Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump is in for RUDE AWAKENING as Cases HEAT UP

Episode Date: December 24, 2023

Trial attorneys Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok are back with a new episode of the weekend edition of the LegalAF podcast. On this episode, they debate/discuss: whether the US Supreme Court’s refusal to decide whether Trump has presidential immunity from federal criminal prosecution on a fast track and deferring for now to the DC Court of Appeals and its ruling expected in early January, is a setback for the March criminal trial or not; the Colorado Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision to ban Trump from the ballot being blocked while the US Supreme Court decides the issue, as MAGA led by Trump violently attack the Colorado Supreme Court justices who ruled against him; the immediate impact on hundreds of cases of the Supreme Court’s decision to decide in late Spring whether Trump and other Jan6 defendants can be charged with “corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding” –one of the crimes with the highest sentences used by the DOJ; the surprising decision by federal judge Cannon to get her Mar a Lago criminal case back on track for a May trial date, at least on paper; why the 11th Circuit creating new law in denying Trump former chief of staff Mark Meadows’ attempts as a former federal officer to transfer his Georgia criminal case to federal court as a way to seek its dismissal, doomed Jeff Clarke’s appeal, and Trump’s efforts to get his own criminal case out of state court too; and so much more from the intersection of law, politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! HumanN: Thanks to our sponsor HumanN! Get a free 30-day supply of SuperBeets heart chews and a FREE Full - Sized Bag of Tumeric Chews valued at $25 by going to http://legalafbeets.com Liquid IV: Get 20% off when you go to https://Liquid-IV.com and use code LEGALAF at checkout! AeroPress: Head to https://Aeropress.com/legalaf to save 20% at checkout! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The United States Supreme Court denies special counsel Jack Smith's petition for a writ of surgery or rory on the issue of absolute presidential immunity, meaning at this stage, I want to emphasize that, and we're going to talk a lot about it. Just at this stage in the appeals process, the Supreme Court is saying that they do not want to hear a direct appeal on the issue of absolute presidential immunity after a federal judge in Washington, DC, denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss

on those grounds of absolute presidential immunity. So where we are at is that there is an expedited appeal right now before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with oral argument to be held on January 9th. We will break it down. And I want to say at the outset that even though the Supreme Court has denied Sershi Arori for now, it can still hear the issue in a few weeks and Michael Popak and I both don't think that this is a big deal yet we will break down why we think that a trial can and likely will still be on track in 2024 unless the Supreme Court does something else in a few weeks we'll talk about that. Also I

want to talk about how the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear Sershiroori has accepted the writ of Sershiroori on another issue on the obstruction of official proceeding count that has been used by the Department of Justice in the various cases in prosecuting January 6th insurrection. It's one of the most potent tools that carried with it a 20 year prison sentence. Also, two of the four counts in the Donald Trump, Washington, D.C. indictment,

relate to this count or involve this obstruction of official proceeding account. Now, the writ of Sershi Rari by the Supreme Court we are seeing now is having a real world impact on some of the other sentencing and cases. And that is something that we want to make sure we cover here on today's show. Next up, I want to talk about an order from Judge Eileen Cannon in the Mar-a-Lago document case in the Southern District of Florida and that criminal case against Donald Trump scheduled for May 20th, 2024

Special counsel Jack Smith filed a motion for jury questionnaires saying look if we're really gonna have a May 20th, 2024 trial That we got to start the jury questionnaire process. Right now, we got to get started at least. We got to start meeting and conferring and submitting jury questionnaires by February 2nd. Well, Judge Eileen Cannon said, okay, but not February 2nd, over Donald Trump's objection, Judge Eileen Cannon set the date of February 28th, 2024, for special counsel Jack Smith and Trump to meet and confer and submit a potential jury questionnaires for the courts review.

That's two days before a May 1, 2024 status conference. I want to explain what I think the implications of that are and get Popox take if Judge Cannon is doing that to still kind of keep the facade of this May 20th, 2024 trial date, as there's all of these proceedings happening in Washington, DC, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court in the DC Federal Criminal Case, again, strong for his efforts to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. Then let's talk about the fallout from the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, the four to three decision ruling that Donald Trump was, an insurrectionist was, an officer and therefore, based on the 14th Amendment Section 3 is de-squalified from the ballot

in Colorado. That is now almost certainly going to be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The order by the Colorado Supreme Court has been stayed through early January for their order to be appealed. Let's break down everything relating to that order. Then I want to talk about, I think, a very big development here. Perhaps even a bigger development than all of the other topics that I just discussed, but something getting far less attention. It's what the right wing 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has been doing on these magacases before it.

One involving Mark Meadows and one involving Jeff Clark just this past week. And you had different panels for each. Mark Meadows was appealing the denial of federal officer removal in the Fulton County District Attorney criminal case where he tried to remove the case to federal court. And Jeff Clark, the disgraced DOJ employee who was trying to angle to become the acting attorney general to overthrow the results of the 2020 election, he was seeking a stay of all of the district court and lower state court proceedings

from the 11 circuit court of appeals as he pursued his appeal before the 11th Circuit. But first he had Mark Meadows losing before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. And in a very scathing order where the 11th Circuit all but called Mark Meadows an insurrectionist and a crook. And then they used that same logic

to deny Jeff Clark's motion for a stay and basically say you have no chance of succeeding on the merits in your appeal, so we're not gonna grant a stay. But they also had this kind of deeper discussion in there, Michael Popak, about the authority of the executive, and they went deeper than just denying the appeal or denying the stay,

