Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump gets HAMMERED HARD by Judges as Co-Defendants Flip

Episode Date: October 22, 2023

Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok are back with a new episode of the weekend edition of LegalAF. On this episode, they discuss: bombshell developments in the Georgia Election Interference criminal case, with 2 of Trump’s lawyers -- Sidney Powell and Ken Chesebro -- and co-conspirators pleading guilty, turning states evidence and witnesses for the prosecution against Trump, to avoid trial; developments in the DC Election Interference criminal trial against Trump, with the judge issuing a gag order and then temporarily staying its enforcement, the Special Counsel’s scathing opposition paper filed to prevent Trump from dismissing his indictment; Trump’s failed efforts to avoid civil liability brought by people injured and killed by his actions on Jan6; a DC court of appeals allowing the DOJ to continue to use “obstruction of justice” and its 20 year sentence against Jan 6 insurrectionists; developments in the Mar a Lago Obstruction Criminal case against Trump; Week 3 in the NY Civil Fraud case against Trump, including his violating the gag order imposed there and threatened with jail, and devastating testimony in the court room, and much more from the intersection of law politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSOR! Henry Meds: Get exclusive offers at https://HenryMeds.com/LEGALAF Mosh: Try Mosh today and use LEGALAF to save 20% plus free shipping at https://moshlife.com/LEGALAF Magic Spoon: Get this exclusive offer when you use promo code LEGALAF at https://MagicSpoon.com/LEGALAF SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Guilty, guilty on the eve of the first criminal rico trial of Donald Trump's co-defendants in Fulton County, Georgia, two of Donald Trump's lawyers pled guilty to their roles in trying to overthrow the 2020 election. They were fined and are required to testify about their crimes in connection with future proceedings against other co-defendants and Donald Trump and each was sentenced to probation. We will go over the sentencing that went down. The first domino to fall was Sydney Crken Powell. And then Ken, I was just writing emails and partying with Alex Jones to live out in my fascist midlife crisis, Chesbro.

This was a massive victory folks for Fulton County District Attorney, Fawni Willis, and for special counsel Jack Smith, who can now use those guilty pleas in his criminal prosecution as well of Donald Trump in federal court when that trial arrives in March. And this was, of course, devastating news for Donald Trump. Now, that's what's cracking. Speaking of the special counsel, Jack Smith prosecution of Donald Trump for trying to overthrow the 2020 election pending in Washington DC federal court

Judge Chutkin issued a limited gag order against Donald Trump, including him from threatening the special counsel witnesses the court and court staff and all of their families and Donald Trump filed an appeal and request for a stay. Donald Trump's arguing that these threats are protected by the first amendment. Special counsel Jack Smith's team also very busy in that DC federal case. They filed their opposition to Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment and love this part of it where they mocked Donald Trump's attempt to try to compare his conduct on January 6th to the Gettysburg address in George Washington's farewell speech. It's the very, very, very scathing

opposition by Jack Smith and it was a very, very, very busy week in Washington DC and all sides. The court of appeals from the DC Circuit affirmed the Department of Justice's authority to prosecute insurrectionists under an obstruction of official proceeding statute. That's been a very, very, very potent tool in the DOJ's toolkit that has important ramifications on more than a thousand cases against insurrectionists as well as the Trump prosecution and going down south to the Southern District of Florida. Judge Eileen Cannon continues to delay things in the federal Mar-a-Lago theft of national defense information case. She delayed a hearing on Trump's request to delay all hearings to November 1. She's showing in my opinion how her corruption is also matched by her incompetence. And last but not least, might as touch editor-in-chief Ron Philip Kowski broke a major story that Donald Trump was in continuing violation of the gag

order imposed on him in New York and the civil fraud case that was imposed by the judge presiding over the case judge and Goran Donald Trump removed threatening posts that he had made about in Goran's principal law clerk from his social media when ordered to do so on October 3rd, but Philip Kowski and might as touch.com Editors spotted that it remained up on Donald Trump's campaign page. Judge Angora found that Donald Trump was in violation of the gag order, imposed a fine and stated that the next violation would lead to penalties including but not limited to imprisonment.

And that might not have been the worst news for Donald Trump in the New York civil fraud case this week. I'm Ben Myceles. This is legal AF. And just for those who are wondering, you know, Ben, you talk about patreon.com slash might as touch to support might as touch.com and the independent journalism you do is, is it worth it? I would just say exhibit a Ron Philip Kowski, what might as touch.com just broke, led to massive, massive ramifications and bringing truth to power and holding Donald Trump accountable.

I know a lot of people wanted to see Donald Trump be imprisoned for that, but I think it was still a very important step that any future conduct, I think, will certainly be met by imprisonment now. And that and other courts, Popeyes, I'm doing great. I mean, I, we don't know technically of Judge Encoron as a fan of the pot or fan of night is such as a network. But we do know that judges and their staff scrape and scrub and read social media and media platforms. And so, you know, you connected dots. Sometimes we report on the news. Sometimes we break the news. Sometimes we are the news. And this is going to be that episode. I've been waiting a long time for. It's the connect theots episode where we get to talk about not just Donald Trump, but all the people in his orbit that are now imperiled in prosecutions, both federal and state,

because at least one prosecutor has gotten two, plus another person, to flip on Donald Trump. We're going to connect the dots about what it means and as the Department of Justice, with their eyes wide open about what just happened in Georgia, looks at their case a new in the DC Circuit Court, considering whether to bring new indictments against the currently unindicted co-conspirators, but I suggest and posit they won't be unindicted for long, and the pressure campaign that continues on Walt Nauda in the Mar-a-Lago case. A lot of dots to connect. We're going to do it here, legal AF. You know, I woke up in the morning, what's that song by Kesho? I woke up in the morning feeling like, you know, so I woke up in the morning

and I got a call from Popoq pretty early on the West Coast as I was walking my dogs and I think it was about 7 a.m. and Popoq told me, are you seeing the news? And I said, tell me about it Popoq, and that's when we found out. And this was a big shocker, that Sydney Powell, someone who Donald Trump wanted to appoint as a special counsel in and around the January 6th insurrection was going to be entering a guilty plea. We then watched as she pled to six separate counts. They were reduced to misdemeanors, but nonetheless serious counts she had to accept the factual allegations against her sentence to six years probation had to enter into a proper session and that began a historically important week on all fronts

because when we talk about the dominoes falling what Fulton County District Attorney Foni Willis may be able to achieve by securing the guilty pleas. Sydney Powell can Chesborough and their trial because they both elected to invoke the Speedy Trial Act. Heck, jury selection was taken place on Friday as Ken Chesborough, pled guilty Donald Trump's lawyer who wrote memorandum around the January 6th insurrection, but this will have a domino effect on other Trump co-defendants. And now potentially can mean that the case against Donald Trump, the Rico case, can take place in 2024, because this trial was slated to be like six months at least.

It could have been more than that. So POPOC, can you break down for us first, just like what went down with these guilty pleas? And then their broader implications and import. Absolutely, thank you. I'd say thank you to my coworker. Thank you for giving me a question. Let me do my podcast stuff.

Yeah, this is more epic of a result than even the press on first blush could give it credit for. We're just catching up and catching our breath, but here is the ramifications of it. We now have three total co-conspirator defendants, co-conspirator joined at the hip with Donald Trump, who have pled guilty, will plead guilty, and will look a jury in the eye against Donald Trump and say that they are convicted felons, that they committed the crimes, or at least the ones they've been, that they pled to.

