you know what about when the relationship started, but now we're in a

situation where if they lied, right, if Fonnie Willis and Nathan Wade lied to Judge McAfee, I can tell you right now, he's going to pull them off the case and then it's game over. How are you going to find another prosecutor because the whole office will have to be taken off the case if Fani Willis is because she's the boss. Are you going to find someone else, another office who's going to prosecute these 18 defendants with Ken Chesborough, who has a fake Twitter account and supposedly cooperating, but he's clearly talking out of both sides of his mouth. So prosecutors are going to have to manage him. You've got this crazy trial.

I think it could be game over for the case. I mean, you've got the former governor was one of the witnesses who testified at the original part of this hearing, right? The former governor, very, very respected lawyer, seasoned, very high-profile person who's used to high-profile situations. He turned down this case

He turned Fani Willis down when she asked him first before Nathan Wade if he wanted to do this case Why? Because he said I don't want all the death threats. I don't want to deal with this I know what happens when you you go into Trump's orbit and you prosecute Him you get you spend your life with 24-hour security and death threats. Who needs that? So if you've got one of the most powerful people who's used to high-profile, powerful position in Georgia, who's not going to be a shrinking violet, he's turning it down. Who are you going to find who's going to actually take

this case if Ronny Willis is disqualified? She is a public servant. We should be thanking the Lord that she is willing to put her life on hold and completely, completely sacrifice her safety, her life, her reputation to be put through the ringer like this. And instead, we're having hearing about her private life and her relationship.

So I don't know. I actually don't know what to make of it anymore, what's gonna happen and what this judge is gonna do because he lost all control of this hearing to begin with. What do you think, Popak? I think he lost all control of this hearing from the beginning to the beginning with. I would not have handled it that way.

That this shit just showed. There are moments where you see, he was doing great for a long periods of time, but there are just moments that just comes from an experience. He hasn't been on the bench before. He's never dealt, of course, with these kind of issues before. He has a clear sense of what he wanted to accomplish, but he's completely inconsistent. He said at the top, I won't let this become dragging Fawnie Willis and Nathan Wade through the mud. It's exactly what's happened. He needed to, as I've said before,

after he needed to do, let's do the legal argument first. Let me hear what your arguments are. Let me see the proffer of what you think the evidence will show, and then I'll decide whether we need an evidentiary hearing. But instead he said, well, let's get to the evidentiary hearing, let's start hearing from all sorts of witnesses

like Fawney's father and Nathan Wade's former partner. And let's talk about how many bottles of wine they had, you know, when they went to Napa Valley. I'm like, what in God's green earth does this have to do with anything as you've so perfectly put it? So I don't know what's going to happen now. I don't think she's going to get bounced. But I, you know, I'm one of those people that thinks that she didn't do herself any great favors from the sense of being a Prosecutor on the case when she defended herself I like that she defended herself

But I think she might have won the battle and lost the war the more she defended herself the more she looked like she wasn't and a Dispassionate impartial Prosecutor and that may concern McAfee, who's inexperienced himself. Look, they're both so inexperienced. They're both up for election with Donald Trump. They're both down ballot on November 5th, a retention vote on Scott McAfee, apparently, and fawnies up for reelection just to show you

how politics, law, and justice all of this. So we're going to keep a close eye on this. We're going to be hearing this week. We'll cover it. It's on YouTube. We'll have a Midas Touch channel up with it and pre-game and post-game and all of that as we like to do here on the Midas Touch Network. And we're going to talk about a breaking development with the United States Supreme Court ruling

related to Donald Trump. That's called a teaser and a cliffhanger, all wrapped up into one. And we're going to end with Mar-a-Lago. We've got a new ruling, even while we're putting this show together, from Aileen Cannon, the always incomparable, yet incomprehensible Aileen Cannon. We'll talk about all of that, but first, the word from our sponsors. Legal AF is brought to you by bookshop.org. You may be watching or listening to our show right now, but are you reading enough? It's time to dive back into books and conquer that reading goal you set

for yourself this year with bookshop.org. There's so many great books out right now that help you make sense of this moment. Or maybe you just want to get away from the political noise and unwind with a good novel. Bookshop.org has just the book you're looking for. Bookshop.org is unapologetically anti-Amazon. Why? Because when you purchase from Bookshop.org, you're supporting local independent bookstores, so they'll be around for all of us to enjoy in the future. They're committed to helping independent bookstores not just survive but thrive and continue to foster culture, curiosity and a love of reading in your community. Of course, everybody knows I love reading because I have lots of books around me always. Bookshop.org has raised over $30 million for local bookstores.