in the case of Jeff Clark and before that and the one with Mark Meadows, they talked about presidential power and that the executive branch is not supposed to be interfering with kind of states' rights on the issue of elections. And I think there's a broader message being sent there by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, to their sister court, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, to their sister court, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and throughout the country. And so I wanna talk about that as well

because that's a big powerful message that they're sending and gives us some insight into where the Supreme Court may be at this issue and where the DC Circuit, I think, almost certainly is at these issues. Talk about that and more. This is LegalAF holiday edition, one of which everybody is happy holidays, Merry Christmas, whatever holiday you're celebrating, or if you're not celebrating a holiday, we're just

celebrating with you here on LegalAF. Popeyes in his, I'll call it a festive Christmas outfit, I'll go ahead and say it. For those that are watching us and wearing a my version of a Christmas sweater outfit. I'll go ahead and say it. For those that are watching us and wearing a my version of a Christmas sweater, and I join with Ben and wishing everyone for whatever holiday you celebrate a happy holiday season through this weekend. I'll tell you what doesn't take a holiday justice doesn't take a holiday. We're watching lawyers understandably for the Department of Justice and Trump's side working round the clock and through the holidays to do the briefing

that's required, almost everything that you and I been are going to talk about today is all roads leading up to the United States Supreme Court and Chief Justice John Roberts struggling to try to maintain the legitimacy of a court whose legitimacy is in shreds and is in tatters. The immunity issues and we'll use that I word a lot on this particular podcast, the ballot banning issues coming out of the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Jan 6th lead crime that the Department of Justice has been using against 300 or more defendants and Donald Trump for obstruction of an official proceeding. The federal former officer immunity issue that you just talked about the 11th Circuit, all of these things are or will be very, very soon. And I mean within the next month or so, up before the United States Supreme Court, just as we expected, right on time. Justice is never late. Justice is always on time.

At least when it relates. We think the Donald Trump, the only one that doesn't sort of fit that thematic is whatever Eileen Cannon is doing down in Florida with Mar-a-Lago as she may be awakens from her slumber party and decides that she's going to actually try this case or as you suggested and I believe this is more of a paper order and on paper, it looks like she's progressing her case when she really isn't. But as we always suspected, in the last year that you and I have been doing legal IF with

Karen on the Trump issues, we knew that we'd be talking about lower courts a lot, trial courts and Colorado courts and Colorado Supreme courts and courts around the country and then Georgia and then federal trial courts and not talking much about the United States Supreme Court because issues weren't right yet for them. But now we're in that phase of the intersection of law, politics and justice, the Supreme Court phase as and at all all posit something we'll talk about more on this podcast as as Chief Justice Roberts and even with a 63 majority mindful of his legacy or whatever's left of his legacy Trying to struggle to hold on and maybe doing some horse trading behind the scenes among these various issues immunity ballot banning, and Donald Trump to try to garner votes, giving a win

to Trump, giving a win to Jack Smith, and then hopefully holding it all together in time for a presidential election in November, which we'll talk about. Look, with special counsel, Jack Smith filed with the Supreme Court, Jack Smith admittedly said it was extraordinary relief. And Jack Smith filed what he did before the Supreme Court, before he got word back from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals was expediting everything where you would have written briefs that would be due by January 2nd in the appeal on the issue of absolute presidential immunity and oral argument by January 9th before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

Now in the normal appeal process, as I said on the hot take that I did before, you don't take the elevator to the penthouse. You don't go from the district court to the Supreme Court. You go through steps. You go from the district court, the circuit court of appeals, and then the Supreme Court can accept certiorari on a special petition for the Supreme Court where things are, where issues that are presented are so unique or there's a circuit split throughout the country

or whatever the reason is that the Supreme Court decides to hear the case. Now I think the key reason why the Supreme Court ultimately said and why there was no notable dissents, why they denied special counsel Jack Smith's petition for Sertiary here, this direct appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals even makes their ruling on the issue of absolute presidential immunity, is because that DC Circuit Court of Appeals sets such an expedited schedule that the Supreme Court can kind of sit back, see what the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules by mid-January, and in terms of how long this would actually delay things, I mean, you're talking about a 45 to 60,

maybe a 75 to 80 day, 90 day delay, if the Supreme Court hears oral argument after the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules. And I think that's why you don't really see any dissent, and that's why at a later stage, if the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules that it's going to stay all proceedings while Donald Trump is seeking a surgery or re to the Supreme Court after I think we're all very confident the DC circuit is going to say Trump does not have absolute presidential immunity. And then in a few weeks when this goes back to the

Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court then refuses to accept Sertier-Rawry while there is a stay and they don't hear it in this term. If the D.C. Circuit has a stake, that would be devastating news. That would be bad news. And Michael Popak and I would then say, this case cannot happen in 2024. Now, if the Supreme Court in a few weeks after the DC Circuit Court rules, grants, surgery are right away or very quickly, whether I think Jack Smith will probably move very quickly again, even if Donald Trump would seek surgery are as well, because Donald Trump is going to be the losing party. But I think Donald Trump tries to wait in delay, so Jack Smith, I think, will file it right

away with the Supreme Court to basically call that out. Hey, look, now the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled were mid-January. If the Supreme Court then he or she already sets briefing, you know, by February or all argument, by mid-February, late February, we'll have a better understanding of when this trial date or a argument by mid-February, late February,

will have a better understanding of when this trial date is going to take place in the Washington, DC, federal, criminal case, but it will take place in 2024, then. So that's why this specific move did not make me really even blink. And for those who watch Legal AF, I hope that we've prepared you for that ruling.