Sydney Powell, it's not just about the six misdemeanors and the six years of probation and her letter of apology to the people of the state of Georgia. It is her proffer, which is her sworn statement under oath developed with her counsel that was given as a condition of being given the plea deal. And then more importantly, it is the future testimony she will give in Georgia, which is not limited to the six misdemeanors that she's pled to. That's something that's often lost in the reporting, just because she's only

pled to six and Ken Chesbro to one felony, which I'll talk about next, doesn't mean that they're limited in terms of their testimony. In fact, quite the opposite. They are required to be fulsome and complete about anything and everything that the prosecutor in Georgia has on their mind, that they want to have for the continued prosecution and cases against the others. And when I say the others here, Donald Trump. And so who better? So that's one thing I want to make clear. And let me just combine that with Ken Chesbro, then I'll bring it all together. Ken Chesbro,

who didn't want to be tried with Sydney Powell. And again, I wanted to give a bit of a credit before I get into Chesbro to Fawli Willis. And the mastery, the masterful prosecution and preparation that is the Fulton County District Attorney's Office that amazes me and makes me happy to be a part of a justice system every day. The reason she was able to get these plea deals is,

and we gave her a lot of flack, and so I want to give her the compliment for the big gap of seven months between indictments or imminent, and the fact when she finally got the indictment. And we always said she was working. She was working in between to prepare a case for the just-in-case somebody like Powell and Chesbro decided to invoke their speedy trial act rights and force a trial within a month of the indictment. The only way that you can get this kind of plea deal and have the leverage in your hand

is if you're ready to go to trial when you tell the judge you're ready to go to trial. So far from being caught flat-footed, Chesbro and Powell were caught flat-footed because they thought speedy trial might lead to the dismissal of the case. Instead, Fondi Willis said, we'll meet you there in the courthouse. What time? And then they knew, uh-oh, we're between a rock and a rock and not even a hard place. And we're in a vice of Fondi Willis is making.

And Fondi Willis knows how to use that advice to get people to flip. She's done it before in large racketeering influence and corrupt organization at Rico cases and we're watching her do it now. Chestbro was the one of the architects or the leading architect of the fake collector scheme and scandal to create fake electors in seven battleground states in December of 2020 and then use them as a pressure campaign to either gum up the works or throw them at and pressure Mike Pence to not certify the election, either recognizing the fake electors for Donald Trump instead of the true electors for Joe Biden state by state or throw it over to the states to allow

the states to pick the president, which would have led the Donald Trump being selected president. He and John Eastman wrote the memos, led all of that. They were the war room operation. They weren't on the front lines, except for the Eastman and just pro didn't appear in court, but they led the effort. They were the generals in the back, along with Donald Trump, who gave the ultimate authorities commander in chief of his own usurpation campaign to cling to power, to go into those court

rooms, 60 different lawsuits. And this was all part of that conspiracy. Jasperot got the third best deal, As we said in earlier legal AFs, depending upon when you come in and how much you make the prosecutor work and how valuable your testimony's gonna be, you're gonna get a great deal like probation, which we've just seen with three Coke and spirit doors.

But what you plead to is gonna differ depending upon what the government has against you. Powell, six misdemeanors, again, open season of what she testifies about. Chessbro, one felony count conspiracy concerning the filing of false documents, which is the fake certificates. But again, full cooperation, truthful testimony. Now, I know Scott Rubman, his lawyer,

has already been on the news saying, he's just going to tell the truth. And that's not necessarily going to implicate Donald Trump. First of sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman,

but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, but I'm not sure if he's going to be a woman, Sydney Powell for example, and then I want to flip over to Jack Smith. All of the people that are in the orbit of Powell and Chesbro are also unindicted currently, co-conspirators in the DC case brought by Jack Smith, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Clark, Jeffrey Clark, Boris Epstein.

If you do the organization chart that, you know, like that mob, that mob chart, they use in mob conspiracy cases for Ken Chesbro, he's going to be able to connect the dots with Mark Meadows, Baurus Epstein, the inside lawyer for Donald Trump, Giuliani, Bernie Kerrick, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman, Mike Roman. They're all part of the world of Ken Chesbro with Donald Trump at the center. Powell is gonna be able to do Giuliani, Kerrick, Jenna Ella, John Eastman. And of course, Donald Trump, she attended

one of the many crazy meetings in the White House in December of 2020 involving Mike Flynn, Rudy Giuliani, Patrick Burn, the overstock.com guy to talk about the seizing of voting machines. And so, just to remind people how crazy that was, Sydney Powell drafted an executive order that was never signed by Donald Trump, but was contemplated. So it's part of the conspiracy. We have it up there. For Donald Trump to declare that there was definite findings of foreign interference by

Iran and China through the Dominion voting systems machines and smart manics software. And therefore, he was authorizing the seizing by the Secretary of Defense of all voting equipment in the battleground states. That almost got executed, as did Sydney Powell herself being appointed special counsel with all the special counsel powers like Jack Smith to go after voter fraud in December of 2020. Now, so these aren't low-level people. These are high-level people. One degree removed from Donald Trump and connected to him in a conspiracy. Sure, they'll be cross-examined at trial of Donald Trump and they'll try to get them on. Oh, you're biased because you cut a deal.

Oh, you said crazy things in the past. Now you're saying they're not true. You're a liar. Sure. But when you have two or three now, co-conspirators in Georgia who are going to testify at the ultimate trial of Donald Trump, that they were a part of a conspiracy with Donald Trump. They participated in a conspiracy with Donald Trump. They admitted to the crimes related to that conspiracy and then opened the door of all

the things and Connecting the dots that Donald Trump that is what's going to happen at trial and a trial is you rightly noted Ben which could likely now happen not in the latter part of 2024 But now the judge has a clear docket he had five six months Reserve for this case now that's off if I'm fauney Willis in the next couple of weeks I say judge we going to try that case. We're not trying that case. We want to do Donald Trump in the first quarter of 2024. And we'll have to see what happens there. Then lastly, Ben, for me, the big impact here is Jack Smith. Jack Smith has, and a group

of unindicted co-conspirators, who some of which have been indicted in Georgia, none of which have been indicted yet in the DC case. Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sydney Powell, Jeff Clark, Ken Chesboro, and Boris Epstein are all the, not that one, are all the on it. Yes, those photos are all the unindicted Coke and Spiritors, but if if Jack Smith based on now, um, Powell and Chesbro, his two unindicted Coke and Spiritors don't take a plea deal with them and agree to cooperate in that case. They're gonna get indicted there and the rest are gonna get indicted. I think Jack Smith is my view. Jack Smith has had enough of waiting around for the unindicted Cokenspirators to come and talk to him.

And now we'll get another series, we'll get another indictment, I believe, involving these people. And look out, Boris Epstein. I know he's out there trying to influence who's going to be our next speaker of the house and saying it's got to be a Maga speaker of the house because Donald Trump wants it. That guy shouldn't be on the street any longer.

That guy should be indicted in by Jack Smith. I'm calling out Jack Smith now based on what just happened in Georgia. Get Boris Epstein indicted and get the rest indicted to get plea deals. See here's where you and I will have a respectful disagreement. I don't see why Jack Smith has a need to indict any of these people where Fulton County District Attorney Fawni Willis is essentially doing the work for him, doing incredible work, handing it to him on a silver plate. It's not an overlap though, Ben, there's a group that's not in Georgia. It's not like the proffer agreements. Well, the evidence in Georgia through the proffer

agreements that are going to be taken, that have already been taken by Fulton County District Attorney for Univolus, will be used by Special Counsel, Jack Smith, and what he has to avoid. He knows this. Any opportunity that would cause a delay in that March 2024 trial date, he's not going to do. Even if even if you're right, Popok, and absolutely Boris Epstein deserves to be indicted Rudy Giuliani deserves to be indicted. Cindy Powell, there are some overlaps, they're right, because a lot of the unindicted co-conspirators are people who are indicted by Fulton County District attorney Founty Willis. But I hear you that there may be some unindicted co-conspirators in Fulton County that are also unindicted co-conpirators

there. So I think there is overlap, but Jack Smith isn't going to, in my opinion, isn't going to do anything that causes a delay. Let me ask you a question. I'm not talking to, to be clear, let me see if this changes your mind. It doesn't have to. We like, we like a little flash of sparks on the show. I'm not talking about a superseding indictment. I'm not talking about a, a superseding indictment that would add defendants to the existing case in front of Judge Chutkin, which is now simply for felony conspiracy counts against, I say simply, against Donald Trump and just one defendant.

I'm talking about a separate indictment, which will go on its own track stretched out over a year, wouldn't necessarily have to overlap with Donald Trump. Donald Trump goes first. I don't, you're right. I don't want anything to get in the way of the one case I believe would go to trial before the election, Jack Smith. I'm talking about an indictment separate and maybe assign to Judge Shuckin, maybe not of some of these people.

Look, if that was done after the March trial, I'm good with it. If, if, if, if Jack Smith tried to do that before the Trump trial in March, because the facts arise out of the a common nucleus of operative facts, what Trump will immediately do and what the other co-defendants will immediately do, because they'll then go to Donald Trump. Hey, have your political action committee pay for our legal fees. They will file a notice of related case, they'll file a motion to consolidate and because it arises out of common nucleus of operative facts, there would be a good argument why that should be as part of the same indictment and consolidated.

