Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump has TOTAL HISSY FIT at Trial, Cohen’s Lawyer RESPONDS

Episode Date: October 27, 2023

Michael Cohen’s lawyer, Danya Perry joins Legal AF Host Karen Friedman Agnifilo to give her insight on Cohen’s crushing testimony against Tump and Trump’s threats and intimidation, as well as his temper tantrum in NY State fraud trial.   Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! 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

At Salesforce, we're all about asking more of AI. Questions like, where's the data going? Is it secure? Are you sure? Are you sure you're sure? Get answers you can trust from Salesforce at AskMoreVai.com. Good morning. A lot is going on in Donald Trump's world in court.

And I thought, who better to have on the show than Danya Perry, my colleague who I work with now. She represents Michael Cohen in several matters, but she just spent a couple of days in Judge Arthur and Gauron's courtroom in New York State in the civil fraud case involving Attorney General Latisha James, who's bringing the sweeping, sweeping allegations

against Donald Trump, his kids, and others. So we thought we'd start the day with having Danya here. She's been here before to talk to us. Danya, tell us what you can tell us about everything going on, what it was like to be in the courtroom, etc. what it was like to be in the courtroom, et cetera. Well, the case has been going on for weeks, as you know. I was there only this week to stay in Wednesday for the testimony of my client, Michael Cohen. He was on direct, good chunk of the day on Wednesday, and then the balance of the time he was on the stand,

he was on cross. And there were various breaks during the day for such things as contempt hearing in which Justice Angora and Found, Mr. Trump in contempt for having violent gag order. So were there for that? So we weren't allowed to be, there was also, at the same time,

Mr. Trump had been doing a little witness intimidation on the side against my client. And so I had flagged that for the government lawyers. What did it look like when you say, what did many, it was doing witness intimidation? What was he doing? I mean, he's doing what he typically does. So look, you know, the first time I met Mr. Cohen

was when he was in solitary confinement, having been remanded there for, you know, having the audacity to write a book about Mr. Trump. So the administration didn't want him to do that. So they essentially threw him into prison. That's a whole side story. But that was the first act of retaliation that I encountered with Mr. Cohen.

I represented him again when Mr. Cohen had the audacity to testify as a witness in the grand jury and then in March will be in trial court in the Manhattan District Attorney's criminal case against Mr. Trump. And a week after Mr. Trump was indicted in that case, Mr. Trump filed the $500 million retaliatory lawsuit against Michael in that case, which has since been dismissed.

And so, don't tell, tell, tell, tell, tell us why it was dismissed. I think, I think it's important to hear. Um, so we were pressing for discovery. So Mr. Trump was the plaintiff in that case, but was, you know, at all costs trying to avoid are taking his deposition and he was trying to avoid document production. And so we were in front of the judge a lot with discovery disputes. Finally, the judge, Bryce ordered him to appear for a deposition. And the last time, you know, the judge said, you know, if you don't show up for this deposition, there will be sanctions. And so I prepared, you know, three times, but we were ready to

go. I think it was one or two days beforehand, rather than show up and be deposed. I like to think, you know, by me, I think that that has to have been the real kicker. But no, I think he didn't want to be deposed. And so about two days before his scheduled deposition, he could go voluntarily with through the entire lawsuit. So he self dismissed that suit. Remains to be seen in March, and for which Michael is going to serve as a trial witness. And so, getting back to the theme of witness intimidation, the night before Michael was to testify, he was served with a document,

subpoena by Mr. Trump's lawyers in that district attorney's office case, which, you know, the timing of which and the nature of the documents which were sought, you know, certainly have the whiff of intimidation. And then during his testimony, Mr. Trump was talking giving press conferences about my client and, you know, posting about him. And so it's very much a pattern of conduct here. But on Wednesday, yesterday, what the judge was really concerned about what the topic of the day was,

was really the intumination by Mr. Trump against the judge's own law clerk. It's extraordinary as that sounds to even say, Mr. Trump had been coming after the judges' principal law clerk who sits next to him, who consults with the judge, as is, you know, as happens in every courtroom, in every courthouse in America,