We've talked about that being the likely scenario. And here's the thing, Popok, Judge Tonya Chunkin has said she doesn't care when this, she doesn't care about the election cycle. She's gonna try the case when the case is ready. That's the federal judge at the district court level who denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss on absolute immunity grounds,

absolute presidential immunity grounds. So the question then just becomes, is where is this case, where does it get sequenced amongst all of the other cases? But that because the DC circuit expedited this so quickly and we're gonna hear from the DC circuit, we're gonna know where they're leaning on this issue, I think on January 9th, on oral argument, I'm sure we're gonna do a hot take that basically says, you can predict these things, that wow

this circuit was, there was a hot circuit, it was scathing the questions they were asking Trump's lawyers and Trump's going to lose, then it's just how quickly they're after is there in order, and then Jack Smith goes back to the Supreme Court. That's the time for me, where if the Supreme Court makes a bad ruling, I could then say to everybody, yes, this Supreme Court has zero legitimacy on, like, on issue, and in addition to all the others where they've unfortunately lost most of their legitimacy. So that's kind of my take on a Pope. What do you think?

I'll go one step further. I'm not troubled at all by the US Supreme Court denying the writ of cert for direct appeal, and I am actually take a lot of confidence from it first coming up from a panel of three judges in the DC Court of Appeals, Judge Pan, Judge Childs, and it was at Williamson Harrison. It's too Biden to point D. He's one. Yeah, one GW Bush appointee and given judge Pan, pardon me, judge Pan and judge child's prior rulings, especially judge Pan on things related to Jan 6th, I would be shocked if they ultimately were given the precedent that's already been set in the DC Court of Appeals about immunity just recently. And the analysis that I think is rock solid and judge

Chuck in the trial judge's own decision making, I'd be shocked if that a panel of the DC Court of Appeals rules in favor of Donald Trump and finds that there is some sort of absolute presidential immunity that bars and bans, any prosecution of a now former president for committing crimes while he was president. It's a terrible precedent to be set. It's not one that's consistent

with our constitutional principles nor our system of government or the role of the president in our system of government. I'd be shocked if they did that. The reason I believe that, and Chef's kiss and tip of the hat, the Jack Smith, the reason I believe he filed both those pieces of paper at the same time. One, the writ of cert to the US Supreme Court asking them to take a direct appeal on an expedited basis.

And at the same time, almost simultaneously, saying the exact same thing to the lower level of pellet court is to, I believe, was to put pressure on the DC Court of Appeals to rule quickly set a briefing schedule quickly and rule quickly under the threat or the shadow that if they didn't the US Supreme Court would step in and take the case from them. And they did exactly that. that was his goal to get one of these courts to wake up and set an oral argument for early January. He got exactly what he wanted. And if I were him, if I were him, I'd be happy right now, not sad as the reporting has been in the in the most reporting with the headline. Trump wins. Oh, Supreme Court throws bone. It's not how I saw it at all. I know from your analysis just there that you was my co-anchor doesn't saw it at all. I know from your analysis just there that you as my co-anchor doesn't feel that way either.

I felt if I'm Jack Smith, I'd be like, great. I'm gonna get a well-developed record on briefing at before a favorable panel of the DC Court of Appeals. And then I'm gonna take that up on an expedited basis, I hope, to the US Supreme Court. I will also go out on a limb, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. As we said, as we like to joke, we're the almost never wrong podcast, that the US Supreme Court is not going to sit on

their hands when it's their turn to look at the case in mid January. The oral argument is the eighth, it's either the eighth or the ninth of January for the JC Court of Appeals, the ninth, thank you. They're going to rule by the 11th or the 12th. It's not going to go weeks. We've seen these different panels of the DC quarter, if appeals throughout the last two years, rule very quickly when history propels them to do that and they will here.

It'd be shocked if they didn't. So by mid-January, 15th or so, there's going to be an attempt by the loser to take the case on expedited basis now to the proper appellate court, the last stop on the train, last stop on the elevator, and your analogy, the US Supreme Court. Now you got John Roberts having to get five votes to grant the writ of cert for the appeal, set emergency briefing and make a decision. I know you're in the, you're of the opinion, I've heard it on our last two podcasts, and

I know why I know the reason you're saying it, and it's not wrong, that it could take still 30, 45 or 60 days of it ends up with the Supremes. It doesn't have to take that long. I mean, as I pointed out last podcast, it took 72 hours for the United States Supreme Court to decide that George W. Bush was the president of the United States coming off of a decision that they reversed by the Florida Supreme Court in Bush versus Gordon 2000, literally three days. They set, this is one topic for today, and on hot takes that I'm doing along with you this weekend, Ben.

One topic is, the United States Supreme Court moves at its own internal clock at its own pace. There is no rulebook for it. Some people might think, isn't there like a book they got to look up and tell us them at a timetable when they have to take things? The answer to that is no. They make their own decision about when they're going to breathe, what they're going to breathe, if they're going to delay it until normal track of pellet briefing, which means you won't find out until March, April, May, or June, or they're going to do it on something faster. Are they going to do it in 72 hours, 72 days, or 72 months?

It's all up to the United States Supreme Court and ultimately the chief judge running the caucuses behind the scenes with the other judges. Can they count to five to get five votes to take the case on an emergency basis? Yes or no? Obviously, at this moment, they didn't have those votes. Six to three supermajority and favor of MAGA on the Supreme Court, but with a slightly more moderate John Roberts trying to hold this thing together and hold the center together on this particular case. So I think it could go, and I think this is what, if Jack Smith runs the table here, this is the way it will go.

He got his emergency appeal quickly expedited by the DC Court of Appeals who felt the pressure of if they didn't move quickly, the Supreme's might step in and they want to do their job. Trust me, they don't want to give this up. And so that he got that win. Jack Smith then gets a great ruling in about 10 days or so, two weeks or so from that panel, and I, you know, probably written if I had a guest by judge pan, but we'll see in the majority, maybe it's two to one, but that's enough. And then a very quick expedited appeal on writ of cert to the Supreme's who know all about the case.

