Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump has MELTDOWN in Court and His Lawyer IMPLODED

Episode Date: January 18, 2024

Defense attorney Michael Popok & former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back with a new episode of the midweek edition of the Legal AF pod. On this episode, they debate what will happen next with: (1) the E Jean Carroll Punitive Damages case against Trump for denying he sexual assaulted her, with a jury picked, opening statements completed and witness testimony being presented, and Trump already locking horns with the federal judge; (2) the conclusion of the NYAG fraud case and closing arguments, including a special appearance by Trump; (3) attacks on Fulton County DA Fani Willis questioning her judgment and seeking the dismissal of the criminal indictment against Trump and others; (4) Twitter’s loss (again) at the DC Court of Appeals over whether they could withhold Trump’s twitter account from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal investigation of Trump, and so much more at the intersection of law, politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! One Skin: Get started today at https://OneSkin.co and receive 15% Off using code: LEGALAF SmileActives: Visit https://SmileActives.com/legalaf to get this exclusive offer! Factor: Head to https://FACTORMEALS.com/legalaf50 and use code legalaf50 to get 50% off Shopify: Sign up for a one-dollar per month trial at https://shopify.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://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

Bet on the NFL with Bandual, official sports put partner of the NFL. Download the app today to see why we're North America's number one sports book. 19-plus and physically located in Ontario, gambling problem call 186653126100 or visit connectsontario.ca Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF Only on the Midas Touch Network with your co-anchors Michael Pope-Bock and Karen Friedman-Ignifalo. Here's the topics we have to talk about today. We're left with no choice. One, E. Jean Carol Case has started and how close is Donald Trump and Alina Habba?

How close are they to being found and contempt and dragged out of the courtroom by federal marshals? We'll talk about that and contempt and dragged out of the courtroom by federal marshals? We'll talk about that and what's happened just in the first two days, if you thought the Rudy Giuliani defamation case and his antics were outrageous, wait to you here with Lena Habba, who's supposed to be the lead trial lawyer,

but is apparently learning on the job and her client, Donald Trump, have done already. In front of a jury, no less. Then we're going to go south, as Ben, our colleague likes to say, and talk about Fawni Willis. And I'll ask our, the only person on our network is a former prosecutor, Karen Friedman, Nifalo, of Sheet Things, even if any of that is true, about Fawni Willis having some sort of outside of work, relationship with somebody on her special counsel team,

a team that she spent, I think, a total of a million dollars on compared to Jack Smith's $14 million to do a much easier case against Donald Trump and two locations, whether she feels that there's enough smoke there to have the indictment dismissed by anybody. And we'll talk about that. And then we're going to talk about a revisit. When Twitter, remember when Twitter was Twitter, when Twitter fought off or tried to fight off, turning over to Jack Smith's team, Donald Trump's Twitter account, all of his direct messaging, all of the way he used his tweets

and tweets that they then used to prepare their indictment and to try their case. Twitter wanted the ability under the First Amendment to inform Donald Trump and warn him to allow him to intervene in the case, a case, by the way, the Donald Trump to this day has never intervened in. So the question that was up for the entire DC Court of Appeals, back to the DC Court of Appeals, and all the judges there, I think there's about 12 of them, is should Twitter have been able to tip off Donald Trump before they provided his tweets? Or was there some sort of executive privilege, or presidential privilege, as a former president

that he'd be able to assert to stop that production? The CC Court of Appeals is spoken, and it's not favorable to Donald Trump, surprise, surprise. And then we'll end our podcast on the, what's going, we'll go back to New York to talk about the original gag order placed on Donald Trump was two of them by the New York State Supreme Court judge Judge Engoron related to the New York Civil Broadcast Donald Trump didn't like the fact that he was gagged everybody complained that that

was the reason on his side why he didn't testify all the times that he should. And now the highest court in New York has spoken and judging Goran as we expected and suspected has been affirmed unappeal as his gag order. Gag order matters because even though there we just had closing arguments and Karen and I'll talk about closing arguments and Donald Trump's jumping up much to my chagrin and my embarrassment having told and my embarrassment, having told Karen Friedman, a nipple, oh, I thought there's no way the judge is going to let him talk.

And then all of a sudden, the judge was letting him talk. I wouldn't call it a closing argument, but he did allow him to talk. And we'll talk about what do we think the impacts of that are and the tea leaves that we can read based on comments made by judge and gore on all that. And whatever else happens tonight while we're on the air that we can then report on, one place, don't touch that dial, might as touch legal, a F Karen. I'm doing great for many reasons that some of which you know, things are going great at the Pope House sold and I wish everybody a great start to the new year. But we got just this is wheels are turning and grinding and Donald Trump has caught under

even if he realizes that or not he's caught under the under the wheels itself and be being churned and spit out here. Let's just jump right in with E. Jean Carol. You and I are both practitioners. I've tried 35 cases, many of them to juries. In state and federal court, you've tried, who knows how many hundreds of cases as a as a prosecutor. And we're we're watching to paraphrase Casey Stangle, great baseball, great former manager of the New York Yankees, when he took over the mets in the 60s, they play a game of which I am not familiar. I don't know what Alina Habba is doing as a trial lawyer and that trial lawyer parts doing a heavy lift. What have you observed in so far, just one day and a half or so into a federal trial against Donald Trump for just to determine if if E. Jean Carroll, the former publicist for a L. magazine is going to get $10 million or more because of Donald Trump's not only his defaming her while he was president for

which he does not have immunity. On the backs of the trial from April and May, which the jury, another jury found that she was sexually assaulted. I'll call it raped by Donald Trump in that dressing room in the York and the department store and awarded her damages. Then this is for damages that's happened since, including punitive damages. Tell me what you've observed, dive into it as all you can as you're at ringside for this kind of case.

Well, I haven't tried hundreds of cases, but I have tried a lot. And there are some very, very, very basic trial skills that Alina Haba does not seem to have. This is in addition to the fact that federal court is a much more formal, much more state, it's just very different than state court. State court is a little bit like the Wild West.

It's chaos, that volume is just constant, constant lots of volume, lots of cases, lots of people, lots of things going on. Federal court is not like that. Federal court is, first of all, it's beautiful. And you feel like you're in a place that's very special, very majestic. And you feel the import of the federal government

and all that comes with it when you go to, when you're on trial or you're in court and federal court. And the judges are much more strict. And everything from in state court, if you're gonna go to trial, you answer ready that day. If you're not ready, they'll adjourn it. It's not, it's very Lucy Goosey federal court.

If you have a trial date, it's going that day, period full stop. I mean, it is, it's like the difference between night and day. That's how different state court and federal court are. And I think that Alina Habba is seeing that difference. And so is Donald Trump. He's not going to get away with the stuff that he got away with in Judge Engoron's state court civil trial. The other very big difference is that there's a jury here.

It's not a bench trial. In any jury trial, whether it's state or federal, a judge is going to do everything they can to protect the jury from inadmissible inappropriate, whether it's comments or evidence or remarks, etc. It's very, very different in a jury trial than a judge trial. So you were just saying how in your intro that judge and Goran allowed Donald Trump to give part of the summation or speak. Largely, that's A, because it's in state court,

but really it's because there's no jury there. So there's no harm, no foul. And so in federal court, you're going to see it very different. And that's exactly what's happening in that civil trial in front of a jury, in front of Judge Kaplan, who is a very respected judge here in New York. Judge Lewis Kaplan is making sure that nothing inappropriate or inadmissible or in any way could taint the jury pool comes into evidence. So you have that going on with between between Alina Haba and the judge, right?