for whatever reason Trump's team and he really took offense with her, they called her a second judge. They called her partisan hack. They called her a lot of names and he posted about her liberally, liberally, you know, probably the only time he used that word for him, but prodigiously. And also spoke about her again after the judge had once fined him or sanctioned him for having violated a gag order about, you know, speaking about the judge's clerks. And so he did it again yesterday. The judge put him on the stand, tested his credibility, found him not credible, and swiftly fined him $10,000. So we were not in that courtroom because as the witness,

you know, you're not there for proceedings that don't involve, you know, the witness or his attorney. So we missed, we missed some, but not all of the fireworks yesterday. There were some others, including when Mr. Trump stormed out of court when he didn't like one of the judges' rulings. Were you there when that happened? Yeah, yeah, he's turned around. So he went, tell us about it. He just didn't what he stood up and walked out. So Michael was testifying and cross, you know, I'll say, I as his attorney, you know, I have many functions, but I'm not allowed to object. That's, you know, the party lawyers are supposed to do that. So I'm just the party lawyers are supposed to do that. So I'm just squarming in my seat because every single question on cross-examination was improper in some way or other, you know, lack authentication, lack foundation, called for hearsay, assumed facts, not in evidence, did not, you know, did not,

again, mostly they just didn't establish foundations or they mistated the prior testimony, or they were so compound in misleading us to be virtually unanswerable, but the witness was required to answer with a yes or no, which was literally impossible in one of these meandering winding questions. And so that's what was happening across examination. And Michael was getting and Michael was getting a little agitated when required to answer with a yes or no to a question that was simply not answerable in that way. And the defense was acting as though they had, this was the whole thing, the whole thing was a show. There was a lot of acting, it was a performance because again, the rules of evidence, the rules of so procedure did not seem to apply and so they would ask a terrible question and they would get a very ambiguous answer to the probably wasn't responsive because the question again was not answerable and they would act as though they had won the case. They would throw up their hands and say, aha, literally, I mean, I'm not exaggerating. Like, I don't think they said gotcha, but they might as well have. So one point, Mr. Trump answered

a very complicated, impossible to follow question in such a way that they thought they had got him. So Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cohen, who was on the stand yet, to trump through up his hands, all of the lawyers over and says, ah, we got it. And so the second he answered the question in that way, one of the lawyers got up Cliff Roberts and said, you're on a we we demand a directed verdict. We've won this case. The whole thing falls apart. This is a sham. I'm, you know, I'm paraphrasing a bit, but not much. He requested a directed verdict in the middle of the case, which isn't something you do. It's like, I was not in a mess at NBC last night with Lisa Rubin. We were joking. It was like

an L Woods moment with a whole courtroom of rocks and the judge dismisses the cake. I mean, it just doesn't it's not real life It's playacting and the judge very swiftly and handily denied that motion but non-motion and Mr. Trump Pounded the table literally. I know it's like a trope, you know that you say about lawyers like pound the table a Jackson You're out of order trope that you say about lawyers, like pound the table. Abjection. You're out of order. Exactly.

And he just stormed out. And his team and all the secret service was required to scramble and chase after him. But he was red in the face, he was furious. He said something rather that couldn't quite capture like this is ridiculous or this is a lie or something. And when I gave a little impromptu, cross-conference about how he just won the case and left. So you remember what the question was that prompted all of this? I will try and tell you, but again, it was, it was an impossible question. So Mr. Cohen had testified on direct as he has since his congressional testimony in 2019,

where he first said, this was the way the Trump organization worked was that Mr. Trump would kind of arbitrarily come up with a number that he wanted the world to think was his his worth, you know, was his his net worth. And so he would pluck that number out of thin air or his own head. And he was like, this year I wanted to be a billion or nine billion dollars. And same and Michael. So we all, um, but he was able to have his minions kind of come up with, with that number and they would, they would pick various asset classes and back into them and say, okay, so Trump, Park Avenue, we're going to say that I'm making numbers up now because that's, yeah, that's how this whole thing works. Why not?

He did. That's how it works there. You make about a billion dollars, you know, for Mar-a-Lago or, you know, 1.5 for seven springs golf course. And so that's what Mr. Cohen and Mr. Weiss at work and others were kind of tasked with doing. They understood that that's what the boss was asking for. He wants 9 billion that's not what he was worth so how do you come up with that you inflate numbers. A lot of this was just kind of understood like it's not like Mr. Trump would say okay go to seven springs and instead of valuing it at 500 million, valuated it 800 million, he didn't have to.

