Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump GETS COMPLETELY CRUSHED by VERDICT, Criminal Trial LOOMS

Episode Date: February 18, 2024

On a Special All Anchors Edition of the Legal AF Podcast, Ben Meiselas, Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo debate: (1) what happens next on appeal and future oversight, now that a NY Court has Banned Trump from the finance markets, lending, and operating his businesses, and hit him with a more than $500 million dollar judgment; (2) whether Trump will be CONVICTED of NY felonies by May in the Stormy Daniels hush money coverup case and the impact of that trial on the DC Election interference trial setting; (3) the likelihood that the Supreme Court will take up the Trump “ absolute immunity” case on appeal and stay the DC Election Interference trial or let it proceed in June or July; (4) what happens next with Fulton County DA Fani Willis, and will the state court judge remove her from the Trump Georgia Election Interference case and dismiss the Trump indictment, and so much more at the intersection of law, politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! Fast Growing Trees: Head to https://www.fast-growing-trees.com/collections/sale?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=description&utm_campaign=legalaf right now to get 15% off your entire order! Policy Genius: Head to https://policygenius.com/legalaf to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. Smile Actives: Visit https://SmileActives.com/legalaf to get this exclusive offer! Reel Paper: Head to https://REELPAPER.com/LEGALAF and sign up for a subscription using code LEGALAF at checkout, and automatically get 30% off your first order and FREE SHIPPING! Manukora: Head to https://manukora.com/legalaf or use code LEGALAF to automatically get a free pack of honey sticks with your order — a $15 value! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Fanduil Casino's exclusive Live Dealer Studio has your chance at the number one feeling, winning, which beats even the 27th best feeling saying I do. Who wants this last parachute? I do. Enjoy the number one feeling, winning in an exciting Live Dealer Studio, exclusively on Fanduil Casino, where winning is undefeated. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem?

Call 1866 5531-2600 or visit connexontario.ca. Please play responsibly. What a week, a $364 million verdict against Donald Trump and others in the New York Attorney General, civil fraud case and the injunctive relief in the order by Justice, Arthur and Goron may be just as powerful and devastating to Donald Trump as the monetary amount, we'll explain.

In another Manhattan courthouse earlier in the week, Manhattan Justice Juan Mershan confirmed that the Manhattan District Attorney fell in a criminal case against Donald Trump being prosecuted by the Manhattan DA's office will definitely start on March 25th over Donald Trump's lawyers forceful objections. We will break that down. Also, the Supreme Court has now received all briefs by the prosecution and by Donald Trump's lawyers in Trump's application to keep that Washington, D.C. federal criminal case stayed and it's been stayed since December when Donald Trump asserted absolute presidential immunity which was rejected by both the federal court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and

now it's making its way to the United States Supreme Court. What is the Supreme Court going to do first with Donald Trump's application for a stay? And then finally, a bizarre and some would say, I know we would all say here, a very shameful hearing took place in Fulton County as Donald Trump and his co-defendants alleged a conflict of interest by the Fulton County DA Fauney Willis. But what this hearing ended up looking like was just some salacious attempt to try to smear and embarrass Willis. Also Fulton County District Attorney Willis took the stand and pushed back.

We will get into everything that happened at that hearing. And we got the full team for you all today on Legal AF. You got me, you got Michael Popak, you got Karen Friedman-Agnifalo. It was a historic week. So we got to bring the whole team out first. Michael Popak, how are you Friedman-Agnifilo, it was a historic week, so we got to bring the whole team out first. Michael Popak, how are you doing? I'm doing great. I love seeing all three of us together.

I was just thinking before we got on here, the last time we were together was in May when we had the first Eugene Carroll verdict. I was also on a holiday and we decided we got to do this. And watching everything this week week the moment this week that we've had with developments in the trial setting of Donald Trump before the November election in New York rulings by or soon to be rulings by the Supreme Court Fawnie Willis

What's happening down there which as you said been ashamedful but will really dissect that and our views on it leading through Karen and on the, wow, the almost $500 million verdict and banning of Donald Trump from business for the next three years along with his children at various levels. I can't think, we needed the bandwidth of all three anchors of this show. And here we are. KFA, how are you? I'm great. What a week it's been, right?

It's just been so many things to report on. I was thinking, how do we keep everybody up to date with everything because there's so much going on, but I'm so happy to be here with you guys this morning. Yeah, I'm reminded by that movie title, everything, everywhere, all at once. And I think that described this past week. I think it's going to be describing the weeks to come as well.

But let's just break it down and let's just start at the top with what happened in the New York Attorney General's civil fraud case. We've been waiting for this verdict to issue by Justice Arthur and Goran. And Michael Popak, I'll be honest, that even exceeded my expectations in its strength, not just with the monetary amount for the disgorgement remedy of $364 million when you add it all up, about $355 million or so, with respect to Donald Trump,

you add up $4 million for each of Donald Trump's adult kids, Don Jr. and Eric Trump. But also you talk about the other remedies, the additional powers given to the independent monitor, Barbara Jones having to now install an internal compliance officer within the Trump Organization, the other bans from Donald Trump and the Trump Organization from obtaining loans from lenders certified with New York State. Michael Popak would love to get your entire perspective on what took place there and did it meet, exceed your expectations and anything you think that people really aren't talking about, you know, when

it comes to this decision. Thanks, Ben. Yeah, listen, I think we anticipated here on Legal AF a number of the developments. The dollar amount is almost exactly what let's say James, the New York Attorney General had asked for. The reason people are seeing different numbers, I'm going to start with the numbers, then I'm going to talk about the ban, then I'm going to talk about the other thing we anticipated was that based on reports from the monitor who's been in place for 15 months, that there's still potential fraud going on within the organization while the trial was going on, there's going to be a new, the creation of a new position of compliance director who's going to work hand in glove with the monitor who just got an extension of three years on her employment contract,

all paid for by Donald Trump. But let me break it down. The numbers are varying mainly because of whether news organizations are compounding the interest of 9% for the years that interest is running on a pre-judgment amount or not. When you add it all together, we'll just make it easy. It's pushing $500 million or more once the 9% compounded interest is running from the various states that are appropriate.

The reason it was 92 pages, and I'll give you the key takeaways, is because the judge methodically went through 40 witnesses. He summarized the salient points of their testimony, both for the Attorney General and against where that was appropriate. He summarized as the trier of fact his evaluation of witness credibility, mainly the Trump kids, including Ivanka, not being very credible, nor Trump. And the lead financial that we refer to here on Legal AF as the money man or the bag men for Donald Trump, which is Jeff McConney, who was the longtime controller, now disgraced. He just avoided being prosecuted for tax evasion himself. And similarly, Allen Weisselberg put them in the completely not

credible category. But let me continue with the remedies here. This was an equitable case. This is not a case about fraud. All of Donald Trump's supporters, including his own lawyers, they take the position that this is some sort of common law civil fraud case that needs certain elements proved in order for there to be a winning case. That is exactly the opposite. I'm sorry, most of these lawyers never practice in New York like Karen and I do, but that is not what

the executive law 63-12 requires. All it requires is in the six more counts of fraud that were proven. All that it requires is that there be a persistent, fraudulent pattern or practice or an intent to deceive, and that's all. There doesn't have to be a victim. There doesn't have to be reliance, which is what we have to do in normal civil fraud. These are tremendous robust powers that were given by the legislature in New York to the New York Attorney General, mainly because New York is the financial capital of the world. And almost as the judge said, almost like a sovereign, they had a sovereign nation, if you will,

the state and therefore the attorney general has the obligation to regulate and make sure the playing field is level and that persistent fraudsters are put out of business. And that is the law that was applied to Donald Trump. That's why there's a judge, not a jury, as the judge reminded them in their order. Also taking a shot at Alina Habba saying they never asked for a jury, but they wouldn't be entitled to one either. And then he methodically went

through the first, at the end, the remedies, but of course how he got there. The remedies are up to the $500 million or more, more than $500 million in total against Donald Trump and Additional monies against Eric Trump Don Jr. Alan Weisselberg Jeff Mcconnie mainly them paying back some of those people paying back their separation payments That were the gag payments that were paid by the Trump Organization, but then the big headline Is the banning banning banning banning? And the big headline is the banning, banning, banning, banning. Donald Trump is banned for three years from being an officer or director of any New York corporation, including his own, or from being in a control position. Allen Weisselberg, sure.

He's banned for life from being a control officer as in having a position where the finances run through an officer as is Jeff McConney. Eric and Don Jr. just missed a three-year ban. They're banned for two years, which means for the next two years plus, there's not going to be a Trump that's going to be heading any of the companies that have the Trump name on it because there can't be by way of this ban, period, which means other outsiders not named those people have to come in and run the company. While a monitor, her tenure is extended for three years and the creation of a new independent compliance director, because the judge noted there are several positions within the organization, including chief financial officer that haven't been filled in 15 months.

How do you run a company without having control officers, which are exactly what it sounds like, who are responsible for financial reporting, truthful statements, financial statements, truthful statements to lenders, to counterparties and the like. They have entire vacancies within the organization. And it can't just be run by Donald Trump. In fact, it can't be run by Donald Trump at all. So as I predicted in a prior hot take, there was a compliance problem that needed to be solved here. The judge even went one step further and solved an appeal problem that the judge had. Because remember, or bring our audience up to date,

when the judge in September granted the summary judgment on count one, there were seven total counts in the complaint, all for some version of persistent fraud. Persistent fraud in financial statements, persistent fraud in insurance, persistent fraud in business records, and the conspiracies around those things. The judge already found one standalone count of persistent fraud back in September on summary judgment and then said, I'm going to dissolve the business certificates, meaning you can't operate your business at all because I'm dissolving your companies. That issue was up on appeal.