You can even pick which bookstore you want to support, whether it's your local bookstore or your hometown favorite. Bookshop.org is truly for everyone who loves to read and knows the power of a good book. I just finished reading Worthy, How to Believe You Are Enough and Transform Your Life, and it's a truly beautiful read. And thanks to Bookshop.org, I had no problem finding a book

that I was interested in with just a click of a button. Start feeling good about where you buy books. Use code legalAF at checkout to get 10% off your next order at bookshop.org. That's code legalAF to get 10% off at bookshop.org. Keep reading and stay informed. Well, we're back and we got some breaking news. Much different than I had thought.

And thank you for Salty for posting it there. The United States Supreme Court, apparently there's at least five votes of the United States Supreme Court to convert the request for a stay by Donald Trump on the three judge panel ruling for the D.C. Court of Appeals that there is no presidential immunity, absolute or otherwise, for criminal conduct while the person is in office, Supreme Court thinks that's interesting and has now decided to set it for a full appeal

with full briefing and oral argument timing out for April the 22nd. What is the impact of that? First of all, I really, I'm gobsmacked for many reasons, but one of them is, I really thought the delay, and it's been about two weeks or so, is because we were waiting on a denial of the motion for stay and writ of certiorari, and we were waiting on dissents to be written. But apparently what was going on behind closed doors was an attempt to try to grab four to five votes.

Four votes to take it up on appeal, five votes to grant it. So somewhere between four and five votes, we don't know who, it's all opaque at this moment. They think at the Supreme Court level that they're putting this on a fast track because they're gonna have an oral argument on the 22nd of April. Doesn't mean they're gonna rule on the 23rd of April.

In fact, Supreme courts usually take two to three months. So even if they fast track the argument and the appeal and all of that, and everything's done and dusted on April 22nd, it could take them two to three months or six months to rule. Let's just say it's before the end of the term. The term ends in June.

So we get a June ruling. Well, there goes the trial that Judge Chutkin was going to hold for the DC election interference case before the election. Because if the ruling comes in June, and it's against Donald Trump, I guess Chutkin could re-scramble, but the parties haven't been preparing for the trial because there's been a stay in place. And so there's no way Chutkin under due process is gonna force Donald Trump to get ready for trial in three weeks and try the case in July or August. So this, the ramification of this,

and I wanna get your opinion on it Karen, is that this DC election interference case, the four counts against Donald Trump presided over by Judge Chutkin, is not going to go to trial before the November election. What do you think about all that? I've never been prouder to say that I came from the Manhattan DA's office. I really haven't, because what this decision is showing us, unfortunately, is the only case that is going to go to trial before the election is the Manhattan DA Hush Money case where the first time Donald Trump tried to

steal the election, it's, I feel so deflated by this decision. It's actually shocking to me. I feel so deflated by this decision. It's actually shocking to me. And I just can't believe they're doing this because even, I mean, this is already somewhat fast tracked by doing it this way because the arguments are gonna be in April and then I guess they could have a decision in June. And, but then Tanya Chetkin said she'd give them time and day for day.

That's what, three months? So there's no way they're going to start this trial in September or October in the middle of the election. It's just not going to happen. And so that case isn't going. Now with the real housewives of Fulton County, that case isn't going because we're sidetracked on whether Fonnie Willis had a consensual relationship with Nathan Wade and so that case is not going so neither Jan 6th case is going and Eileen Cannon who still has her Mar-a-Lago documents case on the calendar in May There's no way that case is going in May. And she's slow walking it.

