Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump INDICTMENT and What Happens Next

Episode Date: April 2, 2023

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, and joined for today’s episode by co-anchor and top former Manhattan prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo, the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this week’s edition, the anchors discuss: the Trump Indictment on possibly 34 felony counts arising out of his paying off women to prevent them from going public with allegations that he had sex with them while married, and Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis ruling against Fox News, Fox Corp and its owners, executives and on air personalities, finding that all Dominion Voting Systems has to prove at trial to win this month is that Fox lied about Dominion with “actual malice” and prove damages, and so much more.  DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! Better Help: Get convenient and affordable therapy with BetterHelp anytime, anywhere. Get started today and enjoy 10% off your first month at https://betterhelp.com/LegalAF LOMI: Head to https://lomi.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media 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 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The day has arrived. Donald Trump has been criminally indicted. A Manhattan Grand jury voted to criminally indict Donald Trump this week. How did it go down? What has the response been? And what happens next? We will break it down here on legal a f also on Friday a major ruling was handed down in dominions billion dollar defamation lawsuit against Fox which is set to go to trial in the next few weeks a devastating order for Fox a great ruling for truth we will break that down here as well. Welcome to legal AF. No time for a long introduction because we've got a lot to discuss about this historic week. I'm joined by my co-host Karen Friedman Agnifolo and Michael Poe-Pock. Welcome both.

I've been Poe-Pq first, how are you doing? I'm doing great. Today was the day I got to wear my 3D glasses. We got so much to cover and so many layers to cover here. Just, I want to just throw it out here this way. We're going to talk about how Alvin Bragg, not only figured out how to split the atom, but also how to conduct cold fusion.

I'll explain later. We've got a judge in Delaware who's completely stripped, Fox and Fox Corporation and Fox News of basically all of their defenses and have only left the basically two issues left for a jury to decide all against Fox. We'll talk about that in the second segment.

We're excited to break that down. But first, let's talk about what happened in Manhattan this week. Karen Friedman, Agnifalo, you worked at that Manhattan District Attorney's office for basically 30 years. You rose to the position of basically the number two at the entire office there. And there are many times where you actually served as the acting Manhattan district attorney. So it'd be fair to say that you know that office better than essentially anybody on this planet. So I wanna get your take.

First, can you break down what happened this week? What does it mean and what happens next? Sure, so just to be accurate because you know accuracy matters, I did leave in the middle of my time there for three years to work for the mayor of New York City, Mike Bloomberg. So it wasn't exactly 30 years. So I just wanted to just to clear that up. So, but what what happened was, So, but what happened was the Manhattan D.A.'s office, we are told, and we saw an order now, indicted Donald Trump for his first election interference case, the Stormy Daniels Hush Money Payment case.

And the reason we know about it is because he applied to Judge Juan Mershon, who's the judge in this case, for a limited, Alba Bragg applied for a limited unceiling order, because normally an indictment in a case like this, because it is an indictment that's happened before and arrest, that indictment is sealed. And so because it is sealed, normally we wouldn't know about it, but sometimes in a case that has extreme amount of interest and public interest and one where we know the defendant already knows about it as Donald Trump does because we would have to tell him to surrender

sometimes the DA's office would apply for what's called a limited unsealing order just to be able to say that there has been an indictment. And that's exactly what they did here. And the case, we don't know a lot about it yet, we don't know what the charges are exactly, we don't know what the evidence and the proof is exactly. And that's because the grand jury process is a secret proceeding by law. And so, but we can glean a few things and guess a few things based on what we believe is going on.

And so, what we think is, and what we've heard, it's been reported, is that there's 34 accounts in the indictment, again, we don't know. But I expect that you will see several charges related to each payment that was made from Donald Trump to Michael Cohen to reimburse him for the Hush Money Payment as well as pay him for his services. So what the facts of the case are, just very briefly, right before the election, Stormy Daniels came forward and wanted to sell her story

that she had a very brief, like, 90-second affair or relationship with Donald Trump. And he was becoming president, or I should say, running for president. And Donald Trump was in a conspiracy with David Pecker, who was the owner of, or the, yeah, the owner of the National Enquirer. And they conspired together to catch and kill stories

so that they wouldn't come out and influence the election. And he used his fixer at the time, Michael Cohen, to do this. So they did it with two different people, Karen McDougall and Stormy Daniels, around the time of the election. And so what we would, and the way it was done was was Pecker didn't want to actually pay the money I think he realized that it would be illegal and so he said to Michael Cohen You do it and you arrange it and Michael Cohen had to take out a home equity loan and and paid the $130,000 to stormy Daniels and Donald Trump then had to pay him back.

And the way he did it was he structured the payments over time, I think it was 11 different payments, and he paid him back plus a fee for helping him commit a crime. And each one of those payments would have a check that was written, an invoice that was sent by Michael Cohen, a fake invoice saying that it was for legal services when it wasn't, and a business record entry where it was written

that it was for a legal retainer in the Trump organization records. And so I think it's possible, although I don't know, because I haven't seen it, it's possible you could see a different charge, a different falsifying a business record charge, one set of penal law 175.10, which is a felony. You could see a charge for each of those three things related to each payment. That would get you to 33 and then what's the other charge? I think it's possible there will be a conspiracy charge. And the reason I think it's possible there will be a conspiracy charge is otherwise there was no conspiracy charge and there was just falsifying business record charge.

All you would see on the indictment is honor about X-Day, the defendant in the county and state of New York, committed falsifying business record in the first degree by writing check number one, two, three, four, five. I mean, that's literally what an indictment says. And maybe has one other, you know, said by writing check one, two, three, four, five, and indicating that it was for a legal payment

when it was not or something. It's like very brief what an indictment language is. Unless you charge a conspiracy, and if you charge conspiracy, it's all about the agreement between the criminal agreement between two or more people. It talks about what the purpose of the agreement was, what they wanted to accomplish,

and then you have to prove overt acts in the conspiracy, and the overt acts are actions that you take in order to complete the conspiracy. So for example, if Popo and I said we were going to rob a bank together and we were talking about it and we both agreed, okay, we're going to rob a bank together and we were talking about it and we both agreed. Okay, we're going to rob a bank together, but we don't do anything about it. Then it's not a crime. It's not a conspiracy. Eric, Eric, don't reveal our pre-show the sessions. So, but it's literally, it's not a crime because all we did was just talk about it and agree. Unless we commit some over act to do it, then it doesn't count yet. So you have to do something like we say Ben, Ben, can we borrow your car and will you be

the getaway driver for us when we rob that bank? And if Ben says yes and drives the car over, that's an over-dacked. That's something that was done even if you don't ever go and rob the bank. It doesn't matter. We conspired to go do it and we took a step forward doing it. So you have to have an over-dacked. And what I bet they will do if they do charge conspiracy is they will have many over tax and it'll include all of the various discussions that were had between people about catching and killing stories about influencing the election. About, for example, an overdact could be the tape that Michael Cohen had with