They just saw it two days ago and they go, yes, now it's time and right for us to take the case. They then do emergency expedited briefing. We get an oral argument at the end of January, and now we get a ruling perhaps as early on an emergency basis in February. I don't think the DC Court of Appeals is going to stay a darn thing if they rule one way or the other. If they rule for Jack Smith, I don't think they're going to stay the thing in terms of the

trial setting. They'll let Donald Trump go to the duty judge who is John Roberts to decide whether there's going to be a stay pending the appeal. He'll probably grant an administrative stay of the whole proceeding for judge Chuckkin while they take the issue up on briefing. And then we could have an entire ruling and a final declaration by the U.S. Supreme Court by the end of January, maybe beginning of February, on the issues. In the meantime, as you've talked about in hot takes and we've done at midweek, or you didn't midweek, Chuck ends just doing what she can administratively to keep the wheels on

the strain for the March trial, jury selection, and jury things that she can do that are insubstantive per se to keep the case on track. And she's going to continue to try to do that are in substantive, per se, to keep the case on track. And she's going to continue to try to do that. Could the case slip from March? Sure. Could it slip into an April, May, or June slot? Sure. Is that enough time to have the case fully tried by a jury in the District of Columbia on

the four, and there's an asterisk next to the four crimes that have been charged, two of which we'll talk about later in the podcast about whether they are going to survive Supreme Court review, the obstruction of an official proceeding charges against Donald Trump, but he's got two other pretty, pretty heavy charges against him there that will go to trial. Could it all be tried well before the voters vote in November on the ballot? Absolutely, which is what we're trying to accomplish. But that dystopian timetable ban is also possible that you outlined, which is there's 45 days, there's 50 days, there's stays and the Supreme Court doesn't move at all,

giving a wind to Donald Trump and letting the voters make the decision not the court system. And there's always that battle between the political questions and voters. But we've seen the US Supreme Court, as I said, start ending my analysis where I started. In Bush versus Gore, they had no problem intervening and choosing our president. Same thing here. They're going to have to decide once and for all on a new body of law, whether a former president now who was president then that's alleged in an indictment to have committed crimes in one last wrinkle, who was who was tried in the

house and impeached by the House, in this case the Democrats, but not convicted by the Senate on similar claims, whether his indictment stands, thumb up or thumb down, we are gonna get that ruling in the first quarter of 2024 period, and that's gonna make new law for our Republic forever. The problem that special counsel Jack Smith confronts, among others,

is that he can't say in his brief that the reason that this needs to be expedited is that we will not have a democracy if Donald Trump has not tried in 2024. And that's one of the main reasons why this case needs to be tried right away. He can't say that in the brief, that one of the two political candidates supports the destruction of the judicial system,

and that this case needs to be tried not right at the end of the election cycle because Jack Smith is trying to pursue this as even killed as we're not treating him differently than everybody else. But at some point, as you get closer to a November election, you're not going to have a trial in October. I mean, you know, I don't think, you know, are you going to really have a trial in October. I mean, I don't think you're going to really have a trial starting late September, where literally a jury verdict can be the same day as the election. You fundamentally can't express the threat here, so it goes unstated in all of the briefs that if Trump were to, by the way, I'm very confident that President Biden is going to win and I don't want to be overconfident

and let my overconfidence in any way shadow. The urgency of everybody needing to get out there to vote and to register to vote and do all of those things. But Jackson Smith can't talk about some of the realities that are being confronted right now. So I just want to say that, you know, piece from the outset that that that just is a reality. Number two, I think that when it comes to Judge Tanya Chutkin, I've been very, I've applauded the work that she's done over and over again, but I want to be critical of one thing that I think she was a little bit too safe on, and now we're seeing actually the 11th Circuit come out different when Jeff Clark made the same argument that Trump made before Judge Tonya Chutkin.

Judge Tonya Chutkin issued a stay of the proceedings before her in the district court proceedings. So all of those proceedings are stayed. And by the way, I don't think anything can happen with juries or jury questionnaires or and even though the initial jury forms were sent out, nothing can happen in that case, substantively or procedurally nothing. It's shut down in the district court and one of the things that judge Chutkin relied on is the coin base case and the coin base case was a case decided by the supreme court in June of 2023 That said that district court proceedings in that case should be totally stayed pending the appeal process and that's one of the things Donald Trump cited look

I'm making an absolute presidential immunity claim My motion to dismiss was denied look at what coin base it But the coin base decision related to a district courts denial on the issue of a motion to compel arbitration and arbitrability and Popoq you may recall when I was analyzing the coin base decision in Donald Trump's brief before Judge Tanya Chuk and ruled, one of the things that I was saying is that coin base just relates to arbitrability. It doesn't relate to absolute presidential immunity. And where the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, in another case, blasting game, a civil case, not a criminal case, and a civil case case had already determined that Trump doesn't have absolute presidential immunity

regarding his conduct for January 6th, because it involved campaigning and election activity. Whereas arbitrability is this well-established doctorate arbitration clauses. In the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, we know that Donald Trump, in a civil case, does not have absolute presidential immunity based on Blasting Game.

So he clearly would be outside the outer perimeter of absolute presidential immunity when it comes to a criminal case. So this isn't a well-established doctrine that Donald Trump could be entitled to this way of party, could be entitled to arbitrability. So that's why I was surprised that Judge Chutkin relying on coinbase among others and blasting game actually stayed all proceedings because one of the things that the 11th Circuit said in denying the motion for stay by Jeff Clark when Jeff Clark cited coinbase was no coinbase relates to coinbase relates to arbitration.