She's not taking it off the calendar, but because she wanted to block out Judge Chutkin in case the United States Supreme Court didn't do what they just did. And so that case isn't going. And so the Manhattan DA case for all the naysayers out there who said, why this case? Why is it going? It's not very serious, etc. Manhattan DA's office has always been put your head down, follow the facts wherever they lead, do not play

politics with people's lives. And just if you committed a crime, no matter who you are, you're not above the law, period, full stop. And I've never been prouder of my office that this is the case that's done. Let's get right into it. Let's, you know, listen, we gotta get off the mat and move forward. That's not the decision we wanted,

but that's the decision we have by the United States Supreme Court, which effectively takes off the docket, case that we all think is the most important case to go to trial before November, the November 5th election, which is not going to happen. So we do have a case. It may not be the case that everybody wanted, but it's the case that we're going to have against Donald Trump, first to indict, first to try Manhattan DA.

And now the lawyers there on both sides are filing their motions. I'll do the ones for Donald Trump, but why don't you do the ones that the Manhattan, you wanna do the ones in Manhattan DA file or the ones that Donald Trump filed? Why don't you do the Manhattan DA ones? You did a good hot take on the gag and the jerse and all of that. And I can kind of wrap in with the motions and limites.

Does that make sense? Yeah, sure. Okay, hit it. Want me to go first? Yeah, please. So the Manhattan DA's office, Yeah, sure. Okay hit it. Let me go first. Yeah, please So So the Manhattan DA's office the trial lawyers there are clearly getting ready for trial by filing pretrial motions in lemony and

there So that's how you kind of know that trial is about to start because just from the timing of it And these are the pretrial motions that are being filed and they filed Two motions in particular that kind of go hand-in-hand. They're very similar There's there's two sides of the same coin if you will one it was for a gag order of Donald Trump and the other is for an anonymous jury. And essentially what they're asking for is a protective order, it was a protective order motion, seeking the prohibition of

disclosure of juror or prospective jurors, home addresses or business addresses, other than to counsel a record for the party. So meaning the lawyers can get the addresses so that they can do the research because that's what lawyers sometimes do when they're engaging in pretrial research with jury, with it's called voir dire or voir dire in some parts of the US, what we call it voir dire here in New York. And that's just another word for jury selection.

I think it's a French word actually, not a Latin word, but anyway. And so they're gonna do a juror questionnaire and jurors are gonna put their names and addresses and the lawyers will do research and look into find who these people are in an effort to kind of learn more about them. And so number one is they're asking to prohibit

the disclosure of this information from Donald Trump himself and only allow it for the lawyers. And so that way the lawyers can do research. And there is law in New York that allows for this. And so this should be granted. And that's why they made this their number one argument because they know it's fairly strong and that will be granted.

Now, the second argument that they asked for, the second thing they asked for was to prohibit disclosure of the juror's names other than to Trump and his lawyers and to the prosecutors. So that's a little diceicier because if you remember, in the aging Carol case, Judge Kaplan did it federally because federal law allows for that. But in state court, that's a lot trickier.

And spent in New York, it's a lot trickier and more difficult to do because when you, in general, an anonymous jury where you don't give the names to anyone, that signals to the jury in a way that this defendant is so dangerous that you don't want him to know your name or your address or any information about you, that could be prejudicial because if that's how they feel, they're not going to go back into the jury room and necessarily give a fair and impartial assessment of the facts. So that's a little dicey here whether they'll do that. They should do that.

Otherwise, why does the public have to know who these people are and know their names? So I think the judge might actually consider it because there's such a long record here about threats, etc., in various jury cases and jury trials and proceedings. And they cited to them, they cited it to the Roger Stone case, for example, where where Donald Trump came out and started attacking the jurors in that case, took calling them totally biased and tainted and disgraceful, said the forewoman, look at her, look at her background, she hates Trump, she hates stone, she's totally biased. So they put that, the Manhattan D.A. office put that in their motion, that case, And they also went through all the times

that Donald Trump repeatedly attacked, whether it was the Fulton County grand jurors calling them names, calling them illegal kangaroo court, et cetera, or in the E. Jean Carroll case, the first one where he was calling them hostile and partisan and witch-hunted, on and on. And they also cited his longstanding history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, judges, court staff, you know, we saw that. And I mean, the thing is, it's not like this is speculative

at this point. They have a body of work to show the judge to say, look at all these cases, look at how he does it. He goes after people's families, he goes after people's, he goes after jurors, etc. So that comes to the second part of this, the other motion, which was the gag order. And they were very clear about tracking the language of the gag order in the DC Presidential Immunity, the one we just talked about, the Chuk Tanya Chuk in Jan 6 case, that gag order was appealed to the DC circuit and it was refined and there's language that they're comfortable with.