You got him here saying, Ms. Haba, we're going to do it my way in this courtroom and that's how it's going to be. You tell me the line number and I'll read it and we'll go from there. And then Judge Kaplan has to take a recess because she doesn't know what she's doing. And Judge Kaplan again, schools heard, no, we're not going to read out loud a document not yet in evidence.

We're going to take a break right here to 330 and you're going to refresh your memory on about how to get a document into evidence. I mean, if a judge said that to me, I think I have to go out and just cry. I mean, I can't imagine being accused of not knowing how to get a document into evidence. Try a lawyer 101, there are basic things you need to know.

Basic, basic, basic. This is not complicated. You don't even barely have to be a trial lawyer. You know, one of my fun side jobs is I'm the legal advisor on law and order, right? So I go there and I tell them what to do and what not to do. Even the actors who play lawyers, right, the prosecutors and the lawyers, they all know what's the most important thing that you do when you go to court and you're talking to a judge, you stand. You do not ever sit and talk to the judge.

You stand if you have something to say. And Judge Kaplan had to school, Alina Haba on that absolute basic, basic thing. And told her, stand when you speak to this court. It's at a respect, but it's also just how it's done. And she doesn't even know that. Whether it's how to get something into evidence, how to cross-examine someone properly, whether to object and what to object to, not to do speaking objections. And it's this entire cross-examination between her and E. Jean Carroll, or even just objections during the direct examination when E. Jean Carroll's

lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, is speaking, is just absolutely shows that Alina Habba has no idea, none, how to try a case, or how to be effective in court. And as a result, it's causing this judge to, I think, lose his patients and really, have to just keep control over the courtroom because Alina Haba just doesn't have a clue. And then the other thing that's happening, and that we'll get to after you comment on Alina Haba, is Trump and his conducting court. But why don't you talk about what you think about what's going on with

Lena Habba? Yeah, I don't know. I'll jump into the other is we'll go back and forth to bed. Lena Habba, I could tell from her resume that she doesn't know what she's doing in federal court. I'm not sure she's ever tried a case of consequence in front of a jury. And I'm not I'm not being mean. I'm just talking about somebody's resume and you know, maybe at 15 or 18 years out of law school the way she is, I'm not sure. No, I had already tried some cases of consequence in federal court by that point. I was trying to empathize with her for a minute, but I really can't. And if you don't know what you're doing, then you put next to you somebody who does. And Mike Medio, whose reporter apparently doesn't know how to practice in federal court,

either. I knew we were in trouble yesterday when Alina Haba decided to raise, again, despite the fact that the judge had issued two orders about the fact that he was not going to allow the trial to be delayed or continued to allow Donald Trump to go off. Who knows where, you really can't trust him. And I'm sure that went into the decision making, but about a funeral on Thursday for the mother-in-law. So it was already done and dusted, he had already decided, he even issued a memo.

After he'd done a short order, he'd issued a memo, a memorandum order, which laid out the reasons why he wasn't gonna do it. And he did not expect nor was it proper procedure or decorum to revisit the issue on day one while, you know, before Jerry's selection. And he had to remind her, and Lena Haba, let me explain something to you. An order is the end of the conversation, not the beginning of the conversation.

We don't continue to dialogue over it. Because they got a taste. I said this in a hot take. They got a taste, her and Medio, and the other for Trump in the Angkoran trial for the New York Attorney General And they got a taste for trying to abuse and being disruptive and not following the rules not mining their peas and queues Just not being appropriate practitioners or advocates in a courtroom and because it was as you said it was more tolerated by Ingoron because it wasn't a jury president.

And frankly, it wasn't federal court. They got used to it. And they got the taste for it. Well, I'm sorry, but that's, there's a huge difference. And I've gone up against, I've been in both courts. I've, I, I pride myself on being able to adapt to whatever environment I'm in, arbitration panel, appellate panel, state court or federal court, you know, criminal or civil,

but all I all lawyers don't, and they only have one gear, you know, and they grind that gear if they're in the wrong court and what we're watching is Alina Hava just grinding her gear. I'm not sure she's that skilled in state court, but the federal court stuff is just amazing. I commented on, I was taking some notes about

things that she did with Judge Capone yesterday, let alone today. I commented on, I was taking some notes about things that she did with Judge Cap on yesterday, let alone today. She called him, sir, I'll tell you in 32 years of my career, I've never called a judge, sir. No, you call him Judge or your honor. Yeah, I never call him Judge, your honor. I mean, it's your honor, you know, and for very good reason. So that started off, that just shows you somebody's not experienced. Then she didn't as used that she didn't get up. You got to get up. You get up for the jury and you get up for the judge when you address the judge. You don't do it from the table unless you've asked permission for that, which of course nobody did there. Then they started raising the issues that had already been, already

been decided and or have been waived, which is that Shane Crowley Crowley the lead one of the lead lawyers for Robbie Kaplan that's representing Eugene Carol who did the opening here and by the way did the opening in the first first trial back in April and May used to clerk Was a federal law clerk for for Lewis Kaplan and apparently he co-efficient at her wedding if you had an issue of that about that Which was public back then. He disclosed it. They disclosed it. Right. And they disclosed it. Then that is your opportunity to move to disqualify or ask the judge to recuse himself. Maybe Trump just figured it all out. But if Habba and Medio just figured it all out, that's another example, another badge of

malpractice for those two. I'm not saying that there were grounds to disqualify the judge, but you at least at that moment had a good argument that maybe the judge could not be impartial. At least you could make the record for it, but you can't wait after the first trial is over and the same person is doing the same thing and opening and go, Oh, Jack, you presided over her wedding, right? You knew that four years ago, just like you knew the Trump was president And you didn't assert presidential immunity So you got that going on and then you got Donald Trump who's decided from day one to act out while he's there

They obviously have gotten their notes together and the notes are we are gonna continue to put our hand on the stove until we get burnt And they're gonna get burnt quickly with a federal judge. So, for instance, jury selection, where you're supposed to, you know, listen, quiet your mind and quiet your body and don't do anything to disrupt the process, especially if you're the defendant in a rape, effectively a rape punitive damage case. And they asked the punitive jury,

anybody here think that Donald Trump is being unfairly accused or prosecuted or in lawsuits and a couple of them raised their hand in Donald Trump like a six-year-old put his hand up. Look me, I think so in front of the jury. And the judge says, yeah, well, we know where you stand. All right, next. Like, don't do that.

Don't. And all you're going to do, I want to talk about the jury for a minute, all you're going to do when Alina Hava can't figure out how to get a piece of evidence in, when Alina Hava can't figure out how to make an objection, which is literally, we learn that in law school, in moot court board, in evidence 101, I still carry around a dog-eared copy of evidentiary foundations so that I can remember and brush up on things. When the judge turns to you and says Objection and give it to me in one word meaning don't give me a speaking argumentative objection in front of this jury

And of course you can't do it because she doesn't know her objections You know she said she said earlier today Oh When the question was being asked on direct of E. Jean Carol something that sort of touched on a legal issue But not really. So an objection. And so what is it in one word? And the one word, well, it would have been a little bit longer. It would have been a calls for a legal conclusion.

But she couldn't even get that out. And he said, sit down, denied. So she's not winning. And all that does to the jury is indicate that you are a amateur, that you are insulting their intelligence. And if she thinks she's scoring points, the jury's gonna fit. I've never seen a jury feel sorry for a lawyer

who's drowning at the hands of a judge who's making her follow the rules ever. And so you have that. And then you got Donald Trump, who I'll turn it over to you, who was huffing and puffing so loud about disdain for E. Jean Carroll's testimony, another heroin giving authentic testimony where she's in tears, talking about not only the event that happened to her in the dressing room,

but having her entire authenticity of what happened to her, denied in front of millions of people by Donald Trump and then having her be attacked on social media. And he's just saying, he's not even doing a stage whisper. He's not even so to vote, Jay. He's like, oh no, it's got a good memory now. It's totally wrong. That's a lie. It was so loud.