And then I think it really jeopardizes that March 2024 trial date. So I think Jack Smith is going to exercise restraint and not do it. I'm with you though, of Special Counsel Jack Smith wants to do it after the March trial, the statute of limitations is still there. And frankly, it wouldn't even need to be brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith because the same types of potential conflicts that created the need for a special council in the first place aren't there, I think, as it relates to some of the other people and after a special council, Jack Smith concludes his prosecution. So I think that's how he's weighing it, but we'll see there.

You know, I think what's interesting, if you look at as well, though, too, how Sydney Powell got the six misdemeanors versus Ken Chesbro getting one felony. And that tells me a lot also there too. I think Sydney Powell's gonna be providing a lot more cooperation. And that's where the misdemeanors come from and allows her to preserve her, make an argument to preserve her law license by saying it's not a crime of moral

turpitude, but in exchange for her to just lay out everybody, whereas I think Ken Chesbro because his cooperation may not be as valuable, you hit him with a felony, you basically, you know, once you have that felony, it carries with it a great deal of other implications across things that you're able to do. And so I think it does also show that the special count that, sorry, Fulton County District Attorney Fowell does not expect that that testimony by Chesbro to be hugely important. They just don't want to spend six months now with Sydney Powell out doing a trial against Ken Chesbro. They want to prepare for the Trump trial. And then it's like, when do we slot in this Trump trial?

And as we talk about other cases today, I did a hot take on it that was that aired this morning, how what Judge Eileen Cannon is doing and causing delay in her federal case involving Donald Trump's theft of national defense information, delaying hearings, delaying hearings on Donald Trump's request to delay all hearings. You know, Donald Trump is playing like mega-checkers while all of these great prosecutors are playing prosecutorial chess at the highest level. And so it actually would probably be a smarter move of Donald Trump to keep the trial date with Judge Eileen Cannon knowing how she's helping

him. It's already tually. He's already asked for the extension. So it's like I'm giving him advice right now that he's going to be able to utilize. So don't worry about that because he's already requested the extension. But if he was smarter about it, he would say, let's do the truck. The case that he has the best likelihood of being found not guilty is Judge Cannon. Not because he's not guilty, but because she helps him in every aspect of it. So if he was smart, he would have actually pushed for that case to go first, try to undermine what the prosecutors are doing on the other cases, but because he's terrified and a weak person of it, he's on the other cases, but because he's terrified

and a weak person of it, he's pushing that one back. But what can now happen is, whereas normally a state prosecutor and a state court judge would not only respect the comedy, not comedy, comedy of federal courts, but respect that federal courts take priority. Now Judge McAfee could be looking at what Judge Cannon is doing and saying, you know what? Maybe we set this trial tentatively for May or June, you know, because it doesn't seem like Judge Cannon's case is going to go. So this has massive implications, not just on the testimony that's going to take place

against Trump and the other Rico co-defendants, but on the schedule of things. And you see how that interplays with Judge Eileen Cannon's shenanigans and how, as I always say, yes, she's corrupt. She's also incompetent and so is Trump. So that is a potent medicine for creating these confluence of factors that may allow this to line up as the January 6th related cases, the one in Washington, DC, and then the Rico case go back to back. And that would be something that I think would actually be the best case scenario. I want to get your thought on that

Michael Popak. And then I of course want to talk about later in the show, the big news that we broke here at Midas Touch, had tip to our editor and chief, Ron Philip Kowski. I don't know if you saw, Popok, but the media was a little bit peanut butter and jelly that we broke that story. I think the Washington Post referred to us. They didn't even give us credit. They called us a media company. It's like, we're getting more audience that a media company broke the story.

I don't know if you're saying it. They used to do that to Microsoft a media company broke the story. I don't know. I used to do that to Microsoft and Apple back in the day. Well, you know, the technology company today, have been in a Mac. So, so if you all are wondering if Patreon.com slash Midas Touch has the impact. I'd just give you exhibit a the story that we broke this week, which led to Donald Trump being found in violation of the gag order. Go to patreon.com slash might as touch.

Pope, I want to get your thoughts on my scheduling theory that I just gave. And then let's get into a lot of developments in Washington DC, including a gag order being opposed on Donald Trump. It seems like weeks ago, but it took place on Monday, the first day of last week. Let's talk about that in more on Staker first quick break. Losing weight can be a challenge. And it's often hard to find the solution that works for you. Henry Medz offers affordable online weight management programs that utilize semaglutide.

Save thousands with Henry Medz weight management program. Receive semaglutide online at an affordable price. Provider and medication are included in the monthly cost and no insurance is required. Semicluetide has been shown to be effective for weight management in numerous clinical trials. Sign up online, speak to a provider on the Henry Meds platform, and receive medication to your door if you're medically eligible. No insurance needed. Semoglutide is clinically proven to reduce appetite and curb cravings. Henry Meds offers a science-backed weight loss medication

that reduces your appetite and cravings, and the monthly cost includes the telehealth appointment and medication. Visit HenryMeds.com slash legal AF and receive $50 off your first month by using promo code legal a f. That's henry meds.com slash legal a f and receive $50 off your first month by using promo code legal a f. Being on top of your mental health game is so important. As you know, I'm a practicing trial attorney in addition to my hot takes and co-hosting duties. As you know, I'm a practicing trial attorney in addition to my hot takes and co-hosting duties. And so it's easy to fall into bad habits or routines because life gets in the way, especially with your diet.

Frankly, I think most people can relate that every day life gets in the way, making a challenging to find a healthy snack without all the sugar and junk. If you're busy and constantly on the go like me, you need to try Mosh. It's a protein bar made for your brain. With six delicious flavors, each Mosh bar includes 12 grams of protein, and is made with ingredients that support brain health like ashwaganda, lion's mane, collagen, and omega3s. At 160 calories and only 1 gram of sugar, Mosh protein bars are the guilt-free snack, your brain and body will crave. Your brain is your number one tool, which is why Mosh protein bars were mind-flip formulated by some of the top neuroscientists and functional nutritionists.

Mosh now has a new line of plant-powered protein bars in three delicious flavors. For those who want all the protein and brain support in the original bar, now may be with plant-based ingredients. I have a Moshbar midday to energize my end of day, and it's totally improved my performance. I love the taste, especially of the peanut butter Moshbar delicious. Not to mention the packaging makes it super easy to take with me if I ever find myself hungry in between meetings. Don't settle for a mediocre snack when you can nourish your body and mind with the fuel it needs to succeed. So whether you're

at the gym on the go or just living your best life, mosh protein bars will keep your brain and body fit, fueled and feeling good. Head to moshlife.com slash legal AF to save 20% off plus free shipping on your first six count trial pack. That's 20% off plus free shipping on your first six count trial pack, which includes all six mouthwatering flavors, M O SI-F-E dot com slash legal a f. Welcome back. We are live on legal a f. Thank you to our pro democracy sponsors. We appreciate your support.

You can check out those products in our description below. All right, let's go into busy week in Washington, DC. I wanted to comment on the trials. Let me say we're gonna get there. You know, we've got to wind it up. We're going to wind it up and then toss it. Let's talk about the, here are the five things I want to talk about in

Washington, DC and propoch. I want you to want to hear your thoughts toss it. Let's talk about the here are the five things I want to talk about in Washington, DC and and and POPAC I want you to want to hear your thoughts on it. First and foremost, the gag order imposed on Donald Trump. Second, that Donald Trump then filed an appeal and then requested a stay in Judge Chutkin granted actually a stay And I want to hear the strategy behind that, because I think she's supremely confident and erotic and just doesn't want Donald Trump to cause delay. I want to talk about Jack Smith's team filing an opposition to Donald Trump's motion

to dismiss the indictment. And then we're still in the Washington DC area. I want to talk about what federal judge Amit Mehta did in denying the Donald Trump's request for a stay in the civil cases, brought by victims of the January 6 insurrection who were harmed, killed, maimed, and the ramifications of that. And finally, the DC Court of Appeals affirming the ability of the Department of Justice and Special Counsel, Jackson Smith, thereby,

to use obstruction of official proceeding charges in these insurrectionist prosecutions, including, even though it's not in this order, that's one of the charges counts in the indictment against Donald Trump. So I want to talk about all of that, but first, see I was going to do that, but first, Michael Popak, this case, this special counsel, Jack Smith's Washington,