And so the Manhattan DA's office made sure to track that language exactly so that it can withstand appeal. And again, cited this long-standing history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, judges, court staffs, family, blah, blah, blah, blah, everybody's wife and families and Judge Engorron's clerk and Michael Cohen's wife, et cetera.

And I think he's going to also give him this gag order because of it with one caveat. give him this gag order because of it with one caveat. They asked for the Manhattan D.A.'s office asked for a prohibition on attacking witnesses as well and I get why they did it but it's not just attacking but it's also commenting right and potentially influencing the trial and the only caveat and question I have is will the judge grant that because, or will he modify it and say, you know what, I'm gagging you and I'm gagging the defense team, but Michael Cohen can go out and continue to talk about the case, talk about you, talk about stuff, and that Trump can't respond.

Also, if Michael Cohen continues to talk about the case, and obviously he's on this network, and he's on the Midas Touch Network, and he has every right to talk about it. And in fact, I think his talking about it is largely responsible for why these cases are being brought. He's kind of a whistleblower more than anything else. But I think at a certain point, the judge

will say too much talking about it extraneously, extrajudicially outside of court, could also influence or impact jurors. So I could see that the judge would potentially even go further and not only grant this gag order, but also potentially gag others as well. What about you, Popak? What do you think about that?

Yeah, we're gonna have Michael Cohen on one day. I went on Michael Cohen's show, Maya Culpa, and it's up in audio. I'm not sure how Michael exactly puts up his video versions, but we're gonna cross him over. I mean, right now he is, he's the bride at the wedding and the body at the funeral. Everybody's got a Michael Cohen motion from the Manhattan DA's office who filed a motion as among their many motions

in which they want to make it, they want the jury not to learn about or not have Donald Trump argue about anything related to the federal prosecutors. They were under Donald Trump's Department of Justice and their opinions one way or the other about Michael Cohen. I mean, listen, Michael Cohen paid his debt to society. Michael Cohen played guilty, convicted, you know, a couple of felonies or some perjury in there related to some of those things. This is like received wisdom.

This is like known facts. Michael will have to deal with that in cross-examination and in direct examination when they put them on to admit to it. But they don't want a third party's hearsay analysis of Michael Cohen as a witness, in this case the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, which was ultimately under the Department of Justice led by, you know, Donald Trump's Attorney General, to like, that shouldn't come into evidence. On the other side, Donald Trump doesn't want Michael Cohen to come in at all. Oh, he's a convicted perjurer. He can't believe a word he says. He shouldn't be allowed. Use your gatekeeping function, Judge. Keep him off the stand. That's not going to happen. But you Michael Cohen Michael Cohen had a good comment in his social media

We basically told Todd Blanche the lawyer for Donald Trump to f off Related to his attempts to take him out of being a witness Um and and the reason that Michael Cohen is so important is there's not a lot of moving parts about the scheme That's at the part of the New York of the Manhattan DA's office's indictment It's a catch-and-kill program led by David Pecker of the national inquirer a friend of Donald Trump who who Devised the plan with Donald Trump's consent and Michael Cohen's involvement