Shane Crowley called it out as a lawyer for E. Jean Carroll at a break when the jury went to lunch and said, judge, you got to talk to Trump because he's talking so loud that not only we can hear him over at the plaintiff's table, but certainly the jury would be influenced by that. And then take it from there about the judge and Trump going head to head, lock and horns today. And you know who wins the locked horns of a judge and a defendant, the judge. Always, yeah. Look, I mean, he was saying things like this is a con job, even after a judge Kaplan told him to keep his voice down and he and Judge Kaplan, though, what he said, what,

what I thought was brilliant was he said, look, you can be excluded and forfeit your right to be at this trial if you are disruptive. He said, I don I hope I don't have to consider excluding you from the trial. I understand you're very eager for me to do that because you just can't control yourself. And Trump obviously called him a nasty guy after he told Hava to sit down because she had said, I don't like being spoken to like that. And so he keeps saying all these things about the judge about E. Jean Carroll about the process and he just can't control himself and it's pissing the judge off. I just want to tell a little story because it reminded me of, and I've told this story before, but it reminded me of this when the judge said that he could be before, he could be excluded and

forfeit his right if he's disruptive. And for people who wonder, can you do that? Doesn't a defendant have a right to be there? Absolutely can a judge do that. They can do it in civil cases. They can do it in criminal cases where there's even more at stake. Where it's not just money, it's about your liberty. A defendant doesn't have a right to be present and disrupt the trial, disrupt the jury. I mean, you get warned, but you can be taken out.

And the story I want to tell, and I've told it before, is my, it's my Jack Smith story, right? How Jack Smith and I started in the office together in the early 90s. I think I started a couple of years before he did, but we were very young prosecutors together. And in the mid-90s, I was pregnant with twins, and it became a little high risk. And so I couldn't try a case that I needed to try. It was a really serious case where this defendant

who had a record in, I think, eight different states, a felony record all over the country, he was just a walking crime spree. He stole, he card-jacked a delivery cab driver in New York and then went on a high-speed chase throughout all of New York City, ending in a head-on collision with police officers, causing injuries. And he was just disruptive in court. He injured a police officer in the courtroom and he just, very disruptive.

And he was so disruptive that he fired his lawyer and wanted to go pro-se. So you had this really just violent predicate criminal who was in court and just constantly being disruptive and he was speaking, right? Because he was the lawyer, he went pro-se and you're allowed to do that, right? So he got to speak and be disruptive and also claim he was the lawyer. Well, he kept having to be... So, anyway, I'm pregnant. I couldn't try the case, but it had to go to trial. And young Jack Smith steps up and was such a good guy and such a nice person that even though he was busy and had his own caseload,

he said, you know, I'll do it for you. And he took the case. And it wasn't the high profile case, there's nothing, no big fanfare. It was a pain in the butt case because the defendant was so difficult. And there's Jack Smith who just wanted to be helpful and be nice. And anyway, the reason the story reminds me of that story is because the defendant Carl Davis, which his name just went crazy in the courtroom and refused to listen to the judge, refused to control himself. And so the judge excluded him. That means there's no defendant, but no lawyer either. There's nobody cross examining any of the witnesses. So Jack Smith just put on his whole case, no cross-examination, and that was upheld on appeal

because the defendant was so disruptive. So anyway, I just had to tell that story. No, Trump is on his way to being tried in upstension. We predicted it before on various hot takes in an legal AF that it was Donald Trump's goal to get excluded and then make it into it, make himself into a martyr again, that he got excluded. He's acting out in social media,

walking into the courtroom. It gets brought back into the courtroom in a biofeedback loop by the lawyers, free gene Carol who then show e gene Carol things that just happened as they're coming in. Haba can't figure out how to bring new evidence in that's not marked. And so she gets jazz ties and Trump the the kind of left out the the the locked horns with the judge, he said, I know you can't control your judge, as I know you can't control yourself and your itching for me to paraphrase it.

You're itching for me to bar you from the courtroom and Trump said, you can't control yourself either. I mean, it's just, it's literally like watching a six year old who's on trial, you know, in this case for, for, unfortunately, that six-year-old raped and defamed a woman, but other than that, his behavior is just so ridiculous. And then we got a big moment today on the Midas Touch Network, the bad segue. Sorry. Is that, came up across examination for Alina Habib. Here's where all creditor for being a very skilled examiner. She decided to bring up to E. Jean Carroll about President Trump and whether he,

they're trying to make the argument that she's not really damaged, that she's gotten celebrities, this is disgusting. She's gotten celebrity out of the fact that she got, I don't know, Phil, Phil final, let me finalize the sentence. She got raped in a dressing room by a by Donald Trump. I mean, I don't get it. But that she's, you know, to try to reclaim her dignity as a victim and as a, yeah, she's going on various shows, CNN and, but she's going on Midas Touch on a podcast or two and and Lena, but we always thought that they were obsessed on the other side with the Midas Touch Network and she says, let's talk about the podcasts. This is a Lena Hava, the Daley, all years, Midas Touch.

And you can hear a little cheer go off in the Midas Touch newsroom at that moment. And I of course my comment to our team on the chain was Goddamn it can't at least the Lena Haba continue to list shows and get to legal a F We know she watches the rob mis we talk about what you should have done after she's already done it That's why she's annoyed and I and I also joke that she should be sending I think the southern district of New York and judge Kaplan should be sending a bill to a Lena Haba to try to teacher is like I'm watching moot court practice in law school and Some sort of continuing legal education thing. This is gonna go terrible. Donald Trump may not make it, not because of the funeral, to the end of this trial because of his acting out and his misbehavior and the federal judge who barred ban.

I mean, knows he's gonna, Donald Trump knows he's going to lose this case. Let's just put it out on the table. He knows this Manhattan jury, which is a former transit worker, a former school teacher, a banker, a broker, a person who's originally from Spain. This is a doctor, this is like a college educated cross-section of Manhattan and Westchester. They are going to stroke a check for E.J. and Carol for $10 million or more at the end of this trial,

which could end as early as Friday. And Donald Trump knows it. So he's going to get his money's worth. He's going to push it right to the point of being found and contempt, and then he can go to New Hampshire and talk about how he can't get a, I think we have a new social media post from today just before the show. I can't get a fair trial in New York. They're all after me and this judge is crazy And it's always the same. He you know, he can never be held responsible for his own conduct It's always the systems against them New York's against them the jury the judge the grand jury the special purpose grand jury You know every all my former lawyers me We could go on I could just do a list.

Everybody's against me. I didn't do anything wrong. It just, it just complete total BS. But I did like the fact that it might have touched I mentioned and that's only day two. And at the rate we're going, if she's complete today, she's completed today with her cross examination of Evie Jean Carol, there'll be a redirect of Evie

Jean Carol because he's ending the court at 9.30, sorry, 4.30 every afternoon. today with a cross-examination of EG and Carol, there'll be a redirect of EG and Carol, because he's ending the court at 9.30, sorry, 4.30 every afternoon, then tomorrow, the expert, I'm not sure they have many more witnesses, the expert that they're gonna use for EG and Carol to put on damages, right? But on her damage model in front of the jury,

and then the case turns to Donald Trump, and he's only got, because he doesn't have an expert because Alina Habas screwed that up as well about damages or anything else. And he's left with, he wants to put on Carol Martin, who was a beloved newscaster here in New York on CBS, because she and she's the outcry witness that Alina had, Alina Haba, that E. Jean Carroll spoke to the night of the sexual assault and rape. Yeah, why would he want to call her? Because Carol Martin also made a comment, and she's I mean, I really don't have that. E. Jean Carroll spoke to the night of the sexual assault and rape. Yeah, why would he want to call her?