It was understood by his minions that that's what he was saying to do when he said, oh, I'm worth 8 billion, when really the books reflected that he was worth two or whatever. Again, the numbers don't really matter because they're all picked out of the air. And so he testified about that on direct as he has, you know, said consistently, in his cross, Alina Haba,

who did most of the cross examination, pointed to a single line in a very long congressional deposition that Mr. Cohen gave in 2019, where he said, you know, there's a direct question that said like, were you told or were you specifically told to inflate the numbers for the stand, the statements of financial condition, which are just, you know, the synopsis really summary of Mr of Trump's fake net worth. And he answered, no, essentially, there was some hanging up, but no. And that was on cross. And that was their big, gotcha moment. Aha. So he didn't ask you to do that. And, oh, so you lied. It was

either he didn't ask you to do that, or you lied to the Senate or to the congressional committee. But it was always a yes or no question. There's always also a lot of confusion about what they're talking about, whether they're talking about congressional testimony or other statements he made or his courtroom testimony, undirect or across. They just wouldn't point to it. And again, they cherry picked this one line out of a lengthy record because he had given a deposition on one day

in February of 2019. And the next day he testified at length in in a public hearing. And so, so that's what they did. And then there was redirect where we're, we're, we're Mr. Cohen. Oh, wait, I'm maybe getting the sequence out of order. But at some point, you know, he did testify. Uh, and now it was Cliff Roberts who was, who was on cross examination. He, he got him to sound like he was saying that he had not in fact inflated the numbers, which is contrary to the whole body of everything he said. But there was one line in that congressional testimony when taken completely out of context, without other words, on the exact

same page almost looked like that's what he was saying. And so that's when they had this big aha moment, request this fake, you know, directed verdict, the judge, I mean, essentially laughed at them. He said, he's very emphatically said, no, he said, absolutely not. And that's when Mr. Trump, you know, stormed off in a red-faced huff. And then on redirect, of course, you know, the assistant, it was orange. It was an orange face fire. Yes. Um, um, on redirect, the assistant AG, you know, pointed him to the rest of the page. And he explained exactly what he meant, which was, you know, Mr. Trump never turned him and say, look at seven springs and inflate it from 500 million to 800 million.

It's not the way it worked. There was, and he, as he often has in the past, compared it to kind of a mafia family, where you don't say, you know, go, go kill so and so. It's like it'd be great if that guy weren't around anymore. Um, and they, and within the family, they all understand exactly what that means. And that's consistent with everything Michael has ever said.

So there was no aha moment, there was no gotcha moment. There certainly was no basis for directed verdict as Justice and Corrin very easily found. But it was enough to send the defendant into a blind rage and out of the courtroom. And Michael's done. He's not testifying there anymore. He's done. He's off the stand. As I said, mid-testimony, he received a subpoena in the next case, the criminal matter

from the defense lawyers. From the defense lawyers. So we're moving on to that without much time. What are they seeking, can you say? Yeah, I haven't yet, because it came mid trial and we were really kind of on the seat of our pants that I have looked at it, of course, it's outrageous. It's highly quatchable.

And I'm sure there are other, other remedies we could seek. I just haven't even really, you know, spent the time yet. That's what I'll do over the course of the next day or so. Yeah, I'm sure. I mean, just the timing, it's so clear is to intimidate that he would serve him

with that on the eve of testifying in court, right? And Trump didn't have to be there. He chose to be there to intimidate. with that on the eve of testifying in court, right? And Trump didn't have to be there. He chose to be there to intimidate. I think it's to intimidate him. I tried to see no other. Yes, I would agree. And certainly there was a lot of, you know, glowering and Michael's general direction.

And, you know, they caught eyes a few times and there was a lot of you know wild gesticulations and you know and in fact you know that that dramatic turn when he stormed out of the courtroom. Yeah look the timing is always they don't even pretend you know like I said Trump filed his $500osude within a week or so of the Danny indictment. And here, you know, he was indicted, Trump was indicted back in April, I believe, in that case. And so why he waits for the eve of trial

with this lengthy burdensome, totally inappropriate, Sapina that was served directly on Michael, which is also highly unusual. I mean, he also has counsel and the Trump team knows that. I was sitting right there in courtroom. So there's a lot that was improper about it. And so I just have to consider the options, but it will certainly involve at least a motion to quash.