They paid off the people that Donald Trump slept with by having them get a lot of money, the going rate was 100, about 100,000, 130,000 and then had these women signed non-disclosure agreements in return to catch and kill, catch the story and kill it. And then, so the car is gonna have to testify, Pecker's gonna have to testify. Peckar's gonna have to testify. And then when it came to Stormy Daniels, Peckar didn't wanna lay out the money

because he'd already been burnt by Donald Trump once. So Michael Cohen laid out the money. So Michael Cohen's gotta testify that he laid out the money to bribe Stormy Daniels, the hush money part, and then worked with the boss, Donald Trump and Allen Weisselberg, the disgraced felon of a chief financial officer, who's basically a perjurer himself, to disguise the payments on the books and records of this New York corporation to help candidate Trump, who was running for office against Hillary Clinton, hide the fact that he was making bribe payments

to his, Mr. Snut, the right word, his 32nd stand with Stormy Daniels. So you got to have Michael Cohen, you got to have some version of Allen Weisselberg, either in prior testimony or get him up on the stand again. You got to have David Pecker, you got to have people around the office that we now know who they are from the New York Attorney General's case. All those low-level, mid-level vice presidents that saw all this happen, we got to bring them back in because they're going to testify about the bookkeeping and the record keeping. And then the other thing that the attorney, I keep saying the attorney general,

it's on my mind, the Manhattan DA's office wants to not allow Donald Trump to argue to the jury is about whether this was or was not a federal election commission, an FEC, federal election law violation. They need to prove in order to make it a felony, even if an E-level felony, a low-level felony in New York, that there's two crimes. It wasn't just because the books and records violation is a misdemeanor. If you fraudulently keep your books and records in New York, that's a misdemeanor crime. To ratchet it up to a felony, there has to be in the commission

along with another crime. The other crime is a federal election crime, but they don't want Donald Trump to be able to argue by bringing in an expert, that he didn't violate the federal election law or what. So they got an argument that Judge Mershan's gonna have to listen to about why that particular thing

is irrelevant. And they don't want any of the defenses along that line to be brought in. And they don't want Stormy Daniels on the Trump side just to keep balancing this argument. They don't want Stormy Daniels to take the stand because they don't want the jury to be distracted by the fact that she got paid, but she got paid They're they're going to argue that what does that have to do with how he recorded it in his books and records? Unless stormy daniels was involved with like keeping the books and records And the other argument is the jury's got to hear the full story about the affair the cover-up the modus The motive the modus operandi why donald trump did this what was his incentive to do it, and all of that. So, Rashad's gonna have to pick through

all of these motions right before the trial, maybe on the first day of trial, probably before to give the parties time to get their cases ready. But this case is going to trial. I know there's speculation that now that there's this decision by the Supreme Court to, that they find interesting the issue of whether a president at the time

can commit a crime and be indicted for it somehow backs up into this case. But I just don't see how that's even possible because this case has to do with pre-elected activity, campaign activity of candidate Trump before he was elected, having nothing to do with him taking office in his official position. So the way the Supreme Court has even framed the thing they're interested in wouldn't seem to apply. Now, is Donald Trump going to wave around, get ready? Everybody go get Pepto Bismol, because we're going to have to watch the next three days

of everybody in Donald Trump's world and all of his lawyers getting on all the social media and on news. We won. We were right. There should have been a stay. He can commit crimes while he's president and get away with it. It's allowed. Do you know it really pisses me off about that, the pop-up? Sorry.

You know, look, this just came down, so I'm processing it, you know? But what really pisses me off about the fact that the Supreme Court is doing this, number one, is even if Donald Trump ultimately loses the argument, okay, he wins because there's no trial before the election. So this is a huge win for Donald Trump. But what pisses me off to no end is the fact that Jack Smith saw this coming Jack Smith tried to leak frog over the DC circuit go to the Supreme Court To say okay, Supreme Court. I know this is an issue. I know it's a big issue

I know Donald Trump has packed the court with conservative MAGA justices Therefore you're probably going to take this case anyway, even though there's no merit to it. So let's just go straight there. Let's just go and skip over the DC circuit and we'll go straight to the Supreme Court and just do it like that. You'll hear it, you'll brief it,

and just get a ruling one way or another so that we can have a trial. And unfortunately, they say, no, no, no, we'll just let the DC circuit rule first, which what? How long did that take? It took months. So we ate three months of time for that, right? And that was the three months that Judge Chudkin said,

well, since we're at press pause, I have to give them three months back. So we all keep saying, okay, trial is going to go in three months after We finally Stop your point is well or whatever. Yeah, whatever it was But the fact of the matter is if they were gonna do this anyway, they should have just taken it then They should have just granted cert then they didn't they don't like it that way. They want to solicit You know why they don't like it that way. Yeah, no, they don't like it that way they want to solicit you know why they don't like it that way Yeah, no, they don't like it because this is this way they can just say oh no

We're you know, they don't want this trial to happen That's the thing the Magda Republicans don't want this trial to happen Because if the facts come out and people swear under oath and the trial happens There will be a conviction because and so now guess what? and the trial happens, there will be a conviction. Because, and so now, guess what? Donald Trump is gonna run for president without having there be a trial. If he wins for president, guess what happens to this case?