Because Carol Martin also made a comment, and she's right, that E. Jean Carroll going out in public and talking about these things is not a good thing. And as she's to keep a lower profile, she meant that I've seen the transcript of the deposition. She meant that because she didn't want her to be attacked and abused by Donald Trump and didn't that happen. As they're going to try to spin it, that she was saying that, oh, look at this publicity hound that's eging Carol out to,

you know, make this, you know, her 15 minutes of fame. So Carol Martin will testify maybe, and then Donald Trump will testify maybe, and then this will go to the jury, go to the jury on Friday. But let's talk about what you think the jury's response is going to be to that. We'll move on to our next topic. But first, got a nice set of sponsors for 2024. Here on the Midas Touch Network on Legal AF, and here's one of them coming up right now. This is a court for today's episode, Country From One Skin.

If you're still feeling the stress of the holidays holidays like me, you know it can really take its toll on your skin. But one skin can help your skin bounce back with science back to TLC that refreshes and reverses science of aging from the inside out. Something women my age need to be on top of. Their products are powered by scientifically proven peptide called OS1 that targets fine lines and wrinkles right where they start which is your cells This isn't just another skin care routine. It's real science breakthrough

In fact, OS1 is the first of its kind to actually turn back the clock instead of just masking the signs of aging With their full line of face eye and body and sun and travel size products here. They are I actually love them and people always Say to me. I can't believe you are 57 years old. And it's mostly because of my skin and I take care of it. And this is a really fantastic product. It is, it doesn't just promise healthier skin. They prove it. And I am all in. I love using one skin as part of my nighttime routine before bed. I'm absolutely thrilled with the results. My skin not only looks more refreshed and healthy. It feels soft too, just cleans and apply twice daily. One skin, you can put it on your face, your eyes,

your body, and there's also a shield that can be used with other products to help with sunscreen. So it easily fits into your current skincare routine. And for a limited time, our listeners will get an exclusive 15% off one skin products, using the code legalAF when you check out at 1skin.co. That's not calm, it's .co.

Start 2024 off right and give your skin the scientifically proven love it deserves with one skin. One skin is the world's first skin longevity company by focusing on the cellular aspects of aging. One skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. Get started today with 15% off using code legal AF at 1skin.co. That's 15% off 1skin.co with legal AF as your code. After you purchase the last you where you heard about them, please support our show and tell them we sent you. This is a great time to have healthy, beautiful skin.

Are you self-conscious about your smile due to stains? Are your teeth aging you? Popular food and drinks are known to stain teeth. Beverage is like coffee and wine, 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 per whitening gel to your regular toothpaste.

It's been formulated with polyclean technology to boost stain removal and deliver active whitening ingredients into teeth, screws, 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 whiter, 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. All right, we're back. What do you think that Jerry's gonna do? I think it's just a matter of how much, right?

Obviously, this is a damages claim, and it's a matter of how much punitive damages they're going to award, because don't forget there's two types of damages, right? There's the actual compensatory damages that are suffered as a result of these particular, this particular defamation, right? Because he's already, she's already been ruled

or compensated for the sexual assault in the prior trial and the defamation's in the prior trial. This is a case where the defamation has already been found by a jury, so it's the law of the case. And collateral stop-al, does not allow that issue to be retried. It's just a matter of how much are the damages. And so that's what they're establishing. And the compensatory damages, I think that

is going to be just not very much, because like I said, she's already been, that's already been factored in in the first trial. But the punitive damages, given how much he continues his behavior and he continues to defame her and continues to deny it and what it's doing to her life. And she testified today about what it's doing to her life. She said, I used to be known as a journalist. And now people think I'm a whack job and that I'm a liar.

And this is coming from the White House, from the president of the United States, because don't forget this trial, these comments happened while he was president. And we heard from Ruby Freeman and Sheamus about what it felt like and what happened to their lives when the most powerful person in the country calls, makes accusations about you that are completely frivolous and lies, which is what Donald Trump did against them. And what E. Jean Carroll says and how it's impacted

her life sounds very, very familiar. And I think the fact that he keeps doing it, keeps repeating it shows no remorse. I think the jury will punish him. And I think that the Rudy Giuliani defamation case that Seamus and Ruby Freeman won against him shows that what was that $148 million shows how much punitive damages can actually be. And I think that we are going to see a number that is much higher than the 5 million E. Jean Carroll got in her first trial that involved the sexual assault and the number that the number of the Robbie Kaplan's put out, there's 10 million, but I'm not sure that includes punitives. And then the last comment before we move on to the next topic is injunction, injunctive relief, which is an order that comes out of the court, not the jury, to stop Donald Trump

from continuing to defame her. You think the Kaplan following the jury's completion of their fact-finding, when asked, do you think he will enter a permanent injunction against Donald Trump under penalty of contempt and criminal contempt if he violates it? If he leaves this courtroom after another jury is ruled that he's now been hit with punitive sanctions twice at the maybe the numbers that you're talking about. Do you think the judge enters that kind of order and do you think this is the kind of judge that would find him ultimately in criminal

contempt if he violated it? Well, so yes and maybe. So 100% yes that this judge will do that. Will this judge hold him in criminal contempt if he violates it, meaning put him in jail potentially? That I don't know. No judge has been willing to do that so far. And Donald Trump has really, I think, been treated very differently from anybody else in the justice system. And all judges, every one of them,

federal and state without fail has, I think, shown that they're not willing to hold him to account. I don't know why. I don't know why everybody is so afraid to treat him the way everybody else gets treated, but he is being treated differently. And as a result, I think he takes advantage of them. And he makes not just a mockery of the system, but he really, really just emphasizes the more, because the more they tell him to stop doing something, the more he does it. And then they don't do anything about it. And so it just emboldens and empowers him. And so will Judge Kaplan find him in criminal contempt if he continues to violate it. I sure hope so. I think he would.

I think he's a very, very respected by the book Judge. I don't think he's the kind of judge that would be afraid to do what is required. But knowing Donald Trump, he had somehow skate really close to the line and figure out a way to make it so that he doesn't get put in. But that's what I think. Yeah, I agree with you. I think he'll impose it and we'll have to see what happens next. But let's do a follow-up story about, because Fony Willis has been fault of funny Winis or self as defended herself

That sounded we try that again Fony will says defended herself as only she can eloquently with passion in the at the Martin Luther King junior day at the Big Bethel AME church in Atlanta On Sunday before but Martin Luther King day At the same time that Maga right wing crazies are attacking Martin Luther King Jr. and defaming his name. She took to the pulpit literally and defended her hiring of Nathan Wade that he was well credentialed that she hired three total special prosecutors, two were white, nobody had a problem with them.

One was Nathan Wade. She didn't deny, nor address whether she was having a, a relationship with him outside the office, but commented that at least the two other special prosecutors, she was, she considered them to be close friends as well. And that, let's be frank, she has a sprawling prosecution and indictment 17 or 18 defendants to start 30 40 counts a trial that should go on a year to people think the Fulton County district attorney by themselves without an additional budget Was going to be able to handle that so the fact that she hired just three and maybe total over a million dollars Total is it she should be commended for that.