Donald Trump regarding the Karen McDougal payment, which was a different hush money payment about a 10-month affair that they had before he even met Melania. And so if I were them, I would want that evidence in the in in my case. I apologize for the noise, but my dog had surgery and he has to be with a cone around his neck and on a leash. And so he's not happy about it, and he's moving around. There he is, you all know Boogie,

he has been on this podcast before. So he is not happy. So that's what that noise is, and I apologize. Anyway, so the, so if I were the prosecutor in this case, I would want the evidence of Karen McDougall in this particular case because the defense saying, oh, this was just about, I didn't want to embarrass Melania, this had nothing to do with the election, the reason that has a

little bit of legs, it's not going to prevail, but the reason why it's going to have some legs and be a little bit of a defense is because he was having, he was cheating on Melania, she'd just given birth to their son, Baron, I think a couple of months earlier, and he's out cheating on her with a porn star. And so he can make an argument that see this was just about saving Melania, although I'm not really sure Melania would check out the books and records of the Trump organization, but that's his defense. Karen McDougal, you can't really make that same argument. That was an affair that happened in I think 2006 before he even was married to Melania, so he wasn't cheating on her. So

why was he paying her off, right? It wasn't to save Melania. It's because he wanted to throw the election. And so I would want that evidence in there. I think it's important. And that comes in in a conspiracy, but it might not come in otherwise, because it's an, it could be an uncharged act, unless it's charged,

unless the, for all we know in this indictment, they also charged those crimes as well. We just don't know, but this is what we expect to see. You know, and of course this week led off with that testimony of David Pecker, right, the former CEO of the National Inquirer. And when you think about that payment made by the national inquirer to Karen McDougal, this other individual Donald Trump had a sexual encounter with leading up to the 2016 election, a payment of $150,000 made, right? That's not disclosed as a campaign contribution. Why else were they paying the money to help Donald Trump? Because they thought if we get this guy elected,

that's gonna be good for our company. That's a good look for the national acquirer. That's good for our business. And then to your point Karen, at some point, someone probably said to them, you know what, that was problematic. You just likely violated campaign finance laws. And so when they were going to do it again with Stormy Daniels, they just said, we can't do it. Cohen, you got to do

it with Trump and figure it out on your own this time. And then they did it with Stormy Daniels again, you know, furthering that overall conspiracy. And so Michael Popack, I wanna turn it to you. What was your immediate reaction to this indictment, as well as what are we learning? We know about the judge that's now been assigned to this case. We know Donald Trump's reaction to that. We've seen the reaction of Trump's followers. It's sadly predictable.

What have you made of all of that? Let me start with the comment about why, this is my split the atom and cold fusion. Let me explain. It looks like Alvin Bragg and his team of prosecutors figured out how to split the atom. And what I mean by that is they figured out if we're right about the 34 counts

and we're right that it goes to the broader catch and kill program designed by David Pecker of the National Fire to benefit Donald Trump who was in on that conspiracy in which David Pecker met with Michael Cohen, likely Kelly and Conway, maybe hope Hicks, but definitely Kelly and Conway to devise the scheme and then use Susan McDougall. We keep calling it the Stormy Daniels investigation, a shorthand. This may be on Tuesday when the indictment is revealed. This may be the catch and kill, which solves a multitude of problems. One, it creates that conspiracy that Karen just eloquently outlined with Donald Trump at the center with David Pecker as a co-conspirator unindicted because he was given immunity to testify here and in the federal case. But so an unindicted

co-conspirator number one, David Pecker unindicted co-conspirator number one, David Pecker, unindicted co-conspirator number two, Michael Cohen, unindicted co-conspirator number three, Kellyanne Conway, and then indicted co-conspirator, Donald Trump. The reporting is, and this is from your fellow podcast, the host, Ben, is that the reason that Michael, that David Pecker paid Susan McDougal directly the $150,000. This is his testimony. And the reason he didn't pay the second time for Stormy Daniels is because, according to Michael Cohen's memoir, Donald Trump stiffed David Pecker and didn't pay him. And therefore, he didn't want to make the second payment. And it went through, I keep,

I said Susan McDougal, I'm sorry, thanks guys, catch you. It's Karen. Every time I said Susan, McDougal just put in Karen McDougal. But the reason it was because Donald Trump, this should come as no surprise, stiff David Pecker. Pecker said, screw you, I'm not making the second payment. You do it. That's how Michael Cohen got in. If Michael Cohen's testimony is what he said in his memoir is what he said in the grand jury, that's what he told the grand jury.

You have that's the rationale. That's the split the atom. That solves a Michael Cohen problem also because Michael Cohen was not involved with the Karen McDougal payment. That just shows the catch and kill program. He was involved with the second level payment, this the new payment that was made to Stormy Daniels, several, all those that said, don't put all your eggs in Michael Cohen's basket

because he's got credibility problems. This split the atom because he's now making it Alvin Bragg and his team is making it about the broader Catch and kill as to cold fusion. How did he solve that? We're gonna see it when we see the 34 counts. That's a hell of a lot of counts even if you take the 11 or so structured payments that were we think were made

Back to Michael Cohen to repay him for going on his home equity line and then getting additional bonuses and a gross up payment. So we didn't have to get hit with income tax by having that money come into his law firm and have it be seen as income. In other words, Trump paid the taxes so that it wouldn't it wouldn't hurt Michael Cohen. That's maybe half of the 34. The other 30, the other half or so must be related, I would think, this is my prediction to Karen McDougal and the conspiracy claims, maybe the civil rico claims around the co-conspirator and then the second crime, which doesn't have to be charged, just to be clear.