The judge, as we had anticipated, revisited his decision. That's why I think they should have argued it at the trial. Revisited his decision and said, you know what? Maybe I went too far with the dissolution. I got a better idea. I just created a two-tier monitoring system for the next three years with the independent compliance director reporting to the monitor, the former federal judge Barbara Jones.

Let them decide whether there should be dissolution or not. They don't even have to go back to the judge. They make their own decision if they think that's in the best interest of the estate, if the trial, things were happening. They had to be reported to the monitor financially. Now, they have to be pre-approved by the monitor. So if Donald Trump thinks he's just going to easily pick up stakes, take whatever is money left that he has, and transfer those assets all out of New York, not happening because the monitor has the ability to stop those transactions as does the judge in his continuing oversight, if you will, over his orders. So they're gonna have to, as I said on another hot take,

they're gonna have to create new funds of money that aren't being generated from the existing assets or bank accounts and put that in another state and then try to reform there if that state allows them to be a Officer or director so you got the bands you got the money This is all has to be started in 30 days unless there is an appeal talk about that next and then you've got the These equitable remedies that we just talked about and this in this implementation of a new surveillance and monitoring

Structure around all things Donald Trump. So he lopped the head off the leadership. He put in and stalled independent people who have to report. He fixed his appeal problem, Judge Angoran, because he took away the appeal issue, the original appeal issue. And then you've got this big money judgment where we're all wondering where Donald Trump's

gonna get it from, because he's only got 450 million in cash the rest he'd have to sell But he's got to get the monitors approval to sell it and the like Now let me leave it on this and then you guys can talk about with me also the appeal and your views the heart of the case just to remind everybody is the statement of financial condition that was manufactured as the judge likes to say in its numbers just to remind everybody, is the statement of financial condition that was manufactured, as the judge likes to say, in its numbers, increasing in anywhere assets on that list for Donald Trump between five and 50 times their actual value.

The main chunks of assets we're talking about are 40 Wall Street, a commercial building in Lower Manhattan, Mar-a-Lago, we all know Mar-a-Lago, and what you can do there, a private residence. There's another, a couple of properties dealing with Donald Trump's golf courses here and abroad. There's a project with the Vornado Group that's also in there. There's Seven Springs, which is another real estate development, and there's the old post office, which Ivanka Trump was very intimately involved with. And so the judge methodically, based on the guidance given to him and the evidence given to him by the New York attorney general, went through and figured out the following, that Donald Trump, by cooking the books in a statement of financial

condition, was able to obtain loans to which he was not entitled at rates to which he was not entitled on terms to which he was not entitled. And the same thing for insurance. And so he discouraged or ripped away all of the profits or all of the improper economic terms that Donald Trump was not entitled to and said that is the amount of the discouragement. Some people wonder in our audience, where's that money go?

Well, when Donald Trump finally pays it, it goes back to the people of the state of New York. It goes back to the New York treasury. Doesn't go back to Deutsche Bank, who was misled by Donald Trump, or the insurance companies, or any of the other lenders. So that's why the victim analysis doesn't work for Donald Trump. The victim was the state of New York and the financial markets. And that money would come in as a general treasury of New York to be used for whatever they're going to use it for. But it can't stay with the fraudsters.

You know, people are like, well, where would it go? Well, it doesn't stay with Donald Trump. And that's the heart of it because each of the properties and witnesses that are outlined in the judgment all come down to the same thing. Donald Trump gave false information to his accountants and his auditors through Allen Weisselberg and Michael Cohen and others that was used and relied upon, although it's not a requirement

of the law, by banks in lending him money. More importantly, not just lending him money, but this issue of recourse versus non-recourse loans is at the heart of this case. And that's what people, I wanna make sure they understand that before I'm done with my part of this. In order to get a loan at favorable rates, at low interest rates, you generally in lending have to give a personal guarantee.

There's got to be a person behind an organization, even if the organization on paper seems to have a lot of assets and viability. So, no bank is going to give the same rate for what's called a non-recourse loan, which means you can't go against individuals on their personal guarantee as they would for a recourse loan. In fact, one of the properties and transactions that the judge cited with Deutsche Bank, the difference was a four-interest point swing. One side of Deutsche Bank was willing to give Donald Trump a major loan, huge loan, on a non-recourse basis, meaning not going after Donald Trump if there was a default at 8%.

But if he gave a personal guarantee, they were going to lower it, another division of the bank, to 4%. That over millions and millions of dollars is a huge savings and interest. So he said, okay, I'll do the personal guarantee. What they knew or should have known is what they didn't know, but they should have known is that it was based on fraudulent statements of his wealth, of his statement of financial condition, of his liquidity, meaning the amount of money in cash. Even when the bank said that whenever we deal with commercial developers, we automatically

think they're BSing us and we cut the number in half, 50% haircut. Even that, that means that that gave incentive, because of course Donald Trump being in the business for 50 years, Donald Trump knew that they were giving him a 50% haircut. So he tripled and quadrupled in 50 times the amount of his assets, knowing that even after the 50% haircut, he would meet the criteria required to get the loan on a recourse basis at a lower interest rate. That, as complicated as it may sound, is at the heart of the case. And that's why the judge was able to say, and that's why you made an extra 50 million, 80 million, 112 million, 130 million at each of these projects.

And then I'll leave it on this. Michael Cohen came out a hero in the judge's order. He said he was a lead witness, although not the only witness, because what Michael said, even though he committed perjury in the past, was backed up and supported by other credible evidence, corroborating evidence that bolstered Michael's testimony. By contrast, all of the Ivanka, from Ivanka to Eric to Don Jr. to Don Sr., Donald Trump,

were all considered to be completely impaired in terms of their truth telling, including Ivanka, and of course, Allen Weisselberg and Jeff McConney, basically the judge said they flat out lied to him on the stand, and he found them to be completely not credible, as opposed to all the witnesses for the New York Attorney General, which all came out, including witnesses that still work in the Trump Organization, that came out very strong in favor of the case. An amazing result. You guys, we need to talk about what happens next with the appeal, but that's sort of the

overview. Well, and Michael Popak, to get your perspective there on the financial machinations within the Trump Organization and really breaking down this order the way you just did also comes from your years and years of experience. For those who are new to Legal AF, I want to point out that Michael Popak was a deputy general counsel and global head of litigation at a major financial institution. And so, you know, he knows how it's supposed to run and how compliance is supposed to happen. And on the other hand, what the Trump Organization

was doing. And as we start talking about other topics throughout this episode, for example, what's going on in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, the perspective on the Fulton County District Attorney, Fawney Willis' testimony, I could truly think of no one else I'd want to hear that perspective from from or I would say who would be number one on my list would be Karen Friedman Agnifalo who was the number two at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. So it's such an honor to give you all this legal perspective from the people who are in the top of their fields who know this stuff.

So I want to talk a little bit more about the New York Attorney General, Civil Fraud verdict and get your perspective, Karen. And I want to go right into the Manhattan District Attorney criminal case against Donald Trump, that hearing, what to expect there. And then we've got a lot more to discuss as well. But let's take our first quick break of the show. Did you know that fast growing trees is the biggest online nursery in the US with more than 10,000 different kinds of plants and over 2 million happy customers in the US. You can grow lemon, avocado, olive or fig trees inside your home on top of the wide variety of house plants available. Fast growing trees makes it easy to order online and your

plants are shipped directly to your door in one to two days. And along with their 30 day alive and thrive guarantee, they offer free plant consultation forever. Fast growing trees is truly incredible from their breathtakingly beautiful plants and trees to their amazing customer support. There's no one I trust more, plus I save so much money by not using an overpriced landscaper. I'm obsessed with my Meyer lemon tree

that I ordered from Fast Growing Trees and I'm growing it indoors. The experts at Fast Growing Trees and I'm growing it indoors. The experts at Fast Growing Trees curate thousands of plants so you can find the perfect fit for your specific climate, location and needs. You don't have to drive around nurseries and big gardening centers. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to order online and your plants are shipped to your door in one to two days. Whether you're looking to add some privacy shade or natural beauty to your yard, Fast Growing Trees has in-house experts

ready to ship and help you make the right selection with growing and care advice available 24-7. For a limited time, not only can you buy one, get one free on their website, but listeners to our show get an additional 15% off when using the code LegalAF at checkout. That's an additional 15% off at FastGowingtrees.com using the code legalaf at checkout. Fastgrowingtrees.com code legalaf. This offer is valid for a limited time. Tell them we sent you, I've been using fast growing trees for years. I'm so thrilled they're our sponsor. Are you self conscious about your smile due to stains? Are your teeth aging you?

Popular food and drinks are known to stain teeth. Beverages like coffee and wine stain them over time. So what can you do to brighten your smile? Well you should give smile actives to try. Smile actives is safe, effective, easy to use, and will keep you smiling proudly. As you probably know because of all the videos we do I'm a big coffee drinker and over time I noticed my teeth lost some of their brightness that I was used to seeing. 97% of Smile Actives users in a clinical trial

reported up to six shades wider on average, all within 30 days. Simply add Smile Actives Pro-Whitening Gel to your regular toothpaste. It's been formulated with polyclean technology to boost stain removal and deliver active whitening ingredients into teeth, grooves and crannies to get better whitening. Smile Actives makes a teeth whitening gel that can simply be added to your toothpaste

every time you brush your teeth. So no change in your routine, no extra time, and no more messy strips, trays or lights. People will start commenting on your wider, brighter smile in just days. Smile Actives is the whitening boost your favorite toothpaste needs to give you the smile you deserve. Visit smileactives.com slash legal AF today to receive a special buy one, get one free offer

with auto delivery plus free shipping and handling. That's smileactives.com slash legal AF, terms and conditions apply. See site for details. And now it's time for a brief lesson on the history of toilet paper. The first perforated toilet paper rolls were introduced in 1890, but it wasn't until 1930 that we officially had splinter-free tissue. Prior to that, people just used whatever was on hand, corn cobs, parchment, even pages from the old farmer's almanac. Nowadays, we're clear-cutting our forests just to make something that we use once and flush down the toilet.