I mean, Jack Smith, God love him, but he spent $14 million dollars in the last year, some of which was for personal security for his team and him because of Donald Trump. But she's doing it on a shoestring, on a shoestring budget. And what she does inside her outside of the courtroom, she set it the way that, you know, her version or her authentic version is that they're attacking Nathan Wade because he's a black man that they're claiming isn't credentialed. And the white woman lawyer that filed the motion against Fawni Willis and Nathan Wade to have the case to qualified and have hurt, I have the case dismissed and have heard to qualify, said, well, we're just saying

it's credentials. He's not really what is he ever done? And Fonte will is reminded everybody in that church. He's been at this Nathan Wade's been a judge criminal defense lawyer. He's been a turn assistant attorney general. He's been hired as a special counsel throughout the state, including by white Republicans to handle matters for them, well known quantity. And the fact that he's never tried a rico case against a former president should not be held against him.

Nobody has. We've never had a former president like Trump. And therefore, no one's going to have that credential on their resume. I thought it was an eloquent defense. And I want to ask you from a prosecutor's standpoint, when Judge McAfee finally gets around a hearing this issue, if it isn't a show about her relationship with Nathan Wade. And maybe they went away on a cruise together. Who cares? Do you think that's good? That's going to get an indictment that came out of a grand jury off of the back of a special

purpose grand jury dismissed. No, the law, this is an HR problem. It's not a problem for dismissal or anything like that. I mean, this is just so atrocious what's happening to Fanny Willis, in my opinion. And I'm not surprised, though, I've seen this before. Again, when I was working with Sivance. Sivance was elected in 2010. That's right around the time that the progressive prosecutor movement began. I don't know exactly when it began, but that's around the time that it was starting.

You started seeing a lot of the conservative, white male, old guard, traditional law enforcement, people being replaced by women, women of color, men of color, all those savances is not. He's a white male, but he was very much somebody who was one of the leaders of this progressive prosecution movement. And frankly, one of the things we did was we created this thing called the Institute for Innovations and Prosecution and progressive prosecutors from around the country, we all would get together and we would discuss issues and learn from each other and figure out ways we can do things like change the racial disparity issue in the criminal justice system. And the theme at these gatherings was very much how prosecutors who are women of color in particular are treated differently and with a double standard than are treated differently and with a double standard than white male prosecutors who are also progressive.

So, for example, you had side-bands and you also had Larry Krasner and Philadelphia who I think is very much lauded as a progressive prosecutor and other white men. But women, in particular, women of color prosecutors, without fail, have been run out of town. You have former DA, Marilyn Mosby, from Baltimore, who I think is under indictment for something she did while she was prosecutor. But making a mistake, she was run out of town, right? You got DA Kim Gardiner in Missouri, also run out of town.

Soon to be former state attorney Kim Fox in Chicago, same thing. Former state attorney, Aramis Ayala in Florida, et cetera. And you've just got this completely different standard that women of color are and I know Fannie Willis was talking about Nathan Wade and saying how how when will a black man ever be considered qualified for the job you know no matter what his resume is he'll never be qualified enough of course they don't scrutinize the white people as you said she focused that, but what struck me about this whole hatchet job is look what happened at Claudeine Gay at Harvard, right?

Did I like what she said about when she was asked about the Hamas and all that whole thing? No, was it not a good answer? She apologized later. Next thing you know, because she omitted certain quotation marks and didn't cite things properly, she's being accused of plagiarism. She was run out of town by the billionaire, what's his name? Bill Ackman, the billionaire man whose own wife, who's a woman who is a very well-respected MIT academic academic has also been accused of plagiarism. Do you see anything?

And again, it's not, it's like people who just don't cite things perfectly, but she was run out of town. And that's what happens and has been happening. And that's what I think needs to be called out here. Yeah, funny. I mean, I watched the hour that she gave her her speech at the church. And she defended herself in a very, in a very great way. She said, why is my judgment being questioned for hiring the exact same person that a white Republican sheriff hired to do a special investigation? And look, Nathan Wade is not a perfect human being. Who among us is? I mean, is he in a divorce proceeding? Yes. And did he get found and contempt apparently in that divorce proceeding? Because he didn't provide all the financial records he

should have to his ex-wife or soon to be ex-wife. It looks like he did. You know, that does that mean he's not doing a he's not doing a day's work for a day's pay and getting paid for the $650,000 to try this case or to be the lead sort of special prosecutor related to it. No. And I think I want to tamp down any kind of argument that could come up with our audience by other people that therefore this indictment should be dismissed. This indictment is not going to be dismissed by Scott McAfee. It would totally undermine the fact that it's funny, well, it's didn't indict Donald Trump, a special purpose grand jury after seven months of listening to evidence and witness, as including Rudy Giuliani and

Lindsey Graham and everybody else recommended the indictment of Donald Trump along with about 18 others. And then she didn't even do that. She didn't, she, again, she didn't indict because she's not allowed to do it exactly that way. She then convened three or four months later A date in grand jury and the grand jury indicted Donald Trump and the argument that she's keeping the case alive Even though it's in bad faith and she should have used her prosecutorial discretion to drop the suit drop the charges

Is because she's trying to line the pocket of her boyfriend so they can go away on a trip. I mean, it's just, it's so ridiculous and insulting misogynistic and ultimately, I'm sorry, I'll call it out for what it is, racist. I agree with you. I think if she was a white man, we wouldn't be having this dialogue.

But the good news is, none of it's gonna work. I think it'll strengthen her hand ultimately with Scott McAfee, the judge. And I think when he gets around holding the earring and she gets to defend herself, not on the pulpit of the church, but in the courtroom itself, I think the judge is, you know, listen, is he, like you said, is he going to be like really of all the people you had to date, you had to date Nathan Wade, but that's an HR issue. That's not an indictment's veracity validity basis issue to get it dismissed. So if these people like Mike Roman and Donald Trump

and the rest Giuliani jumping on this bandwagon, they go, oh, here's our chance to bury Fonny Wells once and for all, it won't be. It won't be. Your indictment continues. So a couple of things. Number one, the allegations are that they had an illicit affair. Well, first of all, that they had an illicit affair. Well, first of all, this is Vannewell, this is single, and so is Mr. Wade, and number one, number two, they're on the same side. If the prosecutor and a defense attorney were having an affair or a prosecutor and the judge or the defense attorney and the judge, any of those scenarios would be a conflict and could be grounds for some kind of pretty harsh remedy actually, but they're on the same side, right? So there's no conflict there. Number one, number two, he's being paid $250 an hour, at least that's what appears the records are.

That some people are, you know, some people would call that as a lawyer in private practice comes out. They would call that low bono, right? It's not pro bono, but $250 an hour is not a lot of money, and it's what everybody's being paid, and it's for work that he's actually performed. So it makes no sense. I actually don't think there should be a hearing, because I don't know what the scandal is. What are they going to do a hearing about? What is the impropriety that they would have a hearing about?

So I actually disagree that there should be a hearing number one, but one concern I agree with you, the case will not be dismissed. But if for some reason the judge finds an impropriety in some way, what he could do is he could remove either Mr. Wade or even Fanny Willis from the case and appoint a different prosecutor. That would be a shame because Fanny Willis, she's an excellent lawyer and she's an expert in Rico. She knows what she's doing. And again, I'm not really sure what the, you know, if if if raping women, if engaging in persistent fraud, if bragging about grabbing women's private

parts, about trying to steal an election, if all of these things that Donald Trump has done, and that's only a couple of things, if that doesn't disqualify you from being president, how can having a consensual relationship, if it's true, but I'm assuming it's true because she hasn't denied it, how is that an issue, right? I just don't understand what the issue is, and I think the whole thing, people should be offended by it, should be offended that this is even coming up.

This is a personal or personnel matter at its worst. Stop holding her and others to a different standard than we hold everybody else. Agreed. We're going to talk about, we'll continue to follow it. I mean, Scott McAfee will hold a hearing because there's a motion. He's not going to just strike the motion, but I think it'll be, he'll make sure it works of it. Funny will also be fine. He certainly won't fire funny willess and keep Nathan Wade. I mean, they both go where they were neither of them go. And I agree with you, I don't see grounds that either of them were placed or even chastised related to this.