He appoints the attorney general, this case goes bye-bye. He, then he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, himself, everybody else under the sun. And he opens the jails of all the JAN sixers that including Enrique Tarrio and all those people, the jails open and that's who's out in the car. This is astounding.

He wins the presidency. You forget what happens in the Chukki case. That would just be an interesting side note. He wins the presidency, he's pardoning himself. And as you said, it's gonna be like what's that Batman that Batman game with the jail and Batman He's gonna open up. It's like the Joker. It's just Yeah, the giant thousand people right thousand people were prosecuted he's gonna do a thousand Hardens and he's gonna do it publicly and call them patriots

So if you're if you're upset by some of the things that we need to explore on this midweek edition, and I think this just proves to you, we don't blow smoke or sunshine on this network. I report and Karen reports and Ben reports things whether we like them or not that we think is important at the intersection of law, politics and justice. But if you don't like the result, you know, you're done licking your wounds over it go help get Joe Biden Elected I hate to put it that way so bluntly, but bad things will happen if you don't that's all I can say It's a dystopic future if you don't do it speaking of bad things happening. Let's switch gears Go to Mar-a-Lago and end our podcast today

We've got a judge who has just denied, partially, certain requests by Donald Trump to get his hot little hands on some of the confidential and classified documents that he stole to try to fashion his defense. She's also ruled that the people who don't have security clearance are not going to be able to get the national defense information documents in order to make a defense. So that I guess is good. She's not going to let Walt Nauta and Carlos de Alviera get their hot little hands on any of the SIPA stuff. And there she's going to continue to like,

you know, pick and choose which documents or which issues Donald Trump is going to be able to see. So I didn't see it as a tremendous win for Jack Smith or tremendous loss for Donald Trump. It's just another in a delaying tactic apparently by the judge who's now going to be bolstered by, you know, with wind and Donald Trump is now going to have wind at his sail to say that my strategy of filing appeals is right and to get the delay that results from it. And that's gonna like bolster his confidence in what he tries to do with Aileen Cannon

as an unwitting pawn in all of this and all that. And then finally she said on Friday, Karen, that she's gonna finally tell the world what we all know Which is that about the trial date? Is there any way in heck this trial could possibly go forward in May with all the motions that are dismissed? Some of which we don't even know which ones have been filed because they've been secretly filed for now on the docket Including you know vindictive prosecution and all of that All of that she has to rule on it the way Chuckin did eight months ago. Then there's going to be the invariable appeal by the person who lost to go up to the 11th Circuit.

Yes, I have more confidence in the 11th Circuit, I'm concerned and can't, but it takes time and that's the one thing we and justice don't have an abundance of, which is time related to Donald Trump. So why don't you comment, Karen, on what you're seeing in Mar-a-Lago and what do you think the just to manage expectations? What do you think the trial date issue is? How that's going to play out on Friday? So the only thing I disagree with you on is that Judge Cannon is an unwitting pawn.

I think she's very much a witting pawn. Yeah, I practiced that. I'm going to let you take that position. I understand. I know it. Look, it just, this is either that or he's just the world's luckiest human being on the planet. I just don't understand. She is very much allowing him to delay. I mean, that's

what she's doing. And in today's motions that she didn't let D'Olivera and Nauta see our nation's most classified information, that was a no-brainer. First of all, why do they need to see what the documents are? They know that they exist. And what CEPA does is it allows you to summarize them so you can characterize them. They don't need to know what the nuclear codes are, just that they was a document that had the nuclear codes.