That's why I love real paper. Real makes a sustainable toilet paper that contains no trees and instead uses 100% bamboo. Realel's paper is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, meaning that they are responsibly harvesting the bamboo grass that's used for their paper. And while the other conventional tree-based papers are wrapped in plastic in the grocery aisle, Reel Paper's packaging is plastic-free and compostable, and offers free shipping at all orders. But here's the best part. When I use Reel, it doesn't feel like I'm sacrificing something to help the earth. In fact, it feels like an upgrade. It truly has become my go-to toilet paper. Reel Paper is available in easy hassle-free

subscriptions or for one-time purchases on their website. All orders are conveniently delivered to your door with free shipping in 100% recyclable plastic free packaging. If you head to realpaper.com slash legal AF and sign up for a subscription using my code legal AF at checkout, you'll automatically get 30% off your first order and free shipping. That's R E E L P A P E R dot com slash legal AF or enter promo code legal AF to get 30% off your first order plus free shipping. So let's stop flushing our forests and try reals tree free paper real is paper for the planet. Welcome back to legal af. Thank you to our pro democracy sponsors. Look, they're one of the major ways we're able to grow this independent media platform. We don't have outside investors and we're grateful for them sponsoring the show.

But let's get right back into it. We were talking about the New York Attorney General's civil fraud verdict handed down on Friday by Justice Arthur and Goron. You know, sure Karen, the headline was that $364 million verdict, about $355 million or so against Trump. You add up $4 million with Don Jr., $4 million against Eric, $1 million here, $1 million there against the COO and former CIP. You put it all together, you get that $364 number.

But also, you have to include pre-judgment interest as well, which starts at various states based on the order. It certainly looks like it could be closer to $400 million, and then you also have to factor in the compliance, the independent compliance director, who now has to be put in place within the Trump Organization, the extension of retired federal Judge Barbara Jones' contract. And you add that, you add that with the E. Jean Carroll verdict from end of January, $83.3 million.

And you're looking at that half a billion dollar number right there in verdicts currently against Donald Trump. But let me take it back to the New York Attorney General, civil fraud case, and get your perspective, Karen, on the outcome. So in addition to all the things Popak just said, the things that really stood out to me, first of all was the decision itself.

It was not a typical decision or verdict in a civil case. So when we saw, for example, the aging Carol verdict, that was just a jury that came out and said that we find Donald Trump liable and there's a dollar amount. It's not a 90-something page decision where they go through in painstaking detail exactly what they did and why.

And so this verdict, this decision that the judge rendered was just absolutely painstakingly methodical and I would say bulletproof from an appellate standpoint. He went through every single piece of evidence, every single witness, and he went just detail by detail and described what witnesses he found credible, which witnesses he didn't, what evidence they found credible and it was just unbelievable how he did that and the credibility findings are important because many things are appealable from a trial when you appeal something.

But a credibility finding by a judge is actually one of the things that is not appealable. The appellate courts do not second guess that. And so he made sure he was very clear about not only what witnesses he found credible, but what testimony he found credible. And then, again, he went through each and every element that of the offenses and the witnesses and the evidence.

And he explained exactly how certain factors were met and certain factors were not. And so I do think his decision really has... It was also beautifully written. He's a very... He's a beautiful writer and he loves to quote, you know, put famous quotes in, like one of them was, you know, the Alexander Pope quote that said, to err is human, to forgive is divine, but that seems to be lost on Donald Trump who to this day, including when he after the verdict and he went out and gave a press conference at Trump Tower basically said I did nothing wrong. You know, he's a show's no remorse and Judge Angora and essentially called Donald Trump. I think he said he called him close to a sociopath or it was it was almost pathological

the way he lies and continues to lie. And so those were the things that stood out to me the most was just how frankly appellate, bulletproof this verdict is for those people who are worried about an appeal. Number two, he's going to have to put up a significant amount of money in order to appeal. Some say he has to put up the entire amount to appeal this case and really have to park it in a bank account so that the appellate courts will review it. Another thing that I thought was really stunning about this decision was the fact that he's unable to borrow money

from any bank or financial institution. He can't take out any loans that are chartered in New York. And for those people who say, oh, well, then he can do it somewhere else. New York City is the financial capital of the United States of America, if not the world. And, and yeah, popac just said chartered or registered. Thank you, popac. Every single bank is going to be registered in New York, because this is where the Federal Reserve is, is located. And so that's why that's why the Manhattan DA's office, for example, always does these big white collar cases, not because the Manhattan DA's office, for example, always does these big white collar cases, not because Manhattan DA's office is better than anybody else, anyone could do them.

It's that the crime scene, if you will, of all these financial cases flow through New York because every dollar, every United States dollar that is transacted anywhere in the world actually flows through Manhattan where the Federal Reserve is and that actually gives them jurisdiction over these cases. So by by by putting that in there, it severely limits Donald Trump's ability to do business

in US dollars. Apparently, I guess he could do private loans or private equity from people. But in terms of banks or financial institutions, he has had a business for several years because he can't take out those loans. And then the final thing I just wanted to comment on, and then I want to end it with a question for Popak, is the thing that I thought he did that was so brilliant, Judge Angoran, is Judge Angoran has been taking a lot of criticism from Donald Trump throughout this trial, as we all know,

because he calls everything into question and he lies about him and he says, you know, he's the most reversed judge. I mean, he gets reversed. Some judges get reversed. That's what happens sometimes. But you know, on and on about how he's unfair, he hates me, he had his mind made up ahead of time, all the things that Donald Trump says about Judge Angoran, he's made it personal.

Judge Angoran has installed by name Barbara Jones as the independent monitor of the Trump organization. He didn't just say an independent monitor. He actually named Barbara Jones, who is the independent monitor who's been working on this case or who's been overseeing this matter since Judge Ngoran appointed her. By appointing her to do this, he has essentially

made this bulletproof again. Why is that? Because Arbor Jones is one of the most respected, one of those respected people, lawyers in probably the United States of America. I personally, when I was a very young prosecutor back in the day, she was the chief assistant, which is the job that I ultimately had many years later. I didn't ever work directly with her, but she had a reputation. She was sort of the one of the people that people revered and that women like me looked up to and said, you know, wow, that's, she set the standard.

She set the bar for, for just really a good lawyer, an ethical lawyer, and a smart lawyer. And she was so good that she eventually left and was appointed to be a federal judge, right? An Article III judge in the United States Constitution and it's appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate. And she was a federal judge, again, as a federal judge,

respected beyond measure, beyond measure and beyond reproach. And at some point she retired and went into private practice. And she now is one of the, like everything else, she's one of the most respected go-to lawyers there is and so the fact that he installed Her as the independent monitor. He's taken himself out of the equation It is no longer. What does judge and Goron think is no longer Donald Trump versus judge and Goron This is now Barbara Jones who's gonna be reporting what she sees She's going to be able to look into the books and records

of the Trump Organization and look with a microscope and report back to the court. She's an officer of the court as a lawyer and as an independent monitor. And she's going to report back her findings. And she is going to report back anything that she sees that is untoward or in any way in violation of the law or in violation of Judge and Goron's orders.

By doing that, it is no longer, it takes away this ability for Donald Trump to say, Judge and Goron hates me, Judge and Goron this, Judge and Goron that. I've never heard Donald Trump attack Barbara Jones, which I find very telling, because there's really nothing you can say about her. She is widely respected by both sides of the aisle. And she is somebody who that was, I thought that was the most brilliant move that Judge and Gorin did in this entire decision.

I have a question though for you, Popak. If she does see something that is in violation, what can happen? Does she just report it to Judge Angoran? Do they then have to bring charges and have a trial or can he just swiftly make a decision and respond? That's a very good question. I mean, what he's leaving in place, I'll get Ben's view too, what he's leaving in place is a self-monitoring system with a combination of the monitor who you've done a great job outlining who that is and what she's been doing in terms of her giving frequent reports to the judge during the pendency of the trial. She'll continue to have reports.

I mean, the monitors almost never, whether they're receivers or monitors or trustees, regardless, depending upon which forum you're in, they report to somebody. And normally that's a judge. So the judge, even though it's not listed in his order, is going to retain jurisdiction over this matter for as long as the monitorship exists, which is at least three years. Even if Eric and Don Jr. get back into a driver's seat after two-year ban is over, there's still going to be

this monitor who's going to be not running the day-to-day operation but supervising it and monitoring it. And so there she's going to continue to report to Judge Angoran for as long as he's on the bench or whoever is in that division at that time as a consistent oversight over this.

