Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Is DECOMPOSING at Criminal Trial

Episode Date: April 18, 2024

Defense attorney Michael Popok & former prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo on the Legal AF pod, discuss/debate: (1) where we are after of the first 2 days of the Trump election interference trial, including the Court’s warnings to Trump and his attorneys; the Manhattan DA seeking a contempt sanction and possible jail time against Trump for gag order violations, and the first 7 jurors being selected; (2) a preview of the upcoming bond sufficiency hearing in the Trump NY Civil Fraud judgment matter; (3) the United States Supreme Court hearing oral argument on whether 300+ Jan6 defendants will have their sentences and indictments for “criminal obstruction of an official proceeding” vacated, and the impact on those same charges against Trump in the DC Election Interference case, and so much more at the intersection of law, politics, and justice. Nom Nom: Go Right Now for 50% off your no-risk two week trial at https://TryNom.com/LEGALAF Policygenius: Head to https://policygenius.com/legalaf to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. OneSkin: Get started today at https://OneSkin.co and receive 15% Off using code: LEGALAF Smileactives: Visit https://Smileactives.com/legalaf to get this exclusive offer! Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Need a great reason to get up in the morning? Well, what about two? Right now, get a small, organic Fairtrade coffee and a tasty bacon and egg or breakfast sandwich for only $5 at A&W's in Ontario. This episode is brought to you by RBC Student Banking. Students, get $100 when you open an RBC Advantage Banking account, which includes no monthly fee, unlimited debit transactions in Canada, Avian points on debit purchases, and so, so much more. Unlock more perks for less with RBC Advantage. Conditions apply. Offer ends June 30, 2024.

New eligible clients only. Complete criteria by August 30, 2024. Visit rbc.com slash student 100. At Bet 365, we don't do ordinary. We believe that every sport should be epic. Every goal, every game, every point, every play. From the moments that are remembered forever, to the ones you've already forgotten. Whether it's a game-winning goal in the final seconds of overtime, or a shot on goal in the first period. So whatever the sport, whatever the moment, it's never ordinary. Atbet365. Must be 19 or older. Ontario only. Please

pay responsibly. If you or someone you know has concerns about gambling, visit connexontario.ca. This ad for Fizz is only 25 seconds long but we had to pay for 30. Those leftover five seconds shouldn't just disappear, right? It's kind of like what happens to your unused mobile data at the end of each month. Except at Fizz, your unused data from the end of the month rolls over, so you can use it the next month. Hey, you paid for it, so keep it. Try the other side. Get started at fizz.ca. If you need some time to think it over, here's five seconds. Certain conditions apply. Details at phys.ca.

Whoa, what are you listening to this for? Wait, who's talking? You know you're driving a 2024 Ford Escape with available Alexa built-in, so you can change the music. Oh yeah. Alexa, change station to 99.2. See? Purchase a 2024 Escape ST-Line all-wheel drive with TechPak at 3.49% APR for 72 months with down payment. That's just $267 bi-weekly. Cash value of $40,294. Plus, eligible Ford owners get a $1,000 bonus. For details, visit your local Ford store or Ford.ca.

Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF, only on the Midas Touch Network. And here are the stories and developments at the intersection of law and politics you need to know, and we're going to talk about. We're going to kick it off, of course, what am I going to kick it off with? With my illustrious colleague, the Manhattan DA, the trial that people said they didn't want, they didn't need, they didn't think what happened is happening. We're two days in, lots of motion practice, lots of orders by Judge Mershon, lots of admonitions and warnings towards the Trump side of the table.

Seven jurors are picked. We're going to do this particular segment sort of in two helpings. We'll talk about the motions and the gag orders and the question I'll ask my former prosecutor colleague, do you think there's new crimes that could be indicted while we're in the trial setting? Motions in limine to prevent evidence and testimony and prosecution theories, how that went for Donald Trump? And then in the second half of that segment we'll talk

about the jury selection process, peremptory challenges versus for cause challenges, how social media apparently played a role, jury intimidation and threats by Donald Trump, and responses by the judge, and how we got to seven sworn in the box and what does it mean starting for tomorrow and Friday for the selection of five more Regular jurors and then six more Alternate jurors and then we can finally get to opening statements in the case We'll break it all down with Karen Freeman at NIFILO And then we'll we'll move on but stay on Karen Freeman at NIFILO. And then we'll move on, but stay on Trump

because this is an important period in our nation's history and in our legal process. So we're going to move on to the bond issue. The bond has been called. The bond has been called by the Attorney General of the State of New York.'t believe that there actually is a $175 million proper undertaking in order to stop the enforcement of her $465 million judgment in the name of the people of the State of New York running with 9% interest compounded yearly. Don Hanke and his company, Knight Specialty Insurance Company, the relationship between Knight Specialty Insurance Company and Axos Bank, where Don Hanke is a huge shareholder, and their relationship ultimately with Donald Trump. And what is Judge Angoran going to do about it all when he has his hearing on the 22nd of April about whether that bond is sufficient or not.

If it isn't sufficient and it fails, I don't think, but I want to hear Karen's opinion. And Goran gives him a second chance. The appellate division already giving Donald Trump a second chance by lowering the amount of the bond. And what would happen next in terms of the enforcement of the $465 million judgment? And then finally, we'll talk about, speaking of things that have just happened, we'll talk about the United States Supreme Court's oral argument that just occurred on whether a major charge used by the Department of Justice, one of the highest charges in terms of potential sentences, the obstruction

of an official proceeding, 18 USC 1512 C, if you're playing at home, whether it was properly used by the prosecutors or has been improperly used. In other words, prosecutors overcharged the case using a criminal statute that wasn't applicable. And if that's the case, and we'll kick it around with Karen about her view on the oral argument, that's the case. More than 300 Jan 6 defendants will have to be either exonerated, their sentences vacated, their indictments amended if they haven't already pled or had their cases tried, it would open the floodgates if those charges get stripped. And then what does it mean for Donald Trump who has the same charges in his DC election interference case going to trial who knows when,

hopefully over the summer, and even if it doesn't actually apply and there's a way around it for the prosecutor, what happens when Donald Trump makes the invariable motion to dismiss an appellate process? What happens to that case? We'll do all that and whatever else Karen and I come up with one place. We might as touch Network Legal AF with Michael Popok and Karen Friedman-Echnifilow.

Karen, how are you? I'm good, how are you, Pope? I'm doing great. And just to expand our programming and as a shout out to Karen and her, what she's doing there. Twice a day, Karen bringing her 30 years of experience in the Manhattan DA's office,

including as one of the leaders, number two there, is has been doing and will continue to do a sort of a preview in the morning of each trial day and a wrap up in the afternoon after the trial ends every day around 4.30, although the judge has been pushing that a bit to try to get the jury selected. Right here on the Midas Dutch Network in a special edition of Legal AF, a Trump on Trial edition. And today's episode during a dark day in the trial, because Wednesdays is a day when the judge does other things

in all of his other cases and gives the jury and everybody else, including the legal pundits like us a day off. That also gives Karen an opportunity to do some interviews and do a wrap up of look back, look forward and all of that. I really appreciate the work you're doing on that, Karen. Thanks, Poppy. I had Norm Eisen on today who's actually in the courtroom and he is in there as a press contributor because he also does press contribution stuff

like we do and others. And so he got a press pass and he is there in the courtroom. So although, as you know, this trial is not televised, this trial is unlike in Judge McAfee's courtroom where we can just all sit there and watch the Fulton County, Georgia proceedings. So we have to glean from either transcripts or real life updates that the pool reporters

that are allowed in there and allowed to bring their devices in are providing for people. And there's many sources, whether it's, for example, CNN does live updates and I know the New York Times does live updates, and you can really follow in real time what's going on, but there's also people in the courtroom who are live tweeting as well, and you can get a lot from that.

So, but to have, but you lose something in translation there, right? Because you don't get to see it with your own eyes. So to have Norm on the podcast today was just, he's a good friend and just really appreciate his perspective and that he would come and share that with us. It was really a treat.

So I urge everyone to watch it. You get to hear the kind of facial expressions and all that kind of stuff that you miss, that you miss otherwise. Yeah. And I think you and I are going to be able to, over the course of the six or eight week trial, we'll be able to get ourselves in there. And you're working your angles, which you have. I'm working some of my angles. The first week, everybody wants to be there. I went down to the courthouse, did some live reporting out there.

The media outnumbered the Trump supporters and any other protester like 10 to one as usual. As the trial continues and people get less interested, not our audience, but in general, you and I will be able to find a way to sneak in. I might have to deliver sandwiches to the jury, but I'll find a way in there. I got another thing I'm working on.

I got a friend who had lunch with Judge Angoron Recently not sharing any details for that. There weren't any details to share but I'm trying to get Judge Angoron to do an interview with us After everything is said and done and the dust has settled in the Trump batter so, you know, I think that's one of the things you and I bring especially as New York lawyers and people with our experiences we're trying to use that to bring and deliver to our audience on a on a daily basis. And look, this is the reason we built this show. It was to capture and talk about forget about catch and kill. It's catch and explain things that were to happen in the future with an out of control rogue, now former president. And this is it, and this is it. So let's dive in. I laughed before the show. Salty and Ben did a couple of slides that I like.

I'm gonna call them now, which sort of sums up where we are in the, here's day one. This is, then Karen and I'll dive into the parts of this that we find interesting. Trump motioned or accused, the judge denied. Yep. Evidence that Trump catch and kill is allowed. The right judge is going to allow that to go as a theme, a theory of the case for the Manhattan DA. Trump subpoena backfires. We'll talk more about that.

