Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump gets CHEWED UP and SPIT OUT with CRUSHING Legal Blows

Episode Date: October 19, 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 gag order against Trump issued by Judge Chutkan in the DC Election Interference Case; Developments in Georgia as Judge McAfee and Fani Willis prepare to start picking a jury this week for the trial of 2 Trump lawyers and co-conspirators, Sydney Powell and Ken Chesebro; week 3 of the Trump Fraud Case of the Century with more insiders testifying against Trump as well as their long time outside appraiser who conceded that Trump committed valuation fraud; updates inm the Mar a Lago Obstruction criminal case against Trump, and more breaking news at the intersection of politics law 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. BEAM: Get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to https://shopbeam.com/LEGALAF to try Beam's best-selling Dream Powder! CO-PILOT: Head to https://go.mycopilot.com/LEGALAF to get a 14 day FREE trial with your own personal trainer. 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://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 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 Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Donald Trump has been gagged twice, but not yet bound by a judge in the last two weeks. This time, Judge Tanya Chukkin of the DC Circuit Court, after a two-hour hearing, told Trump and his lawyers in no uncertain terms that his violent rhetoric attacking individuals by name for just doing their job in the criminal justice system must immediately come to an end. While also frequently reminding him that to her as a federal judge, he's just a criminal defendant facing four felony charges and it was supervised by the federal criminal justice system and his freedom is at her discretion.

She schooled Donald Trump's lawyers on an old English history, and painted them in a corner all in one hearing. But now that it's in place, what happens when Trump violates it, and is judged, shotgun ready to put Trump in jail for any recidivism. And what about his newly filed notice of appeal that I actually already started laughing about before I could finish my intro? The Office of Attorney General in New York continues

with week three of the civil fraud case against Donald Trump and Trump decided to attend this time. Again, the Trump circus is back in town. Judge Angora holds Trump's entire business world in his hands, ready to drain it of all of its cash and put him out of business. Now that we are through with another five witnesses, how is the case going for Trump

and the Office of Attorney General so far as Karen and me handicap, where we think we are at the three-week mark? As the Trump circus returns to town without the popcorn, but with plenty of crapping elephants. Mar-a-Lago should be the name of a Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall film noir movie. But unfortunately, it's become more of a Rocky Horror picture show. In the hands of Judge Cannon, well, any of her postponements, cancellations,

Germans and favors for the Trump side mean that the May 2024 trial date is a lost cause. Karen and I debate that one. Finally, jury selection for the estimated five month trial of Trump lawyers and co-conspirators in the Georgia election interference case starts on Friday as the court squares away denying last-gas motions filed by Ken Chasbrero and Sydney Powell and focuses instead on what the jury selection process for the anonymous televised jury

and questionnaire will look like all the while the prosecution gets a last minute gift in the form of 15,000 allegedly missing emails and text messages that just turned up involving Misty Hampton, the former coffee county election supervisor, fake elector, and current co-conspirator. What does that do to the case against Sydney Powell, who was involved with Misty Hampton in breaking into the voting machines in coffee county? All this and so much more on the midweek edition of legal AF with your co-hosts Michael Popok and Karen Friedman at Niffalo Karen. Where are you? You're not in a library. You're not in a bookcase. Where are you? Yeah, I'm in a different room tonight. I had to find a place, a quiet place to be able to record.

This is a quiet place sometimes. This is a quiet place, but we've got Trump on trial. We have to always kind of use road map and landmarks, which case we're talking about. So we can keep it straight. The audience can keep it straight between his civil cases, his criminal cases, his state cases, his criminal cases, his state cases, his federal cases, the ones where he's been sued, the ones where he's suing this

country overseas. It's very hard. He's a very litigious little boy. I loved your Rocky Horror picture show reference in your opening. Although don't disparage Rocky Horror Picture Show by saying anything negative. I don't know about you, but I was one of the, you know, back in the day. I was the original, you know, we'd go to the the Roxy and see it. Brighara, brellas.

It was crazy. Yeah, we would go at midnight, you know, I grew up in LA, so we'd go to Hollywood where they would broadcast it at midnight and, you know, the grew up in LA. So we'd go to Hollywood where they would broadcast it at midnight and, you know, the audience participates very dramatically. It was a lot of fun. Don't you remember, you had to bring the umbrella when they were in the rainy scene? You had to put up the umbrella. Everything. Yes. Super fun. Super fun. Unfortunately, and we'll get there later in the segment. You know, it's not super fun watching, watching, uh, Aline Cannon, the judge in federal court, fumble

around in the dark for the light switch, trying to figure out how to run her case. We'll debate a little bit whether I think that trial date's going to move with all of her slow footing about things related to classified documents and whether witnesses need to get other lawyers because they're conflicts and taking her gavill and going home with her one day because she was in a huff about the department of justice and clutched her pearls over it. By the way, that's not misogynist.

I use clutching pearls for men as well. I just like that. That way, it's a great. Oh, I do. I do do do do do do do. That's all I mean. It's more of a southern thing than it is a male female thing. Let's talk about what we hope would happen.

And it finally happened after a two hour hearing, the gag order by Judge Chutkin, who sort of has had enough. And here's a couple of things I observed and I'll turn it over to you for your observations. One, how smart is Judge Chuck in? She is so smart. And my favorite part of the hearing, well, a number of favorite parts, one of them was a recognition and she let it be known early on, but she knew everything that was going on. She knew about, of course, Judge Angoran's principal

Law Clerk being attacked. She knew all about the violent, rhetoric that Donald Trump had been using since the last time they all got together to talk about potential gag orders. And she was none too pleased about it. And she laughed out loud and frequently shook her head when John Loro, who is the lead lawyer for Donald Trump, made his arguments. And when he said he's been a good boy and he hasn't done anything bad. And there's no reason for a gag order and she laughed out loud because she knew that that was not true and she reminded the Trump side that there are statutes on the books that deal with

criminal statutes that deal with witness intimidation and it's never a good start when you're talking about a gag order the judge reminds everybody It's never a good start when you're talking about a gag water. The judge reminds everybody, potentially, particularly Trump about that. And she also said to the comment that it's just words. It's just words. He's not really done anything. And she said, violent rhetoric has real world consequences. And she used the famous line about Henry the Second. Well, someone please rid me of this troublesome priest

referring to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1100s, and that led four knights to take him up on that their king and go and kill the Archbishop of Canterbury based on just those words, which is a lot of what Donald Trump says. Oh, I was I wasn't wishing anybody assassinate my opponents or judges or law clerks or do violence just like Jen sex. Oh, I said, it be wild. I didn't tell them to do exactly that, but you do because your words have impact and import and exhortation and you're telling them to do something just like Henry II did.

And so I told John Loro, I'm sure had no idea what she was talking about with that and that she painted him into a corner. She said, your client can't because he's a part of the justice system and supervised under my supervision, released under my supervision. He can't just say anything and his first amendment rights are going to have to yield to the Swift administration of justice. Don't you agree? And he said 100%. That's what he said in the courtroom. Outside the courtroom, he said that there was no gag order that was going to stop his client from talking and the way he has been talking and that he basically dared the judge that if she finds him finds him in contempt of the future for violating

the gag order because what's a gag order without a punishment if somebody violates it, basically challenging and daring the judge to jail his client. I want to talk to you about that as well. What you pick up from the both the oral argument, the two-hour hearing, and then the actual order itself that came out about two days later. So on the one hand, you want to say, gee, it's about time, right? That somebody has tried to put, or started to put limits on what Trump can do and who he can threaten. I mean, the judge on Goron, gag order, was very limited, very specific.

It just said, you can't threaten court staff because he went after one of his clerks saying she had an affair with Chuck Schumer and was doxing her, et cetera. And that was a very limited, just you can't threaten court staff. I guess gag order is what they call it colloquially. But as far as Judge Chutkin, this is the first time we've seen a very specific limit

on what he can and cannot do. And he, she didn't give the special counsel's office everything they asked for. She gave them some of what they asked for and then limited it as well. So she was very, very measured, she was very specific. But you know, you want to say it's about time. I mean, I've said this more times than I can count. I've written about it, I've done hot takes about it. But no other criminal defendant would ever be treated this way. than I can count, I've written about it, I've done hot takes about it.

But no other criminal defendant would ever be treated this way. No other criminal defendant would ever be allowed to do what he is doing. I've seen it a hundred times in my career where a criminal defendant does anything remotely like what Donald Trump is doing, they get put in jail during the dependency of the case. They lose their freedom because they are threatening people. They are potentially causing others to harm people.