And if the judge doesn't like the reports, just like a bankruptcy judge has continuing jurisdiction over a bankruptcy estate, you're gonna see hearings that break out on this and new punishments, new fines, new repercussions, even post-judgment in terms of the judge's powers, which is consistent with 63-12. That's why just one last thing, I'll turn it over to Ben. That's why I know in the chat there's some conversations because we had raised the issue. We teed up the issue of Alina Habba not having

a problem about Alan Weisselberg who may still be pleading guilty to perjury before the Stormy Daniels case in March that we're going to talk about during the podcast. But she's not out of the woods yet because just because the judge didn't think it was interesting to put it in its 92 pages on its judgment, just as he didn't think it was interesting to put it in his 92 pages on his judgment just as he didn't think it was Interesting to comment on the potential perjury charge for Alan Weisselberg because he had enough having watched Alan Weisselberg To conclude that Alan Weisselberg was not credible in the course of the trial Doesn't mean that the judge is done with all things in Trump world He isn't and I don't think Alina Hobbes out out of the woods yet either. Look, Donald Trump may not have been posting about retired federal judge Barbara Jones

and attacking her the same way that he does with Justice Arthur and Goron. But recall that Donald Trump's lawyer did attack Barbara Jones quite forcefully, and I thought it was a massive mistake to do so. Remember back on January 26th of 2024, Barbara Jones sent the final report to Justice Arthur and Goron that identified inconsistent financial statements, erroneous financial statements, incomplete financial statements that Donald Trump and the Trump Organization was no longer even using statement of financial conditions. They were no longer even certifying that their accounting was being done pursuant to, generally accepting accounting principles anymore.

And the response to that from one of Trump's lawyers, Cliff Robert, in this letter that was sent on January 29, 2024, was to say about retired federal judge Barbara Jones that there is serious doubt about her competency, that it raises serious doubts on the monitor's competency. And then, in Goron, in a footnote in this 90-plus page order addressed that that it's footnote 56 on page 86 where Justice and Goron talks about how the court did not appoint Judge Jones randomly or arbitrarily or by happenstance. Rather, she was the only one of the three candidates that both sides proposed for the position of independent monitor. However, she issued her scathing January 26, 2024 report, quite critical of defendants financial practices,

then defendants changed their tune. Overnight, a universally respected former judge with a stellar resume, nominated by defendants themselves, joined the ranks of all of those people and institutions being unfair to defendants themselves, join the ranks of all of those people and institutions being unfair to defendants and out to get them. So now you have as the monitor, somebody whose reputation was just tarnished or attempted to be tarnished. You can't tarnish a reputation.

Attacked by Cliff Robert, she's now going to be making a lot of these important recommendations that just goes to show you also, I think, the very bad lawyering and bad kind of strategy there by Donald Trump. You don't do that to the independent monitor. You especially don't do that to retired federal judge Barbara Jones, and she's not just a retired federal judge anywhere. She was a federal judge in SDNY, one of the most respected judges there out there. So from an appellate perspective, if you wanted to try to argue,

hey, Justice Ngorong doesn't have all of this credibility and Justice Ngorong this, okay, well now you're also attacking retired federal judge Barbara Jones from the SDNY, any appellate court, the Supreme Court of the state of New York, which is actually called their court of appeal there, whatever it is, they're all going to look at that and go, whoa, whoa, whoa. If you're attacking Barbara Jones, we're going to make sure that that's that's nothing. It's clearly a you problem if you're going after Barbara Jones. Let's though switch gears and talk about what's happening in the Manhattan District Attorney criminal case against Donald Trump.

There was a hearing earlier this week. We talked about the prospect of this trial date actually being a real trial date, not just a prospect. Karen, you said it's going. I'm not sure why anyone's debating it. It's scheduled for March 25th, 2024. I know a lot of people are thinking maybe because they just have fatigue

with all the trial dates moving. You said, no, this date's going. And Donald Trump showed up at this hearing. Manhattan District attorneys team showed up and right away, Justice Wadden-Marshon very forcefully rejected the motions to dismiss that were filed by Donald Trump and said, no, we're going to trial here. Karen, break down what took place at that hearing.

So if you remember this case after Donald Trump was arrested and arraigned in court, Judge Marshon set a bunch of trial dates so that everyone would know what to expect when certain things were due, when to come back in court. And he said, I'm going to set March 25th as a trial date, but I want to set almost like a control date in February to come back. And let's just see what's going on to see if we're really going to go March 25th. And the reason is because there were other cases that were also competing for court dates, right? And there was a time when Tanya Chetkin's trial, we thought might go in early March,

which is now on pause in terms of when that's going. And so Judge Marchand wanted to kind of touch base, if you will, in mid-February to see, okay, is the Tanya Chetkin Washington DC Jack Smith case going? If it is, then we'll move the March 25th date because you probably, well, you definitely couldn't fit both of those in. And so that's what this was for, was to see, okay, are we really going March 25th? I think people thought, or Donald Trump pretends like he thought that maybe there was going

to be some discussion about whether the case is going in March 25th. That was not what this date was for. This date was not to see whether it's going because somebody doesn't want it to go because there's a presidential election. It was, is there going to be a conflict with Judge Chutkin? And soon as we saw that Judge Tanya Chutkin took March 4th off the calendar, I thought she did that to send a message to Judge Mershan.

There is no trial date March 4th. So she took that off the docket. Judge Mershan could look at that public docket and see, okay, that trial's not going. And told the parties it's going March 25. And so, so it was clear to me even before then that that's what was going to happen. And so that was set. And the people said they will be ready, right, the Manhattan DA's office. Also Alvin Bragg has staffed up the team to be ready for trial. They put one of the most respected trial lawyers in

the Manhattan DA's office, Josh Stinglas, to be a part of the team. Josh is called his title is Senior Trial Counsel. That's the most prestigious position in the office. It's not a title given away lightly. You have to be somebody who is very, very experienced as a trial lawyer. He comes from the trial division and I worked with him closely and he's one of the go-to people. He's also the trial lawyer who successfully convicted the Trump Organization along with the other trial team members.

Also equally excellent, Susan Hoffinger and Chris Conroy. This was the team that convicted the Trump Organization of 17 counts of tax fraud in November of 2022. And so that was something that was really smart, I think, of Alvin Bragg to do, was to put him on the team once they knew the trial was going. And so then the other thing that happened at the hearing or at the court date was a ruling on all of the motions, the substantive motions. And so what in New York, the way we practice

is you put all of your motions in one giant omnibus motion. You don't do it piecemeal. And so any motions, any requests, some motion is just you're asking the court for something. So any requests, any motions that the defense had, they are supposed to put it in this omnibus motion. And then what happens next is the people respond with their opinion or their position, I should say,

on the motions. The defense can reply to that. And then the judge makes a decision. And that's what this court hearing was for, was for the judge to decide these substantive motions and determine whether there were any evidentiary hearings necessary where you would call witnesses to determine whether or not certain things are what they are.

So the judge denied every single one of the defense determine whether or not certain things are what they are. So the judge denied every single one of the defense motions here except one. So the motions that were made were by Donald Trump and his lawyers were basically that the statute of limitations had run because it was more than five years, there's a five year statute of limitations, there's more than five years had passed since the crime occurred and the charging occurred. And however, it's very clear in the law that Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York,

pressed pause on the statute of limitations during the pandemic for every single criminal case or criminal case, I should say. Not just for this case, he basically said the courts are closed for, it was like almost a year or around a year. And so they pressed pause on the statute of limitations. That on top of the fact that Donald Trump was outside the jurisdiction while he was president

for most of that time, tolls or pauses the statute of limitations. That's basic law 101, made the argument anyway, so there was no doubt that that was going to be denied. A couple other areas that Donald Trump tried to make hay out of was, they claimed that there was a violation of grand jury secrecy, that the people's haven't turned over all the discovery, all that kind of stuff.

That was just frankly nonsense. And the judge summarily dismissed that as well. The only somewhat substantive ruling that Mershawn made that went in favor of Donald Trump and against the DA's office had to do with, if you remember, Donald Trump is charged with falsifying business records in the first degree at 34 counts of that. In order to make that a felony, there are two types of falsifying business records in New York.

There's misdemeanor falsifying and felony falsifying. And all a felony is, is the falsifying plus you did it in order with the intention, right? You meant to, not that you did, and that's important that you were meant to, that at the time that you were doing it, you intended to conceal or commit or aid the commission of a crime. So the way I always describe it is it's like burglary versus trespass in New York. Burglary is nothing more than trespassing

plus the intention of committing a crime. And a perfect example is somebody is walking, breaks into your apartment and he comes in and he's carrying a sleeping bag and a pillow and goes and lies down on your couch and goes to sleep. You call the police, the police come and they say, sir, you know, you're not supposed to be here. He says, I'm tired, I needed a place to sleep. Frankly, that's only a misdemeanor in New York.

It's a trespass because he didn't have an intention to commit a crime. If that same burglar broke into your apartment and instead of carrying a sleeping bag, a toothbrush and a pillow, he was carrying safe cracker, handcuffs and condoms. And he's steps into your door at the same time the police start to are walking down your hall and miraculously see him. And so they arrest him before he can commit any of those crimes. You would charge a burglary. And because he was trespassing and you would argue

he had an intention to commit a crime. However, you don't know, was he going to break into your safe with a safe cracker? Was he going to kid tie you up because he had handcuffs? Was he going to rape you because he had condoms in his pocket? You don't know which crime, but you can certainly make the argument and charge and prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that that person intended to commit a crime there in, even though he didn't that that person intended to commit a crime they're in, even though he didn't actually commit a crime. There was that intention.