DC, case scheduled for March, we always talk about the scheduling of these dates. And as I mentioned before the break, you know, this special counsel, Jack Smith DC case is gonna go first, but it will be interesting to see now with the plea agreements that were entered by Chesbro and Powell and all of the stuff that canons doing in causing delay, does this open up a path? Yeah, I like the way you've laid that out. I think Donald Trump's been trying to use Mar-a-Lago, the only place where he seems to have any judge

that's in his corner. I'm not gonna go as far as some of the other legal commentators to say she should just be part of the, listed as part of the defense team, Judge Catten. I'm not going that far. But Donald Trump is obviously got one chip to play to keep playing it in the Spoker game. And that is to try to use Judge Cannon to the best he can strategically, tactically, to cause delay and wreak wreak havoc on the other cases. Problem with that is I'm not sure Judge Cannon can do much else. She hasn't yet made her decision

as to whether she's going to either even postpone the Mar-a-Lago case as much as we keep Score on her and her and and watching her Micro watch her about everything she does leading up to this. She hasn't yet moved the trial date Really nothing that's been that's been brought to to the four by Donald Trump There's 2,000 pages missing out of 1.6 million Donald Trump. There's 2,000 pages missing out of 1.6 million. None of this was seven months to go on the clock. Would any other judge worth their salt move a trial for? And I'm not yet convinced that she's going to either. She had the opportunity to help him right at the very outset, put the trial after the election. And she, like Judge Chuckkin, said,

no. I interpreted that as both. Judges believing, regardless of their feelings about the case, that democracy demanded that this person Donald Trump either be a convicted felon or be absolved by a jury before the voters vote. And I'm not changing my mind quite yet. But in terms of the calendar that's now open, the path that is now opened, take five months off, I thought that the Fulton County Georgia trial was going to take Georgia out of the running for having really a 2024 trial until much late third or fourth quarter because of the other two cases of Chesboro and Powell being tried together. That's out.

Now, there's a whole vacancy here, opening here in Fulton County. Now, I don't believe the Judge McAfee is going to step on the toes of Judge Chukkin and try to slide a case in between now and March. March sounds like it's a long time away, but it really isn't. Snap your fingers and you, me and Karen are going to be holding court over a live feed, well, it won't be a live feed there, or at least a daily update of what's going on in a trial of Donald Trump in Washington DC in the beginning of the spring. So I don't think he's going to do that, but you're right. If there is movement at all by cannon and she's still sitting on a decision based on a motion to continue as

to whether she's going to and she keeps her cards very close to her vest until we get that docket entry that tells us what she's done. If she moves, Scott McAfee is going to slide right in behind that or after that. But I still think the clearest path and the number one case that has to go to trial and will go to trial, well in advance of the election in November is Judge Chuck in's DC election interference case. And so that's how I see it. One case will definitely go and maybe Fawni Willis is able to slide her case in. While Donald Trump continues to exhaust his resources to try to use the canon case to do some blocking and tackling in the other cases, so far to no great effect.

I think that's a great analysis, but don't now start inditing other individuals to delay our DC case. I don't want to say something on that because I know you want to get the last word on this. I don't think they're going to combine the cases if they separately indict. If I thought that, I wouldn't have suggested it. But if they arise out of the same common nucleus of operative facts, federal courts allow independent indictments to go separately and be tried on separate tracks. But my question is, do you believe that Donald Trump would file motion to consolidate? I agree with you on that. I just don't think

believe we'll allow it. And do you so yes? Do you do you believe that that would have to be heard on a briefing schedule after all the other individuals entered their first appearance and were arraigned. Yes. And do you believe that the briefing of that would take at least more than 30 to 45 days to be resolved? Yes. And do you think that that has an opportunity of derailing the March trial based on that schedule?

No. I'll only be, I'll tell you why, only because, and we do this internally, so people understand it. There's a reason we're able to get hot takes up so quickly. We know Judge Chuck and Luz very quickly. By the time the thing is fully brief, she's got an order ready to go that day or the next morning. That's why we're like, something just got filed. There'll be a ruling on it in any minute now. Because this is Chuck and Canon, different story. Canon gets frustrated. Here is where. Here.

But here's where. Well, let me finish my thought before you give me the here. The, the, she'll rule quickly. There'll be maybe an emergency application on the issue of consolidation. It's not an issue that slows down her trial whatsoever. That's not gonna, just because he takes an appeal about consolidation. There was somebody does. It doesn't mean his Trump's trials

going to be delayed. It moves. This freight train has no break. It will make it to station by March. With the possibility that the case gets filed and likely would go in front of another judge, other than Judge Chutkin. It could go in front of one of the Trump appointees, we're gonna talk a little bit about how some of those Trump appointees, you'll talk about in a little bit, interpreted the obstruction of official proceeding statute

to try to gut it and basically say that, well, only if it relates to like the destruction of documents, do you have obstruction of official proceeding that can be charged? So you have judges like that. So I just think that there's so many variables that have the opportunity to cause delay. I would put it over 50% if you did an indictment of other individuals right now that I think if I'm special counsel, Jack

Smith, the last thing you want to do is inject a variable you can't control. Yes, but the advantage of it is you get bad people indicted for criminal things they did and you get them to start cooperating. I'm not sure the levels, I'm making an assumption, the levels of cooperation for the six that have been named, including three that are in the Georgia indictment hasn't been great. And yes, yes, he's got tremendous amounts of evidence, but it would be nice. If while he's doing his case, a Rudy Giuliani, a real Mark Meadows, really cooperating, a John Eastman really cooperating, or Sidney Powell now, we know he's going to cooperate. He's looking for any deals she can get to avoid that.

That's the phone call that comes. You saw what happened in Georgia. I'm not saying he's jealous, Jack Smith, but he needs to get some plea deals cooperating with him in DC before March. It can't just be Donald Trump not taking a stand, a lot of lower level people and a bunch of documents. I want higher people to testify in March. I think it's important.

I mean, he's going to have the former vice president of the United States testifying against Donald Trump. He's going to have the head of Donald Trump's campaign strip Michael Roman, the guy who came up with the fake collector scheme. He's indicted in Georgia. Yeah. And Roman though, entered into a proper, you're going to have potentially the governor of Georgia testify. You're going to have the secretary of state of

Georgia. So you're going to have a lot of people like that. And as between that and potentially getting duty Rudy Giuliani to testify with the risk of derailing your March trial date while democracy hangs on the line, I opt for let's have the March trial. Don't do any other indictments. And that Jack Smith, at least Go get that case before a jury the statute of limitations is still there But anyway, we can have this debate for a lot of you. We'll do a hot take. We'll take on it Let's talk about though what went down with the gag order

Let's talk about what went down with the opposition to Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment Popo. Yeah, yeah, and I, you and I are on the same page. I did a hot tick on it. You'll do one or you did one. Not don't everybody get all upset about Judge Chutkin making a really strong decision to finally, after two hour hearing and briefing, to gag Donald Trump, a limited gag on Donald Trump

from using violent rhetoric to attack by name, participants in the criminal justice system against him. The hearing said, told me all I need to know about this judge. The way she ran the courtroom during the hearing, how she interacted with John Loro, who made the primary arguments for Donald Trump. She is a supremely confident jurist in her own understanding of the law of procedure of history, not just our history, history of the world, where she made the same person that can say, presidents are not kings, and this guy is not the president, is the same person that can cite Henry II

from 1107 in her remarks back to John Loro, and I'm sure she was one person short in that historical debate, because I'm not sure he'm sure she was one person short in that historical debate because I'm not sure he knew where she was going with that. She used the phrase when he said, it's just talk, Your Honor, you really hasn't, my client really has been a good boy and he hasn't done anything to violate any of your conditions of release and she left. And she said, really? She said, you know, it's just words, Your Honor, well, he said words have import and impact

and violent impact. It's, and she said it reminds me, this is in the hearing, he said, words have import and impact and violent impact. And she said, it reminds me, this is in the hearing, she said, it reminds me of Henry the Second, won't someone rid me of this medal some priest, in which Henry the Second was upset with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who wasn't going to appoint some priests and art in bishops that the king wanted. And so when he said that, four nights went down to Canterbury and assassinated the archbishop, meaning when Donald Trump makes comments

about judges their family, staff, family prosecutors and their family and the like, there's real world consequences that have to be acknowledged. And she painted Laurel right into the box in the hearing. She said, you agree with me that it's, he can't say anything during the campaign, right? He said, 100% your honor. And she said, right.