And Donald Trump knows that his actions have consequences and his words have consequences, right? He said in his CNN town hall to Caitlin Collins, He said my followers listen to me like no one else He knows it and he knows it also because as you just said Jan 6th, right his words caused that to happen And he also knows because it's been widely reported how many people have death threats and other You know need 24 or seven protection right at

and other, you know, need 24 or seven protection, right? At Alvin Bragg, after the baseball had to his head that Trump did, had white powder sent to his office and death threats and hate-filled racist, you know, comments made, and whether it's Shemoss and Ruby Freeman, whether it's General Mark Milley, whether it's who you name it, one of the prosecutors, court staff, they all, everybody will talk about what happens to them

when Donald Trump puts their name out there and makes accusations. And so he can't, in good conscience, remotely say he doesn't know that it's going to happen. In fact, now when he says that he clearly intends it to happen. And any other criminal defendant would have been put in long ago. And Donald Trump, unfortunately, or fortunately, he decided to, he knew this was all coming down the pike. He knew that it would be very limited what anyone could do. And so I think one of the reasons he declared his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president is partly for this reason because it's made him effectively, he's sort of jail proof at this point. So, in look, at the hearing, it was a two plus hour hearing and it was clear that Judge Chetkin was very prepared. She gave a lot of hypotheticals to John Loro and and basically said, you know, look

He he's not allowed to threaten anyone. He's not you can disparage certain people But why do you have to call you you can say? You know, this is a witch hunt or this is politically motivated But why do you have a right to call Jack Smith a thug? She actually went on that one on that one motivated, but why do you have a right to call Jack Smith a thug? She actually went on that one, on that one, KFA. She went even further. She said to John Loro, in what world, in what case that you're aware of, would a defendant

calling a prosecutor a thug allow him to continue to walk free? In other words, they would be in jail. Tell me that world, Mr. Laura, that that exists. And she went on to say too, if you call someone a thug enough times, doesn't that suggest that someone should get them off the streets, right? I mean, she really, she didn't just let John Laura

kind of get away with saying things. She really knew her facts and she knew what she was going to say and she went back at him. So, you know, to answer your other, your other kind of point that you made, which I think is a good one, is how is this going to be enforced? I think that's the rub. I think that's the problem here, because obviously the order's pointless without some sort of enforcement mechanism. He's going to violate it in some way. He's going to walk the line certainly,

but he's going to violate it at some point. And then what, right? At what point, and how will it be enforced? And I think that that's really, I think that's really going to be the tricky part here. I think in a minimum, what will happen is she will make the trial part here, I think in a minimum, what will happen is she will make the trial go sooner, which she has said she might do.

But you know, then you get into due process issues, or she could find him, but she's not putting him in before trial. But I think we could potentially see some kind of strong admonishment, but I don't see her putting him in. What about you? You know, it's it is um there are many things I love about Judge Chuckkin. She always on her docket when she makes her entry on any of her orders. She reminds everybody that Donald Trump is released on his own personal cognizance and is still under the supervision of the federal justice system. Canon doesn't do that down in Florida. And that's a constant reminder that she, her, her north star

for all of her decision making is this is an, as you said earlier, about your approach as a prosecutor. This is an ordinary defendant. I don't care what his day job is. I don't care what his day job was. defendant, I don't care what his day job is, I don't care what his day job was. Politics will be left at the courthouse steps. They have no place in my courtroom. And as John Loro, for the fourth time since this case has been filed, asked for another continuance, she made it clear, and I'll come into your your answer to your question. She made it clear that judge that the election cycle is going to yield to her trial. And she's not, she said, she basically said it's set in stone. She didn't use the cum hell or high water phrase that judge and Goron did last year

about his trial in October, but she, she, she said the exact same thing. They are, she is not moving her March trial. For many reasons, one, there's no reason to. Secondly, she believes as part of the justice system, it is important that the voters understand whether they're voting for a convicted felon or not, or whether he's going to get somehow absolved. One way or the other, it's important that that happened before November and not after November. So, he'll or I water, she's gonna try her case. Approaching it that her only concern is the fair and swift administration of justice.

And she's not gonna let anything get in her way. Therefore, if having now drawn the line in the sand and captum, captum at his kneecaps and said, this is the geography that you are now going to have to navigate as candidate Trump. You are not to violently attack and it will be up to me to decide what is violent, what is attack. You or any interested people, I'll tell you who the interested people are.

It wasn't defined in the order, could include the Trump kids, where he uses Eric and or Don Jr. as his proxies, or others. I'll decide that. So she left enough ambiguity. In order to make him worry, she or her fear, I can tell from writing the order,

and it's why it's only two pages, that if it was more detailed, it would just create areas that he thought he could do to try to violate it. So she left it broader so that he'd have to worry about whether she, and she said in her order, also, she's not going to wait around for a filing by the prosecutor to bring it to her attention. She said, I'll do it, Sue Espante, on my own, if she reads or hears that he is violently attacking through rhetoric individuals on the prosecutor team, the investigatory team,

her staff, witnesses, or anything else that she thinks is part of the ecosystem of the federal criminal justice system She's going to call the lawyers back in and have a conversation. I think that if he Donald Trump Doesn't figure out a way quick and so far. He's shown an inability to grow a brain overnight To navigate this minefield that she has just set in front of him He's going to be back there on a motion for contempt or a suespaunt a judge pulling people in on the carpet of her courtroom. And she's then going to have to figure out what is her punishment. She can't leave it toothless. It can't just be a wrap on the knuckles.

It has to be a progressive, depending on how many times he does it, a progressive series of punishments. It will be immediately grab a toothbrush and go see the bailiff. That's not happening, but it will be, I am very troubled by... It happened to Sam Bank from Freed. I'm sorry. No, but my point is, people, I'm only calling it out because I want people to see how Donald Trump is being treated differently than everybody else. Sandbank been freed, did not get graduated sanctions, did not get, you know, kind of this progressive

discipline. He got put in before trial. That's what happens in the normal force. But I got the button. Now I'm going to debate back with you. I got the button. Sandbank been freed is a weirdo nerd who's trying to find his next Adderall fix. And he's not, whether I like it or not, the other guy is running for president of the United

States. And so we have to find a way. And this is what Chuckkin is struggling with, but she did a good job, an elegant job, of threading the needle between his First Amendment rights to be candidate Trump in campaign. And he can, and she told him in the argument in the order, you can, you want to attack the criminal justice system? Go ahead.

You want to attack Joe Biden? Go ahead. You want to attack it in general and talk about your innocence. Go ahead. Don't call out witnesses by name. Don't call out my prosecutors, my FBI agents, my staff. She didn't say her, but we all know she also meant her by name, right? Don't say, well, somebody rid me of this trouble,

this metal, some judge prosecutor, this or that, because we know what will happen. Somebody will get hurt and assassinate it. Other than that, she is going to let him do his thing. But my point is, the first time in, I don't believe it's gonna be Grab a Toothbrush, go see the bail, you're going to jail. I think it's gonna be, we have to have

a serious conversation about the most recent event. I am going to do the following. I mean, they're gonna take away an affirmative defense of yours. I mean, there's things you can do that are short of putting him in jail. Not a crime either. Jail makes him, jail, maybe.

Jail makes him a martyr. Jail increases his fundraising abilities. Jail is fun for you and I to talk about, but I'm not sure it helps the cause to put him away for a few days in jail. I really don't. So I don't know what she's gonna have to find in the criminal case that's short of jail the first time,

and then if he does it again, she's gonna have no choice, but to put him in jail. I don't think he's gonna go that far. He's already slightly chased, even though he attacked her and he docks the attorney general in New York, and maybe put her home address on social media when he was being interviewed about Judge Angoran, who in the past, he has called a crazy,

lunatic, socialist, fascist, whatever. He was interviewed yesterday or the day after the gag order came out in DC and he said, I like the judge. I like judge and Goron. I respect judge and Goron and Goron. What the? This is so crazy. But look, step one, gag order in place. Second gag order. He's got one in New York as well about the case there. He can keep bashing in other places where he doesn't have a gag order or he has a more limited gag order. I mean, he technically has a gag order of sorts and judge macchifee in Georgia related

to what he can say or do about witnesses and other participants in the process and in other places as well. But this one, all eyes are watching because if there's one judge out there That's gonna find a way to punish him if he violates a Very broad gag order in that way and I say it's broad because she didn't use specific language that he can say oh There there's a comma and then there's a period. I can do the thing in between she left it sort of all decide I'll decide who your prox sort of all decide, all decide who your proxies are, all decide what is the level or the nature of rhetoric. And I may even pick up the phone and call all the parties into my chambers or into the courtroom. But we'll

see. First step is the gag order. The second step is what happens after the gag order? How is he punished? So I just have one more thing. Just if I have to get off my chest, if it's okay with you, this is really, really bothers me. Okay. So because of all the things you said, which are true, he's running for president, etc., etc. The only thing that is being discussed in court is how this could influence the election,

right, or the trial, I apologize, and the integrity of the case, right? And that's what's being focused on. That's what Jack Smith's entire motion for this limited gag order says it's basically to protect future jurors, to protect the witnesses, to protect the the case, the integrity of the case. And they never mentioned the danger to people. They never mentioned because people could get killed or this is a crime or danger to people. They never mentioned because people could get killed or this is a crime or you know, that's why he shouldn't be doing it. They just talk about, you know, his speech is, is interfering with and infecting the integrity of the case. And that's by design, right? Because that's something the judge has the ability to do. And the reason I take issue with it is it's really side stepping and dancing around what the real problem is.