And so when you put that layer that onto falsifying a business record in the first degree, it's what did they intend when they were falsifying those records? And the people, the Alvin Bragg's office, their theory is that there are four different crimes that they're alleging he intended to commit. They don't have to prove that anyone did it. They don't have to prove the elements of the

crime just that he intended to do it. And the four crimes, what essentially what Alvin Braggs or what Judge Mershan ruled was I found that three of those four were sufficiently presented to the grand jury that those are the theories that the government can go with. One of them, there was not sufficient evidence presented to the grand jury to do that. And the three are the federal election campaign violation, a state election campaign violation, and tax crimes, which frankly I think is probably the easiest one to prove because they grossed up Michael Cohen's repayment so that it could look like income instead of repayment for

Hush Money, you know, this election so that you could suppress information from the election. And the only one that they said there wasn't sufficient evidence was there was a, there was, they said that that they basically said it was too far afield to argue that, that AMI, that Donald Trump and Michael Cohen conspired to do this in order to make AMI also falsify their business records and that that was the intention. And so, so it's the only thing that Juan Marchand said, you know what, I'm going to give that, I'm not going to let the government argue that that was one of the crimes. So other than that, it was an across the board rejection of all of the things that Donald Trump said asked for. They, they, and Judge Mershawn went through all the arguments. Donald Trump said they didn't, that there was no intention to defraud anybody. And there was no selective prosecution and there's no statute of limitations violations.

So all of those were rejected by the judge. And that's what happened on at the hearing this week, and the case is going to trial. And Karen, a lot of people want to know if Donald Trump is convicted here, are these the types of crimes, though, that could potentially have a prison sentence? Is it a no?

What's the degree of the crime? And assuming Donald Trump is convicted on all 34 counts, what happens next? Yeah, so this is, this is in New York, their felonies start with an A, which is the highest level. So murder, for example, is a class A felony. And then it goes class B, C, D and E. So this is a class E felony. It's the lowest level felony, which means the judge has complete discretion here on what to sentence Trump.

He could sentence him to probation. He could sentence him to a fine. He could sentence him to community service. He can sentence him to just a conditional discharge, the condition being that he just doesn't commit any other crimes. The low end is quite low. The high end, however, he can get up to four years,

an indeterminate sentence of one in a third to four years. And some of those could even be consecutive to one another. So he could serve actual prison time, especially at his age. That could be a life sentence. So it just depends on what Judge Marshawn finds when he looks at the sentencing and the sentencing factors. If his name wasn't Donald Trump and he wasn't the former president and he wasn't guarded by Secret Service, and he was just your average Joe who did, who tried to,

your average Joe who did, who tried to, who committed this election violation and then tried to steal another election and was somebody who stood before the court as a convicted felon if he's convicted after this with three other open indictments in three other jurisdictions in both state and federal court, I would guarantee that he would be incarcerated and put in and he would probably be given a very high sentence probably in the maximum sentence that could be given to him because this is a still a serious crime. It's a felony and and this not many defendants especially in the white collar world, which this is a common white collar charge that is charged all the time in New York. This is not some unusual charge. Most white collar criminals actually don't have a rap sheet.

It's usually, they don't usually get caught. You know, they don't, I don't know of any that had four indictments in four jurisdictions, both in state and federal court. So if you were to just anonymously, if his name wasn't Donald Trump, and you were just to look at how someone would be sentenced, he would be, if the jury found him guilty, he'd be put in.

He would be walking, I would be telling my client, bring your toothbrush on the day of the verdict because you're going in if you're convicted. But that will not happen. If it was your client, I'd be telling him, you got the best lawyer in the biz. Well, anyway, so that's what could happen. What will happen? Judge Mershan is not going to put him in before the election.

It's not happening. That's Karen's prediction, although he does have discretion to be clear to sentence Donald Trump to up to four years. That's within his discretion, correct? All right. Let's take a quick break. Popak, I want to get your take on that. And then I want to do kind of a brief review of where we are with the United States Supreme Court on this absolute immunity appeal by Donald Trump. Big decision could be coming any day now from the United States Supreme Court there. Then let's all kind of break down what happened in that kind of bizarre and shameful hearing

in Folsom County. But let's take our last quick break of the show. Start the new year knowing you found the right life insurance to protect your family with Policy Genius. Getting life insurance today means you'll have peace of mind for the rest of 2024 and beyond. So if something were to happen to you, your family can cover expenses while getting back on their feet. Luckily, Policy Genius helps you compare your options from top companies, and their team of licensed experts is on hand to help talk you through it. As regular listeners of Legal AF know,

I recently got married and I got a child on the way. While other loved ones continued to count on my support. With these life changes, I had to address the type and amount of my life insurance coverage just to sleep well at night, secure the knowledge that that part of my life was covered for my family. And that's where Policy Genius comes in. Policy Genius' technology makes it easy to compare

life insurance quotes from America's top insurers in just a few clicks to find your lowest price. Even if you already have a life insurance policy through work, it may not offer enough protection for your family's needs. And it may not follow you if you leave your job. With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policies that start at $292 per year for 1 million of coverage. Some options offer same-day approval and avoid unnecessary medical exams. Policy Genius has licensed award-winning agents who can help find you the best fit for your needs. They work for you, not the insurance companies. That means they don't have an incentive to recommend one insurer over another so you can trust

their guidance. No wonder they have thousands of five-star reviews on Google and Trust Pilot. Save time and money and give your family a financial safety net with Policy Genius. Head to policygenius.com slash legal AF or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com slash legal AF. This episode of Legal AF is brought to you by Manacora Honey.

It's getting colder and this miracle of nature just fell in my lap at the perfect time. Manukara is a rare super honey that is 100% natural and has some unique properties. Manukara is made from Manuka honey, a single origin honey that comes from New Zealand, where the bees only feed on the nectar of the Manuka tea tree, making honey that is pure, rich, and complex with a creamier texture that is on a completely different level from the normal honey you find at the supermarket. You can use it as you would any other honey,

but what puts the super in Manuka honey is that it's super rich in antioxidants and prebiotics three times more compared to regular honey. On top of that, it contains an antibacterial compound called MGO that can be found exclusively in Manuka honey. The bottom line is that these nutrients really support your optimal immune and digestive health and it's delicious. This is just the perfect way to treat myself with something that's going to keep me strong

through the colder months and the perfect gift for the people I love to keep them sweet and healthy too. The MGO 850 Plus Manicura Honey has this creamy caramel texture that melts in your mouth and is unlike anything I've ever tried. I can grab a spoonful out of a jar to put in my favorite beverage

or squeeze some honey out on some toast or oatmeal. It's so delicious. Manicura is savory, delicious, and truly the best honey I've ever tried. If you head to manacora.com slash legal AF, you can get 25 bucks off their starter kit, which comes with the MGO 850 plus Manicora Honey, a free travel pack, honey sticks,

a free wooden spoon, and also a free guidebook. It's the perfect gift for a loved one no matter the season Now I love the jar and squeeze bottle But the extra pack of compostable honey sticks is a perfect energy boost for whenever you're on the go like traveling Or running errands or taking a run or at the gym. That's man UK ORA comm slash legal af to get 25 bucks off your starter kit. This is just the ultimate honey, indulge and try some honey with superpowers from Manukura.

Great ad reads there by Popoc. Great ad reads by Karen. I just want to say this. When we've got the whole crew here, Karen Popak, all the legal AFRs, it just makes me so happy. And I'm good to report on, it's great to report on news where justice is being served in some of these cases, but it's also just good hanging out with pro-democracy great friends and I'm enjoying it.

But when we last took the break before the commercial, Michael Popak, I said, I wanted to hear from you, get your perspective on the Manhattan District Attorney trial setting, March 25th. This will be the first felony criminal case to go to trial against Donald Trump. Want to get your perspective on that. What do you make of it?

Yeah, yeah, I like us all together. It's like the old super friends cartoon. It's like, we're like the super triplets with our wonder powers when we activate them. And I love being here with you guys. So yeah, I mean, I can't think of a better person to cover what happened in the Manhattan DA's office than the almost never wrong Karen Freeman,

Ignifolo, I used that same phrase for us, Ben, especially about things. She and I had a little bit of a debate a couple of mid weeks ago about whether, what that conversation between Judge Chutkin and Judge Bershan was gonna result in. There is reporting, as I predicted, that they did speak. Their

chambers spoke, which they're allowed to do for those that are wondering under the rules of judicial conduct. They had spoken before when he graciously decided originally to step aside for her if her trial was going to take place on March 4th, no, there wasn't going to be simultaneous criminal trials of Donald Trump a fact that the judge, Mershawn reminded the lawyers for Donald Trump, which were really led this time by Todd Blanche against the Manhattan DA's office who reminded him that, but there was another conversation.

And it was the posting, of course, where Judge Chuckin signaled, I can't do this trial the beginning of March because of the appellate issues we're going to talk about next through Ben about whether the Supreme Court would or would not take up the appeal on the immunity issue. In the meantime, her case is stayed. And so she did signal that, but there was a conversation. And based on that conversation, and I wanna talk about the ramifications

of that conversation in terms of that trial setting, then the judge felt very comfortable in saying, yeah, we're going March 25th, which did apparently, to Karen's point, catch Todd Blanche flatfooted because he thought, even though he was there at the beginning with the arraignment, it didn't come late to the case, like some people, he said, oh, I thought we're going to talk about the weather. There's going to be a trial in March and things have changed now. There's an election and there's primaries.

And by the way, none of that changed. Donald Trump was obviously going to be running and was going to be the leading candidate for the Republicans and there was going to be primaries. So I don't get what Todd Blanche's point was and the judge told him to sit down, Mr. Blanche. There was a number of places where the judge is reported to have hit, reached a loggerheads with Blanche. There's the both of them there, and basically told Todd Blanche, sit down. This is not the purpose of this. And now let's get to your motion to dismiss the indictment, which as Karen went through methodically, he rejected each and every one of them. And then he said, it quickly shifted to, let's talk about questions for the jury and that also caught Todd Blanche

Flatfoot and he kept saying but but he's that he's he may be the president and all and he said you're that what is What is your legal argument? I mean, that's your that's your rhetoric. That's your political rhetoric What is your legal argument as to things like Todd Blanche suggesting that has to the case has to be moved out of Manhattan. We need to have a cooling off period because the E. Jean Carroll case just happened in another in another in a federal court about different issues in the civil case. And that's still vibrating in the city, which by the way, it's not living there. It was an important decision, but it's not something that people are talking about every day. It's gonna infect the jury.