I have one question and I so appreciate you taking the time to tell us all of this, but how did Trump ever try to assert attorney client privilege and say, Michael can't testify? Yeah, he did. I mean, I'm not saying it wouldn't. Yeah. No, it's a good question, especially because that was one of the premises of the $500 million lawsuit he had filed is that Michael is invading

attorney client privilege. But then his own attorneys are asking those very questions of Michael on the witness stand. So I think there's, and it really hasn't been litigated, but there are, you know, some well-known exceptions to attorney-climbed privilege that, you know, of course, but like crime fraud exception.

I'm not really applies, but you'd still raise it and make the judge rule on it, like. Well, there was, there was a ruling, well, let me say before we got involved, there was a ruling, I believe with respect to another attorney, that work on the valuation aspect of the business, which is what all of this was, was not a legal function. It was a business function. If that, really, it was just like magic and plucking rabbits out of hats. And Michael did testify and direct that he was functioning not as a lawyer, but as a

member of the Trump business team as both. So I think that's how that was dealt with. And truly, I actually don't believe there were any real confidences, there were any confidences that were forged. But they make so many other frivolous motions. I just am surprised they missed that one, at least trying, right? Maybe they're hoping for second bite of the apple, in that lawsuit that they brought Against against Michael. I don't I have no idea, but I would argue but they've waved it at this point by asking first Yeah, I agree. So

It's it's hard when you try and get in their heads to To kind of perceive any form of legal strategy going on to kind of perceive any form of legal strategy going on, you're in, you're in crazy town. You just, it's impossible. And I don't mean to be as disrespectful as that sounds. I sat there for two days. And, I mean, there was a lot that went on that was high drama and that was even shocking,

you know, some of the moments we just talked about. But mostly as like just a practitioner, I was just floored by the lack of, first of all, core immiscibility to core, but also just the way that the rules that applied to all lawyers did not seem to apply. Every once in a while, really sporadically, someone would come to their senses, rise to their feet and say, wait a minute, that's hearsay. Really, you just let in 10 other exhibits, exactly like that. That's for the exact same problem.

Yeah, I don't try and get in their heads and understand why they do what they did or didn't do what they haven't done. Wow. That's crazy. You know, it's funny. I had never understood the strategy of a defense attorney who's like on cross examination saying that was a yes or no question, only answer yes or no, because as a prosecutor, what I would do on redirect is I'd stand. If the if the witness is trying to get something out,

I mean, I would just say, yeah, exactly. It'd stand up and say, when you were asked that question and they wouldn't let you finish answering, it seemed like there was something you wanted to say, what was it? And it all comes out anyway. So it's an art. That's exactly what happened here

on that the congressional testimony. So as much as they, you know, like to, you know, turn around and pose, you know, posture, it was all, you know, it was all just for show because that was completely rehabilitated. If you want to even call it that on, on redirects in the first question or two. So I agree, you know, there was a lot of that and there was a lot of, I mean, a lawyer would be kicked out of certainly a federal court, most, most courtrooms for the kind of the the incivility in every single time I go and answer a question, you know, Alina Habbo would say, oh, I thought so or oh, isn't that telling? And there was always some commentary from her, some speech about the testimony. I mean, that just doesn't it doesn't happen for good. You're not you're not allowed to editorial. It wasn't a jury to do that for it.

I think Justice and Goran just kind of was over, you know, I don't think it was affecting him. And so he didn't every once in a while. He'd say, like, OK, all right, let's not do that. But it was every question. And I think she thought she was making some headway and putting Michael on his heels. He was very calm. I think he got what she was doing and just wasn't falling for it. So it was just a waste of a lot of air. Well, it's gotta be, it had to have been really intense.

It was pretty intense. You know, it was kind of fun. It was like the court was full, you know, with different characters, you know, and all these things. There was a nice coderie from the DA's office, the attorney general herself was sitting in the front row and, you know, at one point as kind of a joke, like, objected, because there was something

direct, you know, directed at her, you know, so all of, you know, Trump's criminal attorneys were there, some of who might, I know, and, you know, so it was, it was, it was, it was, it was an interesting gathering, right? There were, and it was also interesting. The first time Mr. Trump has taken the stand. And certainly the first time that there was been a credibility finding about him, this one in adverse one.