In New York, we say, two wrongs, no make a right, well, two misdemeanors make a felony. So if you got a misdemeanor books and records fraud, and you combine it with a second thing, even if it's a misdemeanor, even if it's statute of limitations barred, even if they couldn't indict and won't indict on it. If it's in furtherance of another crime, then they've got jackpot. They've got their felony, which we're expecting that most, if not all, the 34 counts are going to be felony. So we have, we have that then moving to Trump world for a moment.

And this four day gap between the time that that the, the Manhattan DA wanted Donald Trump to surrender, which was yesterday, Friday, right off the indictment, not Tuesday. That's Donald Trump's Trump playing games and claiming that the Secret Service needed more time to arrange the surrender. That's not true. What he needed was a four day weekend to regroup and recalibrate with his defense team, most of which, according to reporting, thought that there wasn't going to be an indictment and we're off to their spring break. Karen and I talked a lot about the break in the action in the grand jury, which Karen accurately predicted was not didn't mean they weren't going to indict on Thursday.

But so they had a regroup and they had to get Joe Takapina and Joe Takapina's partner Chad Seagull and Susan Neckless, who's really the lead trial lawyer down to Mar-a-Lago to get into a war room. And then next to the war room, of course, is the grifting room where Donald Trump devices with people like Miller, you know, Steven Miller, how to raise $458 million a day. So the reason Donald Trump didn't want to go on in Friday is that it was, you know, 30 or 40 million dollars too soon because he wanted to continue to raise money on the backs of his indictment. You'll see the mug shot that it will be taken, it'll probably be released by Donald Trump in terms of, you know, to in order to raise more money. As to the, um, I want, I want

to turn it to Karen in a minute after I talk about Juan Mershon, who is the law, the judge that's handling this. This was assigned. And we kind of got speculation because we saw that, that judge Mershon was heading in to his chambers into court on Thursday as well. And, and there was already reporting as early as January that even on Fox that if there was an indictment, it would be assigned to Wadmrishan. So it wasn't going to be a random assignment. That's the judge that presided in December over the 17 count conviction led by the same Manhattan DA's office against two major Trump organization entities for tax fraud. That's the Allen Weiselberg issue, having the CFO having testified and then been whisked off

to Reikers Island for what's coming up on his fifth month as to that's Judge Mershan. Trump hates Mershan because he ruled really harshly against Trump lawyers when they were trying to prepare and they wanted to delay, delay, delay. He was having none of it. He pushed Weiselberg very hard, even made comments when the sentence was only five months. He felt his hands were a little bit tied by the prosecutor. He thought this guy deserved more and said it allowed. So this is not a friendly Trump guy.

And Trump's already started to attack him. That's actually an old picture of Judge Moshan Vashan is now almost completely gray. I'm getting there at the rate. Donald Trump is getting indicted. So now that we've kind of given an overview of where we are with what we expect the indictment to look like, let's take advantage of having Karen on the show with us today. And Kara, why don't we move it forward and talk about what happens next? You know, now that we know what's happened, we, as we said on Wednesday show, you know what happened? What happens next? I can't think of anybody better to do that than you. And before we do with that, let's just take a quick break then back to Karen Freeman and

Agniplow on what happens next. This episode is brought to you by our sponsor, BetterHelp. Getting to know yourself can be a lifelong process, especially because we're always growing and changing. The last few years, especially a bit of wild ride, filled with my own personal self-realizations and growth. Therapy is all about deepening yourself awareness and understanding. Because sometimes, we don't know what we want or why we react the way we do until we talk through things.

Better help connects you with a licensed therapist who can take you on that journey of self-discovery from wherever you are. I personally have benefited directly from therapy, allowing me to talk through and work through experiences in my past that were unknowingly having a major impact on the way I go about my day to day. Therapy is an incredibly helpful tool for learning positive coping skills and how to set boundaries. Over time, I've truly learned to become the best version of me. And look, therapy is for everyone, not just people who experience major trauma because what you're working through matters, never discount that. If you're thinking of starting therapy, give better help a try. It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your

schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist and switch therapists any time for no additional charge. Discover your potential with better help. Visit betterhelp.com slash legal AF today to get 10% off your first month. That's better help H E L P dot com slash legal AF. Okay, we are back with legal AF Karen Friedman and Niflo, the million dollar question, the billion dollar question, the question to save our democracy, frankly, is what happens next? Can you walk us through that process? Yeah, so what's happening right now is law enforcement is looking at logistics to see

how they're going to get Donald Trump in and out of the building. They're looking at different routes to get him to the building as well as in the building and they're going to clear most of the other cases in the building for the afternoon because he's surrendering for Arraignment on Tuesday and so What typically happens in these surrenders is you make the arrangement to surrender in the morning and then the Arraignment is in the afternoon because that way you get all the paperwork done and then you go to court.

And so they are apparently the Manhattan D.A.'s office wanted to do it on Friday, but Trump wasn't ready. So he's doing it on Tuesday. If he voluntarily surrenders the way it's been reported, he will. But I still wonder whether he will fake pretend that he was trying to surrender, but his moral log of people weren't allowing him to and Ron DeSantis said he won't extradite him. But let's assume he's going to actually surrender.

So, right now law enforcement is working on logistics to get him into the building. He will go to the Manhattan DA's office. He will be brought in with his secret service detail who will not leave his side the entire time since he is under their guard. He will be brought into a place where he is processed. They will fingerprint him. They may or may not photograph him. Believe it or not, because I can imagine a scenario where law enforcement is considering the whether that's necessary. You know, the whole reason you would photograph someone is in case they flee to another country, you need a photograph of them to, you know, to find them. We obviously know what he looks like. And, and so, and it's hard to, to keep a mug shot, it's hard to keep it, not

leaking out. And can you imagine what Donald Trump would do with that photograph? He probably as as Alan Dershowitz said use it as a campaign slogan. So I wonder whether their law enforcement will actually Will actually do it, but who knows like see so he could also be handcuffed again I that's what normally happens, but I doubt that will happen here because He's under guard with the secret service anyways. So I don't know if all the normal things that normally happen will happen. The one thing I can guarantee they will do is fingerprint him. And those fingerprints will be then uploaded into a database that then generates a rap sheet and a New York State ID number or a nice hit number.