The real problem is, Donald Trump's crime is his words, right? Think about the entire January 6 case. The entire crime, he didn't use a gun to commit that crime. He didn't use a weapon, he used his words. His words are what caused the entire basis of the case of Jan 6, are his words, are his lies, are his rhetoric, are the things that cause people to go out and commit violence. And so he is continuing to commit the very crime

he has charged with, right? Mar-a-Law goes about documents. And, you know, but Jan 6, this case, the case in front of Judge Chuckkin, is about his words. It's about his words that are violent, that are lies, and that are criminal. And he is continuing to commit these crimes.

And God help us, God forbid one of his followers listens to what he says and does what Henry the second or whatever, that quote that's just way too sophisticated and intellectual for me to even understand. But I get what it's about in the archbishop of Canterbury. Everyone knows what he's saying and what he wants them to do. And God forbid somebody gets hurt. We are all gonna look back and say it could have been prevented.

And that's why he should be incarcerated, not for any other reason. It's because he's a dangerous criminal who's putting real lives at risk. Honestly, I care about the integrity of the case and the justice system, but I care much more about people's lives. I know what it feels like to have death threats

while trying to just do your job. It's not fun and it's terrible. And it's actually, he actually is a criminal who should be incarcerated. And so I just feel very strongly that we all dance around it because he's a candidate and I just disagree with it Yeah, I appreciate I mean I appreciate the position. I'm not taking it all. I'm not I like debating you But I'm not but I'm not debating you on this. It was up to me. No, I know if I was up to me

He'd be drawn and quartered already No, but I I understand the distinction that you're making, and it's a good one between the other cases and this cases, and this is all about incendiary speech. The whole case is about that. The whole case is about won't someone rid me of this medal some priest?

That's how we got to Jan 6th. Exactly. And when it falls on the ears of his followers and their weird, dangerous brand of patriotism, lives are lost and can be lost. And I do remember federal judges being on the receiving end of bombs and weapons and guns, and if they were at home home it was their family. We just had Nancy Pelosi's husband be home and his underwear gets smacked in that cranium with a hammer. By somebody who was incensed by these words, I just did a hot take on the pink hat lady

a hot take on the pink hat lady, megaphone, blowing, defendant and Jan 6, who until COVID and she became weaponized and activated like a sleeper cell, she was a green market, farmers market yogurt person with eight children and four grandchildren at 40 that was more inclined to post on social media pictures of yoga poses than anything else. Within a year after that, she had fallen down the rabbit hole of Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, Alex Jones, Donald Trump. She went to Gettysburg and confronted a black lives matter person two weeks before Jan 6 with 50 other people white people who surrounded a Black Lives Matter protestor during the height of that movement and then went to Jan 6 and used an ice pick to break into the capital Just got sentenced to four years

This you know if you were to pick out of a line of somebody that would be inclined to like follow Donald Trump and do his bidding, you wouldn't pick this woman out, this grandma out, but that's what happened. And if it happens to her, you can imagine what's gonna happen as somebody who's fully armed in home. That's why Judge Chutkin, who I did a profile on of one of my hot takes, you know, poor justice.

She's an athlete, she's a former professional dancer. She's the run to work in her shorts and water bottle. Now she's got a bicycle to work with US marshals following her and changing her route every day so that nothing happens to her. She's not going to let it stop her life. But we shouldn't live in that world in that society, but we do. And you're right about Donald Trump. And hopefully- Just one other thing, Pope, I know we're going to get to it in a minute. But the New York AG trial today, just today, one of his followers stands up and says, Donald Trump, can I help you in court or whatever she said?

And she got a court employee. A court employee gets up and she gets arrested. I guess that's my point. Everybody else, you know, and she should have been arrested. But what he has done over and over and over and over and over and over and over again is so much worse and he gets away with it. And there's just, we need to do something about it. We'll get to it.

We'll get to this in a minute to talk about it. I just, I'm going to point out, you know, he says it's a witch hunt. He says it's political and treated differently. You know, blah, blah, blah. Yes, Donald Trump. You are treated differently than everybody else, but not in the way that you say. So it's always the followers who end up getting arrested first while Donald Trump remains free, right? Including Jan 6th and everything else. We're going to talk about others who are going to pay the price in our justice system. But we need to talk about an update in the New York Attorney General, the Office of Attorney General, civil fraud case.

It's going great if you're not named Donald Trump. If you're named the people of the state of New York, you've got to be pleased with the momentum and the opening statement, the office of Attorney General lawyer of the present at the case, he wrote a lot of checks about evidence that he was going to be able, their side was going to be able to put on. And they're now cashing those checks every day and every way with witnesses who are performing and when they're not performing like the adverse witnesses on the other side, Alouwiselberg, that they pull in as a hostile witness to make a point.

And he starts deviating from the script, so to speak, i.e. potentially burgeoning themselves. They're ready for him too. They're ready to cross examine him and how to cross examine them. We're going to talk about the five or six new witnesses that have already been put on inside the organization, current employees, outside the organization of praisers and bankers and the like. And about an update with Judge Cannon and Mar-a-Lago as we round it out with the jury trial

that's about to start this week with jury selection in Georgia in the Fulton County election interference case. But first, a word from our sponsors. 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 maids' bedsheets. Inspired by NASA, miracle maids 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 Mate 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 magees today and whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today, you can save over 40% and if you use our promo legal AF at checkout, you'll get three free towels and save an extra 20%.

Miracle is so confident in their product, it's back the 30-day money back guarantee. And if you're not 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with MiracleMade. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF and use the code legal AF to claim your free three-piece towel set and save over 40%. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash legal AF to treat yourself. Thank you, MiracleMade for sponsoring this episode. Did you know that poor sleep can cause weight gain, mood issues, poor mental health, and lower productivity? Sleep is

the foundation of our mental and physical health and performance in our days. Having a consistent nighttime routine is non-negotiable. I know in my own life when I don't get enough sleep, not only in my irritable and grouchy, but my performance in work or in life suffers greatly. Introducing Beam Dream. You know we've been rave about Beam's Dream Powder, their healthy hot cocoa for sleep. And today, our listeners get a special discount on Beams Dream Powder. They're best selling hot cocoa for sleep with no added sugar. Now available in delicious flavors like sea salt caramel, cinnamon cocoa, and chocolate peanut butter. Better sleep has never tasted better. Dream contains a powerful all-natural blend of Rishi, Magnesium, Alfianine, Melatonin,

and Nanno CBD. To help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed. A recent clinical study revealed, Dream helped 93% of users wake up feeling more refreshed, and 93% reported that dream helped them get a more restful night's sleep. Just mix bean dream into hot water or milk, stir or froth and enjoy before bedtime. I've personally tried bean dream and it lived up to the hype. First off, it was delicious and just a lovely night time routine.

And secondly and most importantly, it helped me fall asleep and stay asleep. The next day I woke up ready and eager to take on all life's challenges and tasks. Find out why Forbes and New York Times are all talking about beam and why it's trusted by the world's top athletes and business professionals. If you wanna try beams best selling dream powder, get up to 40% off for a limited time.

When you go to shopbeam.com slash legal AF and use code legal AF at checkout that shop B E A M dot com slash legal AF and use code legal AF for up to 40% off. So we're back. Before we break at the end. our sleep sponsors, whether it's being dream, miracle, or so rested or ate sleep. No, seriously, I love it. So we sometimes at the end, we cram in all of the plugs for the show and had to support the show. But do want a little bit early. We're starting to do, and it's getting some real interest. What we call legal AF after dark, which is we take the segments from a show like this,

let's say there's three or four things we talk about, where would Ben and I do on the weekend. And we separate them into what I used to call little pothlits, until I once used that term in bed said, what's that? What I meant was like the podcast, but call little pothlits. That's why I once used that term in bed said, what's that? What I meant was like the podcast, but like little pothlits. And we're using them as on our YouTube channel, not suppose, not for this audience right here that's so devoted and committed to sitting through an hour, hour, and a half of a full length podcast,

but for those that either don't know the show, there are people on the Midas Touch Network that know the other great programming and content makers, but don't know this show. I know it's hard to believe, but there are. Or have people in their lives that they'd like to introduce to the show, but you know, it's a big commitment to sit for an hour or over a course of a day. So this is a great opportunity. If you see one of them and you'll know them right away

because we label them as legal AF, legal AF after dark, send it over. Show it to people that you like in your life that you think might be interested in the show and it's an invitation, sort of a gateway drug to get them to come to the full podcast. So there's my little plug for legal AF after dark but we are still, well, we're

after dark here too. So let's move forward into the New York attorney general case. I'll just give you my observation as a trial lawyer in courtrooms, like that one in civil cases, like that one about how masterful the office of attorney general is doing. And it's not let's just say James, we always show the video where she's sitting very contently in the in the courtroom wait wait for this pan back here there's a very grumpy old grumpy pants and there is a very content looking attorney general who's very proud of the team that's presenting the case and we've had about four different attorney generals assistant attorney generals or special attorney generals,