We gotta talk about jury question. And so they were not prepared. And the other thing they were not prepared for the lawyers, which doesn't surprise me, is that as we've said before, and Ben and I and Karen all together, this trial team for Donald Trump, which consists of four people, not four law firms, four people supported by like two associates of peace and a couple of paralegals is really thinned.

And they're getting stretched then. And they raised the issue of, but we have this, and this was interesting because this was a bad admission for Todd Blanch and the heat of battle that'll come back to haunt him. He said, but we've been preparing for the DC election interference case, Your Honor. And he said, well, first of all, that is completely inconsistent. And now it's going to be brought up by Jack Smith. That's completely inconsistent with the state that's been in place by Judge Chutkin and by the DC Court of Appeals so that he did not have to prepare while the immunity issue was being resolved. But Blanche said, that's, we've been focused on

it because it could have went to trial in March. And the judge basically without commenting on the inconsistency of the position, I'll leave that to Jack Smith to take up in his various filings. But he said, the fact that you guys are the lawyers in both cases is of no moment to me He perhaps should have had different lawyers Representing him in different cases so that you're not stretched so thin, but let's move on and and so again shot down blanche again This case as as Karen predicted based on all this data points is going to trial for about a six-week period in March We're gonna have a jury verdict well in advance and then I'll leave it on this This means if there's a if there's a sufficient if there's a requirement

Basically first for due process purposes for there to be a sufficient gap between one trial the other to give this Overlapping trial team time to get ready for the trial in DC election interference case and trial team, time to get ready for the trial in the DC election interference case. Then if this case for Stormy Daniels-Hush Money Cover-Up case ends by May 1-ish, which is six weeks from March 25, give or take, then we're probably looking at, forget April and May for DC election interference. We're looking for June, likely July for the case of the Chutkin case, depending upon the results of the Supreme Court immunity issue. And that's right where Judge Chutkin anticipated, because as we reported on

legal AF, in another hearing involving Jan Sixth defendants, she said, I plan to be out of the country in July, unless I'm trying another case. So it looks like it happened as you have the Manhattan District Attorney case goes to verdict sometime, you know, if the case starts March 25th, you go through jury selection. Karen, when would you say in May, mid-May, end of May? Or sometime around the- He's got six weeks, the judge.

Yeah, yeah, six weeks. And then you can potentially have a short gap, depending on what the Supreme Court does with into the Washington, D.C. criminal case. One other thing I want to point out just to round out our coverage on the Manhattan District Attorney case, and you kind of mentioned it there, Popak, with Trump's lawyers not thinking ahead and saying things in one court that are harming their arguments in another court, kind of all of the statements that Donald Trump's made in the past, it's not like you get the men in black wand and you get to erase the things that he said. As we've always been covering here, Donald Trump creates a lot of evidence against himself that prosecutors and lawyers would love to get out in a deposition and Trump just posts it. So remember this post that Donald Trump made in that March 2023 period

we were covering when the indictments were going to drop by Alvin Bragg? Here's what Donald Trump posted. I did nothing wrong in the horse face case. I see she showed up in New York today trying to drum up some publicity for herself. I haven't seen or spoken to her since I took a picture with her on a golf course and full golf gear, including a hat close to 18 years ago. She knows nothing about me other than her conman lawyer, Avenatti and convict DeLyre and felon Jailbird Michael Cohen may have schemed up, never had an affair with her, just another false and then Trump writes acquisition by a sleaze bag which well We would expect Stormy Daniels is gonna be a witness In this case and these posts may come up what I found interesting is

I'm not sure if you caught this though at the very end of the hearing Donald Trump's or the Manhattan district attorney said trial may last an additional two or three days because that trial may last an additional two or three days because Trump refuses to stipulate to the authenticity of his own messages. So they have to call in custodians of records to try to bring in or to show that these were sent by Donald Trump and when they were sent by Donald Trump. So it becomes admissible evidence, you know, how Alina Habba didn't realize in the E. Jean Carroll, that you have to admit evidence and it has to be admissible and you have to establish a foundation. Well, Trump's not stipulating to the authenticity of his own messages. So they'll be able to get it in.

It's just going to take an additional two or three days to do that based on all of the stuff they need to get in. All right. Let's just switch gears though, very quickly talk about what's happening with the United States Supreme Court just as a refresher in the Washington, D.C. federal criminal case against Donald Trump being prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith for Trump's attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. Donald Trump asserted absolute presidential immunity in a motion to dismiss the indictment. Federal Judge Tanya Chutkin denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss in

Federal Judge Tanya Chutkin denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss in early mid-December. Donald Trump then appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. That interlocutory appeal stayed the proceedings before Federal Judge Tanya Chutkin. There was oral arguments that were held before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. They finally reached a ruling affirming what the district court did in other words rejecting absolute presidential immunity And they gave Donald Trump until February 12th to go seek a stay of their mandate from them sending Basically their order to the district court for the district court to resume proceedings They gave Trump until February 12th to seek this application for a stay pending an application for a petition for certiorari. In other words, the actual appeal on the issue. They gave Trump until February 12th

to do that. Trump waited until February 12th and filed this application for a stay with the United States Supreme Court. Trump didn't file with it a petition for certiorari, which would be saying, we want you to actually hear the issue of absolute presidential immunity. What Trump filed was please stay all of these proceedings, keep the district court pause, delay, delay, delay. It would take five Supreme Court justices ultimately to vote in favor of an application for a stay

for the stay to be in effect. The Supreme Court through Justice Roberts gave special counsel Jack Smith until February 20th to file a response. Special counsel Jack Smith had a response ready within 48 hours, filed a response saying that there should not be a stay and just to send the case back to the district court. supreme court, you shouldn't even hear this on certiorari. Why special counsel Jacksman says, because we tried to bring this issue to you back in December. Remember when the government did that on an expedited basis?

Well you rejected it then, so you probably don't think this is an issue that you want to even hear. And in any event, there's been a new development since December, which is the DC Circuit Court of Appeals made this bullet proof appeal proof 50 plus page ruling. So Donald Trump has no prospect of success in the Supreme Court reversing what the DC Circuit did. So read what the DC Circuit did. you have to apply the standards. One, a likelihood that you would grant certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Two, that there's a prospect of success. And three, you have to balance the equities. If you apply those factors, there should not be five votes on the issue of this application for a stay. This delay being sought by Donald Trump. But special counsel, Jack Smith says, look, I do kind of get that I brought this issue to you in December, you know, which, you know, I hear you, we said

it was a fundamental issue then, even though there were these new developments that have since emerged, like you rejecting it and the DC circuit affirming what federal judge Tanya Chukkin did. So if you do want to hear it, let's not do a delay. Just convert Donald Trump's application for a stay into a petition for certiorari, set oral argument on the issue of absolute presidential immunity for some time in early to mid-March, and let's just expedite this and get the show on the road. Then Donald Trump's lawyers filed a reply, even though I don't think the Supreme Court requested one, and the main argument by Donald Trump's lawyers was a reply even though I don't think the Supreme Court requested one. The main argument by Donald Trump's lawyers was, look, this is kind of disingenuous by

special counsel Jack Smith saying that you shouldn't stay this and that you shouldn't grant a petition for certiorari when special counsel Jack Smith requested you do so back in December. While kind of ignoring the thrust of special counsel, Jack Smith's arguments, though, that, look, there's new data. Supreme Court, you rejected it when we requested it, and two, we've got the DC Circuit Court of Appeal ruling. So send it back to the district court is what Jack Smith is arguing.

The Supreme Court meets on Friday. They have a meeting they convene with the justices. So I think they probably met, and Harry Littman, who I did a hot take with, who used to be a top official at the DOJ, he believes that they met the justices, the nine justices on Friday. So I would expect really any moment now as early as, you know, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday. I think no later than this upcoming Wednesday, we will hear if the Supreme Court will grant an application for a state. It takes five justices to grant the application

for a state. So if you got the five votes for a state, I think you'd have the four votes to then grant a petition for certiorari, which is why Jack Smith said then just convert the state into the petition, grant a petition, set the hearing so we can have that oral argument. Y'all remember the oral argument with the 14th Amendment Section 3 case? Jack Smith's basically like that same type of oral argument. Just set that for March. Let's get the show on the road if you're eventually going to grant certiorari anyway. So we're waiting to hear what the Supreme Court does there.

As early as early next week, we could hear the Supreme Court basically say they're not going to grant a stay and send this thing back to the district court and proceedings will get back up there, which they've been stayed since early to mid-December before federal Judge Tanya Chutkin there, or they could possibly say we're going to grant a stay, but they'd probably then say we're going to grant the petition for certiorary and set oral argument, in which case the matter would remain stay. But I'd expect an oral argument to happen more in that kind of March, mid-March, late-March, potentially early April period, but we'll have to see what the Supreme Court does.