Just like every person who's sitting in Rikers Island, including Alan Weisselberg has. Anybody who's ever been arrested has a nice number and a rap sheet and Donald Trump will have one of those. Then he will be brought to court where he will be, where we will that morning, the DA's office will go and ask for an unceiling order to unceil the entire indictment. And we will see the charges I anticipate

before the arrangement on Tuesday. Then he will be brought into court in Judge Mershawns courtroom, where they will figure out a way to get him there, where it's not necessarily through the regular hallways. I am told that the other court matters that are going on, all the other trials, et cetera, are all stopping at lunch.

And so at 215, there will really be nobody up there except the necessary people and then some press who will be outside the courtroom and will capture him going in. It will be, it's discretionary whether a judge can allow cameras in the courtroom. We'll see what Judge Mershawn allows. That's a sketch right there of a sketch artist

will definitely be allowed in. So we will see sketches of the proceeding for sure, whether or not we see photographs or whether we see of one video's feed will be up to the discretion of the court. So I don't know what the answer will be. I'm trying to get a seat in the courtroom. I usually would have no problem getting in and let's see if I can, because of secret service, it is kind of an issue.

But I have all the feelers out. I've asked all the right people. And so hopefully I can get in there. But so the next thing that happens is he will be arraigned. He'll be told what the charges are and then he will probably plead not guilty. I'm sure he will plead not guilty and then the case will be adjourned for promotion practice and it'll proceed like every other case and that's it. He will not be bail, will not be set, because this is not a bail eligible crime.

If he continues to attack the judge as he's been doing, the judge could impose other sanctions on him, like gag order talking about this case. I could, and we'll see about that. So this is a judge, Judge Mershon is is a is a judges judge He's he's very no nonsense and he calls balls and strikes. He's not a pro prosecutor or pro defense judge He's not one that speaks more than necessary. He's he he's just a great judge and he can control his courtroom

So we'll see what he does to Donald Trump. That'll be interesting to watch. So Karen, the process that's gonna take place is called an arrangement. You said, then he's going to get arraigned. Can you just paint that picture? And I'm not gonna ask you to actually paint the actual court sketch, but Kenya paint the picture

for our audience just of what that actually means? Does the judge read the charges? Can the person wave a reading of charges? Like that happens in California? Does the judge have to go through each and every charge and does Trump have to say guilty or not guilty to each and every charge? And then after that takes place in the courtroom, then what happens? Is it then just go through the normal procedure? Is there a right to a speedy trial?

Can you wave that right? What's the time frame that we look for after this arrangement? But let's first start with what's the arrangement? So the arrangement is the process by which you inform someone of the charges. And this is called the Supreme Court Arraignment because the trial court in New York

is called the Supreme Court, believe it or not. And so this is his Supreme Court Arraignment where he will be informed of the charges and the indictments. So you'll have a judge, a court reporter, you'll have two tables, one with a bunch of prosecutors, one with the defendant, who is Donald Trump, he will now be called the defendant. And he will be at the table with his lawyers.

And the judge will basically say to him, you know, Mr. Trump, you have been charged under indictment number one, two, three, four, five with 34 counts of X, Y, and Z. Do you wave? And then the defense attorney usually waves the reading of the charges, but not the rights they're under is what they normally say, but you might not wave it. He might insist on the judge doing it the way, you know, where you have to read all the charges, but typically they wave it like they do in California, and then they officially ask him, how do you plead? Please enter a plea. Do you plead guilty or not guilty? And usually they plead not guilty. And normally he would not say another word, right? Because you've got a court reporter taking it all down.

Normally the lawyer speaks and you never hear his voice other than his plea. We'll see, because it's Donald Trump, what he may or may not say. And but really the arrangement is an opportunity to do a couple of things. Number one, you inform him of the charges that he's being charged with. Number two, it's where you where bail conditions are set if there would be any bail. But here because it's not a bail eligible offense, there will not be any conditions. It is any notices that the prosecutor wants to or needs to file on a case, so there are certain legal notices that you have to file, like are there any statements that you intend to use against the defendant at trial? If that's the case, if there are any statements that you

have made, the prosecutor has to serve notice of those statements within 15 days of the arrangement. Normally, they just serve them at arrangement. So we will know, are there any statements that he has made, whether it was in the course of the, the really statements, their statements that are made during, if you are in custody, is those statements. So you have to be, it's custodial interrogation. Those are the types of statements. But that you have to serve notice of, because those are the ones that are required

under this notice. However, there might be other statements that they might serve notice of where he wasn't in custody, that they want to use, like statements that he made about the case previously. So we might hear of any of those statements that they want to use. The other types of notices probably definitely don't apply here, so I'm not sure you'll hear

of any other notices. The prosecutor also will likely serve a statement of facts. I think in this case they will do that so that they're because the prosecutor is bound by ethical rules, not to talk about a case outside of what's setting court. And so if there are facts that that you say in court, then those facts can be in the public realm and talked about by the prosecutor. Since here that may or may not be done, they probably will file a statement of facts or unless it's all in the conspiracy. So I think you'll see that and then it'll get adjourned for motion practice. Now there is a speedy trial in New York like

everywhere else where you have to go to trial within six months of, you have six months of chargeable time, that you have to go to trial, but the clock stops and pauses at various times if the defendant wants it to. If the defendant doesn't want it to, if it just wanna go forward, then this would go to trial in six months,

but we anticipate that he will make motions and legal arguments and motions. If he wants to make motions like the statute of limitations has already run could be one motion, or I want to suppress certain evidence could be another motion, or I want a change in venue because I can't get a fair trial in Manhattan because people in Manhattan hate me.

Or I want a new judge, because judge, you were so vindictive towards the Trump org. You already said that. You hate me, and I want a new judge because judge, you were so vindictive towards the Trump org. You already said that. You hate me and I want a new judge or he's going to make all kinds of motions. Who knows? They're going to make motions. All of that pauses the time and none of that's charged to the prosecution. So he though, I think, is going to make lots motions because he his number one legal tactic is delay

Judge Mershaw and however will keep an eye on Keeping this case moving and so I anticipate although there will be reasonable motion practice allowed which is usually 45 days for the defense to get their motions in And he will also challenge the sufficiency of the grand jury. By the way, that's something you can do in New York that you can't do federally. And I don't know about California.

But federally, the grand jury is very much a closed. You don't really get to see what happens there. In the state, a defendant can challenge the sufficiency of the grand jury evidence. So he'll also probably so he'll probably make motions about, about whether or not the crime, whether or not the bump up. So the falsifying a business records the way Popoq was saying, you have to have committed another crime to make it a felony.