take on different witnesses and different aspects of the case. And that's usual for a sprawling case that's expected to go 100 plus trial days. It's hard to believe we're only third weekend, but there's a lot more to go in the case and chief for the attorney general. And for eventually, the case will turn to the defense. Couple things I'll observe. This momentum that's been built in the narrative of having started early on with outside witnesses, such as auditors and accountants who have been long time where Trump and his people have been long time clients of these people, starting with Don Bender for measures that disgrace, discredited at least a counting firm that fired the client in Donald Trump after they determined that he was lying to them and he could no longer, they

could no longer rely on his information for their financial, their financial records and certifications starting with him, but then very quickly moving to two insider or recent insiders and the money men for the last 20 to 40 years for the Trump organization in Alan Weiselberg, who we're going to keep coming back to time and time again in this trial, the disgraced convicted felon, but 50 year former chief financial officer, not a certified public accountant, but you'd think the chief financial officer would know it generally accepted accounting principles are, but he testified that he did not know it, that is. So he's good when you put somebody in a control position who doesn't understand the rules

about the position. And then Mr. McConney, who's the controller, who's responsible for the control functions, there he is now. We reports to Mr. Weisselberg, and they testified under penalty of going to jail. I mean, McConey had an immunity deal for the prosecutor's office, and testified against a Trump organization in the tax evasion case. And Mr. Weisselberg didn't have a deal, but he did get a little bit of a lighter sentence because he testified.

Also, they also had what they needed to show bias in case one of the two of them started to go off track because for Weiselberg, he's entitled, if he'll have to earn it, it'll be an earn out, but he's waiting on another $1.6 or $7 million. I'm sorry, $1.2 million in continued payments with a Trump organization. If he plays in the sandbox well, and if he doesn't, he's going to forfeit it, which sort of explained why it was like pulling teeth out of him in the case so far to get what they needed out of him. But they didn't have that problem with Patrick Bernie, a low-level assistant vice president

who that's not a current picture. He's got a beard. He's a bearded man now, since COVID as most of us are. We'll get around and put up a current photo. But this is a guy who, very smartly, Patricia James, who did take the deposition of Donald Trump, asked the Donald Trump, asked to Donald Trump about a series of witnesses that they knew they were going to use a trial

six months in the future to ask him what his knowledge of these people were if he had to comment about them. And she went right down the list of her witness list, including the last few that we've seen. Do you know, Mr. Bernie, I really don't. This is Donald Trump. You don't know the assistant vice president that works for Mr. Weisselberg, I don't. And how about this person, Ms. Kitter?

What does she do? Assistant controller. How long has she been with me? 18 years. No, I don't really know her. I don't really know her. So there were no comments. It wasn't like, no, she's a liar.

No, you can't say it anyway. She's been with him for 18 years. And the guy's been with him for nine years. And all these people have now come in and just dumped on dump, dump Donald Trump because they've told the truth. They've said, Alan Weiselberg told me that Donald Trump wanted us

to cook the books. This is not for those that are just tuning in for the first time. This is not a sophisticated fraud. A sophisticated fraud is not when you just make up the numbers and just change the numbers on your spreadsheet in order to dupe banks, lenders, investors, insurance companies, and the like.

That's not a sophisticated fraud. A five-year-old could do that. You just take your pen and where it used to say five, you make it nine. Okay, that's Donald Trump's. I mean, the little dark thing here, criticism of him, is he's not even like smart and sophisticated in the fraud that he perpetrates.

I can't even tip my hat to the genius, that is the evil genius that is Donald Trump running his business. It's just taking a pencil and a racing numbers. And then when they knew they needed certain things like, well, somebody better validate these numbers. The banks asking questions. Oh, I know.

We'll tell the bank that our long term outside of praiser actually gave us those numbers when he didn't. And we'll just put a little asterisk nest to it. And we'll add that, that gentleman's name. And so that guys, but on the stand from cushioning awake field for the last two days, and Donald Trump's been in the courtroom really upset. And so upset he's been gesticulating and folding, so many times that the office of the attorney general had to ask the judge to tell Trump to shut the F up because he was, I mean, this is my words

because he was interfering with and trying to intimidate the witness who was on the stand. And the witness on the stand basically said, I never gave them permission to use my name. I did not do that appraisal. They should not have let the world think I did the appraisal. That's wrong. And I'm shocked that my name is on that piece of paper.

And I mean cross examination, they pulled out some emails and I, oh, didn't you remember this email from nine years ago? No, I really don't remember that email, but it didn't really change the core of his testimony, which is I valued property with using proper appraisal techniques and they didn't. They used techniques that no appraiser in his right mind or in good standing, whatever use. And the result was a hyperinflation

or cooking of the books of numbers that I didn't participate in. But if you're showing me them now, I don't agree, for instance, that 40 Wall Street, which is this tower that's half vacant downtown by the stock exchange, is worth $600 million when I valued it anywhere between 150 and 250 depending upon the year and the vacancies and that type of thing. No, I don't believe that. I think they didn't use the right capitalization rate, they didn't use the right vacancy rate, they just fudge the numbers. And that is the heart of the persistent fraud case here. And that's why Donald Trump's getting, you can always tell when a witness is

killing Donald Trump because he literally looks like he's getting killed in the courtroom. He says, no poker face. He thinks this acting out is having an impact on the judge, which obviously it isn't. There he is there. But I think from the inside witnesses to the outside witnesses to disciplining witnesses that fall off track by showing their bias. I think they're just chopping wood, stacking it up methodically every minute, every hour, every day in front of a judge. He's really interested in taking notes. And probably a judge has already made up his mind.

Let's be honest, that the other five counts or six counts on persistent fraud have already been met based on just the testimony in the last three weeks. What did you pick up from all this, Karen? I think that the trial is going really well, as you said. I think it's very clear that the Attorney General's office knows exactly what they're doing, they're being very methodical in proving each and every element that he's charged with. I also think though that, you know, what you said needs to be emphasized and underscored. This is not a complicated case, right?

And the problem with, you know, this is a white collar case essentially. And the problem with white collar crimes is sometimes they're very complicated. I mean, so complicated that it's hard to know exactly. Like I used to supervise a lot of white collar cases when I was at the DA's office. And, you know, I'd be listening to the facts of a particular case when I'm talking about it with a line assistant. And I'd be like, okay, can you just

highlight for me when we get to the crime? Because you really don't even, it's so sophisticated, so complicated. Sometimes it's not that obvious what it is. This particular, these crimes, what he's, what these frauds, I should say, that he's being charged with are so simple

and so unsophisticated that it's just glaringly fraudulent, right? This is not even a close call. And, you know, figuring out a capitalization rate or a cap rate as they call it in the real estate industry is a complicated thing, right? It's not, but there's a way to do it, right? There's things you look at that are objective. And essentially, it's an art. It's not a science, but there is an art to it. And things do have inherent value, and they do have values that you can put on them. But it's, you build these things into your equation, as you said, whether it's the vacancy

rate or the occupancy, how many tenants are occupying what you have and how much are they paying? And all the different things that go, what are the comps nearby going for? And all the things that go into valuing a building and then you get to a range or you get to a number or a number that has a range, but the range is quite narrow and it's very, it's very, very methodically gotten to. You don't do it the other way around, right? You don't say, okay, I want this to be the number and so let's figure out a way to lie, to get to that number.

I mean, that's just pure fraud, right? You don't, you don't turn around and say, I want my, I want my building to be worth a billion dollars. So let's see how I can get it that way. Let's just say it's three times bigger than it actually is. Let's just say the vacancy rate is zero when it's 80%. I mean, you can just, you know, you can't just make stuff up, right, just to get to a number that you want. And that's the thing that I think the AG's office is doing a really good job at here is,

Donald Trump is trying his case in the court of public opinion. Every time he goes to court, he goes outside and gives a press conference and says what he wants and lies. He just says that things happen that didn't happen or he completely just makes up facts because he knows that the judge is listening to the actual facts, but he doesn't care. He wants the court of public opinion to have it be something that is, you know, that he wins in public as opposed to in private. And his narrative is the fix is in, the judge has it out for me, the judge's already made up his mind, the judge isn't listening, and all these people are lying, right? And that's what he's going to say, that's what he's going to do. And he's, if he keeps saying it long

enough, and enough, he's going to get enough people to at least question it and say, this is politically motivated and the literature James ran on getting Trump, getting Trump, you know, he says And he's going to get enough people to at least question it and say this is politically motivated and Patricia James ran on getting Trump, getting Trump, you know, he says the same. It's like he's a broken record. If you say the same thing over and over again, it must be true, right? That's his philosophy. But inside the courtroom, when you analyze exactly what's happening and what's said, it's so clear that it's different than what he's saying, sometimes the opposite of what he's saying. And it's like a building block that they are coming out

and establishing that these things were completely fraudulent. They weren't done in ways that you could even say, oh, we made a mistake. Oh, we thought that this could be, you could factor this in, but not that. This was intentional. These were intentional, intentional lies, and intentional things that he had people do, and he did in order to get financial gain.