And there are limits to what he can say, even under the first amendment. He is a defendant. This is the judge now facing four felony indictments. He's a participant in a criminal justice system that supervises him. In other words, his release, his freedom right now is at my discretion and that of the federal court system. That's how it works on conditions of release. Something can never remind the Trump of, but that the judge takes very seriously. The second thing she takes very seriously, and it's her guiding principle for all of her

rulemaking in this case, and every case, is the swift and fair administration of justice and nothing will delay it and nothing will impact it. And that's how that's her litmus test. Is this outside the court event, person conduct speech, going to negatively impact what happens in the courtroom for the criminal trial? Yes or no? And if it's yes, I got to do something about it in an issue in order. So she granted the order. She left it intentionally vague in certain areas to give her wiggle room to regulate things that she's

observed. She said, I don't even need in the gag order. I don't need the prosecutors to alert me to anything that Donald Trump's done. I reserve the right to, if I see something myself, it's called Suasponte on my own initiative. I'm the right to, if I see something myself, it's called suesponte on my own initiative. I'm able to bring and call that matter and get the lawyers and maybe Donald Trump back in front of me to consider what further discipline has to be done

if the gag order is violated. She said, she said principles. She used certain terms that give her a wider ability to regulate his speech even on the campaign trail. Now, nothing about that gag order, stop Donald Trump that minute, minutes after it, or since to campaign legitimately for the presidency of the United States, got help us. Nothing, nothing, he hasn't been gagged in any way. He's able, as she said to him in the hearing

and in the order, you want to criticize broadly the Department of Justice, the Justice System. You want to make comments about your case without attacking witnesses, prosecutors, staff, judges, and that kind of thing, great, you're allowed to do that. You're not allowed to dox staff, prosecutors by name, judges by name, and that type of thing, although he continues to do that. And so some people were surprised not by Donald Trump's appeal

of that decision. I mean, knew he was going to appeal. You did a hot take on the appeal. But that she so quickly granted his request for a stay temporarily administratively for now of her order and its enforcement until he goes through the appellate process. There's two ways to get a stay of a order you don't like in federal court. Or in state court. You can either go to the appellate court and ask them for an administrative stay. That gets considered by usually a judge or a small panel.

That's not the panel or judge that's going to decide the merits of the underlying appeal. It's usually like a duty judge that DUTY that makes a decision about the stay for that moment. Or you go back to the trial judge. That's not a reflection as you so well put it on the way into the segment. The fact that she, on the motion first, decided to stay it is not a reflection of her indecisiveness. It's a reflection of the strength of her conviction that her order is correct. We're watching a decisive judge in action, not an indecisive one. She knows she's going to be affirmed on appeal by her bosses at the DC Court of Appeals.

Justice she has been affirmed because she's a judge that gets rarely reversed, just as she's been affirmed in every major case involving Jan 6, including involving Donald Trump a year ago, when he tried to assert executive privilege out of office when he was no longer president to stop the Jan 6 committee from getting his presidential papers. And that's where then now immortal words she uttered were, presidents are not kings and that guy's not the president. And so he doesn't get to assert executive privilege. She is very confident that her,

the intellectual, intellectual underpinnings of her decision making and rulemaking here are on solid ground, even though it's novel. We never had a gag in ex-president while he was campaigning before. And so that's what we're watching. So I don't want to, I know the reporting was, she's staying her own decision, oh my God, he'll be killed, go out there.

And look, she's making, I'll leave it on this bench. She's making a calculated decision here, because she is worried about violent rhetoric, leading to violent results in people dying and people being injured who are innocent in this matter, just doing their job as she likes to say for the criminal justice system. But she's willing to take a risk that for another month or so while the issue goes up on

appeal and comes back down to her, that nothing serious is going to happen. Otherwise she would tell them, you know what, I don't think you have any chance of winning on appeal based on what you said and in your papers. And therefore, I am not going to grant the stay forcing him to go get the stay at the district court level. If you can get it at all, this way she said, you want to go back, do you him to go get the stay at the district court level if you can get it at all. This way she said, you wanna go back, you wanna go to my bosses and see if I'm right?

There you go. Have a good day, I'll see you back here in 30 days on the gag order. Well, and she knows that Donald Trump's ultimate plan here is to try to delay that March trial date. So anything that Donald Trump can try to argue that this, the fact that this gag orders in place now prejudices his ability to be a defendant in this case.

And so then Donald Trump goes to the DC circuit quarter of appeals. It says, you need to stay or stop or halt the proceedings that are taken. Well, you need to move this trial date. And she knows that that's what he's trying to do. So she's like, okay, why don't you try to adjust? I'm with you, Pope. Why don't you justify it? I asked you a question.

You just lit something for me. I want to see your opinion. Gag orders don't really go to the heart of a criminal case. What he can say on the campaign trail and what he can say to try to get elected president isn't what's going on in the courtroom. I don't see a gag order as being something that could as an issue to lay the trial. What do you think? I think it could.

I think, you know, all options are on the table for Donald Trump. Remember when he was in office, he appointed judges. So what's the panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals going to look like? What is the United States Supreme Court going to do? We're an unprecedented territory, and if you want me to say, hey Ben, do you trust that there's gonna be a Court of Appeals panel that is not gonna do something unprecedented

or the Supreme Court that is not going to do something unprecedented here, if the law and order federal judge Chutkin gives them the opening to take action, I would tell you, I would not place my faith in any of that. So my whole view is, I think that do I think in normal times the judge not federal judge, Chutkin, not staying her gag order, could that cause delay? The answer, the direct answer is no, but in these unprecedented times, could it at least be used? Trump's trying to find any possible hook to delay this March date. So why give him any possible thing to hang on to?

The most important thing is that that trial goes in March and that a jury is able to reach a decision on Donald Trump's attempt to overthrow a free and fair election. I want to talk also about this opposition that Donald Trump filed to the opposition to Donald Trump's motion to dismiss that special counsel Jack Smith file Donald Trump is claiming that a former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges and he says that his conduct falls within the outer perimeter of what is expected of Presidents and former presidents trying to overthrow the results of a free and fair elections. Actually, the argument he made says absolute immunity. Special counsel, Jack Smith says,

there is no such thing as absolute immunity for former presidents. No one is above the law. I thought it was a real powerful opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by Jack Smith, reiterating over and over again, no one is above the law. And if you countenance, if you allowed absolute immunity, we would be treating presidents like kings. And Donald Trump is not the president. And we don't have kings here in the United States of America. What would you make of special counsel, Jackson Smith's opposition to Donald Trump's motion to dismiss? Blue the doors off his motion.

I think it's clear that the outer bound, I know we're going to do it in the next segment, but in the outer boundaries of what is presidential immunity, there is no doubt that there is no absolute presidential immunity whereas not as Jack Smith put it on paraphrasing, you can't do anything he wants to do. If you wanted to commit bribery or a break in or rob a bank, there are things that are obviously outside, even the outer limits, even if we stretched it like silly putty as far out as we could, there are limits of what we allow even people who get to be the president of the United States, what they're allowed to do.

And the number one case that they rely on on the Trump side is Nixon versus Fitzgerald. Nixon versus Fitzgerald. Nixon versus Fitzgerald. It's a civil case, not a criminal case. It has to do with what if presidents can be sued for civil damages in a non-criminal context while they're president and thumbs up or thumbs down has nothing to do with a criminal president that's in office because frankly we've never had a criminal, well we've had criminal

presidents in office but not ones that have been indicted are going to trial. So comparing himself to Washington on the farewell address, that's the, that's the address that set the standard for no president or kings. Because everybody wanted Washington to stay in office and he said, no, it's better for the, for the Republican the, you know, our country, if I leave and, and he like at 50 something, he stepped down from office. He didn't then go off and try to undermine the administration of the next president or say the second president of the United States was illegally evoted in and challenge it. That would be the comparable.

So Jack Smith has a firm grasp on legal precedent and on historical comparisons. And Donald Trump's team, how can I put this nicely? Does it know what they're talking about? They're going to lose the motion to dismiss the indictment. It's gonna be affirmed on appeal. And this freight train with no break is gonna pull into the station for a March 2024 trial date, US versus Donald J. Trump.