Manhattan DA wants Trump in contempt and if he violates the gag order again, they've asked to have him put in jail. I want to hear Karen's view on that. I think she's got a strong opinion about whether that should happen and will that happen. The judge punted the issue until the 23rd of April, probably allowing Donald Trump to create new evidence and new violations of the gag order that he can then consider on the 23rd of April. I don't think they did anything, any great favors for Trump on that. Trump fell asleep in day one. The judge ordered Trump to submit his exhibits in 24 hours and hopefully that's now happened. He fell asleep again and then half of the first tranche of the veneer of the panel, the potential jurors, said they cannot be fair and impartial, and the judge was like dismissed, you know, in that. And then day two, let me see the day two slide. Look at this. I want to, I want to, when we get to it after Karen, after you comment, I want to play

the, I want to roll the tape of a potential new problem for Donald Trump. This tape that we're going to play here, this video as, or play the clip as Ben likes to say, it's gonna be played in the courtroom. Where he blames during a press break, he blames his accountant and his lawyer, which is Michael Cohen, for his problem, but the way he did it, I think also supports the case, it makes the case for the Manhattan DA. Trump wanted to play lawyer and go up at the sidebar and talk to the judge and he waved that right finally. And then the continued jury selection, he fell asleep again. By the way, one of the one of the reportings

was maybe this was from Norm or somebody else, was that he fell asleep while they were talking about the Access Hollywood tape where he was admitting that he sexually assaults women and gets away with it because he's a celebrity. I guess he finds that boring or funny. Trump tried to intimidate a juror. He gets admonished by the judge, more voir dire. And we put first six, actually I think now first seven jurors have been sworn in because they went late yesterday.

That's just, that's just two days that for those that don't practice trial, what we do for a living, that's a lot, even for a criminal case. I want to get your view on it. Karen, pick whatever you want or what is not there to lead off this Manhattan, D.A. first half segment, and then we'll do jury selection issues. And what did you think about the seven, what we know about the seven? What do you think that means as somebody that's presented cases from the prosecution side

to a jury like that? Yeah, so I'll start with a couple of things. First of all, I've been reading the live chat while you were talking and someone named T.D. wrote guilty jailbirds sleep. And it reminds me of when I used to go out on, when I was a prosecutor and I'd go out on homicide call and we'd go to the detective squad

when they had someone in custody for a homicide and we'd go to interview, you know, to take a statement and take a statement from the person. And we'd always say there's this sort of, you know, this sort of old kind of myth that says, you know, when you get there, if the person is jumping up and down in the cell and yelling, and, you know, I'm innocent, I'm innocent,

that, you know, you got to take that really seriously. But the person's in there sleeping, you know, not too concerned that they've been arrested for murder. You kind of know you got the right guy. Anyway, I just thought that was, it just reminded me of that when they said that. Interestingly, people ask me sometimes, why do you do this? Why do you spend so much time?

We both practice law of Popak, we both work full time. And there's a lot going on in our lives. So, so what are we doing? Um, you know, what are we doing? Uh, spending so much time doing this. And, you know, it was interesting to me when Trump reminds me all the time why we do this, because he will literally say something different outside of court than what happened inside of court.

And he did it again here. You know, I overheard a phone call with somebody this morning. I was just listening to somebody who was talking about this case. And the person on the other end of the line said, said, Yeah, and can you believe it that this judge isn't even allowing him to go to his son's graduation? And it's just amazing how that just went viral. Nobody questioned it. Nobody checked for themselves. And it's a small thing, but that's actually not true. The judge said, I'm not going to make that decision right now.

Let's see how this goes. It's too far down the road. He punted it. He did not say he cannot go to the graduation. He just didn't want to make that decision right then and there. And so to the extent that you and I and Ben can just, as much as possible, just bring facts out into the open, I think it's really important because Trump just

makes these false statements and it goes like wildfire because this isn't televised and because people are busy and they don't have time to go do it, look for themselves. It's just so upsetting that so much misinformation is out there. So that's what I'm trying to do by these daily updates. I'm just trying to, as much as possible, give true facts, what happened, and then my perspective because I worked in that office for so long, I'm trying to keep it as factual as possible. So getting back to the trial, so the fact that he was sleeping, that's been widely reported, is just so reminiscent

of what trials are like in real life, you know. As you know, I'm also the legal tech advisor to Law & Order, which is one of my favorite shows. And, you know, what they do is a case from start to finish, you know, from crime to verdict is always in a 15 minute episode. But in real life, it takes a really long time to get through a trial, to pick a jury, to go through jury selection, to go through pre-trial motions, openings, et cetera.

Some of it's boring, Some of it is just tedious. And so I don't fault Trump for taking a little snooze. It's really just a boring process at this point. It'll get more exciting and intense soon. But right now we are very much in the midst of the part of the trial where there are some pre-trial motions that have to be made and jury selection. And there there are some pre-trial motions that have to be made and jury selection. And there have been many pre-trial motions that have to be made. One of them is

called Sandoval. And the Sandoval motion is one where you do it right before trial, right before jury selection in every single case. And what you do is the prosecution gives notice to the court and to the defendant of the prior bad acts. It's all the misconduct and criminal acts of a defendant that is not charged in an indictment that the people intend to use at trial to impeach the credibility of a defendant should he testify and should he choose to take the stand. So none of this comes out unless he chooses to testify.

And this is to put them on notice that these are the uncharged crimes. Because when somebody testifies, whether it's a defendant or a witness, their credibility is the issue and always an issue. And so anything going to someone's credibility is fair game. Other than credibility issues, typically you can only limit your direct or cross-examination to facts about the particular case, the crime, things that are relevant to that period of time and to the facts of that case. But with a defendant, you actually have an added protection.

If you're just a witness, you can ask them about any prior bad acts, frankly, and it's not an issue. But for a defendant, they have rights. You can't just, it's not a free for all because what happens is, let's say you have a defendant, like I'm just giving an example of 10 prior burglaries and they're charged with burglary, if they testify, it would be unfair if they were to hold themselves out as a productive law abiding citizen who never puts their own interests above that of societies.

And so because they've committed crimes, so you want to be able to cross examine them. But at the same time that could be that could be prejudicial overly prejudicial because it could tend to show a propensity for committing those crimes and so and so as a result the the law has um gives a balancing test, uh, that a judge applies and it's it's when the when the does the probative value outweigh the prejudicial effect of the questioning? Sometimes what they'll do is if you have 10 prior burglaries and you're charged with burglary to mitigate the issue of propensity, they'll say things like, okay, I'm going to let you ask that you have prior felony convictions, but I'm not going to let you talk about all of them I'm not going to let you talk in detail and I might let you go into one of them

The facts of one of them, you know, they they they do this balancing test and they make compromises So in trump's particular case the prior bad acts or acts of misconduct That the prosecution wants to ask trump if he testifies they want to cross-examine him They brought up things that we've talked about here on Legal AF. They want to talk about the fact that in the Judge Angoran case, the civil fraud case that Letitia James, the attorney general brought, they want to go into the fact that he repeatedly and persistently falsified business records, right? And they go into all the details about the things they want to talk about there, right?

The fact that they valued a property up to 29 times the appraised value for Seven Springs Estate or for 40 Wall Street. They valued the property at nearly 200 million more than it's worth and they go through property by property what they want to ask the fact that it was he was found to have who to There's a judgment against him a finding by the court there and the underlying facts same thing that he testified untruthfully under oath in that Proceeding when he claimed that his public comments about a judge's law clerk were instead about a witness. The court held that Trump's testimony rings hollow

and untrue, they wanna cross examine him about that. Again, his credibility is an issue. And so that goes to credibility that a judge found him to have lied. They also, a couple other things from that case, that he intentionally violated the court order by making public attacks on the law clerk, the fact that he violated the court order by failing to remove untrue or disparaging identifying post for the law clerk, and that he committed repeated and persistent fraud. So, you have one, two, three, four, five, six things from that case that they want to

go into. That's the perfect example where I predict the court is going to limit it and they won't let them go into all six. Or if they do let them go into all six, they won't let them go into the underlying facts. I just think he's going to say, you can't do all of it. You can do some of it, especially the lying part. I think lying, when you lie like that, I think he's gonna be allowed to ask that.

He might not allow him to say what you were found, that the judge found you to have lied. That might be a bridge too far for Judge Mershon. Let's see, but those are the types of things that I've seen judges do to do this compromise so that it's not overly prejudicial. Then there's Carol V. Trump, the two defamation cases. They want to ask, the prosecution wants to ask Trump if he testifies and talk about the

fact that the jury awarded her $83,000 in damages, her defamatory statements were made, and that he continued to defame her. And again, that he made these false statements with actual malice, that he sexually abused her, and that he again made additional false statements. So there there's four different things they want to bring out in that case and then in a civil case Trump v Clinton the court sanctioned Trump and ordered him to pay 937

thousand nine hundred and eighty nine dollars in fees for filing a frivolous bad faith lawsuit I'm not sure that that's going to be allowed in because that's more of a lawyer who did that as opposed to Trump But we'll see we'll see if they allow that in And then there's just a few more that they're going to one that I don't think the judge is going to allow in is the people versus the Trump corporation, the tax fraud case where the Trump organization was convicted of 17 counts of scheme to defraud

and criminal tax fraud. I don't think the judge is gonna allow that in and I'll tell you why, Popak, because Trump wasn't charged. Weisselberg was and Weisselberg refused to implicate him. I think if I was the judge, you know, and I think what the judge will ultimately say is something like, you know, you could have charged Trump and you didn't and so I'm not going to allow that in. That could be overly prejudicial So so that's one that I think the rest

I think there's going to be some version of it that comes in. I don't think that's going to come in. That's my prediction there um So so you know, that's that's what's that's where we are right now as you said, they have seven jurors There's been a whole chess match that's been going on um that between the the the lawyers, especially on the prosecution side that I've noticed them doing. They're really being ginger about what peremptory challenges to use that each side has 10, each side has used six of them.

So they have four left to pick five more jurors and then then they have to pick six alternates, and there it resets. You get two challenges per each alternate. That doesn't mean you get 12 challenges though. You get two per alternate. So let's say you have a panel of 20 people, you have a panel of 20 people to pick your six alternates from, they won't let you use your 12 because you like number, juror number eight over there.