Coinbase has nothing to do with your claim of federal Office or removal and just kind of moved on but shut him bought into the coin base logic I think that honestly some of Trump's constant barrage of Filing's and if I'm being totally objective here kind of psyched her out a a little bit on that one to go the overly safe route. I was surprised. I agree with you. I was surprised she stayed the whole proceedings.

And I think there's some things she can do on the periphery, but I agree with you that everything else is, is certainly stayed. And I think she went too far. And I think Coinbase is not helpful in the analysis. And as you said, the 11 circuit panel that just came out. And now what we're watching, as I said at the start of the podcast is we're watching now Not just the Supreme Court ruling, but we're seeing DC courts of appeal or 11 the circuit courts of appeal struggling With how to apply in real time

Including citing cases that they may have just ruled on two days before Trying to map that on to the conduct of Donald Trump or the arguments of Donald Trump. And we're watching that messy struggle right now, some of which will get resolved ultimately by the US Supreme Court. One of the, but you're totally right, I don't think Coinbase and that case about arbitration is relevant or applicable to a precedent at all, and I'm surprised that she actually took that particular bait, so to speak. My only other point before we talk about our other things on the podcast today is that

one of the reasons and their speculation among a Supreme Court watchers, that one of the reasons the US Supreme Court did not take up the direct appeal on this, what we keep referring to as the writ of cert C-E-R-T is because they didn't like the fact that it was going to be the special counsel's office arguing on behalf of the government, the United States, at the Supreme Court level, rather than what they want to see and what they're used to is having the issues framed in the way in the vernacular, the foreign language of the Supreme Court, the way they like it, by the office of the solicitor general, who is the head lawyer, you know,

in the executive branch, that argues on behalf of the Department of Justice. Yes, Jack Smith was smart and went out and got and put on his team a Supreme Court expert in the form of a deputy solicitor, former deputy solicitor general to sign the brief and make the argument. But now, once it comes up through the DC Court of Appeals, it will be, Jack Smith's team will be on the brief, but the argument will likely be made and framed in a way that makes the, the stodgy, you know, Byzantine world of the, you know, old white guys, you know, I'll just call it what it is on the Supreme Court happy and that's going to be through the Solicitor General's office. And so we're going to also see a little bit, you know, not to get too much inside baseball, but the Supreme's were like, yeah, no, we want the Solicitor General's office

to do this. And Solicitor's General's office was kind of consulted, but they were not on the brief that was filed by Jack Smith and that I think goes to one of the reasons why they want to see it come up in a more traditional way, maybe a fast track way, but a more traditional way. But you're right. I never liked the fact that that and it always kind of made my nose scrunch up that that chuck in so quickly and we liked everything that she's done so far. I said, yeah, I'm gonna stay this whole thing now at the end She'll be completely exonerated if her really amazing analysis which we always have credited is then supported or even

Complimented by what the three judge district court of appeals probably written by judge Pan is gonna do in the next two weeks Which then gives the Supreme Court, of course, can ignore everything, but gives the Supreme Court a really good record and a really good set of analysis to work off of, rather than what I feared. That's why just to square the circle here, round it out here, I was a little troubled by the balls out approach of Jack Smith to say, you know what, Trump, I'm going to call your bluff. I'm going to go right to the Supremes. You want to keep arguing presidential immunity for everything criminal?

Great. Let's go right to the Supremes right now. And it was a little bit of bluff, you know, a little bit of call your bluff game of chicken going on there except if you lose the game of chicken, then you just got the mischief that could be created by a very right wing six to three majority where Roberts doesn't have control. And you get a crazy ruling the way they did, which I thought was unfair and not jurisprudentially sound in Bush versus Gore and a new president being picked because they don't have, you know, at least they

got to, we keep them honest by having briefing and oral argument and a record from Judge Chutkin to the DC Court of Appeals. It's, you know, it's a little bit harder for them to kind of throw over the, the, the game board. If they're just said, okay, you want us to decide on a row? Let's go. I was slightly troubled by that and I'm and I'm actually my temperature has dropped a bit since it's going to go this normal, hopefully more expedited route to get to them.

Well, let's talk about that a little more, and let's talk about what the Supreme Court's also doing with this obstruction of official proceeding charge. And I want to talk about Judge Eileen Cannon granting, part special counsel jack smith's motion for jury questionnaire, which I found to be interesting although she's Keeping all of the other Scheduling order dates and deadlines intact where she's missing the key classified information procedure act deadline So I don't know how you have a May 20th 2024 trial. If you don't set a seep a section five hearing because you have to brief that issue and that's like the key thing in a seep case. Anyway, we'll talk about that and more after our first quick break.

Heart health and staying healthy, especially when you have a family that you want to be able to spend as much time with as possible is so, so important. We could all benefit from heart-healthy energy, one of the best ways to get some by supporting your blood pressure and circulation. Superbeats heart-choose are an easy and convenient way to support healthy blood pressure. They're plant-based and stimulant-free, so you get a green boost without the jitters. Paired with a healthy lifestyle, the antioxidants and superbeats are clinically shown to be nearly two times more effective at promoting normal blood pressure than a healthy lifestyle alone.