That's the difference between CEPA. That's what CEPA does, is rather than seeing the classified documents themselves and the substance, you just get to describe what it purports to be. Because our nation's secrets are actually extremely sensitive and they shouldn't be in hands of a body man slash valet or the IT worker, right? I mean, they don't need to know this information and they don't have clearance.

And so she had to rule this way because if she didn't, she'd get kicked off the case. I mean, the 11th Circuit, I think, would have taken her off the case because so I think she's like doing this thing where she's giving Trump everything and walking right up to the line that would get her removed. But then I left on my computer does that. I also, what was this one that we discovered that it does?

The reactions? It does this thing with the hearts? Anyway, it's not doing it now. But you know, it's salty. Why is it not salty? There you go. There you go. See? salty. Why is it not salty? There you go. There you go. See those that are audio audience only we're playing with gestures and all sorts of little things on our computer screen. Okay, continue. Well, you know, as my as my kids would say, okay, boomer. No, but it's just funny to me that this happens. Anyway, so, but you know, it's just she she's she's doing just enough, but not all of it, you know, and so I think it had she ruled differently here, she would have been that would have been enough to get her off the case. So of course, she she had to rule this way. There's no other way. It could be done.

And as far as the SIPA goes, we could just get the rulings. If she rules against the government, against the government, they can appeal as a right interlocutorily, the defense can't. So if she rules against them, things will proceed. But I agree with you that there's so many motions outstanding and she doesn't seem to be in any hurry. That doesn't, there's no way that this trial is going in May. I mean, or even, no, go ahead. Do you think she walks, one of the other things

on the agenda for Friday, besides the setting of the trial date, is the reconsideration of her improvident decision to force the government to release on the public docket the names of confidential and classified and Slash grand jury witnesses she either walks it back and admits that she was wrong or he's taken her straight up on a Standard of manifest injustice and clear error. What do you think she does now that he's cornered her? Jack Smith has cornered. Yes. Yes. So it's interesting because

the although the defendants have a right to certain materials, right? Discovery, witness statements, grand jury materials, the public, there's no need for it to be out in the public. And so the government was asking for was a protective order. And that way, why do we need to have access to everything? I mean, we'd like it, right? But why do we need to have access to everything so that we, so that the case gets tried in the court of public opinion? Because that's what will happen, right? Lawyers like us and everybody else under the sun in the MAGA lawyers will all read all the documents, will interpret them and we'll go out there and say, oh, this means this, this means that, and we'll interpret them and we'll go out there and say, oh, this means this, this means that, we'll have our own commentary on it. And that can influence a jury. And so it's very common in a high profile case to put a protective order on discovery in order to protect the jury pool.

So I do think that if she doesn't rule in Jack's misfavor, I agree with you, then they will take that, then they will try to get her to be disqualified. She, but she, again, if she had this ruling today where where she isn't giving classified documents to Nauda and Dio Olavieta is because she, I think she didn't want to give them yet another thing that they could say, see, we have to get her off the case. Because there are so many examples already of her, frankly, abusing her discretion. And the thing that Jack Smith is sort of called

the defendants out on is it's clear that the defendants are trying to get around this protective order of names, et cetera, because they put stuff in motions, right? It's not like they're just taking the discovery and putting it out into the universe because that would be too blatant and too obvious. Instead what they're doing is they're making, they're doing motion practice where they're saying, you know, judge I want you to rule this way or that way on this issue. And they're naming names

and putting evidence in there under the guise of saying, oh, it's just a motion. I'm just asking for it. And a lot of that information is under seal and under a protective order. And she reveals that. And that all gets out there, subjecting people to harassment and abuse and death threats and all of that, I do think that it's a problem and she could get the case taken from her. And then it'll go to another judge who will say, then who knows who it is

and whether this case could go before the election, but I don't see it happening. Yeah, I agree with you. I think this, to round it back. The only case is going to be your old offices case. And that's the body. That's the data points that the electorate is going to have. You know, do they want to vote for a 91 indict a 91 time indicted once I think convicted, a judged sex rapist, DeFamer, who's committed persistent fraud in the state of New York for more than 10 years and is facing down the barrel of three quarters of a billion dollars worth of judgments, which indicates that he's not great at running