That's a great point, because he's been deposed. And deposed like, but this is the first time. Yeah. And so, you know, they're sitting there during Michael Cohen's testimony saying, he's purging himself, he's a liar. No credibility findings against him, but there was against their client. And so it was quite a turn of events. I mean, I think people we need to really punctuate how unusual it is in the middle of a trial, in the middle of testimony, for

a judge to demand that the defendant take the stand, right? And have to be sworn under oath, and then to find them not credible. I mean it was good news. Like you and I have been practicing for a long time. Have you ever seen that? Never. Never seen it. And that's in part because, you know, we rarely see gag orders, right? Because defendants usually act in their own self-interest, their own message, and don't do stupid stuff like that. This is barely a gag order. This is don't threaten my court staff. Yeah, we've never seen that happen.

So we've actually written a member of, you know, the staff, like, just didn't happen, let alone more than once. So he'd been warned. And when he made the statement, the offending statement that got him, you know, the second sanction, he had this little impromptu press conference, right? You know, outside the courtroom. And his lawyers were standing right by his side. And, you know, it's, it's crazy. I think, you know, we've heard a lot of

tests in one of the past couple days about Michael Cohen's role as Trump's personal lawyer, and how he just got, he became such a true believer. So invested with the work and the ethos, if you wanna call it that, of the Trump organization, and Mr. Trump himself, he would do whatever it took. You know, he really was a lackey, a stooly, and there was a mob culture and they would do anything. And it was kind of surreal,

and Lisa Rubin and I talked about this, and she's made the point, but I felt it very acutely. Kind of surreal to see Alina, how about she's the new Michael Cohen, you know? She sat there next to Mr. Trump when he's making a statement that she had to have known violated the judges' gag order and that had to have known, violated the judges'

gag order and that they were going right back into the judges' courtroom and that he would find out, you know, instantaneously about it, and she just let him do it. And so I think, you know, when you have lawyers who cannot control their own client, you have a client who's out of control and who would do things that are really against his own. But then they go on record and they lie on his behalf and say, oh no, he was referring to Michael Cohen. There's no, that just strains credulity and the judge found that. There's no way that that's what he was referring to. I mean, when he's talking about Michael Cohen, he has no problem. I definitely, right. He knows very well how to go after him in a very focused, directed way. And he did it in that very same statement.

He said, you know, Michael Cohen's lying liar. And then he then he turned to the judge and his clerk. So exactly. No ambiguity. Not at all. And his lawyers would lie. One thing to not be able to control your client, but then to go into court and lie on his on his behalf is, you know, that's you're actually, yes, you have to you have a duty to your client, but you also have a duty to the court first and foremost, put forth that lie. I mean, it's just outrageous. Michael Cohen went to prison for it.

And now you have a long line of attorneys who are... What is it about Trump? It's like a cult leader. Seriously. I mean, that's how Michael describes it. He alternately has like a mafia boss, but mostly is a cult leader. You know, that people truly drink the cool it, that he must have this,

I mean, look, you know, there's, it's not just his immediate, you know, group of, of, you know, cronies, it's a good chunk of, you know, American society, they see something and it's, it's a fascinating, It's just absolutely fascinating. It's hard for those of us who haven't drunk it to see, but it's certainly real. And you've got a long line of hundreds now of January 6th, rioters who are going to prison for it. And you see many, many attorneys who worked for him, who lied for him,

who committed crimes for him, who were now facing the same consequences as Michael Cohen. And let's see, Worlena Hobba finds herself in a couple years. I mean, as some people say, mag as stands for make attorneys get attorneys. So that's apt, very apt. That's what the hat stand for. Yeah. Well, any final words that you can think of anything else we missed, I missed asking you about. How's Michael doing? He's great. You know, he, he, look, I've known him for a long time and known him for a long time and because I've represented him in so many different fora and I've read all of his books, I've read his congressional testimony, I've listened to his podcast, he has been remarkably consistent. He was telling the truth and so that usually makes testimony relatively simple.