Ultimately all of that affects the timing of the other criminal case, the Washington, D.C. federal criminal case, and how soon after the Manhattan District Attorney case will the D.C. case go. One other just kind of note as well that Judge Eileen Cannon granted, I thought, an interesting order this week because I think she's still going with a bit of the farce that her trial scheduled for May 20th in the Mar-a-Lago Document case for Trump's willful retention of national defense information. She actually issued a paperless order ruling against Donald Trump here denying Trump's motion to adjourn certain pretrial dates and deadlines, but she made it super confusing also with some clarification that depending on her ruling and the motion to compel Donald Trump can kind of revisit the issue With some motion eliminates at a later time. I mean, it's just a very confusing ruling

I think Judge Cannon and probably the parties are confused what she's even saying there too But I think she's going with this idea that she's still keeping this May 20th 2024 trial date Which makes absolutely no sense given she hasn't set other dates and deadlines that are going to take time for her to resolve. So I don't believe that May 20th, 2024 deadline is real at all. And I think if the Supreme Court does not grant

Donald Trump's stay, I don't think federal Judge Tanya Chutkin's going to even care that Judge Cannon has that May date, I think Judge Chutkin's going to even care that Judge Cannon has that, has that May date. I think Judge Chutkin's just going to set her trial date and say, well, we'll see where things are at that time. One other or two other just kind of interesting, you know, kind of geek out with the United States Supreme Court things that I think are worth sharing. Remember the Blassen Game case that we always talk about where the DC Circuit found that Donald Trump doesn't have

presidential immunity in a civil context. Donald Trump did not seek certiorari there, and the deadline has now passed for Trump to challenge the DC Circuit's opinion in Blasting Game. He could always revisit it later in the case on a summary judgment or after a verdict, but he is not filing a petition for certiorary there. And then also the United States Supreme Court has set oral arguments in that United States be Fisher case which is challenging the. Issue of obstruction of official proceedings counts it's not a case that directly involves trump two of the felony counts against Donald Trump in the Washington DC indictment involve obstruction of official proceeding. And the insurrectionists have been challenging the Department of Justice's ability

to file against them using that charge or using that claim. And it's worked its way all the way up to the Supreme Court oral arguments. There will be an April. And that's a big one because if they find that obstruction of an official proceeding is not a viable claim to be brought by the Department of Justice,

it could potentially impact two of the four counts against Donald Trump. So that kind of focuses on our Supreme Court review. I wanna toss it over though to, I mean, Michael or Karen, if you have any other comments there, if not, I want to kind of finish the show up. I just have one. I just have one. We'll know soon whether John Roberts has the ability to drag two more people over to his side and affirm the D.C. Court of Appeals by rejecting

the state petition. In order for the five that you talked about to take up the case, and then ultimately rule on the merits of the case, there has to be five votes that there's a fair prospect that the justices will permanently overrule the lower court. I'm not sure about that. If John Roberts wants to leave undisturbed the DC Court of Appeals, he has to find two out of three the D.C. Court of Appeals, he has to find two out of three. And of the three, he's got to find Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, or Gorsuch. And I think it's more likely to try Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. I mean, Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, because there's just people that are just not going to vote against Donald Trump, which are Alito and Thomas. If he can find those five, and they find that it's not fairly likely

that they're going to overturn, then this thing dies right here. We don't need all that extended briefing and oral argument that you've outlined. But if John Roberts, who only on rare occasions have I seen him exercise, make this the Roberts court and really take control here, if he doesn't, then you're right. We're going to be on the normal track of briefing and appeals in March. And then again, hopefully, if the case on immunity dies, and my understanding, I'll leave it on this, my understanding for reporting has always been that Donald Trump and his own lawyers don't believe they'll ever win on immunity. Let me repeat, Donald Trump does not believe he's going to win substantively on the appeal he's making.

This has all been a tremendous elaborate game and strategy for delay and delays purposes only. They think at the end, once this dust settles, this plain lands, that they are going to lose. It's just when are they going to lose? And if they can get it over the hump of November, that's what they've been trying to do. Let's see if John Roberts is going to be an accomplice to this strategy or not. Karen, let's talk about what happened in Fulton County, this hearing purportedly about some conflict of interest between the Fulton County District Attorney's Office and their prosecution of Trump and Trump's co-defendants because allegedly her relationship with the special prosecutor on her team, someone by the name of Nathan Wade somehow has, this would be the allegations, has permeated the proceedings with impropriety and I'm still unclear what the conflict is, the even purported conflict

is or why there's even a hearing now. I mean, I understand that there could say, oh, these are HR issues, then we get to the hypocrisy of that, but you want to say these are HR issues or whatever. But ultimately, any of the arguments where they even allege kind of a conflict of interest to me have been bogus, but break down what this is even all about and your observations and then your own experience as a district attorney, the former number two at the Manhattan District Attorney's office, seeing Fonnie Willis take the stand like that, I really would love your perspective here.

I accidentally went down a Fonnie Willis rabbit hole this week, I did not plan on not doing anything else Thursday and Friday except watch these hearings, but that's what ended up happening. I was able to watch it on Midas Touch. I love that we now broadcast these live hearings. And it's great because I can watch the, I can read the live, the chats that people are doing and, and Salty would bring me in and do some commenting in the middle of it. So, so yeah, I watched pretty much the entire thing so far.

So let's just start with what is the allegation and what is the legal standard that Michael Roman and his other co-defendants have alleged and that they are gonna need to prove in order to basically disqualify Fani Willis from the case and get her taken off the case. Cause that's what they're trying to do.

They're trying to say that there's a conflict of interest that is disqualifying for the district attorney Fannie Willis to prosecute this case. And the district attorney, if she is removed, the entire office is off the case. It has to be a, it has to be a, you know, everybody works for her. So it's not like she's off and other people could work on it. So they'd have to put, bring it, give it to another office.

So that would be a huge blow if that happens. And essentially what they had, what they alleged was that she hired somebody that she was having a romantic relationship with. And the reason she did it was because that way she could pay him all this money that she would then unjustly enrich herself with. That's to the extent that I've been able to glean what the conflict of interest they are alleging is. I think that's the best way to look at it. For a long time, I didn't understand what they were talking about because, frankly, they haven't articulated it very well in any of their papers or even in this hearing. But from what you can glean, I think that's what they are trying to suggest.

what they are trying to suggest. So what happened was they made these allegations that they were living together and that he was paying for all these lavish vacations and they put this in motion. And this went to the court and the court issued a hearing and basically a hearing to establish these facts and said to Michael Roman and his lawyers, Ashley Merchant and the other defendants, but because he asserted it first, they were the ones who went first and were the main lawyers on this, put up

or shut up essentially. And that's, you know, you're saying these things. So now I'm going to let you prove it." And so they started with Fonnie Willis' friend, Ms. Yurtie, Ms. Bryant Yurtie. They went to college together and then they lost track of each other for years and then about ten years ago they reconnected in Atlanta and Ms. Yurtie at some point started to work at the DA's office, and then Fonnie Willis became district attorney. At one point they had a falling out

and she was fired or she was permitted to leave so she didn't get fired. So she basically came across as a disgruntled former employee. That being said, substantively, she said that she believes that the relationship between Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade started before the time that they alleged that Nathan Wade said in his affirmation that it started.

And so therefore, they're basically saying that Nathan Wade is lying and is misleading the court, which is in and of itself not a good thing, right? So now there's two issues before the court. Is there a conflict and are there lies? Did Nathan Wade lie to the court? And that could be an issue in and of itself, right, if the judge doesn't find credibility issues know, finds credibility issues. So she testified, but what struck me about her testimony that that I thought was very odd and why I don't think the lawyering here was very good at all is that they didn't ask her any specific details. She says, yes, I believe the relationship

started before. And she said, yeah, I saw there was hugging and kissing or a hug and a kiss or something. But again, what is what do they mean by relationship? What when was this? What kind of kept hugging kiss? I mean, I've, you know, hugged and kissed Ben and popo, right? But it's not the kind of kiss that would mean anything, right? That's like a whole a hello. That's a greeting. And so, and so they didn't drill down on that at all. And so as a result, I don't think they established anything in terms of dates, in terms of what the relationship was and what she knew is a very weird, thin record. Next, they called Nathan Wade to the stand. Nathan Wade testified that the relationship was what did not start until after he was already hired and it also ended. And they are no longer in a relationship. He also talked about how there was no financial unjust enrichment. There was no,

there was no financial benefit on the part of Fannie Willis because she always paid him back if they ever did anything together. And he was very clear. She paid him back because she's a proud woman and she pays her own way. And she would pay him back with cash. And what happened after that, to me, felt like a,

I think I tweeted about it. It seemed like it felt like a verbal lynching of a black man by white people, frankly. Because the cultural disconnect between what he was describing and the incredulity that the white, you know, seemed like the Southern Old Boys Club and Girls Club down south. The incredulity that they imparted about the things that Nathan Wade would describe was just actually horrific to me. Because he was describing how he and Fonnie Willis did things and how Fonnie Willis was

a proud black woman and wanted to pay her own way and she kept cash and paid cash and they just didn't believe it. And as a result, this thing, this hearing went from what could have been a legitimate hearing where they talked about things like how did you calculate your hours? When you submitted your hours, who approved them? Did you have conversations about your hours? Talk about the money. talk about the unjust enrichment. That's the legal standard. Instead, we found out that Nathan Wade had cancer, that they had sex, that they went on vacations together.