He's going to challenge whether the crimes that were presented to the grand jury are ones that can be relied upon like a federal election charge. So who make all kinds of challenges like that? And that'll all happen during a reusable motion practice period. And then the prosecutor will respond to the motion and then the judge will decide. So that's what will happen next. Popuck, I want to give you the final word on this historic week when we're talking about this criminal indictment, Pope. I've seen all of the social commentary mainly by the right wing maga about what a sad day it is in criminal justice and the history of criminal justice. I

think Chris Kice put it for this to happen. There's one person that is to blame for this in a series of what we expect to be entitements over the next several months. And that is Donald Trump. Donald Trump was a grifter and a fraudster and a scam artist dating back to his time working next to his father, Fred Trump all the way through his running of casinos, running them into the ground in Atlantic City and grifting all along the way to the celebrity apprentice, to the grifting and the fundraising that he did around that even before he decided to enter office. He was not qualified to be the president of the United States. But he was on a stage with 16 other people that were it, that nobody knew.

And so he ended up becoming the president of the United States. And then he established the same kleptocracy in the Oval Office and in the West Wing, as he had in business his entire life. And now all of these things, they are his fault. Okay, so the Maga Republicans are like, oh my God, up in arms, he's being indicted for something that happened in 2006. And it's a porn star.

And it's a, this of that, it is Donald Trump's conduct and behavior that a grand jury, independent grand jury of 23 people in New York have decided is a crime. That it's not in the right order that we would all like, you know, we'd like Jack Smiths to go first with the interference of the election and the and Jan sixth and and

the Mara Lago, maybe and maybe Fonney Willis for the George election and the and the quote unquote perfect phone call, but justice comes as justice comes and we can't order it and we can't sequence it. But it doesn't mean he should be let off the hook because the smaller of the three crimes, if we're ranking them, is the one that got out of the shoot first. He's going to be held accountable. If we've learned anything from Thursday and the way Alvin Bragg much maligned, but now will be a historic hero for doing this, for coming out of the book, for getting right on the facts

and bringing this case, because the buck stops with that prosecutor. It is the case that was ready now. The other cases will be ready in their own time. At the end, when we look back, when history looks back at this period in a chapter, in a book, maybe not in a Florida textbook, but everywhere else that describes the history of America. They will say that at the end of 2023 and 2024, Donald Trump was indicted several times related to conduct both in the office and the waning days and outside the office before he got in the delay being he was in office so he couldn't be sued, but that he was brought to justice. That's what I believe the chapters in the pages and the chapters of those

books are going to read, notwithstanding all of the social media backbiting and hand-wringing that's going on now mainly by the Republicans in Maga. And that's a great point because the only people who are politicizing this are the MAGA Republicans, are Donald Trump's followers who are saying that because of Donald Trump's leadership of this new MAGA Republican party that he's above the law. Notice, none of them are saying he's innocent, right? There's, I haven't seen the argument. He didn't pay hush money payments, and he didn't falsify business records.

Their argument, as always, New York has a lot of crime, and they lie about it. Crime's down in New York, but that's the argument that they pursue. They're the ones who are politicizing something and they are the ones who are not focused on the rule of law. And you make a great point there, Popok, as well, because while this is a class e-fellany,

this current case, where Donald Trump has been criminally indicted. So the jail time, I think, at most would be about four years, and potentially, you know, when you're at sentencing, you know, likely would be less, but it is something that he can serve, you know, jail time for. This doesn't mean that Alvin Bragg has given up the case where he's still investigating it. He said it. He's still investigating the financial fraud and Trump's tax evasion and the bigger case. He's just taken a step-by-step approach. Step one, Trump organization, step two, falsified business records.

And he's still investigating the other crimes. And of course, we have special counsel Jack Smith investigating with two grand juries in federal court in Washington, DC, Trump's election interference, Trump's obstruction of justice and theft of government records. Of course, we have Fannie Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, who will be presenting before a grand jury there. You've got the E. Jean Carroll, Civil Rape and defamation trial, set to take place on April 25th. You've got the New York

Attorney General Letitia James case, the civil fraud case set to go to trial October 2nd of 2023, where the New York Attorney General is seeking at least $250 million in damages and likely in the billions of dollars in damages against Donald Trump, the Trump organization, and Trump's adult children, and an injunction which would basically stop them from doing business in New York and effectively end the Trump organization. And so the judge there, Judge Arthur and Goran, who Trump also attacks the same way he's attacking Judge Juan Mershon, the same way he's attacking Judge David Carter, the same way he attacks all the judges, but Judge Arthur and Goron in New York, in the New York attorney general, attrition James case said, come hell or high water.

It shall be etched in stone. I am not moving the trial date from October 2nd, 2023 despite Trump's attempt to delay, delay, delay. And speaking about billion dollar cases, dominions, 1.6 billion dollar defamation lawsuit against Foxes set to go to trial in the next few weeks. And there was a massive ruling that just took place in Delaware Superior Court, where this case is before, where the judge made a ruling that spells doom for Fox and was a great ruling for Dominion,

but I think more importantly, a great ruling for the truth. We will talk about that right after this quick break. And now let's take a quick break to talk about our next partner, Lomi. Now I've never been able to compost before. It was always too complicated, too much work, and frankly, I don't think I even knew exactly if I was doing it right.

Then I got a Lomi. Lomi allows me to turn my food scraps into dirt with just the push of a button. Lomi is a countertop electric composter that turns scraps to dirt in under 4 hours. There's no smell when it runs, and it's really quiet. Thanks to Lomi, I have Wayless Garbage each week. My family worked down from three bags per week to just one. And here's something pretty cool, my wife she recently started gardening, and we've been able to use the dirt that Lomi produces to help fill the garden.

And since I got my Lomi, I threw out Wayless Garbage. That means it's not going to landfills and producing methane. Instead I turn my waste into nutrient-rich dirt that I can feed to my plants. I feel so great knowing that I'm composting and creating soil instead of waste. And I have basically a limitless supply of dirt for my garden. The other week I had my in-laws over for dinner and the food cleanup process was such a breeze. Plus, they all think I'm super eco-conscious now. If you want to start making a positive environmental impact or just make cleanup after dinner that much easier,

Lomi is perfect for you. Head to lomi.com slash legalaf and use the promo code legalaf to get $50 off your Lomi. That's $50 off when you head to lomni.com slash legalaf and use promo code legalaf at checkout. Food waste is gross. Let Lomi save you a cold trip out to the garbage can. And now back to the video. And welcome back.