Superbeats heart chews are incredibly delicious and so much better than any alternative supplements out there. I take my superbeats heart che juice each morning and it's really kick started my morning routine. After taking my superbeats heart juice, I feel like I have more energy and I'm ready to take on the day. Superbeats is the number one doctor, pharmacist and cardiologist recommended beet brand for cardiovascular health support. It's blood pressure support you can trust. Superbeats HeartChoose Support Healthy Circulation So you not only get blood pressure support,

you also get productive heart healthy energy without the crash. Double your potential with Superbeats HeartChoose. Get a free 30-day supply of superbeats, heart-choose, and a free full-size bag of turmeric covering from the annual holiday party, staying hydrated during the holiday season is crucial. No matter where or how you're hydrating this season, liquid IV is the hydration brand fueling your well-being. And their hydration multiplier can keep you going through the end of the year and beyond. With three times the electrolytes of the leading sports drink, plus eight vitamins and nutrients for everyday wellness, liquid IV hydrates 2 times faster than water alone, all in a single stick, and now it's available

sugar free. Choose from 3 delicious flavors, white peach, green grape, and lemon lime. I love how liquid IV makes me feel. After having liquid IV, I feel ready to take on the day at full strength. Also the packaging is super convenient and makes it very easy to carry with for when I need it most. My favorite flavor is the white peach. It is robust and super satisfying, but you can't go wrong with green grape and lemon lime either. One stick of liquid IV in 16 ounces of water hydrates better than water alone. With three times the electrolytes of the leading sports drink and no artificial sweeteners and zero sugar, liquid IV has become my go-to to staying hydrated.

Grab your liquid IV hydration multiplier sugar-free in bulk nationwide at Costco, or you can get 20% off when you go to liquidiv.com and use code legalaff at checkout. That's 20% off anything you order when you shop better hydration today using promo code legalaf at liquidiv.com. Welcome back. We are live here on legalaf. One point I want to make too, though, is if you believed, as Donald Trump's lawyers had said from the very outset of the case when the indictment was unsealed back in August, then you have an absolute defense that will automatically get a case dismissed right away. And they said, we're going right to the Supreme Court. And you have the opportunity to do that.

And then you go, yeah, you know what, we don't want the Supreme Court that has three justices who Trump appointed and three other right wing justices. And it's a six to three Supreme Court that should favor Donald Trump. You know what, we don't want them to hear this absolute immunity that we think is a smoking gun. Like it's one of the arguments that I think over the holidays, if you have a mega relative and they're telling you all of these things and they're couching what the Supreme Court did and just temporarily delaying granting Sir Shiraari as a win in that this is somehow some some big thing for Trump. I mean, the easiest comeback is, well,

why wouldn't he want the people he appointed plus three other right wing justices to ultimately make the ruling to exonerate him if he thinks that's going to be the outcome. And the answer is very simple because he knows that even with the six to three right wing Supreme Court, he's going to lose on this argument because his claims are so utterly absurd that former presidents can assert absolute immunity for criminal conduct while they were in office. That would be the power of kings, authoritarians, and of course the tech structure and history of the Constitution does not support any such thing.

And we know in the civil context that intermediary court, the DC Circuit Court repeals already ruled that Donald Trump doesn't have those powers as it relates to election and campaigning. And as we talk a little bit later in the show about what the 11th Circuit decided in the Mark Meadows case, even though the Meadows case does not involve absolute presidential immunity, and involves whether Meadows was acting under the color of his authority as a federal officer

to remove a state court criminal action to federal court, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals still rules that Meadow is engaging in this election stuff with the states and election interference and all the things he was doing with Trump, that's not what you're supposed to do within the executive branch at all. And so that's clearly outside the scope of your authority.

Can I ask you a quick question before you move on? Are you surprised that the impeachment issue, whether the fact that he was Trump was impeached by the House, led by the Democrats, but not convicted by the Senate, related to certain Janssick's activity has taken such a prominent position in the appeal up to the Supreme Court, even as framed by Jack Smith and his own

briefing and request. Are you surprised that that has become so front and center in the appeal? I don't know. I mean, is the short of it. I mean, Donald Trump's going to throw all the mud at the wall and see what sticks. It's perhaps the only argument that Donald Trump could potentially make at all. So maybe that's why, you know, Jack Smith's paying more attention to it and why Trump is because it at least involves words. I mean, granted the words don't support what Donald Trump says because the impeachment clause

clearly envisions that the prosecution and criminal prosecution takes place outside of the impeachment itself so but but I think that perhaps Jack Smith recognizes that if you're gonna have these Supreme Court justices who have demonstrated a complete mutation of textualism and the way they contort words and commas and whatever to justify an end, it at least involves the use of words. So maybe that's the strongest argument Trump has,

even though it's a weak one, that's that's my take on a Popuck, you know the the other thing though that it's worth you know It's worth just talking about for a minute is that Donald Trump is Requesting in the eGene Carol case which the defamation case there is set for trial in mid-January and EGene Carol and her new defamation case It's the older defamation case, it's the older defamation case,

but the new one heading to trial has the same expert who testified in the Rudy Giuliani case where Giuliani was hit with $148 million verdict. Trump is trying to stay the case from happening in the New York federal court by going to the second circuit, and I kid you not, Popok, by citing special counsel,

Jack Smith's petition for certiori to the Supreme Court. And Donald Trump saying, look, second circuit court of appeals. Jack Smith believes these issues of absolute presidential immunity are so important and so critical that he saw to direct petition. So second circuit, you need to stay your mandate where you found that Trump through his lawyers waived bringing absolute presidential immunity as a affirmative defense in the E. Jean Carroll case.