Big, big, big news elsewhere in Washington, DC before federal judge Amit Mehta, also before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. I want to talk about that as soon as we come back from our last quick break of the day. Stay on track with Magic Spoon, serial that tastes like your childhood faves, but with more protein and less sugar. Do yourself a favor and check out Magic Spoon's Variety Pack today. The Variety Pack has four flavors, cocoa, fruity, frosted, and peanut butter. This pack has zero grams of sugar, 13 to 14 grams of protein, and 4 to 5 net grams of

carbs, and it's only 140 calories of serving. Its high protein has 0 grams of sugar, keto-friendly, gluten-free, grain-free, and soy-free. I'm obsessed with magic spoons frosted cereal, the crunch and the flavor, it brings me right back to eating cereal as a kid. With magic spoon you have the great taste you you love with more protein and less sugar. Go to MagicSpoon.com slash a legal AF to grab a variety pack and try it today. And be sure to use our promo code legal AF at checkout to save $5 off your order. And Magic Spoon is so confident in their product, it's back with 100% happiness guarantee. So if you don't like it for any reason, they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember, get your next delicious bowl

of high protein cereal at magicspoon.com slash legal AF and use the code legal AF to save $5 off. Thank you, Magic Spoon for sponsoring this. Welcome back. We are live on legal AF. I, again, want to remind everybody, if you want to support our pro-democracy sponsors in the description below. I didn't want to ignore two other developments in Washington, D.C.

that we've been covering here. You know, one is Donald Trump's request of a stay before Washington, D.C. federal judge Amit Mehta in the civil lawsuits, including for wrongful death and for other civil claims arising out of the January 6th insurrection. Donald Trump saying, well, because of all these criminal proceedings taking place and the potential need to invoke my fifth amendment rights against self-incrimination. The civil cases should be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal case to which federal judge Amit Maitre said, well, it's premature at this stage.

Why don't we wait until your deposition, Donald Trump, and see if you're going to invoke the fifth at this stage. Let's see what you do. You're potentially testifying in other places. You say you want to testify. So why don't we see what happens? And then bring this motion at that time. And then an important DC, a court of appeals ruling

in the DC circuit that has massive implications on the Department of Justice prosecutions of insurrection, this nSpecial Council Jackson it's case against Donald Trump Popak what went down in both of those cases? Yeah, I think we've got a really consistent ruling from judge Amata He's the judge that presided just as way of background over the Oathkeeper's trial and the Conviction of Stuart Rhodes and the others for seditious conspiracy

One of the things that's interesting about the DC Circuit bench is that all the judges, Republican or democratically nominated, have tremendous depth of experience about all things Jan 6. There's not a judge, including Judge Chutkin, that hasn't tried either by bench trial or presiding over a jury trial or handling sentencing or civil cases related to it, they've all each tried dozens of cases and know the facts of the case very, very well. And while there's been some of the judges we haven't completely agreed with early on

judge Nichols who handled the Steve Bannon case did some strange things and some other strange things about obstruction of Congress as a count, which I'll talk about next. But by and large, almost all the judges in the DC Circuit Court have done the right thing. We may disagree on the periphery about how many years they sent in somebody to, but really except for an occasional misdemeanor, somebody who got led off, he should have been a misdemeanor, everybody's handling these cases, knows these cases well. I mean, MADA is also, because when you're a federal judge, you preside over criminal cases and civil cases, same-docket, law and equity,

you do it all when you're a federal judge. He's also the judge that's been assigned a series of cases brought by DC Metro police, capital police, the estates of capital police who died, like in the line of service, like Brian Siknik, and even House of Representatives members. There's separate cases, but they're all to continue with our consolidation theme here on legal AF today, they've all been brought in front of the same judge, Judge Mata. And in earlier attempts by Donald Trump to assert that case we just talked about, you Nixon versus Fitzgerald to say, I can't be sued civilly in damages like ever, even there, Judge Mata said, no, there's outer boundaries to your immunity, even under the Nixon precedent. And I think you have gone beyond the outer boundaries of your immunity in your involvement.

This is the judge when he wrote his decision about those prior cases brought by the Metro DC police for damages, claiming that their civil rights were violated. And under the KKK act, it is what you think. That Donald Trump is responsible for what happened on Jan 6th to the carnage that happened inside the Capitol and around the Capitol and the people, especially the police and House of Representative members and others whose lives are forever impacted, emotionally and physically. And even with their own lives in a certain, in the case of Brian Siknik, because of Donald Trump lighting that fuse and directing those

actions of his followers, the won't someone rid me of this medal, some Congress certification comment to continue our theme today of history made by Donald Trump, which was taken up by thousands of his followers who stormed the Capitol and our seat of democracy. So Judge Mayda had already ruled on that months ago, but before him this time was a similar motion brought by the state, brought by Donald Trump against the case, brought by the estate of Brian Siknik.

That's the police officer who battled valiantly on Jan 6 was pepper sprayed and bear sprayed and suffered a heart attack the following day. very healthy 40 something police officer you would not have died but for Jan 6 and Donald Trump that's the argument and his family sued for similar damages and those similar statutes and civil rights violations and so Donald Trump brought the same motion that he brought there and Judge beta basically said for the same reasons I found previously in the related cases that you've gone beyond the limits of absolute immunity and you're not entitled

to avoid on these facts, you're not entitled to avoid absolutely the civil case. Donald Trump said, can you at least stay my case here and not let it progress while the appellate court, the DC court of appeals, decides whether my, the issue, the issue that's before them that hasn't yet been decided about whether my immunity does prevent this kind of case. And as the judge said, no, that's kind of premature. We're not that far along in this case. We'll see what happens in your criminal cases. Judge cited to his criminal cases. You know, you haven't made the decision whether you're going to waive your Fifth

Amendment rights there. That's for another day. So the judge just took the can and just punted it, just kicked the can down the road and said, come back to me. If a follow, if a number of things happen in the future, if you, if you win your appeal on the issue, of course, come back to me, we'll talk about the impact of that on this case. If you win your appeal on the issue, of course, come back to me. We'll talk about the impact of that on this case. If you wave your Fifth Amendment rights, or you don't wave your Fifth Amendment rights, or the trial has or hasn't happened at the time, this case would be moving to trial. And a civil side, come back and talk to me. But I'm not staying a darn thing right now, and I'm not dismissing the case while we're

waiting for the Court of Appeals to rule. So that was on Judge Mehta. On the obstruction case, the import of that is the following. The highest level charge that the Department of Justice used against any Gen 6 insurrection is to date is seditious conspiracy. That's what the proud boys leadership got. That's what the oath-keepers leadership got and a handful of other people. It was the giant cudgel that the Department of Justice also used in their plea negotiations, several people pleading guilty

without a need for trial already to seditious conspiracy. That had the highest dollar amount on the board for the years in prison, and that's the one they use. The second highest charge in their arsenal, the Department of Justice and Diting Arsenal is obstruction of Congress. An obstruction of Congress sounds exactly like what these people did. They went down to try to stop the certification of the electoral vote on purpose on Jan 6th. That's the reason just to remind everybody that's why they're there on Jan 6th. They're there and storm the Capitol to stop the certification, right? They were calling it stop the steal. We call it stop the peaceful transfer of power and the certification of the election.

That sounds like a lot like you're obstructing Congress from doing their functions. A couple of judges, yes, they were Republican appointed and Trump appointed, including Judge Nichols. So, you can look at that indictment and thought that the Department of Justice had overcharged the case, meaning they had picked criminal counts that didn't fit just to kind of ratchet up the numbers and dismissed obstruction of Congress. Judge Nichols, particularly observing that he thought it only obtained, and you could only use it when they literally

got their hands on the certificates and the paperwork that was being considered by Mike Pence at the podium, that's the only way you could have obstruction of Congress because of the electoral certificates involved. We all thought, and we did hot takes on this, we did legal AF, and now let's us on this, we all thought that was ridiculous,

that that can't possibly be the only obstruction of Congress that could, you gotta rip up the certificates like in the face of Mike Pence and throw it at him, that's the only way you can get charged. And no other judge believe that. There was a couple that did. Now it's definitive. The bosses of all these DC circuit court judges is the DC court of appeals before you get to the

Supreme's. And a three judge panel voting two to one led by judge Pan and a shout out to judge Pan. She has made some very important rulings in favor of democracy against these Jensics and Syraconist like time and time again. She is my, if I'm doing the pool for who could be the next Supreme Court Justice for Joe Biden, I think it's I think it's Florence Pam. But just leave it at that. Keep an eye on Florence Pam. The way we kept an eye on Katanjee Brown Jackson, Amy Burman Jack, Katanjee Brown, Katanjee Brown, Amy Burman Jackson, as a few of them, that, Tonya Chutkin, who if there's ever opening at the Supreme Court level, these could be nominees for Donald Trump.