It was just, it felt like an icky, personal, salacious display of just really, really inappropriate for any kind of criminal hearing information. And it just went far afield. And the lawyers, frankly, got caught in the sex trap, you know, that the sex part was just too, was just too, I don't know, salacious for them, that they had to go down that rabbit hole. And they absolutely did not focus on what the issues are, what the actual issues are. They're really trying to get Fannie Willis off the case. They should have focused on how was the hiring because okay so let me just finish where we where we left off. Fannie

Willis then calls herself to the stand. I mean I think the judge was gonna allow her to not be on the stand but she was pissed. She got on that stand and she basically she testified that and I thought I personally thought she came across as authentic, as credible, and I had at first I thought, oh god, please don't take the stand because she seemed really emotional and emotions really have no place in a court of law. But I thought she was I thought she was actually, at the end of that, I thought that was the most authentic, truthful, credible testimony, frankly, I've almost ever heard in my life. And what's really fascinating to me is almost along gender lines. Every woman I've spoken to feels the way I feel. And so many men I have spoken to thought she was should not have testified and that

she was too emotional and that she that she hurt her case that she was incredible. And I didn't see that at all. I was shocked that anyone could think that. And she basically she they did the whole sex trap with her to at one point, you know, she, they did the whole sex trap with her too. At one point, you know, she seemingly was describing some very personal embarrassing sexual details about Nathan Wade and her. Again, what does that have to do with this case at all? Nothing other than to embarrass. But she described how her father, how first of all, how Nathan

Wade wasn't her first choice. Others had turned her down. She described the horrific sacrifice she's had to make by both being DA and prosecuting this case. How even before this case, how she would get be called racist, horrible names and get death threats because she's a strong black woman. And then she prosecutes this case. She had to move out of her home because the death threats were so terrible. The home she was sharing with her father, her elderly father, who also testified he was frankly an adorable father who was really impressive. He went to Harvard, he advised Nelson Mandela. I mean, he had such an impressive man. He was a lawyer and now he just, he looks like anyone's dad. And he basically is like, yeah, you know, I grew up in the South and the race is South. He goes, I'd go places, my

credit card wouldn't be accepted because I'm black and they won't take my checks. So I always carried cash. I always had cash and I taught my daughter, my only daughter, always have six months of cash on hand. And it was just, again, it was just, it was so real. And he talked about the awful sacrifices they have had to make by prosecuting this case that there are people that he had to move out of that house too, that there are people who would would would spray paint and graffiti on their house, the

N word and the B word and and just other things that they couldn't even live in their own home. These these this public servant who is doing nothing but but her job here. And just because of prosecuting Donald Trump, and he'd never met, the dad had never met Nathan Wade. So the other couple of witnesses that testified, one was the governor, a former governor who's clearly very respected in Georgia.

And he testified that he was one of the people that she asked to take this case. He says, no, I wasn't going to take this case, essentially because he didn't want to have security for the rest of his life because of the death threats. I mean, the fact that anyone who is going to protect our democracy is going

to have to make that calculation between your own personal safety and death threats and horrible having your life upended versus doing justice. Just where are we in this in our society? I don't understand. And the one thing you haven't heard though from the testimony is any evidence again about what the financial conflict of interest could have been. Instead, I know way too much about Fonnie Willis' personal life, and it's kind of appalling and offensive that this even happened. I think Judge McAfee, who I've really liked up until this point, this is where his inexperience showed because he really should have limited this hearing to facts that support what could be a disqualifying conflict of interest. The defense has definitely not met their burden.

There's no way that she's going to be taken off this case unless I have one caveat. Unless something comes to light between now and the next week that she or Nathan Wade lied. Because if they did lie and you lied to the court under oath, that is fatal to any determination. I think the judge would take her off the case. But other than that, I don't see a financial conflict of interest hasn't been established at this hearing. I would have liked to see Judge McAfee, if he was going to hold this hearing. I would have liked to see Judge McAfee if he was going to hold this hearing, actually do what the prosecution requested is, let's at least kind of streamline the hearing to address the issue of conflict. And then you can kind of open it up to other

witnesses as you kind of get through certain hurdles, but to start and make this about all of this salacious stuff. For example, you talk about the first witness who was the purported friend who really didn't turn out to be that close of a friend, who was the disgruntled employee. When I saw the questioning by Roman's lawyer to that know, to that witness. I said, so what time, when did you see the romantic relationship? Oh, I saw the, I saw the relationship for being romantic in, in, in 2019. And what about 2020? Was it romantic?

Yeah, it was romantic. I mean, I was thinking the exact thing that you were saying, Count, what did you observe? Like I was yelling, I obviously had it muted. I was yelling at the, at it. What did you observe? Like I was yelling, I obviously had it muted. I was yelling at the, at it. What did you observe? Did you see them? Were you there when they slept together? Did you go with them?

I mean, you have to ask, did you see them kiss? I mean, did you, what specifically did she tell you about the relationship? Did she say that they, you know, if you want to go there, did she, what words did she use to you, you know, and you ask the questions in a non-leading way and you get the witness to show. You may have saw them together and they hugged. That's your only witness who's saying that there was a relationship that existed before the

time that Nathan Wade was brought on in an official capacity in this team. It was not adding up and the questions were not like just intelligibly worded questions on that issue. So I agree with you. It was shameful to watch. I was glad, I suppose, that we could curate the content here at Midas Touch and get your perspective. Again, when I compared our coverage here with you leading the coverage in between the breaks to what I saw on other networks, it made me realize more and more and more. I'm like, okay, this is why I've basically quit everything else I'm doing to make this my lives mission. It reinforced that point to me because I was looking what they were doing on some of our competitor channels and on

one of them too, which had horrible coverage of the issue and I won't make this into an us be them thing here. But I'll just say there was one of their legal analysts who by the way had kind of connections to the Trump or side. They bring this person on and after the very first witness, they post, this is over, Fawnie Willis' case is dismissed. Like, it's done. And I'm like, based on that, what are you talking about? Based on the, on only one witness who was not presenting credible and then of course don't want to run for all the right wing media then use that and post that but like.

If you wanted to come to an informed conclusion after watching all of the witnesses like you and I did Karen like I'm fine with that but. I did Karen, like I'm fine with that, but who can judge it based on half of the testimony of one disgruntled employee who didn't say anything of specificity at all. It bugged me, but it reinforced why we need to keep building this network together and why again, it's such an honor to have perspectives like yours, you know, who have really been in the trenches, who have led district attorney's office, who knows this area and could let people know, hey, this is normal, this is not normal, so that we could all, including myself,

I mean, the amount of stuff I learned from you, Karen, from your coverage was incredible. So thank you for that. And this great host in this weekend edition with you I'm you know popox doing his baby moon. That's why I was hosting the midweek but You know and popo we let him run to go to Let him go to dinner right now, but Karen any any final perspectives from you before we go Yeah, so first of all, thank you for letting me join on a Saturday. It's always fun to be with the boys. But yeah, I mean, that's that's why I ended up watching this entire hearing

and why I wasn't going to let go is I just couldn't believe first of all, what an opportunity we had to essentially be in the courtroom ourselves, right? Normally, we're just relying on the reporting and we're relying on what Donald Trump says and we're relying on what other people say. And it's interesting how different it is when you see it for yourself. And for somebody who I've watched, literally thousands of court appearances and court hearings.

And I spent my entire career supervising or myself conducting trials, hearings, etc. I came up in the trial division of the Manhattan DA's office, then I was the chief of the trial division, then I was the chief assistant. But that's what my trajectory was. So there's almost nothing I have more experience doing than watching or doing my own, but really watching other people and giving feedback and kind of knowing what you're supposed to do and not do.

And so I really did feel this is such an important decision that is going to be made and the accusations are really so huge and extreme. And to make that accusation about an elected district attorney that she literally hired her boyfriend and paid him more money than she should, had him bill extra hours just so that she can unjustly enrich herself and financially benefit from it, that's an accusation like no other

accusation, right? You're basically impugning her credibility and you better have the goods if you're going to make that kind of accusation because if it's just they had an affair and that's it, right? I mean, is that a great thing to do? I mean, first of all, it's not, I would argue with the word affair because it's an adult consensual relationship with two single people. But, you know, of course that is an HR situation that you deal with is probably not great to do it,

you know, from an HR perspective. But that's not what this is, right, this accusation. So to be able to watch it myself and to be able to give feedback is something that I felt was important to do because I agree with you. I didn't feel the coverage was necessarily focusing on the issues. So I will continue to do this. The McAfee stuff is unique because you can see it for yourself.

Karen, thank you so much for joining us. Popak, we wish you have a great weekend on the baby moon. All the legal aphors, thank you so much for watching. Make sure you sign up for the Midas Touch newsletter, MidasTouch.com slash newsletter. It's free to sign up for the newsletter, MidasTouch.com, slash newsletter. It's free to sign up for the newsletter, MidasTouch.com, slash newsletter. And also, if you want to help support the growth of this independent media platform, go to patreon.com, slash MidasTouch.

We don't have investors here on the Midas Touch network. So the way we build it is through those pro-democracy sponsors, through those fun YouTube memberships you see with all those fun emojis going around on the chat, and then separately through our Patreon where we have exclusive after-show podcasts and after-show content from the Brother Show. You go to patreon.com. it was really incredible to see that the Midas Touch Network's coverage was leading all media networks on digital, on YouTube, and the fact that we are not beholden to billionaires and decimillionaires with agendas who are the ones kind of propping up those other networks, but we're 100% accountable to you.

You know, that's a great thing for I think our independence here, and I wouldn't do it any other way. So you go to patreon.com slash mightestouch. And if you want to support some of those pro democracy sponsors, if you go to the descriptions in the YouTube or the descriptions on the podcast feed, the discount codes, and the links are there. Jordy vets those sponsors, and we're grateful for them because they help fund these shows

and help us expand our resources, and they've got some great products. Jordy negotiates those good discount codes for you all as well. So thank you all for watching. We'll see you next time on Legal.af. Buckle up because things will be moving very, very quickly over the coming weeks and we'll be right here with you each step of the way. Shout out to the Midas Midas.