And they're hard to remember the lies, right? Yeah, exactly. But when you've been saying the same thing over and over, I mean, he testified on direct exactly the same way he did on Cross. On Cross, they acted like they had, you know, had this fantastic breakthrough. Like they, you know, they got him to admit about his lies, but those are the exact same things. Yeah, he lied to Congress and he played guilty to that.

And he said that under rack. So when they're like, so you admit that you purge yourself. Yes, I just did and I have for four years now. So he was fine. I've never been in the hot seat. I hope never to be. I'm sure it's unpleasant in some ways. And there's been a lot of drama and vitriol directed towards him and his family.

We had a lot of security around us because he's had real threats made against him. So, and on the other side, he's gotten no benefit. He's, you know, he's one of the few people who were prosecuted, who served time. He was not immunized, or given any other benefit for his testimony yesterday. The turning general didn't even prepare him for this.

So they didn't meet with him. They just put him on the seat. I think they didn't want any insinuation from the other side that he's been prepared or rehearsed or have you ever not prepared a witness whenever, not once in a time? It was shocking, Absolutely shocking to me. So I prepared him, but I don't have a lot of documents. He was shown he hadn't seen it since 2013, you know. It

was it was remarkable that I'm sure there was a good strategic reason for them, but it it was very uncomfortable for him and they also didn't I apparently want to object a lot. So there was stuff where questions that implicated various privileges, narrow privilege, I think his own attorney client privilege that might have implicated, you know, his vet, the amendment rights, that were inappropriate questions. And I think they wanted to make a point. And so they largely sat in their seats. And Michael had to, you know, being well prepared. He actually lobbed in most of his own objections.

You know, that's inappropriate. That assumes fact not an evidence. That's been asked and answered. I mean, it was remarkable. Wow. I said it very well. Because, you know, I was wondering why he was doing all of that when I read it, because, you know, witnesses

aren't supposed to do that. But I had no idea that the Attorney General's office was not preparing him and not objecting. It sounds like they wanted to just be kind of like he is who he is, we're not getting in bed with him one way or the other, just like we're calling defendants and other witnesses, we're just putting it all out there, judge for you to see, but still, that's kind of, you know, it was very uncomfortable that I, you know, I could

neither object for him nor count on anyone to object on his behalf. So that so I, you know, admittedly prepped him to object. And he did a great job. Good for him. One other question though, you mentioned taking the fifth. I mean, he testified under oath the last couple days about the asset valuation issue. And there's still an open criminal investigation at the Manhattan DA's office on that. Did he take the fifth on any of that? Or was he concerned about that? Were you concerned as his lawyer?

I was concerned about that. So he just brought me in. He did not have a criminal defense attorney on his team. He really was largely unrepresented. If he had a friend who was with him for his deposition, but who's not his area. And so he already kind of was in the soup. And this I think goes to he is being truthful because he put himself in real harm's way. I mean, so already in the deposition,

you know, he, before I came in, he had said what he'd said, right? And so I got in and I felt my job was to just to try and protect him as much as I could. I think he took a chance. I think it's highly unlikely he'll be prosecuted among other reasons because of the passing of time, the statute of limitations has expired largely, but certainly taking a chance.

And, you know, I think that's, you know, too as credit, that was not brought out for reasons I don't understand. But I think it really punctuates, you risk from a security perspective and from a prosecution perspective. I mean, who knows if there's a new, if Trump wins reelection, will he, I think Michael Cohen could really be in harm's way. I truly worry about that, but I think he'll open up a DOJ prosecute him for these crimes, just a vindictive prosecution.

I don't even want to let my mind go there. I think Trump has forecast that some of his enemies are gonna be scrutinized. So I'm deeply concerned about that in general. Someone who is actually willing to say that out loud, that's just a horrifying, terrifying thought in a functioning democracy and to go after one's perceived enemies. But it has happened to Michael before. So I would be concerned about that.

But Michael was willing to testify. He was a peanut, right? He didn't take the spit but he could have invoked. And he didn't. Wow, that's incredible. Well, thank you, Daniel. We're so, so lucky to have you give us this insider view of all of of all things, but in particular, this attorney general case and Michael Cohen, thanks so much for joining us. I'm Karen Friedman Agnifalo, legal AF. Join us every Wednesday and Saturday with my co-host Michael Popak and Ben Myceles.