We're going to talk about another loss for Donald Trump at the DC Court of Appeals level. You have to need a scorecard to keep track of them all. This one I have to do with the Twitter account information that was provided by way of a subpoena that was issued to Twitter, or came out of the grand jury to Twitter, about Donald Trump. Donald Trump, not having intervened in that case at all, but Twitter led then, or newly led by Elon Musk, was asserting the first amendment and saying they wanted to be able to warn Donald Trump and let him know that his tweet and his DMs and everything

were going to be turned over to the special counsel. Well, we'll talk about what the on-bunk full bench of the DC Court of Appeals did relation to that. And then we'll end the show today and talk about the New York Attorney General case, the closing argument, whatever you want to call that, the Donald Trump standing up for two minutes and doing his version of Seinfeld's Festivus is airing of grievances and then sitting back down. And then the another loss for Donald Trump this week at the highest level of the New York state system in terms of the gag order and the gag order being a firm.

But we'll do all of that and wrap the show up. But first, another word from one of our great pro-democracy sponsors. Keep your New Year's resolution going with factor. Factors ready to eat meal delivery takes the stress out of meal planning and sets you up for success. Skip the grocery stores, prep work and cooking fatigue instead get chef-crafted, dietician-approved meals delivered right to your door. With over 35 meals to choose from per week, including options like keto, calorie smart, vegan and veggie, and more, forget frantic lunch preps and rushed dinners, factors 2

minute meals are your secret weapon in the new year. Fuel up fast with restaurant quality meals all delivered right to your door. Factor now offers loads of snack options like breakfast smoothies, juices, snacks and more to keep me going no matter what's on the schedule. Skip the overpriced takeout trap. Factor is cheaper and way more delicious than takeout. Their meals are ready to eat and eat in just two minutes, which means more time for you. Need a special occasion meal?

Gourmet Plus is the perfect solution if you're looking for fast, upscale options done easily. When things get hectic, factor is flexible. Change your order up every week with plans from 4 to 18 meals per week, or pause or reschedule your deliveries anytime. Factors know prep, no mess meals, free up time, otherwise spend shopping, cooking, and clean up. No more wasting time in the kitchen. Not only does factor offer fast, simple solutions what I'm too busy to cook, they also

help me stay on top of my goals, with offerings like protein and keto, I can stay on track. This is definitely going to come in handy for my New Year's goals. In addition to ready to eat meals, they have cold-press juices, smoothies, energy bites, extra protein, veggie slides, and more to keep me energized during frantic times. Head to factormeals.com slash legala50 and use code legal AF 50 to get 50% off. That's code legal AF 50 at factor meals.com slash legal AF 50 to get 50% off. When I started podcasting, an online store was the furthest thing from my mind. Now I'm selling our legal AF mugs and legal AF t-shirts and it's easy. So easy. All because

I use Shopify. Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell it every stage of your business. From the Launcher Online Shop Stage to the first real-life store stage, all the way to the, did we just hit a million orders stage? Shopify is there to help you grow. Whether you're selling scented soap

or offering outdoor outfits, Shopify helps you sell everywhere, from their all-in-one e-commerce platform to their in-person POS system. Wherever and whatever you're selling, Shopify's got you covered. Shopify helps you turn browsers into buyers with the internet's best converting checkout,

36% better on average compared to other leading commerce platforms. And sell more with less effort thanks to Shopify Magic, your AI-powered All-Store. We use Shopify at store.mitustouch.com and it has completely revolutionized our business. It allows us to easily manage our shop, view analytics, provide the best customer service, and streamline our entire online shopping experience from A to Z. We wouldn't be able to bring you all the products you know and love without Shopify, and we can't speak highly enough about it. Shopify powers 10% of all e-commerce in the US, and Shopify is the global force behind

all birds, rothies, and Brooklyn and millions of other entrepreneurs of every size across 175 countries. Plus Shopify's award-winning help is there to support your success every step of the way. Because businesses that grow grow with Shopify. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at shopify.com slash legal a f all lower case. Go to shopify.com slash legal a f now to grow your business no matter what stage you're in. Shopify.com slash legal a f. All right, we're back. Let's talk about Twitter back when it was called Twitter. So I'll frame it. And then you and I can bounce it around. So Jack Smith, properly, for a defendant, a criminal defendant is known to use social media as a sword and a shield,

as a way to interfere with the democratic process and the peaceful transfer of power. Of course, Jack Smith wanted to get his hands on Donald Trump's tweets, not just all the ones that existed, but maybe ones that were in draft, maybe his direct messages, and be able to have the full library of all Donald Trump's social media for the time period that matters in the indictment. Where, what's a better place to go for that than to have the grand jury issue with Sabrina to Twitter. Now, the judge also approved, I guess was the magistrate judge,

also approved a order directed at Twitter in requiring them not to inform the account holder, i.e. Donald Trump, about that, to turn over those documents for obvious reasons. And there are a series of reasons why you do that, including the possibility of destruction and other things that go to spoliation of evidence and that type of thing.

And Twitter didn't like that, because they wanted to bend over backwards and help Donald Trump. And so they wanted to be able to, first they didn't comply with the, with the, with the subpoena and wouldn't turn over the documents requiring a motion to compel and an award of a of a of a turties fees and a sanction by judge barrel how who then was chief judge of the of the DC court system and presided over all things grand jury, the secret grand jury process. And so she had a full-event entry hearing. We covered it here on the Midas Dutch Network and on legal AF.

And she heard for the lawyers for Donald Trump. I mean, for Twitter, why do you think you shouldn't be sanctioned? You didn't comply. You didn't turn over the documents. You're late. And what about this other part about the First Amendment? And you want to be able to tell Donald Trump

against my orders that he not be told. We hear argument on that. Oh, it was done. She sanctioned them. I don't know, three or four hundred thousand dollars. They didn't like it. They took it up to the ninth circuit and they, I'm sorry, the DC Court of Appeals, sorry, which is the appellate court for this. And the three judge panel said, yeah, no, you lose. The judge was right. Barrel Howell has you off it is, and the sanctions were appropriate, and no, you didn't have any right to let Donald Trump know about it. And so they didn't like that. And so they took an on-bunk. They asked for on-bunk review of the order. In order to get on-bunk, you got to get at least the majority of the judges that sit, I think there's 12

and the DC Court of Appeals to agree that it's an interesting issue that should be decided by all 12 of them and not just the three judge panel that normally makes precedent in any particular court of appeals. So they got there whatever it was, seven people thought it was interesting. And so they held an on Bunk so you go in there, just rows and rows of judges, and you briefed to them and you argue to them. And majority wins. So you just got a win by one in that.

It doesn't matter. And there was, why don't you take it from there. I think you did a, you maybe even a hot take on it. It didn't go over those that were on the other side on the Donald Trump side. And they were on the side of the Jack Smith Donald Trump side, and those that were on the side of the Jack Smith and what happened in the Unbunked decision. This is a really interesting one because this really fell down partisan lines, right?

The four conservative judges, three of them are Trump appointees voted and and and made an issue to statement, if you will, or almost like a dissent, you know, with this opinion. Because the opinion itself was was very, very short. I think it just denied or petition denied, you know, something very, very short. That's it. The majority, the ruling, the decision. But Judge Naomi Rao issued a statement. It was joined by Judge Henderson, who was the judge, who was, who listened to the presidential immunity claim, was on that three-judge panel about a week ago.