And it's interesting because he doesn't have to go to this trial. He doesn't have to go to any of his civil cases and his civil trials. He only has to go to the criminal ones. But ask yourself, why did he go to the Eugen Carroll trial at all? Because he doesn't care. That's part of his persona. Part of his persona, I think he gets off on being the guy who can sexually assault women and grab them by the private

parts and get away with it. I think that he doesn't really want to, he doesn't care that much that that's what's being called into question to him. That's like a badge of honor to be a tough guy rapist. But this is different this trial. And he's showing up, I think, to be a tough guy rapist. But, you know, but this is different this trial. And he's showing up, I think, for two reasons. Number one, because he's trying to intimidate witnesses, right? Michael Cohen was supposed to testify this week. And so he showed up this week. And even

next week, when they said he's going to testify, they even, the lawyers said, oh, but Donald Trump has a conflict on this day and this day and this day. So let's have it be the earliest Tuesday because he wants to be there. Why does he want to be there? He wants to intimidate him. That's it. There's no other reason for him to be there. And so he's coming for that reason because he likes to intimidate people. Number one, and number two, the other reason he's coming and he's going to this trial is because what he does care about and what everyone who's ever worked for him or knows him has said, he cares about his image when it comes to money and he's insecure about it because he knows that he's not worth what he is, is what he's always said he is worth.

He's not the billionaire or the multi billionaire mogul. He's built his house of cards is built on lies. And, you know, his, his, it's like he's one giant Ponzi scheme when it comes to being a businessman and he knows it and he's insecure about it. And this cuts to the core of what he really cares about. And so that's why I think he shows up for those two reasons. Yeah, I agree with you. There's a hundred days of trial. He's going to pick his moments. My most fascinating thing for me is there's been absolutely a very limited cross-examination of witnesses that work or used to work for the Trump Organization. Alawisalberg, they said

no questions. Patrick Bernie who killed them because he told the truth. He said, Alan Weissler worked on me in his office in 2017 or 2018 that Donald Trump wanted his numbers cooked and the numbers increased in order to change his net worth. And so no questions. Right. And they've done that. And then in some light cross examination of some other people when they were challenged about that Chris Kaisu likes these pops up like a like a like a out of the out of the Jack out of a box there Here say it's always late by the way. I don't

It's no jury. You got a judge, right? So the lot of the things in history on it you do a trial You don't you don't do when you have a bench trial in front of a judge like this. But they said, well, we're gonna do some, when we have them in our case in chief, three months from now, we're gonna handle it then. I'm like, the damage is already done. The damage is already done.

I mean, you can try to, you want the judge to remember the cross-examinate. He's already forming his opinions now, just like the jury does. And you think something three, when you score sort of a point months from now after he was already on the stand, that's going to help you. I think it's a silly and foolish approach, but I'm not sure they got to be something they can do to cauterize the wound and stop the bleeding, but they're not. They're not doing a darn thing, but I agree with there's no other reason that Donald Trump is you can watch him and any video clips that we show you And they're not self-selected. There is no reporting in the courtroom that he is he is ever but for a moment writing anything on a pad or sharing notes

Or at a break. He's not talking to his counsel at a break because he's talking to reporters at a break And so therefore he's not sharing with them or at a break. And so therefore, he's not sharing with them or participating in his defense because he's there. Alina Haba there is behind him over his right shoulder, right? You know what they're not doing? Preparing for the witness that's on the stand during the break. And that just shows you that it's all, you know, when he told the magistrate down in Florida and the Michael Cohen case now dismissed, that he couldn't magistrate down in Florida, and the Michael Cohen case now dismissed, that he couldn't attend the deposition originally scheduled because he had to be there to participate in the defense of his organization.

What he really meant was, I need to be there to be able to campaign every other day so that the news camera is focused on me and not what's going on in the courtroom itself. I don't think it's, for me, I'm a little bit, here's where the debate comes in. I don't think it's intimidation. I don't think he thinks he's intimidating anybody. We're changing anybody's opinion. I think it's to distract the new cycle and get the camera's attention

and suck the oxygen out of the room, but it doesn't change for a minute what's going on in the room. Any more than if you and I stared at a table for the next three months, we would change any aspect of that table. What's happening behind the wooden doors in that courtroom is happening,

whether Donald Trump likes it or not. He's just trying to do with, he's like an organ grinder with a monkey outside trying to get attention, but that's not stopping the slow methodical presentation of evidence and witnesses. Let's let's talk about now that we're done talking about two cases where judges know what they're doing. Well, don't forget don't forget to employee, though, that we said we'll talk about in a minute. Well, we did. I don't think it's a you got something else you want to say about crazy. No, no, just I just feel bad.

I said, I said, we'll talk about it. I guess we did. There was a crazy court lady that stood up and got taken out of the court. She works for the court system. We don't really have that many more details. She was arrested, put in a car, and she yelled out that she wanted to help Donald Trump. Okay, what else we got? Someone in New York, by the way,

that wants to help him, it's fascinating. And the fact that that person, they should put her under glass at the National, at the Natural History Museum. I wanna know, yeah. This is a New York Trump story. Exactly. I mean, come on, that's a big,

like I thought that was kind of fascinating. I want to know more about her. 2023. She's going to be in the natural history museum one day like right next to the cavemen displays. That's where we are with that. Oh, right. Can we go back to this picture of him in court? Sure. His the the yeah, his comeover has gotten so bad. I like I don't mean to be and comeover has gotten so bad. I, like, I don't mean to be, and his orange has gotten so orange. Like, sometimes he tempers it, you know, and he looks less orange, and his comeover looks somewhat normal. But like, I just want to know who does his, you know, hair and makeup. He is not a well man.

I don't know why people think he's so hail and hearty, and they compare him to Joe Biden. I mean, if you were having a geriatric Olympics, I'd put my money on Joe Biden, winning the DeCathlon, not Donald Trump. Now, if Wendy's, or Popeyes was having a DeCathlon, then I put my money on Donald Trump. But otherwise, no, and this trial is not helping him.

This is the first time in his life. I don't know what he did in the other trials because he settled most of them, including with the attorney general in the past about fraud with Trump University. I don't think he's ever sat in a courtroom and watched people in and around his life testify against him and documents that he signed that showed he's committed fraud and you're right. This is the case he should care more about going to jail, but this is the case that you apparently cares about because his entire brand is invested in him being what you and I as New Yorkers know is not true, that he's a successful business person. We know that's been a sham forever. He's a middling. He was a

middling licensee of a name. There's no legitimate. You can count on no fingers how many real real estate developers in the business today would ever host the celebrity at Prentice. Put Mark Cuban aside for a minute. He's not a real estate developer anyway. That show is different. Shark tank is different. All those people made their money and then we're looking for something else to do and they went on the show and it helps their brand. A real real estate developer, like a related group or for Nado or any of these major top, they're their chairman or never going to host celebrity apprentice. That's because he was on the balls of his ass financially and he needed something to increase his value. But we know that. The American people don't know that. And that's what we're here to talk about. We're going to talk about Mar

a logo judge canon. What's happened in there with Seapuck, Karen Friedman, Ignitvilo's favorite acronym about everything that's happening in that courtroom as she's trying the judge to delay, I guess, the trial that's supposed to be scheduled for May and a trial that's not going to be delayed and actually picking a jury trial in Georgia. The Georgia Election Interference case brought by Foni Willis, the Fulton County DA, starts on this Friday and we will talk about both both but first a word from our sponsors. I am so thrilled to talk about LegalAF's latest exciting new sponsor, Copilot. Copilot is a personal training app that was listed by Forbes as the

top rated personal trainer app of 2023 and I can see why. I've always wanted my own personal trainer but I've never been able to find the time in my schedule whether it's about work or family and all the things going on, to have the time to work with one. I also don't really like going to a gym, but I do know how important exercises, and I like to exercise and want to incorporate it into my life and my daily routine much more. So if you're a woman like me of a certain age, and you know how important it is to maintain healthy bone density and strength training, and keep your heart rate up through cardiovascular exercises.

That is something that we all have to do, and it's important to find the time and the ability to do that in your life. And co-pilot is the thing that has helped me do that. And I'm so excited and thrilled to have someone from the comfort of my own home, who I can video chat with. She's my own personal trainer, and she can help me.

She has helped me develop a routine that fits with my lifestyle, incorporates exercises that are things that I like doing, that are easy for me to do, and that are fun for me to do. And she also helps hold me accountable, and that are fun for me to do. And she also helps hold me accountable because I know I'm going to be, she's going to be seeing my, and tracking my progress and seeing how I'm doing.