For Donald Trump, and Judge Pan writing for the court rejected a Jan 6th insurrectionist who was trying to lower his sentence. He'd already been sentenced to over six years because he was in the first wave that broke into the Capitol at the moment they were about to certify. Literally the tip of the spear, using a giant walking stick, and he was a police officer.

He was not only a Marine, he was a cop, a sergeant at the time. And he and others were the first ones in as the legislators had to be belly crawled out and protected by Capitol police, outmatched, outnumbered Capitol police. And so he said, well, no, that's not obstruction of Congress. And his main argument was that there's an interesting word

that Congress used when they made the statute, that animates the statute. And it's the word corruptly. What does corruptly mean? And you'd think people watching the show, is that everything already defined in law? Is don't you go to a giant like dictionary, legal law dictionary, and you go corruptly,

and there's a defined term that everybody agrees on and the answer to that is no. Congress uses terms. Sometimes you can go look at other times Congress used that same term somewhere else and how courts have interpreted or sometimes you literally courts will refer to the dictionary definition Oxford or any of the dictionaries websters and say this is what it means. So statutory construction and interpretation is very, very important. He argued that in order the defendant argued in order for him to be convicted of corruptly

interfering with Congress. He had to do it through dishonest means. And since he held the belief that the election was stolen and he didn't really do anything dishonestly, he did it intentionally, but not dishonestly, he should be let go. And Judge Pan for the court said, no way. Corruptly means wrongfully with intent using criminal means. You use the giant stick. You attack Capitol police. You broke in on the first wave.

You were exactly what obstruction of Congress was meant to punish if you violated. And so now we have a definitive ruling at the DC Court of Appeals level going forward about that yes, obstruction of Congress is an appropriate count to use, which means all of the people that pled guilty to that don't have an ability to an appeal because a higher court is ruled, and all the people that got their prior counts dismissed

by lower court judges could be re-indicted by the Department of Justice. If they don't like the way that went, they could now be re-indicted under this new counts, not it wouldn't be double jeopardy because that count was dismissed and they could be tried again and sentenced again. And I don't know. I think the Department of Justice has to look to all the people who were able to convince judges that that count should be dismissed. And they may reactivate those counts against those very people, great ruling by judge

pan. And it'll stay on the books unless and until it's taken up to the US Supreme Court and they make a different decision. And it will be taken up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court will at some point in the next year, two years, max maybe three years. I think sooner we'll be making a decision. We will be here on legal AF.

We will look back at this video and we will when the Supreme Court grants surgery are on it and there's oral argument on it. So I think that that is something that will take place and will keep you posted. But that's why it's important that we follow this at every stage of the process. And last but not least, I want to talk about big news in the New York Attorney General Civil

broadcast where Judge Engoron found Donald Trump to be in violation of the gag order that Judge Engoron found Donald Trump to be in violation of the gag order that Judge Engoron imposed on Donald Trump and all parties back on October 3rd, on October 3rd. That was the first week of the New York Attorney General's Civil Fraud Case where Donald Trump attended two and a half days of trial before running away back to his safe space at Mar-a-Lago. Judge Ingorod, after uncovering that Donald Trump was posting threats on his social media about Judge Ingorod's principal law clerk and attacking Judge Ingorod's law clerk, Judge Ingorod called Donald Trump and all counsel into his chambers back on October

3rd and issued a gag order on the record, but then privately told Donald Trump you need to take that down right now. Donald Trump took it down from his social media, but kept it up on his campaign website. And so Ron Philip Kowski, see you right there for those watching on YouTube, our editor and chief at MidasTouch.com uncovered that Donald Trump had not removed the offending posts attacking judge and Goran's law clerk from his campaign website when he was ordered to do so back on October 3rd. So for 17 days, Donald Trump had to his audience, the most kind of radical and extreme group of people as well, who support Donald Trump, were still seeing this threat that was a violation

of the gag order that was imposed on Donald Trump. So we broke the story at MidasTouch.com. The court was notified about it by a concerned party. I'm not sure if it was the New York Attorney General's office, if it was someone else who saw it, but it was brought to the attention of Judge Angoran, who immediately called Donald Trump's lawyers into the courtroom first thing in the morning and said, tell me why I shouldn't put him in prison right now. Because that's a violation of the gag order. And Donald Trump's lawyer, Chris Differkice, acknowledged it was a violation, but blamed

the technology and said, look, we took it down, the campaign kept it up. That's a different operation. We're sorry, this was a big mistake. We acknowledged that it was wrong and we took it down right away. And Judge Angora said, look, I don't, it's a violation. We're past the warning stage in terms of sanctions.

So I'm going to give a monetary sanction right now with $5,000. I'm going to find Donald Trump was in violation. I will accept your representation just this one time, Christopher Kice, that it was a technological issue in terms of not imprisoning Donald Trump now, not as saying that he didn't violate the gag order. I won't put him in prison now, but be aware, Kice, this is the last time that I say this,

which is after this violation, this is the first violation, next violation, he goes to jail. And the sanctions will include but not be limited to incarcerating Donald Trump immediately. So I want to give a hat tip right there to Ron Philip Kowski, our editor in chief for breaking that news. And again, for everyone who says, well, you know, Ben, you talk about patreon.com slash might as touch all the time. And the reason that I do that is because we're not funded by outside investors here at the might as touch.

Now we're zero outside investors. And I know the Washington Post wants to just refer to us in their coverage as the story was uncovered by a media website. But more people are getting their news from here than are getting it from the Washington Post. More people watch the Midas Touch Network and support independent journalism than watch CNN or Fox on digital. So everything's moving towards digital and more people watch us

than watch CNN or Fox. So that's because of your support, by the way, and we don't have outside investors. And so they underestimate all of us. They underestimate the legal AF community. They underestimate the power and strength of this community, which let them underestimate us, but let's keep on growing. And that's again why I always plug Patreon at dot com slash minus touch. And you see the results of how that website, how our editorial team there that we've been able to bring on as a result of Patreon.com slash might as touch the work that they're doing. And as we get closer to 2024 and in 2024, their work is going to be invaluable.

So that's the last of my plug on patreon.com slash might as touch, but that's what happened in court, but also popok in terms of the testimony this week. Donald Trump was there for like a day and a half again. And you know, he did his ranting and ravings. But what we focus on here on legal AF is also like what evidence is being presented. And right, even if it's tedious financials, this is a case involving tedious financials. And people who aren't concerned about tedious financials,

sometimes that's what allows or when the media doesn't concern itself with tedious financials. Sometimes that's what allows or when the media doesn't concern itself with tedious financials or ignore it, people like Donald Trump pray on that. So when we start getting testimony from people like Doug Larson and David McCartle, people who were the appraisers at Cushman and Wakefield and you start hearing their testimony, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that, him. When you hear David McCartle, who's being shown deposition video of Eric Trump, where Eric Trump says that he was not involved at all in the appraisal processes. And Eric says,

oh, I would just, you know, I was just there for more. I'd show up at the construction sites and tell everyone good work. Everybody, but I don't really know state. He said he poured concrete. That's what concrete. And then David McCartle was asked, was that consistent with what you knew Eric Trump's role to be? Or was he involved in the appraisals with you? And McArdle was like, he was involved in the appraisals with me. He wasn't pouring concrete. He was, he was involved in all of this together. So, you know, I thought that was, you know, important testimony that really isn't getting covered out there. But I think we have to follow all the evidence in track. Popuck. Yeah, so one comment on the gag order. One of the reasons that gag order was so

in the violation of it, broken by it, might as touch network, is Trump was actually, it was the day he was in the courtroom. And there's a, let me just give a little insider knowledge about how things work in that New York court system, in and judges chambers. Judges will often take, because I've been in this courtroom in this courthouse, judges will often take the litigants and their counsel, or maybe sometimes just the counsel without the litigants into the chambers. Chambers is an office behind the bench. It usually has a long table at it, and that's where the judge is a little bit more informal.