You have to go one by one, one, two, one, two, one, two. It's hard to explain it to people who don't sit there. We're gonna do it. Let's do it in the second half of this particular segment. Let me add a couple of things to what you just outlined and then we'll take a break and then we'll come back and talk about the actual jury selection process. What we're watching is Donald Trump in real time, either in this case itself, creating evidence that could be used against him in the trial. We've seen this before. We've seen this E. Jean Carroll's civil case for rape and punitive damages where social media postings he was doing

in real time were used against him in the jury. He seems to have not learned his lesson there. We saw Rudy Giuliani, one of his henchmen, do the exact same thing in his defamation case with Ruby Freeman and Shay Moss, got hit with $146 million judgment there. But now we're talking about crimes. And now we're talking about liberty, and Donald Trump staring down the barrel of going potentially to jail for classy felony,

34 counts of it. Because I think if the jury buys the crimes, and we can talk about that before we break again, but if it buys the misdemeanor business record fraud as a conduit to cover up another crime, in this case, election interference, federal or state, and goes to the felony, I think they go there for all 34 acts. But we'll put that aside for a minute. Donald Trump is still at this moment subjecting himself or making himself vulnerable for other criminal prosecutions. If he continues to violate the gag order, and he has been, and the judge is taking it seriously and wants it fully briefed in a hearing on the 23rd of April, plenty of time for Donald Trump to create even more evidence. He could look at $5,000 a day of money, but more importantly, jail time. I

mean, the Manhattan DA has signaled that they want jail time, put him in jail if he continues to violate witness intimidation, the way he goes after Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and others. Juror intimidation, which has just really started in the last couple of days, where he talks about prospect, we still haven't picked a jury yet. There is still a pool of jurors that need to be selected. I mean, we're gonna talk about the mechanics of, you know, the, you know, twosies and backsies

and peremptories and all that, but there's still 400 or so potential jurors who are gonna come back tomorrow To get selected and he is yet acting out again on social media talking about Jurors and intimidating them. I'm sure it's gonna be a topic tomorrow We are not gonna start off at nine o'clock or 930, whatever time his trial day starts with Judge Rashad. We're not gonna start with, okay, let's go back to where we left off. Let's go to number eight.

I mean, there's a lot that Donald Trump continues to do. First of all, here's one of my favorites. This is Donald Trump should either go on our Patreon or go to law school. Because he doesn't know- Or he has his lawyer. He doesn't know what peremptory, well, they obviously don asking his lawyer. He doesn't know what a peremptory, well they obviously don't screen them.

He doesn't know what a peremptory challenge is. He doesn't know how many there are. He doesn't understand the unlimited part relates to for cause challenges if you have them. But my continued crime aspect, I'm gonna roll a video now, which I'm reasonably confident is gonna get played for the jury and he just made it.

Talk about making new evidence against you in a criminal case. This is where day one of trial or on the way in, he decided to basically confess in my view, his role in orchestrating a payoff of Stormy Daniels through Michael Cohen, and then booked on the books and records by Allen Weisselberg. And I think he realizes it midway through the clip. Let's play that clip. Thank you very much. This is a trial that should have never been brought. It's a trial that is being looked upon and looked at all over the world, they're calling, that they're looking at it and analyzing it.

Every legal pundit, every legal scholar said this trial is a disgrace. We have a trumpeting judge. We have a judge who shouldn't be on this case. He's totally conflicted. But this is a trial that should never happen. It should have been thrown out a long time ago. If you look at Jonathan Turley, Andy McCarthy,

all great legal scholars, there's not one that we've been able to find that said this should be a trial. I called a, I was paying a lawyer and marked it down as a legal expense. Some accountant, I didn't know. Marked it down as a legal expense. That's exactly what it was.

And you've been indicted over that. I should be right now in Pennsylvania, in Florida, in many other states, North Carolina, Georgia, campaigning. This is all coming from the Biden White House because the guy can't put two sentences together. He can't campaign. They're using this in order to try and win an election, and it's not working that way.

It's working the opposite way. So check it out. Legal expense. It's called legal expense. That's what you're supposed to go. It's a struggle. Nobody's ever seen it. Nobody's what you're supposed to go. Nobody has ever seen anything like it. So thank you very much for coming. Now a couple of things, a couple of observations there. I don't know if salty you can put up a still of, um, of him there without playing the video. Look how far back though, Karen,

Susan necklace, who is the lawyer for Donald Trump who had been his lead lawyer in the case where he lost for 17 counts of criminal tax evasion. She's the only other person in that room that knows the New York procedural law and it's not Todd Blanch. Tom Blanch is like right next to him. Susan Necklace is behind a bicycle rack up against the wall and Todd Blanch looks like he's about to undergo or is undergoing root canal without an ovicain

because they can't stop this guy. Unpack, let's just unpack what he just said. I paid a lawyer and marked it down as legal expenses. He then thought better of it and said, an accountant, no, cause that sounded terrible. That sounded like he orchestrated, which was what the criminal case is. He orchestrated writing it down in the books and records as a repayment for legal expenses and a bonus to Michael Cohen when it was a repayment for Michael Cohen having paid Stormy Daniels from a home equity line

in order to leave, not have a paper trail. Nothing says I'm not committing a crime, like having a three-step process to pay off somebody you had sex with. And so that's a problem for him. And if I'm the prosecutor, I wanna hear your view on it. If I'm the prosecutor, I play that at some point, I don't know about opening statement, but Donald Trump has a genetic disposition

where he cannot, and this is to the bane of his lawyer's existence, he cannot stop himself and he's moved into this world, this alternate earth, where he believes he can just say anything if it helps him in his political campaign, if it helps him with his grift, you know, in his grift, and he doesn't think through, and I don't think the lawyers know what he's going to say. They don't, certainly don't screen it or scan it before he gets going. And therefore, he generates new evidence potentially exposing himself to new criminal prosecutions right in what we are doing. I want to hear Karen's view on that, new evidence being generated, the jail, the potential jail for the gag order, the January, sorry, the January, the April 23rd hearing

on the gag order and the motion for contempt. And what do you think Judge Murchon does with that? And we'll kind of wrap up jury selection, but first a word from our sponsors. Of course, your dog is a member of the family. So serve them the top quality dog food that they deserve. Serve Nom Nom. All dogs are individuals

and they deserve to be served like it. Nom Nom delivers freshly made dog food that they deserve. Serve Nom Nom. All dogs are individuals and they deserve to be served like it. Nom Nom delivers freshly made dog food personalized to your dog's preferences and unique caloric needs. Nom Nom is made with 100% premium ingredients. That means 0% freaky fillers or funky stuff. Dogs love great tasting meals just like us, yet their nutritional needs are different than ours.

That's why Nom Nom's nutrient packed recipes are developed by board certified veterinary nutritionists freshly made and shipped free to your door. Nom Nom has already delivered over 40 million meals and that's because the dogs, yours, mine, all of ours, deserve the best dog food there is. My dog Boogie, who's been on the pod many times, is truly part of our family.

He likes to come onto Legal AF when I'm recording and he sits with us. And I don't know what I'd do without him. That's why I'm committed to only giving him the best. Board certified vet nutritionists develop each of Nom Nom's recipes to provide dogs with the proper balance of vital nutrients required to thrive. And their floor-licking delicious good too. Nom face assured. Or your money back guaranteed. Meaning if your dog isn't deliriously excited about dinner,

then it's money back guaranteed. So say goodbye to boring dog food. Your dog deserves a reason to run to their bowl for every single meal every single day. Go right now for 50% off your no risk two week trial and try nom.com slash legal AF. That's nom.com slash legal AF for 50% off. Try nom.com slash legal AF

and take care of your dog just like Boogie. Life insurance is an important safety net for any family, but trying to find the right policy on your own can be time consuming and overwhelming. Policy Genius is the country's leading online insurance marketplace. It saves you time and money, so you can provide your family with a financial safety net starting today.

With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policies that start at just $292 per year for a million of coverage. Some options offer same-day approval and avoid unnecessary medical exams. Policy Genius helps you compare your options from top companies, and their team of licensed experts is on hand to help talk you through it. Talk to a team of award-winning agents

who will walk you through the process step by step. Easily compare quotes from America's top insurers in just a few clicks to find your lowest price. Your work-life insurance policy may not offer enough protection for your family's needs. Even worse, it may not come with you if you leave your job. I used Policy Genius to locate a policy for me that was mine, regardless of employment,

and to address my growing family's needs. Policy Genius gives you unbiased advice from a licensed expert support team. They have no incentive to recommend one insurer over another so you can trust their guidance. Thousands of five-star reviews on Google and TrustPilot from customers who found the best fit for their needs speak for itself. Check life insurance off your to-do list in no time with Policy Genius. Head to policygenius.com slash legal AF

or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com slash legal AF. And we're back. We can tell that was Popak before haircut and now after haircut. Now let's return to the Manhattan DA and the prosecution of Donald Trump. Let me before we go to let me get your comment just to have a little continuity here.

Let me get your comment on whether that video gets used by the prosecutors. Then I want to turn to the seven that are in the box for the jury and what we know about them. When I answer a question from the chat, jury is anonymous in the sense that we don't know their name and their address, no photos, no charcoal sketches, but we do know their demographics. We know gender, we know profession, we know things about them

without identifying them. And so they are anonymous in that way. And certain that information was only provided to the lawyers and not to Donald Trump, particularly for that reason. But they're not sequestered, for somebody that asked that in the chat. it means they go home at night and they come back. And very rarely do you sequester. And at least as a defense lawyer, I would not, nobody likes sequestering because the jury is like driven up the wall for six or eight weeks. And it's a whole different type of jury

that you get that's willing to go do that. So no, they go home with admonitions about what they can and can't do while they're home, what they can and can't look at while they're home. And they are going to be, they have been escorted or will be escorted, I'm sure, by the courtroom security forces to make sure they get back to their home safely and that they're not, you know, no paparazzi or other, there's a lot of people out there. I was there out in front of the courthouse

day before yesterday and they don't want like, oh, there they are. Like they're coming out of a Broadway show and somebody wants to get their autograph. They have to make sure that doesn't happen as well. Tell me about the clip that we just played and then we can turn to the seven jurors that are in the box.