And that has really helped me stick with my program. So it's fantastic. It's so much more than just a fitness app. There really is this personal connection and these personal, personally tailored exercise routines that are good for your body, your lifestyle, and your goals, your fitness and body goals. So head to go.myco-pilot.com slash legalaf to get a 14 day free trial with your own personal trainer. That's go.myco-pilot.com slash legal AF to get a free 14 day trial with your

very own personal trainer and take a backseat and let co pilot help you reach your fitness goals. I like when you do it from that cherry. You look like you're trying out for the next episode of Star Trek. It's like you're in the command chair. Sometimes you get a fight, you know, it's not always easy when you have family and whatever. It's not always easy to find a place to acquire a place to... I'm in my office. I've had my staff walk in the middle of the podcast like you

got to hand me a document. Yeah. Let's talk about it. I'm gonna let you lead off? You and Ben have become the masters of the SEPA universe and judge can. And much talk about a couple of things that have happened down there. And I've heard your opinion on the hot tape, but share it here about why you think this all kind of is a conspiracy by the judge to ultimately rule that this trial of hers is not going to happen in May before the election as we suspect it and I'll listen to it and maybe I'll have a counterpoint. Yeah, so look, I think and I've said this since the beginning that that judge Eileen Cannon is going to Judge Eileen Cannon is going to, when she ruled that the trial is going to be May of 2024, as opposed to after the election, we all said, let's see if she sticks to that. She's never

going to do something ridiculous, like say, oh, it's going to be years from now or after after the election, because that she'll get criticized. So in a special set of date, but then we're going gonna see these little teeny, I keep calling it death by a thousand cuts, right? You're gonna see all these things, okay, you have to do this by this date, but I need five more days, Judge. Oh, okay, you can have five more days,

or I need two weeks, Judge, okay, you can have two weeks. And over time, those all add up, and I think we're going to potentially see that trial date get moved because she's constantly having allowing that to occur. And the SEAPA issue that you're talking about is has to do with discovery. And one of the issues is the defense attorneys are saying, you know, we don't have all the discovery.

We want to see all of the classified documents and we haven't been provided them all. They've been provided many of them, but there is a few that are so, so, so highly sensitive that that Jack Smith and his team are saying, look, we want to provide these, but we think they're so secretive and so sensitive and so highly highly classified, the super top highly classified, that they can't travel. They need to stay in Washington and we want to put it in a skiff, you know, that's the room that's so secure that allows, you don't know radio waves can't come in or out, you have to leave your devices at the door. I mean, it's these certain, you know, these skiffs are they're locked and you know, they're very, it's where you can view things that are highly

confidential and not worry that, you know, this information can leak out. And so they said, you know, there's one in Washington, we want to keep, we want that to be those documents to be there. Of course, the defense attorneys are saying, no, we, it's inconvenient. We want it to see it in Florida. And, and Judge Cannon says, okay. And so she ordered that all of the documents have to be put into a skiff in Florida.

And in the Southern District of Florida, she was very specific about that. And so we'll see what happens. We will see if, at the end of the day, if Jack Smith can find a way to convince the intelligence community that there's a safe way to bring that down there, or they could potentially, they could potentially dismiss whatever counts have to do with those particular documents. And, you know, look, the CEPA, the Classified Information Procedures Act, the whole point

of it is to prevent they call it graymail on the part of defendants. And what that means is you don't want to be blackmailed because somebody steals your most secret documents. And then you go to trial, you get prosecuted and they say, oh, well, you know, guess what? My due process rights means you have to put into evidence what I stole, you know, what you will ledge that I stole in order to prove your case. And of course, the national security community is going to say, well, we can't do that.

We can't put the nuclear codes in evidence that would put everyone in danger. So, so it's sort of a way of preventing this black male or gray male. The Congress passed the Classified Information Procedures Act many years ago. And it essentially says, look, yes, do process normally requires that you have to be anything they want to use against you has to be introduced into evidence of trial. But when it comes to classified information,

we're going to make an exception. And there are procedures in place that you can determine exactly what the process will be so that on the one hand, your due process rights are met. But on the other hand, national security is also taken into consideration. So you do things like you can sanitize the documents. You can redact the documents.

You can summarize the documents. You can, you know, there are things you can do that are, that you can make it so that you can still go to trial and utilize aspects of the documents. But these particular subset of documents are so sensitive that they're saying they cannot travel. So it'll be interesting to see exactly how Jack Smith deals with it and what he does.

But that's where we are with the SEPA situation. But again, the discovery between that and the Garcia hearing that has been happening that was adjourned for Walt Nouda because the Garcia hearing was that conflict hearing to see if Stan Woodward can represent him, even though he's represented multiple other witnesses. That got adjourned because the defense said,

oh, we're surprised there was an argument that was made that's new, it wasn't in the papers. And Judge Cannon's like oh You cited to a case that's not in your papers and you know and you're making these these arguments that you didn't that you didn't raise before You wasting my time a journey the case, you know, which is so ridiculous because That to me just shows her inexperience, right? It's, this is a Garcia hearing. It's a determined complex. It's a determined whether or not there's a conflict of interest. And you represented this witness that you claim you want to cross examine, Stan Woodward, that witness told

you things in confidence with the attorney client privilege, how are you going to possibly cross examine them? So, but she has, either she has, she's inexperienced or she's, you know, doing the stealth Donald Trump bidding for him doesn't want to be overt about it. I don't know which one, but, you know, the fact that she thinks that new issues were raised at the hearing, I think, just shows her inexperience. Because, you. Because anyone who's ever had a hearing before the court, that's where the facts are developed. That's where the arguments are developed. The papers definitely are part of it, but you further develop it at the hearing. That doesn't make it new or novel in order to be adjourned.

So I'm just concerned that she's allowing the defense attorneys who want delay and who don't want this trial to go quickly. She's allowing them to push this so that it could potentially not happen in May. I've had judges where I've lost every discovery motion and then some leading into a trial. And then a trial, I won everything that mattered, including the trial. And if you had asked me at any given moment during a case, what's going on? I would say, oh, it's judges against me. I've wrote an orbit trader.

Every decision went the other way to the other side. You think, the fix is in. I'm going to lose this. And the one of the reasons they bend over backwards is because you know, they don't want any argument on appeal that they didn't accommodate or rule in their favor, kind of sweeping away any appellate holes or exposures, and then especially if your case is really, really strong. And I think there is an argument, and I know we like to say that on this network that she's

corrupt and she's incompetent and she's over her skis and she fixes in and she's a federalist, all potentially true. What also could be true is that she's holding the prosecutor's feet to the fire where they have the burden of proof and for what she's seen so far from the pleadings and the things that have been presented, there seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the government and against Donald Trump. This is not, as I said on Saturday with Ben, Donald Trump doesn't do complicated. His crimes and his frauds are the most basic and simple ever since the caveman went up to the cave painting and erased one number or horse and drew another one.

That's the fraud. And in Mar-a-Lago, he just took documents and then refused to give them back and used half a dozen people to move them around Mar-a-Lago or maybe move them to bed-minster and then realized there were cameras and told people to erase the footage. I mean, this is the most basic, if you were, you know, the two guys in Home Alone 2, the Donald Trump is in, go back and look at it. We're more talented burglars than Donald Trump. In terms of them, we're sophisticated plan.

What's the plan, Donald? You're going to take 96 boxes and 30 of them that are marked classified, and then you're going to lie to your lawyer and then involves six people within your organization To shuffle and then have the boxes delivered up to your bedroom and then look at them and give them to another person and hope everybody keeps your secret That was your fraud that was your espionage and the government has told Canon and no uncertain terms in papers. This is not a complicated case. There are 30 pieces of paper that are stamped top secret, even if we don't put on any aspect of the case about the rest of the mound of documents, giant heaping mound of documents,

some of which he referred to in that now infamous recording in Bedminster about the pile of Iranian war documents. He had a lot of piles like that. That's national defense information documents. That goes to espionage act. The government recently revealed on their filing, we may not even go down that route. What is the one term that was used over and over again at the press conference announcing the appointment of the special prosecutor, Jack Smith, by Merrick Garland obstruction, not espionage act, obstruction. The basic nature of this case has not changed from the day Jack Smith was appointed.

This is an obstruction of justice case through the hiding and possible destruction of evidence. This is not, it is, it is because it's sexy to talk about it. It is not going to be tried as an espionage case. So we don't ever have to get down to, is this piece of paper, national defense information, is this piece of paper? Because the pieces of paper they're dealing with are the ones that are more classified and Donald Trump's conductive behavior, knowing that they were classified and or NDI and hiding them because he wanted to keep them so he had a revenge

File he could use against people like Mark Milley the then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and anybody else because they've already solved the mystery of the motive They don't need motive Everybody talks about motive because it's fun to talk about on that show that you work on law and order. Bode what's the motive? Why did he kill his wife? What is the husband? What's the motive is not generally generally part of the elements of any of the crimes that Donald Trump has charged with intent is intent is but Donald but they figured it out on the prosecutor's side. It's not for money They kind of gave up on the trail of maybe he was going to use the documents in a transactional way to make cash.