businesses and kind of pops the mythology around his, the reason that he's been elected president of the United States the first time. Do they want that or not? They're not going to have, however, a Georgia result, a DC election interference case result, or a Mar-a-Lago result, to the extent that they even needed it. I mean, look, if the body politic can't, can't with the data points that they already have, decide whether this person's morals, character, leadership, and values align with their own. I mean, yes, I'd like the guy to be convicted if he's guilty in the other two places, but it should not impact a rational decision by the electorate if we add on and pile on a couple of more convictions. That's what I can say to that. But look, people I think understand that we follow

closely all the things at the intersection of law, politics, and justice. We do whatever we can, whenever we can. Supreme Court has an oral argument. We grab the audio We put it up on the Midas touch network. We let you know about it We do commentary before and after judge the only judge that we have that actually does live Broadcasting of his events is judge McAfee in Georgia. We grab that feed we put it on our feed is so well received that while the YouTube channel for Judge McAfee does like 5,000 or 10,000, we do have a million in terms of people in our audience. That's how devoted people are to learning about these kind of stories and learning it from us.

And we take our responsibility seriously on the Midas Touch Network and try to expand our work in this really, really important area. It started out with Ben and me. Then Ben and me, we added Karen. Then we brought on Harry Lippman to be sort of a part of the Midas family. And Dina Dahl, then Dave Arenberg. I mean, this is all growing because of the need that we think that there is out there, which is demonstrated by the size of our audience and the growth of the network. And so for those that wanna continue to help us,

because we don't have outside investors, we don't even have outside advisors. We're doing this, this is a garage band, we're doing this on our own. But the way to support us is to Free subscribe to the Midas Touch Network and don't change that channel come right here for all the news stories that you want to hear about Political legal and otherwise free subscribe help them get the three million before the election That's really important and you can do it right now with your thumbs go back out free subscribe if you haven't already

important and you can do it right now with your thumbs go back out free subscribe if you haven't already and then the leaders of legal af we do hot takes to kind of catch you up because there's so much information on a cutting edge i mean like just today just today while we're recording it's like trump motion to stay the enforcement of his judgment denied by the appellate division judge in new york check covered it while we were recording. United States Supreme Court issues its ruling that they're gonna take up the appeal and make it play out through April, April and beyond on immunity of Donald Trump, check.

I mean, you know, we try to, with our producers and our teams, we try to catch these stories and bring them to you in real time. So we're not still, we use those hot takes to do the same thing. So, so follow the hot takes. We make something called legal AF after dark that I usually do the introductions for. That's individual clips of the content we're doing right now, which is not so much for people that are with us the whole way and are invested in our hour, hour and a half

podcast, but it's for, it can be for them to take that clip and send it to people in your life that say, hey, you know that legal AF show that I really like? Why don't you take a listen to this clip of Ben and Michael or Karen and Michael or Ben and Karen, whatever it is. And if you like it, then we invite them to join our audience. So that's another way to support us. Watching the video, but listening to the audio of the same show helps the algorithms, helps keep us firmly in the top 50 in the world of all news shows and top 10 in news analysis that helps and then we've got a merchandise store if you want to fly the flag of Legal AF and we've got merchandise there stored that might as touch comm

for all of your legal AF where many of which was was com for all of your legal AFWARE, many of which was promoted and helped design by Karen Freeman and Nic Nipolo, Mix and Match shirts and logos there. And then we've got some amazing sponsors that Jordy Mysalis and the others at Midas Touch Network have developed for us, curated for us for this year. And we are supportive of them because they are so supportive of us. And the way that you can help continue this ecosystem for us is to support those sponsors. I'm not saying spend money you don't have, but if you're interested in the products and it's within your price point, please by all means take advantage

of the offers that we have available here. So we've reached the end. Karen's not feeling well. I'm sure she's going to feel fantastic the next time we see each other next Wednesday. And on her hot takes, and Ben and I will pick up the pieces of everything that's happened between now and Saturday on Saturday Show, and we invite you to be a part of that audience there. So until our next Legal AF midweek and show, until our respective hot takes, shout out to the Midiest mighty and shout out to the legal AFers.