And that case relates to statements Trump made about E. Jean Carol while he was in office, but he's a Trump is citing Jack Smith as positive authority for why there should be a delay in E. Jean Carol. So the only consistency that exists throughout anything Donald Trump does, and I hate to even refer to it as a decision-maid, because it gives it too much intelligence, it just delay everything, push everything back, become an authoritarian, destroyed democracy. That's the game plan. And I think, though, where, as I said before, special counsel Jack Smith is still operating

through the kind of constitutional prism and norms and rules. Donald Trump is trying to delay everything and will destroy the Constitution and where we all, as we the people, though, admittedly and deservedly, are beyond frustrated at the Supreme Court and they're not accepting it right away. Although I hope you understand Popok in my explanation is we all know at a common sense level the threat being posed here and it's like that's not being discussed. And so from just a layman's common sense point, it's like, hey, our democracy's on the line. This guy, Trump, he keeps talking about Adolf Hitler. He's talking about poisoning the blood. He's talking about mass deportations. He's talking about, you know, locking up political enemies.

This guy's a maniac, everybody, and the kind of cognitive dissonance that exists of that not existing in the court. That piece of it, I think, to people who are observing and not in the weeds of what's happening in the court, what the heck are they doing? No, I agree with you. And to prove your point in that hypothetical conversation you can have with friends and family and MAGA that are around you. Look, we all have people that are in our lives that don't share our political views. I mean, that's a good, that used to be a good thing to have healthy debate and dialogue. I have plenty of people in and around my life that are Republicans and some of them are Trumpers.

And I've had these dialogues with them. Usually, the difference is, they're usually working off of Palm cards and they have these these Pat little statements and then all you have to do is give them a new piece of information and the reaction is always the same. Oh, was that true? The conversation I can't tell you how many times they say, well, they give me that talking point that I've heard now eight times through the echo chamber and then I give them the counterpoint. They go, was that is that true? And so to your point, if Donald Trump really believed that he had presidential immunity, it wasn't just trying to delay things to get to an election and try to pull the wool over the American people's eyes or at least his party's eyes, then he would have raised the issue of absolute

immunity at the beginning of the indictment process more than seven or eight months ago and not waited to the very end to time it to time the explosion so that it would have maximum collateral damage and derail the trial because nothing nothing that he has raised now in any of the filings to the DC Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court nothing is based on any of the documents or discovery that he obtained from the special counsel's office over the last year. It's all a fundamental argument about whether the indictment itself,

which he is note about for up to a year, whether it and any of the allegations in it can go against a former president who was president at the time or whether there's absolute immunity. That is a legal doctrinal issue that should have been filed much earlier, that could have been filed much earlier. Why wasn't it? You've just answered our own question.

It wasn't because Donald Trump doesn't want to try to win on this issue, knowing that it's probably a loser, likely a loser. He just wants to delay the trial in March, so he can get to a November election without having been convicted of a crime. Absolutely, that's his game plan. And that's, it's very easy to say, hey, if you were representing someone, you knew a case was going to be dismissed right away. You would do everything you can to deliver that case to be dismissed right away. But that's not what Trump's doing because he knows that he would lose on that issue. I want

to talk about and all these other issues. Let's talk about what Judge Eileen Cannon is doing in the Southern District of Florida. You know, back in November, she said a revised scheduling order with a scheduling conference of March 1, 2024. May 20, 2024 trial date, which she had previously set. She did not move around. She moved all of the other dates and deadlines around and then did and set some key dates and deadlines

like a CPC section five hearing and in a case involving Marlago documents, Trump's willful retention of national defense information. It's all goes through the kind of SEPA regime, the class of information procedure act. So there's a CPISection 3 protective order, CPISection 4x part day in camera hearings,

CPISection 5 were the criminal defendant, this is the key one, where they tell the court that they wanna introduce classified information at the public trial, and then there has to be briefing and motions about whether the government's okay with that or whether they believe that poses a national security risks, and there should be substitutions. And then you go to your CPIS-X-X,

which involves how are those substitutions made? What are they replaced with? And you go through a very orderly process. Well, she hasn't set the dates and deadlines for that process. And it's a very easy case, the Mar-a-Lago case, right? Did he have national defense information intentionally? And did he refuse to kind of give it back?

And did he keep documents that he didn't have? Are they national defense information? Did he have them? And then on the instruction of justice, did he refuse to give them back, you know, and did he act with intent? Like the easiest case to break the trial. And Judge Eileen Cannon has turned that case into a complete, you know, what, just a total crap show over there. And one of the things that special counsel Jack Smith's been doing over the past two weeks is he's like, okay, well, Judge Cannon, you have this May 20th, 2024 trial date schedule. If that's a real trial date in this district and the Southern District of Florida, usually if you're doing these jury questionnaires, which is the preferred way to pre-screen jurors before they

then show up and you do a voidier where you select the jury, but you pre-screen through a written jury questionnaire where you give juror perspective jurors questions to see if they have bias based on their written response. They don't even have to show up and you don't have to waste time if they kind of self-dusqualify themselves on the written questionnaire. It usually takes about 10 weeks or more. So we got to get the show on the road, Canon, if you've got a May 20th, 2024 trial date. So special counsel, Jack Smith files a motion for jury questionnaire.

Donald Trump then files an opposition to it. Because again, he has one move, just delay everything. And Trump files an opposition to the motion for and Trump calls it a premature jury questionnaire. Like why would it be a premature jury question? You need to get these things out. If you have a May 20, 2024 trial date. And then Judge Eileen Cannon issued an order at the end of last week. And she said, okay, it's not going to be February second for the parties to submit their proposed questionnaires, but she said February 28, submit your proposed questionnaires. Then that's two days before the status conference where

you and I both think that she's going to probably move this May 20th, 2024 trial date or or or kind of engage in further Chicanery and games at that may at that March one 20 24 status conference, but PoPock in theory, it's just so interesting because the Supreme Court ruling came out and everyone said that is bad and I said it really isn't all that bad. The judge can and ruling came out and everyone said, oh, that's good. Judge canons moving this case along. Wow, she did the right thing.