No. He did it for the way he did it for Mark Milley, where he pulled out the file and started to attack Mark Milley and seek political retribution against people. It's his revenge pile. And that's why he kept it. That's why he had Hillary Clinton. That's why he had Mark Milley. The French prime minister pissed them off.

Netanyahu pissed them off. So he had all these little piles that he was gonna keep. The heart of the case, subscription, not SB Nage Act. So it doesn't really, the skiff is interesting. The sepa is interesting, but it doesn't matter. It's 30 documents that are marked, classified, that he held onto and then hid using half a dozen people to do it. That's the case, and she knows it.

She knows, I think, the volume of evidence that's against him, tractor-trailer is worth. While she's bending over backwards on these issues, and she fangs or is really pissed off and upset and takes her gavill home with her, hmm, I don't like the way this hearing is going, I'm gonna go home. Okay, that's all right, I've had a pissy judge before, I've had a pissy magistrate before it happens.

I'm not sure yet, and I'm not in that camp yet. I could be one day, but I'm not now that that trial is going to move off of me. I still believe that she believes, as does Judge Juckin, that it is important to the American people that the trial of Donald Trump for the criminal matters get tried in public before the the election and that he does it. If he's an innocent man, God help us. If he's an innocent man that he doesn't have the cloud of that accusation hanging over him either, whether you're on the Trumpers side or the side of democracy, right?

He needs to get his name either cleared or convicted. One or the other. So I'm not yet in the camp that because of this day to day back and forth, Tit, Tat, cat, mouse in the courtroom about some of these issues, it automatically means we're gonna lose the trial date. Not there yet. Now, when she does it, you guys can say, remember Popoq, remember in October, when you told that really cute story, you're wrong.

Well, that's okay, I'll be wrong. But that's my view. I'm not yet giving up hope about the stability of that date. Maybe a few more maneuvers, and I'll be wrong. But I know where you and I know where you've been are on this one. Well, I'll tell you why. I don't think it's going to go also. Hey, Boogie.

I know, Boogie. Oh, my, my faithful, my faithful dog always here for every podcast. My boogie. Clearly it's dinner time. I think that, first of all, I love your optimism. And I love that you still very much. No, it's true.

Like you want to look, I find it so hard to say anything negative about a judge or a federal judge because I grew up having so much respect for them. Judges are the neutral arbiters. They're the ones who are there to call balls and strikes and do justice, et cetera. I really hope you're right. I hope I want to think that about judge canon. I want to think that about Judge Cannon like I want to think that about every judge

and that's why I said, you know, maybe it's because she's inexperienced. That's why some of these things are happening but I really, I hope you're right. Although if Judge Chetkin's case starts when it's supposed to start, then Judge Cannon's case will get pushed probably just because they might still be on trial.

I agree with you and that's why to sort of round that out. That's why I love Judge Shuttkin because she was like, let me make a phone call up to New York and talk to Judge Mershans Chambers about the Stormy Daniels case which is scheduled for March and I'm going to give them the courtesy. You okay if I bump you and I it, I'm going to be the, I'll do the federal election case. Yeah, sure, judge, we know this. It was reported that the staffs talked and she's allowed to do that under the rules and canons of judicial ethics.

She's supposed to do that. She didn't make the phone call to judge a cannon and she just said, let me see, what's going on? What's the other day you got on their May? Hmm, who's it with? Cannon, hmm, I'm going to take March because now we know there's definitely going to be, and up to two cases, it is the, it's the one that you've always said, Karen paraphrase you. It's the one that is the most important case out there is the federal

election interference case, federal style in home court advantage, Jack Smith in the district of Columbia. I love Georgia and I love the case. We'll talk about it next. But the one that I'm putting all my money, if I'm at the track, then I'm betting on the horses. Like my old grandfather used to do. I'm putting it on Jack Smith.

Mar-a-Lago is really interesting. I like learning about SEPA and I like learning about how both corrupt and juvenile and sophomoreical Donald Trump scheme was. But, you know, if God succained down and said, you get one son, pick one that you want a conviction in. I'm like, Jack Smith, Judge Chuckhead, federal election interference.

Put him away. Not like, you know, the document, the documents thing. That's why I continue to believe it's the stocking horse used to exhaust the resources and the lawyers. And we're starting to see it for Donald Trump. Let me just leave it on this. Then we can go to Georgia if you're okay with that. Look at how thin these lawyers are spread for Donald Trump right now. You've got Chris Kice backed up by Alina Haba and a guy I never heard of ever, Mr. Field, sorry, Mr. Field in New York, handling the fraud case of the century against Donald Trump, which literally could strip him bare. And as I said, Nahatte, leave him wearing a barrel and suspenders selling

apples on a corner. That is in the hands of one lawyer, Chris Geist, a backup from Alina Habas firm. I thought Alina Habas was no longer a practicing lawyer. I thought she was a spokesperson for the PAC for Donald Trump. But she's there. That's his entire team. Okay. Not 10 lawyers, not a major national firm to people. Then at the very same time, John Loro, who just joined the case in August, is the lead trial lawyer down in Florida. What happened to Todd Blanche, by the way? We don't see Todd. He sits in the courtroom up in New York.

Doesn't say a darn thing. So that's going on. And in Georgia, we're going to talk about next. They brought in, you know the guy, Steve Vaseydau, who nobody down here has heard of, hasn't done a darn thing, except go meet two judge, meet two I like what you file, I like what you file. That's their entire team against the United States of America and all of its resources

and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people devoted to this case from a law, a legal standpoint, investigatory standpoint, and otherwise, and Jack Smith and a Jack Smith team that it's no less than 22 people of lawyers, plus junior lawyers behind them, and paralegals and investigators behind them. It's working because they can't even be

in the same room at the same time. I mean, you know, if Donald Trump thought the brain trust was Blanche, Loro, Kice, they can't even be on the same case at the same time. So you're right. That case is going to trial in March, Chuck and made it clear. No doubt. That's going to take more than two months.

It's going to interfere with the make case. And I'm okay with that. If the reason the make case doesn't happen is because he's on trial in the case in DC, good. But let's leave it out there. We need one of these trials before November. And let's talk about Georgia now because we know Donald Trump's case in Georgia is not going to be in 2023. And this case is going to take five months. So if this

case does five, takes five months, we're in, we're in October, Let's make it November, November, December, January, February, March, April. Now we're in April. We're moving into the second quarter of 2024. April, majoring, you only got five, six months left before November and you've got the Mar-a-Lago case. So he's going to get one case tried against him, Jack Smiths. The others are going to be bonus before the election. I'm not talking about ever. I mean, before the election. What did you find down in Georgia? You did a very nice hot take. It's running right now. It's our hot takes are selling like hot cakes.

Anybody like that one? I just came up with that one. And you have one running right now that I took a look at. I listened to once you give a little version of of it for those that don't watch your hot takes. Why aren't you watching Karen's hot takes by the way? Or mine? Or Ben's? Or all three of ours? At all. So tell us about the last gas motions by Sidney Powell and or Ken Chesboro. And then I can talk a little bit about the jury questionnaire. And the fact that they're picking a jury starting on Friday. I'll take a couple of weeks,

but they're going to start on Friday picking a jury. That's just, I mean, that's like tomorrow, basically. I mean, not quite, but, you know, that's literally this trial is starting. This trial is about to go against the two who opted for speedy trial, right? There's 18 or 19 defendants who are charged and two of them, Ken Chesbro and Sydney Powell have opted for there to have a speedy trial, which in Georgia means lightning speed. So they are starting right now

and the judge is making the kind of rulings that they would make, that he would make right before a trial. Essentially what happened was, and what this order is, he said, that the punchline and the ultimate ruling is there's legally sufficient evidence to support the charges against you. So your emotions to dismiss are denied. That means all the charges that the two of you are charged with

Chesbro and Powell are going to trial. And, you know, I love Judge McAfee. He's, yes, he's also a federalist and Republican and all of the all of that. But he's a great judge so far. He talk about a judge who is really smart, knows what he's doing, has command of his courtroom, and he's also junior, right? He hasn't only been a judge for five minutes or six months or whatever it is, and he has this big case, but this guy knows exactly what he's doing.