Yeah, you know, it's interesting that you mentioned the sequestration. I've never had a sequestered jury. I don't think it's allowed anymore in New York. And if it is so rarely used, it's just not a thing that they do anymore. That clip is interesting because, you know, I don't think they will use it. And the reason is this, you have to use the whole clip, you're not allowed to take it out of context. And, you know, on balance, I don't know that I would want to give his words any airtime. If I'm the prosecutor, I want to force him to testify. If he wants to get his story out, get on the stand, because I want to cross examine him. And he corrects himself pretty quickly. And so, you know, I don't think that in summation I think his lawyers would clean that up so so no I don't I wouldn't do him any favors by

adding by playing that me personally they might choose to but that's that's why I love the show I would definitely play it yeah well it's different though it's different because don't forget a prosecutor in a criminal case has to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt that burden of proof you don't forget a prosecutor in a criminal case has to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden of proof, you don't want to add even the tiniest bit of doubt to your case at all. And parts of that clip could add the doubt. And so- Does it matter for you that he, let's say he doesn't testify. And so you're trying to get his own words up there. You don't have a deposition transcript like you do in a civil case. You've

got a lot of things that he has said, a lot of, look, there's a lot of recordings. There's a Michael Cohen recording of the conversation with Donald Trump. Obviously they will play. Donald Trump didn't know he was being recorded by Michael Cohen. You and I have heard it. We've done hot takes on it. Legal AF has done it. So they got some really good recordings where it looks like he's in on the, he's leading

the conspiracy. I'm talking about Trump now. So you, and you got all these other witnesses are going to come in like, like hope X and, um, David Pecker for the national inquirer and people that used to work for Trump that he can't even remember the name of who are all going to testify around it. But like, I don't know. I just liked the, uh, I don't know. I paid a lawyer that I wrote it down as a books and records, uh, legal expense. What's the matter with that? It was a big problem.

Look, I mean, I hear you and they might use it. They might use it. But that's the analysis that they're going through in their head. Is it worth it? Because I want to force, you know, that kind of, as a prosecutor, you want a defendant to testify. You're saying the rule of completeness means that they're going to have to play the whole thing, including. Oh, yeah. Even when I said to Salty, okay, that's enough. You don't get to do that in court. They're going to have to play the whole thing. You do not get to do that. You have to play the whole thing. I'll take statements out of context.

And the prosecutors, what they're thinking through when you're trying to decide, because you get faced with this in other cases. And as a prosecutor, you really want the defendant to testify. That's like, you know, the best thing that could happen to your case because you get to cross-examine them. You get to, yeah, they get to say it their way, but you get to cross-examine them. And that's something that you always want the opportunity to do. So I think the prosecutors would love for him to testify here. I think he'd love to testify. I think you and I've gone back and forth. And I've been very clear, I think he's going to testify. Because I think he has nothing to lose. And he already thinks that the case that the jury is against him. And he already thinks that everyone's biased against him. He thinks he's his best spokesperson. And so why wouldn't he testify? I mean, we'll see what what ends up happening. But I, I think the calculation here would be that he does testify. Yeah, we're gonna we got a running bet on that one. And the defense lawyers betted me have a running bet with you on that. We're gonna say, we have you and I already have another running bet going about. How do you think that's going? going about. How do you think that's going? I'm still feeling good about it based on the peremptory challenges that are left and everything. We'll see. It's a little side bet with just

colleagues and friends. Somebody's going to get a nice lunch. Well, we're both going to get a nice lunch out of it. It just depends. Tell people what it is. It has to do with the pace of the jury selection and when opening statements are going to be. I think it will go slower and Karen thinks it'll go faster. And I think tomorrow I'm going to know whether I'm buying lunch or not. But let me turn to the seven jurors that are in the box. Juror number one, as somebody just rightly said in our chat, is by law the jury for person as compared to other jurisdictions where that is selected by the jury when they go into the liberation. J Number one, we already know is a male Irish American, I think he's naturalized, and we know there's two lawyers in there and some other

things. The only one, I want to hear your comment about what we know about the seven, and that is the seven that are sworn. No backsees, right? Karen, they can't use the peremptories. These are seven sworn. They're in. Yep. Yup, they're in. Okay. All right. And we need five more to join them. And then six, the judges decided, as I had said earlier on a hot take, he decided to go with the full six alternates. And there's a process of peremptory, which are challenges for really any reason, as long as it's not a terrible reason. And for cause, and as you sort it's not a terrible reason and for cause and as you sort of outline it will get the rest in the box. There's one that concerns me based on reporting in the New York Times. I wanted to see if

you caught this. Did you see the one about the African-American woman? Okay. So there's an African-American woman? OK. So there's an African-American woman who, during Wadir, during the questioning, said a version of the following. Again, I'm reporting on reporting, to be clear. As Karen outlined in the beginning of the show, we're not in the room. We're relying on people that we can rely on, who are in the room.

It's not that big of a courtroom. But there's a handful of people like Norm Eisen that we like and others that we like that we're getting information from. But the reporting from the New York Times, which has generally been reliable, has said something like, she said that she liked Donald Trump a lot because he's a straight shooter, a straight talker, as opposed to, almost like saying as opposed to the current occupant of the White House. And she made it through this gauntlet and she's on there. And as you've always feared, it only takes one.

The prosecution has to go 12-0 and the defense only has to go one for 12th. And that's always been a problem. And- He can hang the jury. Right, and that she would hang the jury either through jury nullification where she'll just fold her arms and she doesn't care what happens in the courtroom in terms of facts and law. She's not

going to convict Donald Trump of those 34 counts. She hasn't gone through the whole deliberation process and all of that. But regardless of whether you knew about that or not, does a juror like, did you catch anything from the seven that you think is good for the prosecution or bad or for the defense? Give our audience some of your expertise that comes from your own experience. Yeah. So a couple of things. First of all, jury selection is... Well, let me preface all of this with every defendant, including Donald Trump, is innocent until proven guilty. And that's an important thing that is real. It's not not real. And so he deserves the same rights and everything else as everybody else. And so I watched jury selection and every other part of this with that presumption.

And it's important that the jurors believe in that presumption. And that is one thing that I think is coming through, that a lot of people were taking very, very seriously. And they were saying things like, my feelings don't matter. It's about the evidence. And it's not about what I think, what I hear outside. It's about what happens in court. And that's been my experience with jurors. They take their job very, very seriously. And you're looking experience with jurors. They take their job very, very seriously,

and you're looking for those jurors. So, so far, I think there's a lot, they've picked some good jurors in that regard, people who will take their job seriously. Because frankly, if the people can't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, they don't deserve to win, no matter how much you dislike or how objectionable or how awful you think Donald Trump is. You have to be able to, if they don't prove this case,

you have to be able to walk in and say, I, I, my verdict is not guilty. So, so they, they had some pretty good people in that regard. And I liked what they were saying about that, that they really seem to get it, that it's not about what I think about him, it's about the evidence. And, and that's what you want, just as in life, you know, you want a good jury. So that, I really liked that about the jury. One of the things I picked up on though, that I thought was really interesting is, is there are a couple people who are from Harlem, which is in Upper Manhattan. And Harlem is a very diverse community.

It's a working class community. I mean, obviously there's a whole range, lots of people who live in Harlem. It's actually also a very fancy section as well, but there's definitely Harlem is traditionally, like I said, a very diverse community with a very strong black culture and black community. And there's several people who are from Harlem

on that jury. And Donald Trump, I will say, is no dummy. He went to Harlem the day, I think it was last night or the night before, it was in the middle of jury selection. And in New York, we had a case in the last year or so, maybe it was a year and a half ago, where a bodega worker in Harlem was held, someone was coming in and stealing from him and the bodega, you know, and was robbing him and the bodega worker shot the person in self-defense, but he was arrested and he was indicted. And there was a huge, huge outcry that this guy, he was like a beloved member of the community. I can't remember his name.

He was absolutely a beloved member of the community and he was getting robbed all the time and he was just acting in self-defense and that he was arrested and indicted. They ended up dismissing that case. But there was a huge community really thought law enforcement got that wrong. Look, there is a whole aspect in Manhattan that thinks that law enforcement is… We've gone through stop and frisk. There's a whole history of is we've gone through stop and frisk. There's a whole history of law enforcement in New York in general, where I think law enforcement definitely went too far, like in the whole country, but also specifically in New York.

And in particular, the community up in Harlem was way over policed. There was a lot of stop and frisk up there. And this particular bodega worker felt similarly, they got the wrong person, and you're harassing a really good community member. Anyway, Donald Trump went to that bodega, saw that guy, and made himself out to be like, I'm one of you.

Yeah. Well, he didn't see the guy. The guy was in Puerto Rico, but he went there. That's for sure Yeah, he went there and he's like I'm one of you and I'm gonna I am you know I am a man of the people who is you know, who's who's who's being Wrongfully charged and over policed and he got people to chant for more years. So he's no dummy He's any attacked Alvin Bragg. He attacked Alvin Bragg. And he attacked Alvin Bragg. Exactly. And, oh right, it was a stabbing, not a shooting.

Yeah, exactly. And the thing about it is even, of course, I'm sure there's no one in that jury that was in that bodega, the picked jurors, but people know people and people know people in the community and he is just, he is working all of his angles and that worried me. I didn't like that and I didn't like that he's doing it. But interestingly, one of the things that you talked about was the gag order and this hearing next week because it's clear to me that he's violated, the prosecution has said

he's violated it three times. I think he's violated it more than three times. And I think he absolutely hit the third rail today when on Truth Social, he, so you have it up there. It says New York judge's gag order prohibiting Trump from making public statements about any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding. You know, you have, that's what the gag order says, right?

And then Trump says they are catching undercover liberal activists lying to the judge in order to get the Trump jury by Jesse Water. So he's doing his reposting again. And the reason he did that was so I The reason I say that Trump has violated the gag order more than the three times the prosecution has listed is because Before he violated the gag order the three times when he attacked Michael Cohen stormy Daniels and you know himself Calling them deranged etc Before that, he had reposted things that other people were saying about the judge's daughter that, in my opinion, was in violation of the gag order,

because although it wasn't his words, he was reposting it, thereby adopting them and making the statements. The prosecution, when they made the order to show cause and they asked the court to hold him in contempt for Violating the gag order only included when Trump made the statements They didn't include the reposting and that was a big mistake in my opinion because now look what he just did He's reposting what someone said about the jurors and I think however, I think the judge is going to go

jurors. And I think, however, I think the judge is going to go rip shit, excuse my language, because you cannot say anything like that about a juror. That that is going to intimidate the jury, a prospective juror. And I think the judge is going to move up the hearing from the 23rd. I think it's going to be tomorrow. I agree with I just gonna say say he is not going to wait. As I said, I totally agree with you on that. He's not he's got 400 prospective jurors that have yet yet not been selected

for five more seats in the real box and five seats in the alternate box. And he's out there going after them. And if I if I were and I've been called to jury duty, I'm sure you have too. You can't get out as a lawyer. That's why there's already two out of the seven are lawyers. Used to be, oh, you're a lawyer. I was the global head of litigation for a firm, right? And trial practice is my expertise. And I made it to the last round of a jury in New York State Supreme Court until they finally, after I mentioned, after I said, well, one of the things I'm very good at is jury science and how juries deliberate in a room. They were like, number seven, you're out. Thank you.