We got to talk about this Dominion lawsuit, this billion dollar Dominion lawsuit. We've seen, we've talked about the text messages that behind the scenes, Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham and, you know, Rupert Murdoch, Lacklin Murdoch, Suzanne Scott, all the executives, all acknowledging that they're lying to their viewers. You know, and lots of them mocking their viewers, mocking Donald Trump, mocking everything and just saying, hey, we're just going to spread the lies to increase our ratings. Well, a big ruling in Delaware Superior Court this week, Michael Popak, I want to hear from you about that ruling and why it's so significant and why it was probably the worst case ruling for Fox other than perhaps

the billion dollar judgment that's likely coming. And of their own making because it's based on a motion that Fox and Fox Corp and Fox News and Rupert Murdoch and 16 other defendants, they decided that they were going in their infinite wisdom of their lawyers to file what we call a motion for summary judgment, asking the judge even before trial to make a ruling in what they asked for is to find that there was the statements that were made were not false against dominion voting machines, that they were connected to Venezuela and government and Hugo Chavez, that they bribed US election officials to get their equipment in, that their equipment could be easily and was hacked to favor

Trump over Biden and and all the rest of that that was said on a loop at nauseam every day, every hour on Fox, whether it was Lou Dobbs or Jeanine Piro or Tucker Carlson or Hannity or the rest against this poor company Dominion that was founded after 2000 because of the hanging Chad problem in Palm Beach County that got bushy elected over Gore. That's the reason they created their safe technology, their new technology. So this is a fox's own making. Let me back up for a minute. We're in Delaware, superior court for this case.

Although New York law is being applied, that's a little quirk here. The judge sits in Delaware. It's a well-known judge, Eric Davis. I know him reasonably well. We worked at a law firm together. He was a partner at Skaten and Arps down in Delaware, which, and there's a number of seats on the Delaware courts that are reserved for certain law firms. I'll leave it at that. He's sitting in the Scad and seat, if you will, at the superior

court, which handles the, the damages type cases, the chance to record, which you and I, Ben and Karen, talk more about on this show really deals with corporate control issues and equity issues, a little bit of damage, but it's a slightly different court. This is the wild, wild west as far as Delaware is concerned. Although Eric Davis is a very prim and proper judge, you can rarely, he's a poker player. You can rarely tell what he's thinking in the courtroom. He's very sober in the courtroom, although in the hundred page opinion that we're gonna talk about next,

he blasts, fox, strips them really of many of their defenses and privileges in front of the jury, leaving them pretty vulnerable and bear to this, what could be a $1.6 billion dollar or more, um, damage claim. What's the issue? The issue is whether by the Fox News on air personalities constantly putting on Sydney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis and all the rest of them attacking mercilessly this poor company called Dominion with lies upon lies upon lies about their product about their integrity about their security

About their about their corporate culture of not bribing people telling people that they were a Hugo Chavez Dictator Venezuela devised company all a complete and utter lie and then we ripped the curtain off in discovery The process of the exchange of information between parties, which the judge cites over and over again, Ben on this show, on the Midas Brothers show, and all the hot techs, we gave out as much as we could of the emails and texts that were revealed in discovery that blew the whole and the whole argument that that the Fox corporation and Fox news didn't know that these relies wasn't doing it for profit, wasn't doing it for their ratings, wasn't doing it because they

cared more about lining their own pockets with ad dollars than they did about this dominion voting. It was just entertainment to them. This is just entertainment. They didn't care about defamation. Now, in order for them to prevail at trial, Fox News has a defense, and the defense was what we call actual malice, because if I defame Ben or Karen, if I say something that's demonstrably false against them, and they're not public figures or limited purpose public figures. Then me just saying it and publishing it, which means I tell a third person, whether in writing or or out loud, and they're damaged, or it is presumed that they're damaged by the nature of what I say,

they've got a defamation case against me. And I can't use as a defense that I didn't mean it, or I didn't, I thought it was not true or not. It is true or other, or other types of privileges that go along with defamation. I'm dead. But news organizations often try to hide behind and use as privilege the first amendment. And the first amendment as expanded upon in a Supreme court case from 1964,

which we talk about a lot on the show over the course of time, called New York Times versus Sullivan, the Sullivan case. It basically says that in order for a news organization or anyone that's a public figure, which in this case, Dominion would be arguably a public figure, in order for defamation to be proven against them, to award them damages, there's one other element. And that element is actual malice. It's a doctrine that was created by the case. And actual malice means that the person making the false statement also knows or should have known that the statement is false.

If I just pass along some gossip, but I don't know its false, I probably don't satisfy actual malice. So Fox news has been trying to hide behind the flag of the First Amendment. First Amendment, we're a news organization. We're just, we're just neutrally reporting things. We're not doing opinion. You know, this was, it wasn't us saying that the Venezuela had infiltrated dominion or that the Chinese had or that they had brought that's other people that were on our show and you can't hold us accountable for that because we're a news organization. And this judge has already had a dress rehearsal for this case because he's also the judge involving smartmatic

and smartmatic is another relatively smaller election equipment company, software company, that I think has one client. I think it was Los Angeles at the time, who also got maligned at the same time by Fox News. And they have a parallel case also in Delaware, also in front of Eric Davis. So if the Fox News wanted to figure out whether they were going to win or lose their motion, all they had to do is go read the smartmatic opinion by Judge Davis, in which he said, there are limits to the first amendment. You are not allowed to hide behind it, and you're not allowed to say things that are

scurrilous and scandalously wrong, even if you know that they are. So I don't want to hear about the first amendment, and he let the Smartmatic case go forward. Here Fox decided in its infinite wisdom, let's try to get the judge to rule before trial that we didn't defame the elements of defamation are not met. It wasn't defamatory. In other words, it wasn't false. The statements that we made, it was opinion. That's a privilege. And we didn't do it with actual malice and they don't have any damage. So, judge, we win the case. Tell us now. Do it now. Do it before a jury trial. And the judge came back

in a hundred-page decision and quoted from texts and quoted from emails, including ones that had a lot of bad language in them, but then ended up in Eric Davis's order and said, let's go through the elements and let's see what I can do on summary judgment for you now. Okay. On the element of false statements, I find as a matter of law, the jury doesn't have to decide this, that everything you said about dominion was false. So when the jury comes in for the trial, there will be a trial. The jury will be instructed that prior to the jury being empaneled, the judge has already made certain decisions in this

case. And let me read you what you what they are. The falsity of the statements have already been established for you, ladies and gentlemen, the jury, that's not for you to decide you are to assume that everything that Fox and the Fox people said about dominion is false. Let's go to the next element on summary judgment on summary judgment. On summary judgment, are you entitled to a privilege because you're just a journalistic entity,

a news organization, neutrally reporting the news? And the judge says, you're not, because you went beyond neutrally reporting the news, so you don't get the benefit of that privilege. And one of the privileges you raised isn't even a privilege anymore in New York, the judge said. So we ripped that away from you.