And I love his decisions, because his decisions, he knows that he has an audience here that is greater than just the defendants, which, so he's educating all of us. He's making it so that all his decisions are ones that anyone can read and anyone can understand, even if you're not familiar with George a law. I mean, you know, like you, Popoq, I read a lot of decisions and just court decisions in general can be very short, right? They can just be very brief, very short,

or they can be very long. It just depends. And Judge McAfee is making sure that even in cases, even in situations that are quite simple, he makes sure that he spoon feeds the information so that anyone who reads them is educated on Georgia law, not only on Georgia law, but also knows why he's ruling the way he's ruling. And so I think his rulings are very clear, they're very well-reasoned, they're smart. He knows what he's talking about, and he's clever, too. He's funny, he's clever. And I love reading his footnotes. I mean, in general, footnotes are always where you get the juicy stuff, but his are great. You know, he always puts the best things

in his footnotes. And in this particular motion, this particular order or decision on these motions, several motions to dismiss, he addressed in one decision, and he basically gave a lecture on what a demure is. Cause that's what they call it in Georgia. These were motions, these were for demurers, which is basically a fancy word for dismiss. And he said there are three different

types of demurer motions in Georgia. There's the general demurer, then there's the special demurer, and then there's a speaking demure. So I learned a lot reading these, right? And the general demure, he said, is basically when you ask the judge to apply, look, just look at the indictment, look at the charging instrument, you know, the thing that that is being used to charge you, and what you have to do is make sure that each and every element of the statute is listed on there and that there are facts supporting each and every element of the crime. And I'm sure George is like New York, you know, we had a computer program that when we were typing up our charging instrument, whether it was by complaint or by indictment, you

put the statute number in there and it spits out the legal language exactly how it should be because this is a requirement everywhere You know, you have to have the the charges with the legal language and the elements and then the facts that support it and So you know, that's how we did it and I'm sure Fannie Willis made sure that they alleged the fact enough facts that very specifically met the law. And so he ruled that in particular, yes, she did with the Rico charge, because that's the count one, the Rico charge. And so he and he said, this is how,

and he said she alleged the right allegations and also the right and the right facts that go with it. And then he analogized it to, in a civil case, when you make a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. And so he said, look, that's what this basically is, a general demurer. So it's in the civil context, a motion

to dismiss for failure to state a claim. He said, but in this particular case, she met that. And then he says, that's different than a special demurer, which challenges the form of the indictment, saying that we need more information than just the elements of the law. We need more than what you put there. And he said, and the test for that is not whether the indictment could have been made more definite and certain, but whether it contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to

meet. And in case any other proceedings are taken against him for similar offense, whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a former acquittal or conviction. So all that basically says is, look, let's say you are charged with something big and complicated. It's not enough to just give the statute and then the facts, the basic bare-bone facts. You need to be a little more specific because later on, if someone tries to bring a different charge related to that, they need to know whether double jeopardy applies.

So sometimes in certain cases, you need to be even more specific. And so he was saying, you know, that there's that kind. And then there's the speaking demure, which basically says, you know what, look outside the four corners of the charging document and look at the other evidence there, like in civil law, that would be a motion for summary judgment that happens after all the discovery has come in. So you're just looking at just, you know, not only the document, the charging document, but

all the other evidence to see if there is enough to bring a charge. And essentially what he says is, look, there is no motion for summary judgment in criminal law. That's what a trial is for. In the civil world, yes, you can look at all that and dismiss the case if there's not enough. But we don't do that in criminal law. You have to have a trial and put your evidence in.

And Sidney Powell tried to put all these attachments on her motions saying look you know I was allowed to break into the voting machines and look this this affidavit in a civil case says I can do what what they're saying I couldn't do therefore you should dismiss this and and that was the speaking demure because she was asking the court to consider this other evidence and he said hold on that, that's what a trial is for. We don't do that here where you look at this other stuff. The judge doesn't look at that. And so he basically schooled everybody on how criminal law is different than civil and how these are the types of hurdles that you have to get through in order to get a case or a charge dismissed. He also, you know, he, look, Ken Chesbro made some weird legal arguments.

You know, he said that, you know, that, but he had to, right? He, there, there, nine times out of 10, nine point nine times out of 10, defense attorneys lose most the motions that are made before trial because that's just the nature of things, right? That's, that's what what that's how it goes. The prosecutors typically know what they're doing and they, but you still have to make motions and you still, as a defense attorney, you have to ask for things. And so this read to me, this motion that Chesborough made felt like grasping at straws.

He said things like, oh, you know, because you know they they they they didn't do things that were in the legislative intent but not in the statute and the judges like well no the legislative intent doesn't is not an element of the crime that could just be what one senator thought should be in the statute but that doesn't mean that wasn't voted on that's not an element of the crime and this is where the my favorite footnote in the decision when he said, when what the judge said, he said, you know, he cited a case bishop versus the state of Georgia, where he said, you know, any attempt to discern

legislative intent beyond the express language passed by a legislative body is as practical and productive as attempting to nail jello to the wall. Like how great is that quote, right? So, you know, so he's shot down that argument and there was a couple, he also said, he also Chesbro also said to the judge, look, you know, there's an element that they have to prove, which is, you know, continuity, meaning that the defendant, you know, would have continued, but for being arrested, he would have continued with the crime. And the judge is like, okay, yes, Mr. Chessbro, that is an element of the federal rico-stitute, not the Georgia Rico-stitute. And PS, we have lots of Georgia Kaisla that talks

about how different the statutes are. And so just because it's an element of the federal Rico-stitute, it's not an element here. But, you know, so the judge was kind of answering his motions, I think, and in appropriate, just saying this is not what the law is. But Powell's motions, I thought were slightly different. That to me, her motions kind of show why she is part of Team Crazy, you know, like, like at least Ken Chese was used to be a respected

constitutional scholar and is sort of a real lawyer, which is partly why he's so dangerous and scary because he is kind of a real lawyer, which is why he was able to come up with a plan to steal the election, to begin with. Sydney Powell is just not a respected lawyer and I think she's not even respected by her own co-defendants.

And that's why they called her part of team crazy. She was asking for counts to be dismissed. She was like, oh, I want to adopt this person's motion and this person's motion and my own motions and all of that. But and so she would say things that, and the judge was like, by the way, you're raising arguments that number one,

you know, don't correspond to anything that the government, you know, when you raised an argument and then the government responds, your reply is to something that has nothing to do with what the government said, number one. And number two, you submitted your emotions after the deadline. And number three, you submitted your emotions after the deadline. And number three, you asked for charges to be dismissed that you're not even charged with

Sydney Powell. So like get your facts straight. You know, she just doesn't know what she's doing. And, you know, but so that's what the, that's what that was, was, that was that whole motion that was ultimately dismissed and or dismissed, was ultimately summarily denied and the trial started. Well, with the judge having squared away the last gasp of motions, including from Team Crazy and Team Constitutional Scholar, we're left with a jury selection, 450 jurors being brought down,

they're gonna be told at the beginning that this is a five-month trial and after the groans subside, they'll start the jury selection process which will be televised as will the trial and everything else related to it. We'll be following it here on the Midas Touch Network. The judge is already about to reject the jury questionnaire that the team crazy wanted which they were going to have the jurors asked point blank, like under penalty of, I don't know what are you, what's your belief on maga? Do you think

Donald Trump had the right to challenge the election? Do you think people that challenge the election results are bad people or criminals? You know, the judges, like I'm not asking any of those questions. You're not allowed to fair it out their opinions about things, just about whether they're fair and impartial. And we'll come up with a better questionnaire that's more neutral on that point. And we will start with that process. One place we won't see a televised likely trial is in Judge Chuckens Chambers in March for the DC election interference case. We've got papers that were just filed by the Department of Justice arguing that there should be no cameras in the courtroom. Some people might be surprised by that because we'd all like to see it and it make for great theater and we'd love it on this

particular network, but I understand watching Donald Trump act out in New York and Anticipating what it could do in Georgia. I'm not sure having it all televised and having Donald Trump have more cameras on him than already are on him is a good thing for the administration of justice. But we'll talk more about that after we see the full briefing. Quick sign off here for legal AF midweek. We talked about the midweek, we talked about the legal AF after dark clips that are be running on YouTube. And we'd like you to support that and send that over to people as a way to get them to support our show. You guys know how to support our show, the listeners followers and audience who have been with us for almost three years and 400 total episodes.

It's free subscribe to the Midas Touch YouTube channel. Help them get the two million, the bigger they are, the more your voice is heard, you're watching now, but listen to us the same episode over on the audio podcast platforms. That helps with the algorithms and helps keep us right where we want to be at the top of the charts at the intersection of law, politics and justice. And if you want to wear something with our podcast logo on it, we have it at store.mitustouch.com. And we'll put up a link for that during the show. That's the way to do it. Everything I just talked about except for buying our merch

is a way to free support everything. And there we go with the link. Saturday, Ben, my Salis and me will join and we'll pick up from where the midweek edition left off in terms of developments. And to keep everybody, oh, current me, Ben Mysalis, the leaders of legal AF, with 75 years of collective experience

that only comes from being a certain age. A man who has a face. I love that phrase. I was like, I don't care and wrote that ad. She said that phrase. I love that phrase. I don't care. I don't care and wrote that ad. I'm kidding. She said that phrase again. Because I don't want to tell everyone that I'm 57. I'm 57. There you go.

There you go. Now we've said it. So with our 114 years of collective on this Earth, we bring our advice and counsel and analysis, only one place exclusively on the Midas Touch Network. So until next midweek edition and all the hot takes we do in between, and the weekend edition of Legal AF, signing off, shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal AFers.

you