But, but I wanted to serve on the jury. It just was going to be like a month jury. Anyway, long story short, you're totally right, because he's got to deal with that 400 being polluted now. And that's why I don't think back to my lunch bet I don't think I think all morning tomorrow is gonna be this hand-to-hand combat you might be right with a very thank you but you're having lunch either way it doesn't matter with I know I want you to pay I know I know I know and I wanted to pay the other day nobody let me so there we go. So I'm owed I have to I owe I have to pay it forward. But but he's got to deal with this.

You're right. How can the judge ignore the jurors that are waiting to be slated if I'm a juror potential juror like now and I saw that and he wants me to see that. I'm not or the seven jurors who are sitting. Yeah. They're gonna be intimidated now. Oh my God, if I convict, they're gonna accuse me of being a stealth juror.

Like it's intimidating of the current jurors. Yeah, the whole, and the social media thing is also scary. I mean, listen, I'm not telling people take your social media down before you go down for jury selection, but they got into the jury. No, not at all.

Into their, no, into their social media. I mean, Travis Clay or Clay Travis, whatever his name is, who went on a pudding strike in 2000, cause he wasn't getting NFL Sunday ticket. He's decided he's a legal commentator and he told all of his MAGA followers that they should do jury nullification, that they should get onto the jury and then definitely, regardless of facts or evidence, don't vote to convict. That's their patriotic duty. This is where they're at. And this is what Mershon, that level-headed, sober jurist that you know well, we all love in New York,

has got to flex his muscle tomorrow. I mean, we talked about it in Hot Takes, you talked about it in all of your updates. You know, the, I will not allow jury intimidation to go on. He's got to hold, he's got to have a major hearing tomorrow on this. It's going to be great, it's red meat for you, me and Ben. But that's what's got to happen. He's got to protect this jury. Because if you give, as Ben likes to say, if you give Donald Trump, you know, an inch, he takes your entire life or your body. And you give, as Ben likes to say, if you give Donald Trump an inch, he takes your entire life or your body. And yes, in one way, I gotta tip my hat to what you observed about the bodega. It's like, God, that's like evil genius

for him to go up to Harlem and his people around him. I have to give him credit. But that's, again, another form of jury and witness tampering. Look, I want to, we got to move on to our other segments. And we got to, of course, go to our sponsors in a minute. Is there anything else? Because you're doing this, you know, daily, I'm doing the hot takes in between. Is there anything else that you think our listeners need to know, our

watchers need to know, leading into tomorrow? That's important. Just a couple of things people ask about, which is how is it that lawyers can look at people's social media and how does that whole thing work? And the way that works is first of all, this is all public information. You can't ask to friend someone, you can't,

or you can't make any, it's called contact. You're not allowed to have any contact with a juror whatsoever. You can't even, if you're walking down the halls, you're not supposed to say hello to them. Sometimes you're in the elevator or the bathroom with a juror and you, it's rude, you feel rude and you feel awkward. You can't have any contact with them.

And it's the same thing in social media. But if it's out there in the public, anyone can Google anyone and get as much information as they can. And we're seeing that being used here. And that's how they're really sussing out who's who because the lawyers get the names of the jurors. They're quickly, furiously Googling them and they're finding out information that's helping them glean who are these people. And so I think the jury, I think it's working. Anyone who says that, oh, I can't get a fair jury in Manhattan because A, it's going slow and 50% of the people leave. I've never had a voir dire, which is what it's called when you're picking a jury. I've never had a voir dire of either a long case or a significant case, a high profile case, or even a really serious case where you didn't lose half the people who,

you know, not everyone can sit for two months, right? There was a surgeon who said, I won't be able to do surgeries. I can't not be a surgeon for two months. And so it makes sense, right? It actually, it's working for everybody. And, you know, look, 100 Center Street is one of the dingiest, ugliest, dirtiest, old court buildings, you know, for for, you know, for a very brief period of time, I I worked for Mike Bloomberg. And one of the things I did was I visited every single courthouse in New York City in the five boroughs. And I can safely say, even including traffic court,

100 Center Street, I am not kidding, is the most- How about landlord tenant, L&T? This is worse. It has not been renovated in, I think, 100 years. It is dingy, it's old, it's dirty, it's broken. It is just, the bathrooms are scary and disgusting. It's a sick building. And it really is.

And it's the great equalizer though, because Donald Trump is like every other person who is charged with a crime using the same bathroom, the same elevators, the same, he is going through the same thing. And the fact of the matter is the seven jurors who are there and the ones that are coming are ones that his lawyers chose. He and his lawyers chose them.

They could have used their peremptory challenges. They still have a bunch left, but they chose those seven people. So, you know, he goes out and says, this is Joe Biden doing it. He goes out and says, you know, Alvin Bragg and Joe Biden. It doesn't matter who brought this case. You could hate Alvin Bragg. You could hate Judge Marshawn. And you can hate Joe Biden,

who has nothing to do with this case because this is a state court prosecution, by the way. And this is Alvin Bragg is independently elected. So this has zero to do with Joe Biden and the Department of Justice, which also makes it pardon proof if he is if he is convicted But it doesn't matter any of these things because it's the 12 people that he chose through his lawyers but you know why you know why if

I agree with you and having picked a lot of juries and so have you if If this is what they're okay with and there's no back seas likes in some courts You can't pull them out after they must think what's coming behind them is even worse in terms of their inability to get rid of them. This is a chess game. Yeah, it's a little bit of a chess game and it's a little bit of Jenga because you have to look behind you at the jury coming up, the prospective jury coming up, and you have to figure out,

you know, it's sort of like draft day for the NFL or the NBA, like what's the team ahead of me going to do? The prosecutors, because they go first, and then what's going to be left for me? And then how do I get to juror number 32 if that's a juror I really want? And you've got to make some hard decisions. I've had people in the box like, I didn't love number one and number three, but I really wanted number 16 and I'm trying to get to 16. It's a lot like drafting in the NFL with the quarterback. How do I get to the fourth pick to get my quarterback? And so we're watching that kind of go on. We're going to, as I said, just the last promo here for this particular legal AF spin-off is Karen and various guests are doing a morning prior to trial legal AF show about Trump on trial and then a wrap up at the end of the day with Ben and me and others doing what we're doing

about whatever we catch in between. So tune in for that. And as long as we're talking about tuning in, tune into our sponsors, our pro democracy sponsors, because we haven't got another set of them coming up right here. This episode is sponsored by OneSkin, one of my favorite products that I've been using now for a while. And I am so thrilled with Mother's Day coming up, or as I'd like to now call it Grandmother's Day coming up to take a quick moment to appreciate not only the moms out there but anyone who's taken on the role of a caregiver you do everything

for everyone else. Now it's time to do something for you starting with your skin. So today's sponsor which is one skin has simple scientifically validated routine that keeps your skin looking and feeling good. And here's the best part It targets the root cause of aging, something that is very near and dear to my heart. The secret is OneSkins proprietary OS1 peptide. It's the first ingredient proven to switch off the aging cells that cause lines, wrinkles, and thinning skin. And they've got several studies to back it up. I've been using their products now for a while and I'm completely hooked. Don't just take my word for it. It has over 4000 five star reviews and was recently recognized by Fast

Company is one of the most innovative brands of 2024. People often are surprised to learn that I am a 57 year old grandmother. I think it's because of my skin largely and it's because I take very good care of my skin with products like one skin. There's really been a game changer even my mother who is can be very honest has noticed a difference. And so for a limited time, you'll get an exclusive 15% off

your first OneSkin purchase using the code LEGALAF. When you check out at oneskin.co, that's one skin, O-N-E-S-K-I-N.CO. You do so much for others, try OneSkin today and-N-E-S-K-I-N.C-O. You do so much for others. Try OneSkin today and do something good for yourself. OneSkin is the world's first skin longevity company. By focusing on the cellular aspects of aging, OneSkin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer.

Get started today with 15% off using code LEGALAF at Oneskin.co. That's 15% off Oneskin.co with code legal AF. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support this show and tell them that we sent you. Let's try, we spent a very valuable portion of our podcast talking about things that are really, really interesting.

And we're gonna continue to do that with the bond issue and the Supreme Court issue. But we're going to try to be sensitive to everybody's time and not try to take too much advantage of it. We can't have two-hour podcasts. I mean, we could. I know. Unfortunately, and I apologize, I could literally

go on and on about this trial just because there's so much to say. There's so much to talk about. And we have a great audience tonight. We have a fantastic audience,,000 23,000. We're probably in the top three if not top two and in YouTube live, which always brings a smile to our faces. But let's let's get into it kind of do an efficient turn on both the bond

issue. And on Supreme Court, we got another hearing coming up the judge and Goran show is not over. I'll just frame it then we'll talk about it and then we'll go on to SCOTUS. On the $456 million civil fraud judgment obtained by the New York Attorney General on behalf of the people of the state of New York for persistent fraud under 63-12 at Executive Law in New York, that's in the can. The issue was can Donald Trump stop the enforcement and collection efforts around the judgment, meaning having his assets and his bank accounts where we all know

where they are and who they're deposited with, and certainly if we don't, the the monitor who sits over all of his assets appointed by Judge Angoran does, is he going to start losing them? Are they going to start selling and liquidating bank accounts or not? And the appellate division did him a solid, probably based on false information provided by his lawyers, that they couldn't find a bonding company, even though I don't think they tried very hard, for it to put up the $465 million bond when in fact they had. They had the same guy, Don Hanke, who's contributed over $8 million to the Trump campaign, who was willing to do it. He is not

only the owner of a series of no credit, low credit, auto financing companies, right? For people who can't get credit, you know, in car. He's not only a person, by the way, Don Henke, his companies have gotten sued by the Department of Justice for improperly, this is delightful, repossessing cars belonging to military personnel. He already got sanctioned for that. He got hit by Obama's and this is where the Trump-Henke thing comes in. He got hit by the Consumer

Protection Bureau for doing illegal lending. And of course, he hates that bureau, which Joe Biden of course supports. And Don Henke is also a large shareholder in a bank called Axos, which has lent Donald Trump, and I'm sure Don Henke is on the board, has lent Donald Trump over $550 million to get him out of by refinancing, gotten out of all of his financial problems. So he's beholden to Don Henke, not just because Don Henke did or did not put up the $175 million bond necessary that the appellate division said he could, but also because his bank basically, his lending arm, if you will, refinanced $550 million related to the old post office and a couple of other properties.