Sometimes the judge takes a court reporter in with them and sometimes he does not. Sometimes it's on the record conversation and sometimes it's off the record conversation. It's on the record. He'll turn to the court reporter and say, let's get this down in the record. Usually the court reporter stays in the courtroom and they come back out of chambers, which is usually all informal and all off the record. Donald Trump went back into the chambers when the gag order when the gag order was issued and he represented off the record. Donald Trump went back into the chambers when the gag order was issued and he represented off the records, he wasn't sworn under oath at the moment that it had been successfully taken down. He apologized to the court and he apologized to the court for something he knowingly did and said it had been taken down and made that representation to the judge.

The judge outlined that in the violation of the gag order order, which he said, it basically took Donald Trump at his word personally. It wasn't through his counsel. It was a representation by Donald Trump. The ramifications now in the gag order as the last paragraph of the gag order says is that he gave him a pass for this one based on representations that it was unintentional, and that it was done by the campaign and up by Donald Trump. But it won't happen again. And the next time jail time, Donald Trump and jail time was in the same sentence, in the same paragraph of the same sentence to conclude the order. And Judge Engor and Goron is serious about that. There's things that he's jockular about, jovial about in the

courtroom, there's other things that he's not, He's deadly serious. And this is one of the deadly serious ones. So, we'll be Donald Trump and hopefully might as touch and are, and us will be following everything that Donald Trump says and does about, and go on about the court system. This, this gag order applies to the New York civil case. Doesn't apply to other cases. It doesn't have extra case application. In terms of what's going on in the courtroom, it's terrible for Donald Trump, his children and all the co-defendants,

every day and every way, every minute. Sorry, funny, sorry, funny. Let me go to another successful person who's prosecuting a case against Donald Trump for at least civil fraud. The attorney general's team is methodically just chop and wood and stacking it up with witnesses in a narrative, in a certain order, with momentum. This was the week I like to call the AAA week. This was auditor's accountants and appraisers. And each one of them in their own way, singing from their own page of the hymnol, was a devastatingly bad week for Donald Trump, pointing the finger at not just Alan Weisselberg, who's easy to point the finger out. He already went to jail for tax evasion. But others in the organization, and Donald Trump himself, I mean, when you have the inside vice president accountant, say that Alan Weisselberg on behalf of the boss, Donald

Trump, told him to cook the books. That's a bad day for Donald Trump. The day that he got most animated, a couple of days he was back in court because he was in New York for a deposition in another civil case that's going on against him, maybe thinking that Michael Cohen was going to appear. We'll talk about that in a minute. But the day the Donald Trump was there, they had the appraiser on the stand. And the appraiser in direct testimony through the Office of Attorney General was great.

He, I don't know if he fained surprise or he was surprised to see that his name was used to validate on a internal financial statement that was prepared a chart of assets that was shared with third parties to make it look like the numbers listed for certain properties were based on his appraisals. And he said, that I never gave permission for my name to be used next to those numbers

or to suggest that I did the appraisal, appraisal, they should have ordered appraisals and we would have done it with our own methodology. And then Chris Keiss used that moment as a moment of political theater for the cameras, for his clients sitting there to say, objection, judge, there's a possible perjury here. He needs to be advised of his rights

and clear the courtroom. And the judge was like, okay, what's the issue? They put the appraiser outside. What is the issue? We have evidence that he got an email eight years ago that indicates that he had some conversations with the Trump organization about appraisal methodology.

And the judge is like, that's it? Because yeah, and he needs his own counsel. He needs to be advised whether he should take his fit the amendment rights. And Donald Trump was the report from the people in the room was, Donald Trump was really interested in that right. Ha ha we got it the Perry Mason moment as you like to say. And the judges reaction was classic.

Judge Engoron said, all right, so he committed perjury. Let's get him back on the stand and complete his testimony. In other words, have at it Mr. Kice, if you think he perjured himself, which is actually not the literal definition of perjury, because the guy never, it's not a sworn statement in the past that he's now recanting. If they think they can impeach him, which is what Kai's really meant, then have at it. And when they showed him the email, the aha moment that caused all of this clamoring and tambourine banging at that moment, all sort of just died a slow whimper that

nobody reported, which was, aha, do you remember this email from seven years ago? And he said, I really don't remember this email. And then when they redirected him, he was able to say, I give advice about how to do appraisals to lots of clients. It's not unusual. I can't remember this particular one, but that doesn't mean that he should have put my name down next to this number because that's not a number I ever agreed with, or it was a result of my appraisal stuff. Eric Trump took a huge hit this week, no

surprise, Don Jr. as well. But more importantly, people are saying that Donald Trump lied and committed fraud and Donald Trump doesn't like it. And that means he's the more he acts out, you can use it as a grid. The more Donald Trump acts out and lashes out, the worse the day in court was for him, you can almost plot it on a graph. And now, whereas the beginning, we thought, oh, they wanted Michael Cohen to go last week. If Michael Cohen goes as expected next week, it would be perfect cherry on the top. You've got now you now he's standing on the shoulders of other testimony, Michael Cohen, you've got insider insider top level money control people back men having already testified. Weiselberg and McConee, the chief financial officer and the

controller reporting to him. Then you've got their assistants that reported directly to them, the assistant controller and the assistant vice president reporting to Michael to Alan Weiselberg, who are current employees. You got former or soon to be former employees, current, probably soon to be former employees, testifying. And then you have outside of praisers and outside orders. And now to wrap it all together, it would be Michael Cohen to say that me and Weiselberg at the instruction of Donald Trump was told to cook the books, to plug a hole in his balance sheet in order for him to borrow more money and to go up on the Forbes list

of the top 400 wealthiest people in the world. It would be a perfect timing now. And we're only in the third week of a trial that is likely to go at least four or five more months. And then of course, after you build that foundation, you've got the testimony of Eric Trump of Don Jr. Then you get the testimony of Donald Trump and they're all required to testify. I am still hedging here and saying that I am not confident that Donald Trump is going

to testify. I can imagine a scenario where he just basically says, you know, it's all a sham. I, this is a witch hunt. I'm, I'm, I'm going to not show up and I'm invoking my Fifth Amendment rights even though he's already waived his Fifth Amendment rights because he's testified in a deposition. I think he's gonna try to do something

to try to not testify. So look for that. I think who's horrifically, and this is in a good way, nervous right now. I think Eric Trump wakes up every day sweating because his deposition was atrocious. He's a very nervous individual all the time and I mean I saw his deposition testimony and it's just so bad and I mean the testimony at least that's been put out there on the videos where he's like Yeah, I never looked at the statement of financial conditions. You're supposed to be running the company like if you if at a threshold You said you haven't reviewed the statement of financial conditions of a company

You're supposed to be right. What what what are you what are you doing? So I just think those that's gonna be just so disastrous for the Trumps when that goes I'm excited to Cover that and I believe Cohen's testimony is gonna be Tuesday Is when he's going in and I think he announced that on social media. So We will keep you posted there. And if Donald Trump shows up for that testimony, we'll see. I mean, no, Donald Trump was the one who dismissed the lawsuit. He filed against Michael Cohen because Trump was afraid to sit for a deposition in a case

that Donald Trump filed. Michael Cohen is showing up as a third party witness. Isn't a case that Cohen filed? Cohen is showing up. He's going to be sitting there for hours and hours and hours, and he's ready to go. And I think that says a lot about Michael Cohen as well, and a lot about the Donald Trump who filed the lawsuit and then was afraid to sit for a deposition. And it shows you that Donald Trump just goes to his overall weakness and just the performative cosplay fascist nature of it all covered a lot of topics today on legal AF. I want to thank all of you for watching, you know, with each

week that passes, there's just more bombshell news. And so thank you for making this one of the top podcasts in the world, one of the top shows in the world. Make sure you're subscribed. Right now it's free to subscribe to our YouTube channel. Just hit the subscribe button right there. Check out all of our pro-democracy sponsors right there. Check out all of our pro-democracy sponsors in the description below some great products and from great companies that are supporting us here at Legal AF and also one of the ways to support the work we do is by going to patreon.com slash might as touch. You saw how impactful it was this week so now would be the time to go there. patreon.com slash might as touch. We saw how impactful it was this week. So now would be the time to go there.

Patreon.com slash might as touch. And we've got a lot of exclusive content on there as well. Thank you everybody for watching this episode of Legal AF. We will see you next time. The wheels of justice sure are turning. And it is an honor for Michael Popak and myself to be here with you as they turn. Shout out to the Midaspeg.