Judge Katzis and Judge Walker, all Trump or Bush appointees. And what they basically said in this kind of a long statement, I think it was maybe a dozen pages longer. So that basically they didn't like the fact that there was this non-disclosure order, right? Where Jack Smith could have gone to the National Archives and asked them for the president's phone or the tweets, I should say, the drafts, etc. because that was all turned over to the National Archives according to the Presidential

Records Act. And what Jack Smith decided not to do that and instead to go straight to Twitter to get this information, because the National Archives under the Presidential Records Act then would trigger a notification to Trump who would then be able to determine whether or not he wants to assert any privileges, etc. So a, not only would it slow things down, b, it would make it so that he'd be notified. And just so people understand how prosecutors work, it is absolutely standard course when you have an investigation pending that you don't want the target of the investigation necessarily to be notified about it because they could destroy evidence, hide evidence, change evidence,

etc. And so you want that information to just come to you. And so it is absolutely something that all prosecutors have done if you were subpoenaing, especially social media information. You don't want them to know that there is an investigation necessarily. And for that reason. And so Jack Smith went to the court and asked them for this non-disclosure for that reason and he's very open about that. But this dissent, if you will, they didn't like that. And they basically said it deprived Trump the opportunity to intervene if he wanted to. But the thing is what I didn't like about it and what I thought was

sort of strange and why I very much disagree with this conservative descent is because there could be any number of privileges in that you could assert based on information that you get from anywhere, whether it's an email, whether you get a search warrant for email, or whether you get Facebook, or Twitter, or any of the places that social media that you could get. And prosecutors' offices, especially Jackson, they're gonna get stuff that might have

marital privilege information, or, you know, who knows, maybe he was communicating with Melania, or it could have a attorney client privilege, maybe he was communicating with one of his lawyers. So executive privilege isn't the only privilege that could be in any of these communications and any sophisticated prosecutor, Jack Smith, is one of them, we'll have what's called a Taint Team. And so what they will do is they will give the information to this Taint Team. It was a completely separate team from

the prosecution team and there will be a wall, an absolute wall and no communication. And if there's any communication that is found to be privileged, it gets walled off and the prosecutor will never see it. And so I just didn't understand why the Twitter communications, why executive privilege was somehow would make it so that prosecutors have to do things totally different than they do all across the country in every criminal case where you want information, subpoena that could have privileged information, but they were very, very much saying that this is very different here and that they should have gone the route of the national archives and done it that way, because that's what they said was Congress was very clear and very careful

in providing a procedure for obtaining presidential records and that that should have been followed, but this isn't just obtaining presidential records for historical purposes or because necessarily you want, who knows why people go back and why a president would want a prior president's presidential records. That's what the National Archives and the Presidential Records Act is about, right? It's not about when there's probable cause that a crime occurred and that evidence could be destroyed because that's what the judge found, right? That's what you'll find for the non-disclosure. The judge will have to find that there's a reasonable likelihood that the evidence will either be destroyed

or secreted or somehow spolated or whatever the verb for that would be. And so it's very different than just a trip down memory lane or what other reason you would seek to obtain records from the National Archives. So they go on and on in this statement about the independence of the separation of powers and Nixon versus United States versus Nixon

and the citing law that they say has made this case to be a significant departure from historical practice without having to do the things that you need to do in order to justify it. the things that you need to do in order to justify it. What worries me, however, is this forjudge descent just gave a roadmap for the Supreme Court if they want to on how to rule against Jack Smith. Now what happens if this evidence turns out he wasn't allowed to do it this way, I think at worst, the evidence gets suppressed. So we don't know what it, what's in these DMs, these, or whatever, the Twitter communications called, because that's the only thing that would be potentially executive privilege here, because tweets are public, right? So they're

not privileged. They're announced to the world. But I guess things that are communications between Trump and others while he was president would be the only thing that is in there. Yeah, we're on scent tweets. Or unsolved true or uns scent tweets. So the content of that is, I think, what we're concerned about here. And we don't know what it is because we haven't,

Jack Smith hasn't, hasn't said it. But I think at worst they just get suppressed. Yeah, we'll continue to follow it. I'm not that concerned about it. The entire case does not hang on his tweets. They were, they were mentioned in the indictment and passing. But you know, it's another example of Jack Smith doing really amazing work to leave no stone

unturned in locating potentially probative evidence against Donald Trump. And, you know, these are things that have his fingerprints on it because Donald Trump either authorized it or tapped it out himself. And it's a great way to hang the person with their own words in front of a jury. Speaking of trying to hang yourself with your own words, let's move finally to the New York Attorney General of the conclusion of the 400, sorry, the $450 million or so New York civil fraud case.

We had closing arguments that the 11 week trial ended. There was a one month gap where the case went dark on purpose. Well, we went through the holidays and judge and go on, let people collect themselves. And then we talked about last week out the last minute, Chris Kai, some behalf of Donald Trump, dropped the bombshell in an email that they were thinking about having Donald Trump stand up and say something and some sort of closing argument. And the judge went back and forth, we talked about it. And judge said, take it or leave it. If he wants to give his closing, I'm going to have these parameters. And Chris Kies didn't take it. And I said, I don't think we're going to hear a closing argument by Donald Trump. I don't know what happened that day. But when

Chris Kies tried it again and said, because he and Alina Habba, who's doing, who did it just as terribly in doing her closing argument section, she didn't do the whole thing, in front of Judge Angora, as she's doing in federal court, trying to try a case in front of a jury, same person, same lack of skill set. And I guess she was there to attack Leticia James, the New York attorney general

and her choice of coffee cups and whether she took off her shoes to rub her feet at one point, I don't know. The whole thing was so bizarre. I usually when Alina Hava starts to talk, I flatline and somebody has to wake me up because I know I have to do analysis for a show like this. But Chris Keiss was the leader of the closing and then he, well, my client wants to speak and then Judge said, all right, you know, you want to stay up and say a couple of things and he stood up and he did two minutes of attacking the judge and saying, it's unfair. I'm not guilty and nobody was misled and there's no victims and whatever.

Then we became uncontrollable. The judge told me to sit down. I mean, Mr. Keiss, The judge told me to sit down. I mean, Mr. Keiss, controller client, and he sat down, whole thing sort of ended as quickly as it had begun. It's not going, let me give my view, then I'll turn it over to my, my, my esteemed colleague here.

This is not going to change the mind of a judge who sat through a year of trial work in this case. Dozens of hearings had issued a temporary injunction to put a monitor over all of Donald Trump's assets and business operation based on the is finding a persistent fraud, the same judge that found on summary judgment after reading all of the briefings and all of the undisputed facts found fraud already against Donald Trump made his observations about the

credibility of witnesses including expert witnesses sat through 40 witnesses sat through thousands and thousands of or is going to read thousands the thousands of exhibits Donald Trump standing up and saying you know and throwing his food from his high chair at the judge for a couple of minutes is not going to change this judge's mind in favor of Donald Trump. At all. And the judge said, I'm going to get my order out by the end of January. I thought it would come right right in the middle of the of the Eugene Carol, you know, jury selection process. But what did you make? This is our final segment, Karen. What did you make of the closings in Donald Trump and then judge Angkoran? And where do you think and judge Angkoran lands the plane once he's done as the, as the sole trial of fact in the case? Yeah, so you and I discussed, I think it was last week's legal AF, where we were saying you were

saying that because Trump wouldn't agree to these conditions that that's it and Judge and Goren's not going to allow him to speak. And I think I said, I think he will tomorrow. And the reason I said that is similar just to just to bring everything full circle things in state court especially in New York or at least in where where I'm used to practicing Which is in New York City? There's just much more Loose or more forgiving than federal court and it's a bench trial. So what's the harm? Right so I thought he's he'll let him do it because

Give him some leeway and don't give him another argument that he can make on appeal where he is saying it's unfair and no one will let me do anything. So I mean look no good deed goes unpunished because you you give him an inch, you take some aisle and you take advantage of you which is what Donald Trump always does and did but I see no harm there and so I wasn't surprised at that Judge Angora did that even on the heels of having a being swatted at his house that morning at his personal home, which is just outrageous. But, you know, look, similar to the, or consistent with this being less formal, the closing

argument was much more like an appellate argument in that there was a dialogue between the judge and the lawyers on both sides, right? He had conversations where a lawyer would make an argument and the judge Angoram would interrupt and say, yes, but what about this? What about that? Address this.