So he's into Don Henke for a lot of money. Now the issue for this hearing is because the attorney general has called the bond. We all looked at the papers. And those that practice in this area were like, there's problems with the supporting papers for the alleged bond that's been put up, including what role is the Knight specialty insurance

company playing? Are they in reinsurance line? Are they a broker? Do they actually have the money? Do they have to get the money from their parent company? Where did they get the cash from, from Donald Trump? And if that pledged bank, that pledged financial services account, that account,

I think it's Charles Schwab or somewhere, for $175 million,n't that already been pledged to Axios Bank, which is a requirement in order to get the $550 million loan that's a recourse loan against Donald Trump on a personal guarantee? You can't double pledge the same bank account. And so this is all gonna come out. We're waiting on a final word from the New

York Attorney General, Letitia James, in her filing. And then we got this big hearing. A lot of hearings that week. We got the 22nd, a hearing with Judge Angoran. We've got the 23rd, if it doesn't happen earlier, a hearing with Judge Mershon. And yes, by the way, to our audience, your demand has been heard from Mershon emoji. The suits have heard it, the brothers have heard it, it's coming out tomorrow, that's what I've been told. So with 23rd, 22nd, 23rd, a hearing on the gag order and sanctions against Donald Trump, and the 25th of April, if you're scoring at home, is the Supreme Court oral argument

on whether Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution for while he was president, which is the heart of the DC election interference case. That's a busy week. That'll keep this network popping. That's what I'll tell you. So that's the bond. What did you pick up? And where do you think it goes with Judge Angoran. So that's the bond. What did you pick up and where do you think

it goes with Judge Angoran? Does he reject the bond? Does he give Donald Trump and his surety another opportunity or does he just let Letitia James start collecting the money for the people of the state of New York? I mean, to me, like Judge Angoran's been, I don't wanna say chastened a little bit, but just the fact that the appellate courts would even reduce it from what he said

it was, you know, what he wanted, what he said normally, which is almost a half a billion dollars, down to $175 million. I don't know that he's going to say to the attorney general that she can go and start collecting the bond. He will have a hearing. He's gonna make people swear under oath. I think he's going to potentially have the monitor Barbara Jones, if I were him at least, this is what I would do,

validate everything that is being said. And I would be created, like he's got certain powers and certain, I would take advantage of the powers that he has is a better way of putting it. And I would, for example, I would put people on the stand, I'd make them swear under oath because you get power over that

when if they aren't telling the truth, right? You can hold someone in contempt. You right, you can hold someone in contempt. When you hold someone in contempt, you can put them in jail, you can find them. So I do think he's going to start to create a record. He's going to make people have to swear under oath that certain things are true. And I think he's going to make it so that if they aren't true, he has the ability to deal with that because enforcing, even if he did allow the attorney general to start enforcing a bond and collecting it, that's not a fun, like, it's not an easy thing to do, right?

It's not like you get to put a chain around a building and say, okay, now it's mine. There's tenants, there's upkeep, there's a whole... You'd have to deal with all of that stuff, right? You can't just kick everyone out. There's leases, there's a lot that has to be done. I don't know that that's really something anyone wants to do. Could they go into his bank account and start to collect that potentially? But some of it is in a trust and it's in the corporation and it's tied up.

I mean, he's not liquid. You know, if you were, we wouldn't be in this position to begin with. So I think he's going to start making a record. I think he's going to start really, really. What is it called? I always forget what that's called when you are. I think he's going to start, um, really, really, um, what, what is it called? I always forget what that's called. When you are, what, what is the, what is it called? Popok, when you put someone on the stand and they have to tell you about their assets in a judgment case.

It's discovery and aid of execution. So, but there's a, there's a word for that hearing. It'll come to me in a minute. That went, the kind of the, it's like a... You mean the credit, you mean the debtors, the debtors? Yeah, we'll get it. Yeah, it's on my head. We'll get it.

Yeah, we'll get the word of it. I think it's gonna be more like that, where they're going to put, where he's gonna put Hankey and or, where he's going to put Hankey and, or, you know, I think he's going to put Hankey on the stand and really make him identify his assets, make him identify Trump's assets. Like I said, I think he's going to get information from Barbara Jones, and he could even put Trump on the stand and make him list out what he has and see what it is. So I do think there's going to be a lot of that. But I don't know that he's going to allow the attorney general to start collecting.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think that he's going to proctologist style, make Donald Trump and Hanky sweat through this. And then at the end, put it like you said, put everybody under oath, really get down to the molecular level. Judgment, Judgment Debtors Examination. Very good judgment debtors examination. And and get down to the brass tacks about all the money and the relationship between the surety, the parent company for night insurance, and Hankey and all the backup money and whether the account for Charles Schwab or whatever it was, was

double pledged. And it's going to be a not fun day for Donald Trump at the end. We'll see what has to be resolved. So we're going to move on to our Supreme Court, did hold an oral argument already this week that's important to justice and to ultimately maybe to Donald Trump. But first, we'd be remiss

if we didn't let our sponsor Smile Actives have their say. So let's roll that one. Have you ever wished you had a whiter and brighter smile? Well, before you visit a dentist, you should know that their whitening treatments can be very expensive and it's not just the price. You also have to book the appointment and schedule time away from work or family

to sit in a dentist office chair while undergoing the procedure. It's a hassle. Fortunately, now you can try Smile Actives at home or anywhere, anytime. Smile Actives offers a safe and affordable alternative to those expensive whitening procedures. Listen, I like drinking things like coffee,

red wine and soda, but I don't like seeing my teeth lose their brightness. And having a bright smile is a confidence booster. It makes a great impression. It helps you with your family, photographs, and in your career. Smile Actives makes a teeth whitening gel that can simply be added to your toothpaste

every time you brush your teeth. So there's no change in your routine, no extra time, and no more messy strips, trays, or lights. Simply add Smile Actives Pro Whitening Gel to your regular toothpaste. It's been formulated with PolyClean technology to boost stain removal and deliver active whitening ingredients

into teeths, grooves, and crannies to get better whitening. 97% of Smile Actives users in a clinical trial reported up to six shades whiter on average, all within 30 days. Smile Actives is for a clinical trial reported up to six shades wider on average all within 30 days. Smile Actives is for everyone who's ready to invest in next level self care. Tap into the personal power that comes from having a bright smile. Visit smileactives.com slash Legal AF today to receive a special buy one get one free

offer with auto delivery plus free shipping and handling. That's smileactives.com slash Legal AF, terms and conditions apply. See site for details. Thank you to all of our sponsors. People ask how you can support the network and Legal AF and there are many, many ways, and almost all of them are free.

You can help free subscribe to the Midas Touch Network, help them get to three million. I can't believe that number when I say it out loud. I felt like just yesterday we were saying two million. Three million free subscribers before the November election. We're building a network with your help really in real time. This is it man. That's one. You can, we have these videos, you know this YouTube version of the show we do twice a week on Wednesdays and Saturdays, and then on audio. And it is helpful to us if you go over to the audio and you, you should say download, but just like listen to it, subscribe to it, that helps us and kind of go back and forth between the two.

We started doing about six months ago what I jokingly refer to as legal AF after dark. That refers to the fact that we run those clips late at night. Not when I actually record the ad for it, but legal AF after dark. We do all three or four or five segments, whatever we do. we do it and then I do an intro for it and introduce the clip and then we put it out there. That's not so much for the people that are hanging with us for the hour and 20 or hour and 30 minutes we do the actual podcast unless you missed the clip. It's so that you could help be our ad hoc marketing department and you like send that clip

off to people in your life and say, hey I I like this show, Legal AF. Take a listen. This is just a 10 minute investment of their time. Maybe they'll join our audience, which is another reason that we do it. And that's all free. We got all the kind of spin-off shows of Legal AF and Karen doing Trump on Trial. And I'm doing some interviews as Karen and Ben.

And so there's that kind of universe, if you will, that is if you want to continue to contribute that way. We got a merchandise store, we'll put up the link for that later. And now we've got a new patreon.com slash legal AF, a legal AF Patreon, where we're gonna be doing and have been doing on a regular basis sort of teachable moments, drill downs on fundamentals

of state and federal and criminal and civil and procedural. It's like, I joke, it's like a TED Talk meets a law school class. Do it on a regular basis. There's going to be at least one video a week. There's going to be, depending upon which membership you do, we go from two cups of coffee in most places, one cup of New York a month, to higher levels and you get different things depending upon what level of investment or membership you want to take including early access to hot takes and all of that. So if you want to kind of get the molecular level, the building blocks of things that we talk about, we

try to explain it in real time during a hot take or during a podcast but this kind of gives you a deeper deeper understanding of it than Legal AF, patreon at patreon.com slash legal AF. So let me now, I know everybody's worried that I wasn't gonna remember the last one. I'm just doing it early. Let's move on to the Supreme Court oral argument and talk about 1512-C of the US codes, 18 USC, and what it's all about. Let me put it in English. We've got a charge that was used by the Department of Justice and by the special counsel against Donald Trump, but particularly by the Department of Justice against more than 300 Jan 6 defendants. It was one of the highest charges that they used. If you put aside seditious conspiracy, which

is at the highest level, the next highest level in terms of sentencing years in prison that they were looking at was the criminal obstruction of an official proceeding, the official proceeding being Congress's counting of the electoral certificates. I mean, there's no doubt even in their own words that many of the Jan six were there to try to strangle, kill, assassinate or otherwise stop the counting. One guy who's actually the peasant or the defendant in the case that's up before the United States Supreme Court, Joe Fisher,

a former police officer from Pennsylvania, he actually wrote on his social media basically, a congressperson can't vote if he can't breathe. I mean, I don't know how much more interference with an official proceeding you can get than that. And he's the guy that brought the case. And his argument was a very arcane, picky-une interpretation of this statute in the two sections of the statute. The statute was passed, And his argument was a very arcane, picky, interpretation of the statute in the two sections of the statute. The statute was passed. We'll all agree to this. The statute was not passed to address insurrectionists trying

to burn down the Capitol. OK, we all agree to that. It was passed originally in the financial in 2002 or so after the Enron scandal, which was sort of the FTX of its day, where sort of a company that you thought had assets and you thought had an underlying business model actually was just a big Ponzi scheme and a fraud.