Now let's go to publication. The second element of of defamation. Did you publish it? And did you publish it? Fox news. And did you publish it? Fox corporation. And did you publish it?

Rupert Murdoch and the rest. And on Fox news, he said you published. So the jury's going to be told the second element of defamation is also already decided for you before you got here. There's publication and there's false statement. As the Fox Corporation and to the others, he's gonna let the jury decide based on the evidence whether the close relationship between Fox News

and Fox Corporation, and there was plenty of evidence of that. It means that they're also responsible for and found vicariously liable for publication. So that'll go to the jury is Fox corp and Murdoch also a publisher of these false statements. And then lastly, the judge said, as to damage, I'm letting the jury decide that. So you say it's way under 1.6 billion Fox news. The jury decides that. That's a jury call. We let them pull out their checkbook at the appropriate time. And then the last major issue was,

can I decide as a judge now whether actual malice has been proven by dominion based on all these emails and text messages like Tucker Carlson saying, will you please fire that reporter for Fox News, who says there wasn't any election interference for F's sake, the stock price is going down. And all the other internal emails like what the F, this is, you know, in Giuliani or Agenda Ellis or or Powell City Powell and the back door, they're all saying offline, this is effing nuts, this is mind blowingly nuts. This doesn't make any sense.

This is fake. This is FODY. The judge says there's plenty of evidence that demonstrates actual malice, but I'm going to let the jury decide that. So all that is left for the jury to decide now when when Fox walks through the doors of that courtroom in April later this month is the following did Fox corporation also publish yes or no. Based on all the emails and all the text and the live testimony of Tucker Carlson, Sean

Hannity, Jeanine Pirro, Lou Dobbs, they're all going to be in the courtroom being cross examines on their emails, on their texts. Do you find that it's more likely than not that Fox News and its people knew what they were saying was false or it's more likely that they did. Yes or no, that's the only issue. And then write a check for damages. So Ben, if Fox thought, let's slim this case down and maybe we'll win on privilege or we'll win on some defenses,

they lost on everything and there's only two little pieces left for the jury to decide. What do you think about that? Well, not only did they lose on everything, but in a defamation case with a public figure, right? Dominion for purposes of this case is a public figure. That's why there is the Supreme Court presidential New York Times V Sullivan standard where a public figure has to show

that the entity or person that they are accusing of defaming them acted with actual malice. It's not enough to show in this case that Fox merely acted negligent or that Fox made a mistake. You have to show that Fox acted with actual malice, meaning they did it intentionally or they did it with a reckless disregard for the truth and for a plaintiff bringing a case like this to even bring a summary judgment. Oh, the defendant's always going to bring that summary judgment in a case like this to try to not get the case before a jury and to try to get it dismissed. And so just so everybody, you know, knows the process and procedure, usually early on in the case, someone who is sued or an entity that's sued

will file a motion to dismiss for purposes of a motion to dismiss. They have to, the court has to accept as true all of the allegations in the lawsuit, all of the allegations in the complaint, and see whether the plaintiff has asserted the elements that's usually easier to get past, but then on a summary judgment what the decision ultimately bases is based on is whether after now discovery takes place, after all of the facts are developed,

has plaintiff established the elements based on all of the facts. Or is there any disputed facts here that should go before a jury? And one of the Topopax point, what a party bringing a summary judgment argues is that it's undisputed, that no jury could disagree with us, that in this case there was no defamation that takes place.

That's what Fox was trying to argue that every reasonable juror would agree with us. We did not defame Dominion in this case, but here Dominion also filed their own motion. There were dueling motions and Dominion said There were doling motions and Dominion said, there's every single reasonable juror, there's no jurors out there who would disagree with us when they heard these facts. Everybody would look at this and said, Fox defamed us. So these doling summary judgment motions were filed.

And ultimately, to your point, the judge said, Fox, you lose everything. Basically, like your summary judgment is completely defeated. This case, you're not going to be able to dismiss this case. None of the elements you defeat. And so, Fox, I'm denying your summary judgment motion in total. However, when it comes to dominion, I am going to grant your summary judgment on that element of falsity. I am going to also say that Fox can't assert their privileges. I'm also going to say with respect to the news division that there was a publication.

So I'm actually going to say that and no reasonable juror could disagree with me, is what the court's saying. And so the judge is saying exactly what you said when the jury comes in, the judge is gonna instruct the jury. I've already made a finding. This court has made a finding that these were false statements

with respect to the news division, that it was published, and all you have to decide. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, was these statements published, were these statements published with actual malice? Was it intentional or with a reckless disregard for the truth? And then what Dominion's going to do is show all those text messages and say, look, they knew. Of course, it was intentional. They said they intended to do it. It doesn't get more slam dunk than that. Look what Murdoch said. Murdoch said he intended to do it. Look what had

any said. Look what Tucker said. Look what Laura Ingraham said. Look, they fired this person who was actually trying to tell the truth. So I think it's a big, big, big ruling. And, you know, and one other point I'll make and throw it back to you, Pope, just to finish out this topic. And then I want to hear from Karen just about this historic week in general. But I think, look, this isn't the only case, defamation case that Fox is involved with, smartmatic, another company that Fox spread these conspiracies about, they've sued for $2 billion and trust me, all of the judges are seeing these rulings, right? And I think smartmatic is also at least for the ability to say for its persuasive authority,

tell the judge in its cases and other people who have sued Fox will tell the judges and their cases. Take a look at what this finding was. There was a finding that Fox was publishing false information, false information. Popeye finished out this topic. Yeah, I think we've hit it exactly right. And just as a practitioner, like Ben, you and me and Karen, they had a choice, Fox, when they got faced with the Dominion summary judgment, which you and I combed through methodically to pick out the hundreds and hundreds of emails and texts that they included to support in an appendix,

a Dominion Summary Judgment. I thought at the time, all right, well, Fox will, which is what I would do in the situation, they will try to defeat the Summary Judgment based on the way you framed it, Ben, by arguing that there are material issues of fact in dispute. So in dispute that only the trial of fact, which in this case is the jury, can resolve it before applying the law. That is the standard for summary judgment. So when I'm faced with a summary judgment,