That doesn't happen normally in summation. Summations, if there was a jury there, I should say normally. If there's a jury there, a judge would do nothing, but call balls and strikes during a summation. And most lawyers try not to interrupt each other's summations. And unless you have a really strong objection, you let them speak. And that's just sort of how it's done. But the judge certainly would not interrupt and say, well, what about this?

What about that? At most, they would admonish you if you venture into an area that's inappropriate. They'll say, don't talk about the law. That's what I'll do. That's my job. Talk about make your arguments about the facts or things like that.

But they're not going to ask questions or give opinions on how they think it's going. But he did that very much, it was a very much a dialogue during this these summations. And one of the things, Judge Angora, said to the prosecutor or to the the attorney, the assistant attorney general, who was giving their summation, was saying, where's the intent for the kids? I just don't see it. And if you remember, there's six or seven charges here, one, charge number one was already found to be Trump and everybody found to have

engaged in persistent fraud in their businesses. But the remaining counts require an intentionality and a materiality. And so it's like, it's like persistent fraud plus, right? And that's where the plus part is where Judge Engoron signaled. He doesn't see it against the kids. And we've been saying all along, and I've been saying a lot in many different episodes, that Judge Engorin is not going to find

all of the charges against all of the defendants. I thought he was going to potentially not find Trump senior, Donald Trump, defendant, former president, Trump, libel for all of them that he's going to hold back on one or two. I think now it's more likely, or in addition to that, he's also not going to find that the kids are libel for certain or for many of the remaining charges. And I think that's how he's going to ultimately rule.

And it's a smart thing for him to do as the judge because Trump's biggest complaint and the thing that he and his lawyers have made the record for is that the judge is biased, the judge isn't listening, the judge is made up his mind already, that he's not keeping an open mind. And as the finder of fact, because he's, there's no jury here, he's important, he has to do that.

And so by not giving the prosecution everything they want, and by saying they didn't meet their burden on either certain charges or certain defendants, he protects his record in that way. And I think the appellate courts will say, look, he clearly was doing that because he clearly was listening and didn't have his mind made up because he found, based on the evidence that came in that certain elements weren't met against certain defendants. So I think it would be a smart thing to do.

I think based on his comments, that's what he will do. And we'll see that soon, I guess. Yeah, I think by the end of, yeah, I agree with you. I think by the end of January, we're going to get the ruling. I think he's going to pick and choose between the counts, but the foundational counts that will lead him to take a lot of money out of Donald Trump's treasury and pocketbook and put Donald Trump out of business for a long, long time. I think it's, we're just counting down the days

that happens and then there's a pallet process. It's a state of pallet process. Does it go up to the feds and nobody has to worry about the United States Supreme Court? But you got one place to follow it here on legal AF and on the Midas Touch Network. We're following the EG in Carol case because Donald Trump's on trial minute by minute with hot takes by the

leaders of legal AF. And then everything else that's happening in Georgia and Mar-a-Lago and at the Supreme Court level and about civil rights and women's rights and voting rights right here. legal AF midweek Wednesdays and Saturdays with Ben, my cellist and me. And if you want to support the show, you're already starting to do it in the best way possible. You're watching it. And you can also listen to us on audio podcast platforms of your choice wherever you get them from. You go back and forth. It helps with the algorithms, helps keep the lights on as we like to say. We got legal AF after

darks, which are segments like we just did there, which we then post on our feed, on our YouTube feed, that you can in bite size manner, you can, if you missed a segment or you missed an entire show, you don't have the ability to list the entire hour, hour and a half, you have a little bite size version, or you can use that to help bring people along for the ride here and have them have them join our audience and our movement. Send them that clip and say, Hey, here's that legal IF I was talking about. Take a look at this eight or 10 minute clip. And that's a great way to support the show.

And then of course, you can leave comments here. Thumbs up or great. We like those live chats like we're doing tonight. Amazing. We're usually top two or top three in the world on a new show like this or any kind of show like this. That's another way to support us. Go back out and do comments in the comments section,

permanent comments related to tonight's show that's helpful too. And then if you wanna fly the flag of Midas Touch and legal AF, we got a merchandise store. You can get t-shirts, coffee mugs, all sorts of things at store.midasTouch.com. But everything else I've talked about, free subscribe to the Midas Touch network, that really helps.

We're so close to 2 million free subscribers. I can't believe I'm saying those words. And things like Alina Habba using us in cross-examination can only help. We'll bring some other people over here. We've got a big tent over here at Legal AF for the Midest touch network, so that helps. You can do that for us and eventually we'll have some other ways that you can get involved and with Legal AF. But we've reached the end of our midweek show.

It's hard to believe we could just stay on the air literally. It's like the Jerry Lewis telephone. We could just stay on the air all day, 24, 7, doing nothing else. Just rotate out. That sounds like a great idea. Just rotate out a people. It sounds like a network, a real network.

We might do that one day and shock the world with it. Karen, last words for you by a esteemed colleague. Last words. It's always hard to pick a topic or pick the topics because so much goes on, right? And we're always going back and forth. What about this? What about that?

I agree with you. We could do this all day, every day. And there's just no shortage of information. I feel bad. There's a motion that Donald Trump submitted in the Mar-a-Lago case that we didn't get to. I'm going to do a hot take on that. We just, I mean, there's just so much that you have to pick and choose because we both. That's where the hot takes have come in handy.

And I think when people used to say, do longer shows, what we interpret that as beating, do more real-time reporting and analysis of things that happened between the shows. We had in Wednesday, you know, that now famous day, there should be a bronze bust statue of you and me out in front of your old law firms offices, where we met and that was the moment. And the midweek was born. And, and that was the moment. And the midweek was born.

And, um, and that was me. What about me? I still love that. I was thinking about this person. What about me? What about me? Is it entirely correct? And we did that because there was just so much

for Ben and me to do on Saturday that had already happened and it started to get stale as we got there. In fact, Ben and I joke around about, I used to do the lineups in the Ben-Datham. And I would be like, because we only did once a week. So I try to cram in. Like, we once did,

this might even be before salty. Is there a time before salty? I'm not even sure. I don't think so. We like 12 and they're bound to be like, oh, what? I think we got to do these 12. There was, you know, this week was something we would do it. It'd be like a two hour show, but we just have these discussions with the producers like Brent did it in the beginning. And then it was salty. He's like, we can't go beyond two hours because the kid upload it. Like that's where we were.

What's our anniversary? When did we start? Four years ago, four years ago March. I don't know. Is when you and I is what? No, not when you and I started. That's when you and Ben started. Yeah, well, when we founded League of Legends.

Yeah, we should figure out when you and I started when the midweek. I don't know, six months later. Something like that. I love to know. Salty, find out when the first episode with Carol was. We'll figure it out. We'll do a happy part.

No watch it though. Oh God, we've changed so much, right? Happy birthday to us. But thanks for hanging on, even for the kippitcing here by the co-hosts. And shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal Aieffers. We'll see you Saturday, and then again, midweek, Wednesday, carrot and me.

Saturday, and then again midweek Wednesday, carrot and me.