And it went down and it took Arthur Anderson, for those that follow big three, four accounting firms, which had been around for like 150 years, it took Arthur Anderson down with them. They're no longer here because they helped destroy evidence, including documents, which interfered with an official proceeding, which was the investigation. And so to get to make sure there was a crime on the books that actually fit those types of facts or future events, Congress passed as part of Sarbanes-Oxley a particular criminal statute that said in effect that if you alter, destroy, mutilate, hide, secrete evidence, documents,

information, that definitely violates, that definitely interferes with an official proceeding which would be the investigation or a court proceeding or something of that nature or otherwise criminally interfere with or impede an official proceeding and the way the prosecutors decided that because that's what you got to do is and Karen will give more detail about it, that's what you got to do as a prosecutor. You can't make up a new crime. You know, let's get a crime in exactly, you have to take the crimes that are on the books and then go methodically through them and figure out which of them you can map onto the conduct and not be accused of overcharging or have an ambiguity or some other infirmity that would

allow the dismissal of the indictment or of that charge. And so they said, well, the second part of this, otherwise impedes an official proceeding. I think we all agree the congressional counting of votes is an official proceeding. And this is the otherwise. This is how they did it. They did it by hanging up gallows and battling medieval style with Capitol Police and Metro Police and trying to assassinate elected officials. And they did, they were successful in delaying that

event. So we had an oral argument based on Joe Fisher's position that you have to have physical, physical, something akin to ripping up the electoral ballots, the electoral certificates in order for him to have been charged with that. And I thought having read it and read the briefing around it, this would not be that difficult for the Supreme Court to reject that argument. But that's not how it played out. As far as my count, I want to get yours next, Karen, is that it's teetering on a knife's edge.

You've got Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch who definitely don't think this law is being properly applied to these issues and thinks you've got to have something akin to ripping up the ballots, the certificates, in order for this to happen. Then you've got, on the other extreme, you've got in order for this to happen. Then you've got on the other extreme, you've got Katanji Brown Jackson, definitely Kagan, and Sotomayor. So you have three-three. Then you got Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who didn't say much. And then, by the way, Thomas didn't even show up for oral argument on Monday, but showed up for oral argument for this one. And then you got Roberts, who sort of spoke out of both sides of his mouth. At one point, I thought, well, he's definitely against the statute being used in this crime. And then he was trying, you could see him out loud, trying to

find a way not to strike it down, which would lead to 300 Jan 6 defendants getting this stricken from their indictments, or maybe them, released and all this other stuff. And then it has an impact on Donald Trump. Why don't you pick it up from what you picked up from the oral argument, pick up the Donald Trump part. I'll comment on that. And then we're a wrap. Let me tell you something.

This one makes me so mad. I can't, I can't even explain to you how much this pisses me off, because the statute could not be clearer, just couldn't be clearer. And to say, if the Supreme Court rules that this doesn't apply here, honestly, they're just looking for a reason to release the patriots,

as Donald Trump likes to say, the people, the Jan six people who are convicted of this. It is absolutely squarely in this statute. So much so. I actually read both the briefs in this, and I also listened to the oral arguments and I went over the statute over and over and over again because I don't get it. I don't get the defense argument or whatever he is, the respondent. It's always confusing who's who, but I don't get the argument from Mr. Fisher, the defendant. I don't understand it. I don't understand how Judge Nickel, who at the district court level, literally contorted his reasoning to fit this and the Supreme Court is going to take it and run with it.

It makes no sense whatsoever. And the reason is, and I know you went over this, but I think it's worth talking about one more time because I want people to really understand how absolutely, utterly, frankly, outside the law, the Supreme Court can sometimes be and this is going to be one of those times in addition to Dobbs, the case that overturned Roe versus Wade, if they do it here. This statute does have a section, there's two sections, section one and section two. It's whoever corruptly, section one says, as you said, rips up the papers, right? The documents and all that, the records, or other object, okay? So not just papers and, you know, it encompasses other objects. It says,

or other object. Then there's section, then it says it ends and then it says, or, okay, doesn't have to be papers and records and documents or some other object, or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding. And when you look at the definition of official proceeding, a congressional proceeding counts. Okay? That's congressional proceeding counts. That's what it is. That's what the statute's all about. It's about a congressional proceeding. There is no statute that more squarely fits this. And they say, oh, it's never been used for a case like this before because we've never had an insurrection before. We've never had a January 6 before. We've never had anyone try to stop Congress from certifying an election before.

So yeah, it's never been used for that before. But I'm a prosecutor. I shouldn't say that. I used to be a prosecutor. I like to still think I am, apparently. I have interpreted many statutes. I've applied many statutes to conduct. And yes, every once in a while, someone commits a crime that doesn't look like other crimes that have been convicted or committed, I should say. And you'd look at the statutes

that fit the crime. And that's what we have here. And it is so clear when they say, Oh, well, it's really has to be something physical. You know, it has to be like a paper or whatever. Okay, that's in section one, it says or other records, it accounts for that. This second part isn't the or other records part. This is some other way. And no matter how many times you read their legal reasoning and read their arguments, it is just not the case. And, and it's just really pissed me off because it's like they're looking for a reason to over turn. Well, you then you hated Alito and Thomas because the argument, just so we don't lose sight of it, I don't like the argument.

I think it's nonsensical under all the prevailing statutory interpretation methods that you use, but I understand the argument, which is the word otherwise somehow sucks in what is in section one. I know. No, I'm not. No, honestly, you're smarter than me, Popat. I'm not smarter than you. You are.

You know why? Because I actually, no matter how many times I read it. I don't understand it I let me just put up because I think I think we do a disservice if we don't really explain the BS I But let me but let me preface it by saying I totally agree with you It's total BS and I and I agree with Kagan I did a hot take on this one and I led with Kagan because I think Kagan did very well as she usually does in her surgical questioning of the lawyer for Joe Fisher. Again, and I'm going to reinforce a point you earlier made about they ignored the facts when it doesn't help them on the Supreme Court and they want to make new law in an activist

way. And they have here because the appellant, the appellant here, who's the Joe Fisher, the set of facts is terrible. They just ignore the facts because they want to get into the statute, which is not what they're supposed to be doing. It's like an advisory opinion then. But the, I don't agree with the interpretation. I agree with you. But the argument is that the word otherwise coming so close in time and the way you interpret to the prior list of things has to be like the list of things or similar to it as the sort of hinge between section one and section two of the statute. I think it's a terrible argument, but Roberts, whose I think is the swing vote here, because

if it's going to, I think this is five to four and it's Roberts probably making it's five to four if If i'm right that cavernaw and amy coney barrett sort of slide over because it makes terrible precedent for terrible law And they and they get into and they and they side with that but roberts At one point said I don't like the over breath of this I don't know if he used the word dragnet where it was gorshich, but they saw it as sort of a dragnet as opposed to a catch-all, which is what the Solicitor General, Liz Proliger, was arguing.

This is a catch-all. Congress did it on purpose. This, what you said, Karen, this list of things of destruction and impeding objects and this and that, and then a non-destruction of things provision at the bottom of it. So it's Robert's going to have to find a way to kind of thread this needle to keep this thing alive. Let me switch quickly to, before we end the podcast, let me switch

quickly to what it means for Trump. Because very, very smartly anticipating all of these arguments and wherever they arise, the special counsel's office in its briefing told the Supreme Court in immunity, which is being argued on the 25th, that even because they know that this was up before them at the same time or around the same time, they said even if you were to somehow find that those charges were wrong against those defendants who definitely didn't come near, thank God, because Capitol Police and Metro Police were heroes that day and kept them out of the chamber. Well, at least while the county was going on, they didn't get their hands, their dirty little

grubby hands on these certificates. That's not the case for Donald Trump. Donald Trump is alleged in his indictment to be a part and leader of an orchestrated conspiracy that involved fake documents, i.e. the fake elector certificates, which would be a document that clearly fits with a number sub one of the statute. So he does have false fraudulent forged documents to impede an official proceeding, because that was supposed to gum up the works. So Special Counsel Jack Smith said, we have an outlet, even if you were to dismiss it for Joe Smith, Joe Fisher, and those like him, it would not apply to Donald Trump because we're firmly fit within sub one of the statute. But having said that, that doesn't mean that Todd Blanch and John Sauer, Sauror, Laro, whatever his name is, the lawyers for Donald Trump in the DC election

interference case don't immediately, when that case gets back up and running, we hope, file a motion to dismiss based on the Supreme Court precedent of Fisher versus US. Chuckin's going to have to have full briefing on it. They'll make the arguments on the prosecution side that we're making here, but she's going to have to hear full argument. The loser is going to take an appeal and there goes, and this is Donald Trump's, you know, what he's wanted all along, there goes the DC election interference case before the November 5th election what do you think about that Karen? I think you're right. I think it's a it's it's I feel a little crestfallen by the by the potential by the potential of all the things that could happen and we're at the Supreme Court and where we are.

But I will say it also makes me very, very proud of the Manhattan DA's office because there was a lot of people when that case was brought that said, why this case? Why is this the first one? And is this really serious and all of that? And look, it might be the only case that goes. And it's the only case that might hold him accountable.

You've said that, if we find the tape somewhere, you said that at the beginning, that this might, I was always holding out hope that the Chutkin case would end up going first actually before this. I always thought the Georgia case was like, at the rate she was going, there was no, before her issues or the issues that were raised against Fonny Willis, I was like,

that case is definitely not gonna get up and running at that rate. But I was holding out hope, there was no, before her issues or the issues that were raised against Fonny Willis, I was like, that case is definitely not gonna get up and running at that rate. But I was holding out hope, like you said, I'm crestfallen too, about the DC election interference case, because I'd love for there to be too. But it looks like, as I've joked, it may not be the case you wanted, not us, not our audience, but it's the case you have.