I rarely to be frank, it depends on the case, but I rarely bring a cross motion for summary judgment. A, because of the fear of what could happen here. I at least wanna get to a trial. I don't want to have a judge rip away, you know, or find, you know, cherry, cherry, two of the elements of a major def, you know, claim against me before I even, you know, before I even got my shoes tied to go into the courtroom or have my defense is stripped away. So what I would probably do strategically is just throw a lot of competing emails and texts

at the judge if there are any end deposition testimony because we know Rupert Murdock got to pose the couple of times a lot in Murdock and executives that none of us had ever heard of before, but that are key people at Fox News and the Hannities and Piro and Dobs of the World and said, judge, look, there are so many issues of material fact and dispute about whether actual malice happened, what we knew, what we didn't know, what was communicated between these various

departments and divisions that are between Fox News and Fox Corp. It's got to go to the jury. Let's go to the jury and we'll deal with it then. Then you've got an opening if you're able to defeat the summary judgment, if you can, you got an opening. You're still in it as a defendant to try to negotiate a settlement or find an exit strategy or take your shot at court to try to convince a jury in Delaware better than this one judge who you know from prior rulings in the related smartmatic case is probably against you on all the first amendment stuff. So I wouldn't have done it this way, but it's

too late now. That's what they chose to do. And now they're walking in with an arm and a leg and another arm tied behind their back as they try to defend this case in front of a jury. You know, one of the fascinating things about this episode in general is starting off talking about the criminal procedure. And there's no one with more expertise or among the people with the most expertise as Karen Friedman, Agnifalo. I know you're humble Karen, so I will throw that out there for you. But I think there's no one in the world who knows more about Monat and District Attorney practice than you. And then on the civil side to hear from Michael Pope-Bach

his specialty. So you got to hear both the criminal side and the civil side on these very important cases. But I, of course, want to close out this episode here with you, Karen. And just about what a historic week this is. You know, one of the other points I think is important as part of the criminal procedure, right,

is Donald Trump's gonna also have to show up to each of these hearings, because it's a felony in New York. So maybe just talk to that briefly, but more significantly, how historic this week is, you know, see Donald Trump attacking Alvin Bragg's wife, the Manhattan District Attorney's wife, and doxing her. You know, the Manhattan District Attorney's office did something, did the right thing. You know, yes, it's courageous, but I'm not sure they

view it that way. I think they view it as we were just following law and order. And this is law and order. If someone commits a crime, they get prosecuted for the crime. So I want to give you the final word on this historic episode of Legal AF. Look, it's, it can't understate or can't overstate how historic this week is. The New York Times, when he was indicted. I actually took a picture of it on my screen because I don't get a physical copy anymore. I mean, it's just as Trump indicted. It's, you know, absolutely historic in a way that you can't

overstate the fact that it's charging a former president of the United States with a crime has never happened in our nation's history. Obviously many politicians and former politicians and even vice presidents have, but never a former president. And what's sad isn't that he was charged, but that we elected somebody who commits crimes as committed crimes. And frankly, one thing to keep in mind about this particular case is every single time

that he wrote a check to Michael Cohen or entered a false record in the business records. He was, he was absolutely committing a crime while president of the United States sitting in the Oval Office. And I just think that's something to think about, that you have someone who is committing a crime as a sitting president. And that is something that we can't stand for as a society or a democracy.

And I am so proud that the Manhattan D.A.'s office under Alvin Bragg continues the same excellent traditions that.'s office has always done some of the most consequential prosecutions in the country. It has been known as one of the leading prosecutors' offices in the country because it takes on cases big or small without fear or favor. And so I couldn't be more proud of the office continuing that great tradition. And just to end this with what Ben was saying, in a criminal case, unlike a civil case, a defendant is required to appear every court of parents occasionally. If there's a logistical or some other issue, you can wave his appearance. That could happen here if there's security concerns or issues or if Donald Trump, if he causes a big stir,

perhaps he may be permitted to wave a couple of appearances, but by and large, he has to appear at almost all, if not all, his court appearances. So that'll be very interesting. He'll be coming to court. We'll have many opportunities to see that. I wonder whether his next, when they adjourn the case, it's usually for about a month to for when when when they do an adjournment from from Supreme Court Aramement. I have to wonder will they do it the week of April 25th when he will also be in court for his

rape trial that he's having and make no mistake that E. Jean Carroll case is a rape trial. And so there's a lot going to be happening in New York and we will be seeing him again. So this is just historic, but it's only the beginning because as you guys said, there are so many cases between now and the next six months, not only are they you're going to be too civil huge sweeping civil trials, the rape case and the Latisha James ones, but we will likely see more indictments to come. We're going to be very busy here on legal AF, and I couldn't be more proud to host the show with Michael Popak and Karen Friedman, Agnifalo.

Thank you both so much, and thank you all to the Midas Mighty out there, to all the Legal AFers out there, to all of our hosts on this incredible network, to all of our correspondents who have done some incredible work, provided incredible coverage, and who have been providing this objective, database, law and order approach, which I've come to really, really, really love, and it's really, you don't really see it anywhere else. And so I'm so glad to have that here

at the MidasTouch Network. So thank you all for watching this episode of Legal AF. Make sure you hit the subscribe button here. We passed 1 million subscribers last week. We're on the way to 1.5 million subscribers. So please hit the subscribe button. You can also check us out at patreon.com slash might as touch p-a-t-r-e-o-n.com slash might as touch and also make sure to subscribe to legal

a f wherever you get your audio podcasts. That goes a long way to help us. It's free to subscribe there. So once this show ends if you are a YouTube watcher, please go and subscribe on our audio podcast. It'll take you 30 seconds. Just go and hit subscribe on legal AF and leave a five star review. And if you listen just on audio podcast, also make sure you subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Thank you everybody for watching this episode of legal AF, a historic episode indeed. Shout out to the Midas Mighty. you