And it is an election interference case, as you, Norm Eisen, me, and others have said. At bottom, it has to be, otherwise it's not a felony. If there's not a second crime, it's only a misdemeanor. And we're not here all spending an hour talking about a misdemeanor case against Donald Trump. And it will, back to our mantra that we sit at the intersection of law and politics, there is a polling, not that I give much credit to polling right now, but there is polling that says that if Donald Trump gets convicted anywhere, including of course in Manhattan, this is what he's worried about, that there will be a peel away of some percentage of votes, which is what is shaping up to be a ridiculously

close election that it shouldn't be this close. But if the polling is right about that, but if you lose one, two, three, four, five percent that gets peeled away because they just can't pull the trigger, the lever for Donald Trump because of a conviction, then look at the poetic justice of Alvin Bragg, first attacked, first to indict, first to convict and help Joe Biden win. Not because it's election interference, but because the voters are using it as a data point in their decision-making. And that's what's really, really important. And that's why law and politics, they come together not in the ways that the bagists suggest, like Elise Stefanik and all the others and Melania Trump saying today, or this case is election interference.

It is election interference. It's your husband's election interference that got him elected in 2016 and having thought he got away with it in 2016, he tried it again in 2020 because Alvin Bragg hadn't yet gotten into office to bring the case. So he said, well, do it in 2016, let's try it again. And what we're watching now is Donald Trump continuing to act out and try to shape the contours of the result here to save his electoral chances to get elected. Hence the bodega visit in the middle of Harlem. And it's gotta come up tomorrow.

I mean, I wish we had a camera in the courtroom. We'll hear it from those that are in there. We'll be able to comment on it. But that's gonna come up tomorrow. I mean, your old office is whip smart. They are going to talk about the bodega visit in the heart of where the jury pool is coming out of and how that was inappropriate. We've never seen it.

You've been doing this as long as I have. Yeah, but he's never seen it. But you know what he's going to say? I'm a candidate. I'm campaigning. Where else am I going to campaign? You're making me be here every day. This is where I am. I'm campaigning. We're also making a campaign. You're making me be here every day. This is where I am. I'm campaigning. I'm just this is what he's going to say.

Well, that's why and you're right. And that's why he linked it to Alvin Alvin Bragg, because he gets to under the gag order. Alvin Bragg himself is expressly carved out of the gag order. So he made it an Alvin Bragg campaign stop that just happened to be in the middle of where the jury pool seems to be Pulling out of or at least a lot of it. We got a lot to talk about We need more shows and we could go on forever and we go on forever when you and I first developed Wednesdays You and I talked about make remember remember this we took 45 minutes. It was supposed to be 45 minutes So was the other one with Ben. But it was about 45 minutes. But I wanted, and I think you and I saw it eye to eye,

we were going to do something different than the weekend. The weekend was going to be like, we'll do 12 segments. But you and I were going to do like 60 minutes, like a magazine. We're going to drill down on, well, we did it tonight, two or three stories. But you know what? We have to adapt and adjust based on what's out there and the need and the

demand for our type of analysis. That's why the show kind of morphed to and we were running hard to keep to keep up with it. You'll be on the air tomorrow. What time is your morning kickoff? We normally drop it I think it I think it's 530 and 830 so 830 Eastern All right 830 Eastern 530 Pacific time you'll see Karen. Do you have a guest tomorrow? No, yeah tomorrow is just gonna be me and Ben all right talking about what to expect and then tomorrow Yeah, I did I did a guest today. I did Norma isin because we were

Because it was it was a down day is what we call it in state court. I've never heard the dark day before today. Someone else. Yeah, I know I heard someone else call it that too. But we call it a down day. This is the court trials down. And then and then they usually wrap it for 30. Although it went late to pick up the seventh. Yeah, so we Yeah, so we try to go live at 445. As soon as soon as as it's over we want to be the first ones up

Which is why the other day I did one from the back seat of a taxicab Which yes, somebody's somebody made a pretty made a comment about that But I think what the point of my bringing this up is not only to kind of give you advanced programming That's legal AF oriented but also to tell you that you know Karen's doing that Ben and I are doing a backfill with hot takes during the day on things that we catch Not just to tell you that you're not a political scientist, you're not a political scientist, you're not a political scientist. You're not a political scientist. You're not a political scientist. You're not a political scientist. You're not a political scientist.

You're not a political scientist. You're not a political scientist. You're not a political scientist. You're not a political scientist. You're not a political scientist. You're not a political scientist. You're not a political scientist. Keep that wheel of justice rolling. We can't do it or we wouldn't do it without our audience. We could, but we would look insane. So it's really great. When Karen you said the top of the show, like

people question, why do you do this? And I it's the high it's certainly the highlight, highlight of my week is anything that I can do that touches working with you and Ben and Legal AF and the Midas Touch Network for sure. And to do our part for democracy and to protect and preserve our criminal justice and our civil justice system. But we do it because there is a demand,

We do it because there is a demand, an insatiable demand, for our type of legal analysis. I joke in some of the hot takes and some of the legal AF bumpers, lawyers talking about things at the intersection of law and politics that they know what they're talking about. How refreshing. We take it seriously. Do we get it right every time? No. Sometimes I say Wall Street Journal when I meant I meant the Washington Post or Karen says X, Y, and Z or Salty Runs, you know, three and a half ads today. Whatever. We all make honest, honest is the operative word, mistakes.

Or as I joked on one of my, I think on the top page of my ex account, it says something like the almost never wrong legal AF. We are wrong, but we do it in a way, no, it's almost never wrong. But even when we're wrong, we're like in the ballpark, like we're as close, or it's a prediction based on gut and experience, and it's like the weather, you know, it was a 60%

chance it was going to happen but it didn't happen. Okay. But I think what people like about the show and why we have an audience, 22, 23,000, that hangs with us through the entire evening, is because we're earnest about it, we're good-natured about it, we try to make it fun and entertaining where we can. You tell funny stories and great stories about all the things you do. I try to be lighthearted about it where I can. But then when it's serious, we're serious. And that's why, you know, you get stopped on the street. I do. People compliment me. Not me like ego, but like, we go to you and Karen and Ben and the show to get our information about law and politics more so than fill in the blank. And I take, you take, Ben takes that responsibility. I can't even express to you how seriously we take that and what an honor

we feel it is to have that happen. And so that's why we're here. I mean, you know, to paraphrase my colleague, that's why we're here. I mean, you know, to paraphrase my colleague, that that's why there's no other, trust me, there's no other reason why we are here. And we're thrilled to have our audience where it is continuing to grow. This is the network that you're building in real time. We don't have outside investors. This is grassroots. You are the network you were looking for. We're it. And it's the Midas Touch Network. So until Karen's next Legal AF morning and afternoon show. Don't I always get the last word?

Oh look, now you make me look bad. Because then if I give you the last word, sometimes you tell me offline, don't give me the last word because I have nothing to say. All right. So it seems like you have something to say. What do you want to say? I have three things to say. Oh, okay. So listen, I'm going to do what you did to me last week. I nothing to say. All right. So it seems like you have something to say. What do you want to say? I have three things to say. I have three things to say. So listen, I'm going to do what you did to me last week. I got to run. And I came back to no Karen.

Does anybody remember that? It's true. It's true. I know. All right. I'm going to stay on for this. Give me the three. Go. Okay. Now I'm going to have forgotten. Wait, no. Number one, I, number one, I want to say hello to a very close friend, Julie, who watches every episode and who's a huge fan and she's amazing.

And so I just wanna give her a shout out. Number two, I have a favor that I wanna ask people. So we get a lot of people who give us comments throughout the week and comments in the chat. And so many of them are so positive and I appreciate it so much when people reach out just to express thanks, etc. But the number one comment that I get is that my glasses show a glare and I need glasses. I need reading glasses. Every pair I have is from a drugstore. I wear number two and I need them because I can't otherwise I can't see your face

and I can't read the comments on the screen while we are recording. So otherwise I wouldn't be able to do that. So I have a favor to ask which is if anyone knows of glasses that you can buy that are reading glasses that are anti-glare, please reach out and tell me which ones they are. I'm going to tell you right now. I'm going to save our audience effort. Tell your optometrist or your, and I can give you the name of mine, and tell me what anti-reflective coating put on your glasses. You don't like that? I think I have a pair and I think, I'm not sure that works. Anyway, so anyway, that's number two.

And then number three was, I just wanna tell a very quick funny story that sort of weird, but for some reason I feel like telling it, which you talk about how sometimes people recognize us and recognize us whatever on the street every once in a while. Well, the most, and recognize us, whatever, on the street every once in a while. Well, the most embarrassing one was recently, I had to do my routine annual mammogram, which

every woman has to do. And so I'm bringing it up because, you know, most people, half the people who watch us are women. And the way it works is you go, you have to get undressed from the waist up, you wear one of those little, you know, hospital gowns, undressed from the waist up, you wear one of those little hospital gowns, and then all the women go and they sit in this little waiting room and everyone's sitting there half dressed with their little thing, you're all kind of vulnerable and humble and everyone's going to go in about to do the mammogram and all the women here, they know what

I'm talking about. And while I was sitting there, there was a woman who said to me, And while I was sitting there, there was a woman who said to me, Hey, aren't you Karen from Legal AF? It was so humbling because again, you're in this very vulnerable position. It meant a lot that they said it, but it was definitely humbling to be sitting there in that state and have someone, someone say hello and say nice things. Anyway, so I just wanted to tell that because I thought it was kind of a funny story. Popak is like turning bright red. Like I can't believe you just told that story but I'm telling

you last week that's why I'm telling it for for all the women here who know exactly what I'm talking about and know what it's like I thought they would appreciate a funny story. I like it. I'm leaving you with the last word so you reach the last word on Midas Touch Network with Karen Friedman and Nifilo until our next midweek with Karen Friedman and Nick Niflo until our mid our next midweek with Karen and then our Saturday edition with then my cellist and me. I want to shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal A efforts.