And I said, no, that's bad. So my analysis runs counter to both of what the people were saying about each. And why I think that's bad is that what Judge Cannon I believe is doing is she's realizing, aha, this Washington DC stuff that's happening before Judge Chutkin, Judge Chutkin tried to cut the line before me, this is how Kandin sees it. Judge Chutkin tried to cut the line before me, I set this May date which I thought was a quick one and was gonna protect protect Trump. So she came in judge, Chuck and set March 4th, 2024. And I think, Cannon goes, yeah, there's no way that's happening March 4, 2024.

If you factor in the fact that judge, Chuck, and stayed her case in Washington, DC, if you go through this DC circuit process, even if it's expedited, the way Pope, and I think it will be. Who knows what the Supreme Court does when it comes to whether they take a petition for Sershiari down the road. But I think Judge Cannon goes, this May, the DC case may get kicked sometime into May. And so at that point in time, Cannon's like, I want everybody to believe that my trials really happening in May. And then

as I get to the last minute, I'm going to try to move the May trial and say, oops, I'm not ready. After I've already blocked Judge Chuck, this is how Canon, I think is viewing it, Judge Chutkin's case from going because, you know, because everyone believes that this document case is really going to go in May. And then I'll release the date. Now, I think the, the flaw in that is I don't think, and I want to hear your take on my overall take on that. But I think Judge Chutkin would simply set this trial the same right around the same time and still say, okay, well, if yours goes, I'll defer to you or I'm going first, like I don't care about what your trial schedule is, but I think what Judge Cannon is relying on is that very kind of sociopathic, Trumpian

tactic of, I'm going to occupy this territory, not let anyone in. You need to respect my territory here in my kind of May, June, July dates. I'm staking that out. And I'm even going to signal to everybody until that March one hearing that this is really happening as a way to try to protect Trump during that time period. I see judge Canon granting Jackson, it's motion for jury questionnaire as a bad, as not a favorable ruling. It doesn't show to me, Judge Cannon's doing the right thing. To me, it's consistent with where I think she's been going all along.

And I'm going to mix a lot of metaphors in my response. She's licking all the donuts. She's peeing on all the ground, and she's double booking her restaurant reservations in order to feign that she's moving this case along as she continues to box out. I think that's my fourth metaphor, box out or try to help Donald Trump. There's no other explanation. You know, when you and I are trying to look at what is happening and why? There is no rational basis for anything that we've observed alien cannon doing. The foot dragging intentional we believe in setting hearings, in canceling

and rescheduling hearings, in canceling and rescheduling briefing on fundamental matters in a case. matters in a case, just watching her whirl around spin off orbit on matters of normal administration of justice in a case practice cannot be explained solely by the fact that she's a young and new judge that doesn't know what she's doing. We have to eventually ascribe some sort of other explanation as to why whenever it looks like she's out of crossroads, she takes the wrong and or Trump assisted side. I mean, over and over again, and that's why I agree with you. We can't credit what she's doing now is that she's finally shaking off the dust and decided she's going to get her case tried in May.

But every other thing that she's done says the exact opposite. And so particularly on this one, I agree with you. I think she's trying, but will ultimately fail to box out Judge Chuck and then there's the other case that we've talked about in prior hot takes and a prior podcast that we need to raise here. All none of this matters for the New York case by Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, also scheduled for May, also a criminal case of several felony counts against non-President Donald Trump.

So there's no immunity issue in the Stormy Daniels. That was scheduled for late March. March 24th. So you've already got the, as if you and I were on a trial docket together with one judge, there's always the case, the backup, the backup to the backup. In fact, the clerks will tell you, if you're on the same trial court,

docket or stack some courts call it that, they'll tell you where you are in the stack. You're the fifth to go to trial. It's like air traffic control or clearing planes for takeoff. And then you've got a plan. Like if you and I were doing a case together, which we have, we would say we're the number three. We've got to find out what happens with the two cases in front of us about whether we're going to trial the first

week in January or you're not. And I played that game where you just got to be prepared because you don't know. And you think, oh, there's seven cases ahead of me. The law are going to settle. They can't all settle. So I won't go to trial. And then you get a phone call from the clerk the day before all the seven cases ahead of you settled. You're going to trial on Monday.

You never want to be caught flat-footed. This is a grander game that's going on because it's not one court or court system. It's state, it's federal, it's civil, it's criminal, and it's various judges. And so they're not coordinating, which is what we're watching. So to play this out, if it's a game strategize, as you've said or it's a do the decision-making tree, if Canon is doing what we think she's doing, which is trying to give a lot of room for Donald Trump, let a wiggle room for Donald Trump to use her case against the others, it's a failed strategy.

There is no immunity issue to continue a theme for this podcast related to the Stormy Daniels case, whatsoever. The actions that he took to try to cover up the affair and improperly cook the books again, committing fraud in New York related to those payments to Stormy Daniels through Michael Cohen and other people like Alan Weissselberg.

None of that was done while he was president and there's no presidential immunity for that that even he could argue. So that case goes to trial March 24th if all these other cases federal fall away. That's one that's the loser. And I agree with you 100% foot, um, alien cannon. Period. If there is a chance in heck on God's green earth, that off of the Supreme Court decisions that you and I described at length in the podcast, that Judge Chuck can get her case back on track for March, April or May. She's going to do that come hell or alien cannon. It's going to happen. And alien cannon can throw a fit and jump up and down. There's no one to appeal to. It's not to happen. An alien cannon can throw a fit and jump up and down. There's no one to appeal to. It's not like you can go to like the gods, you know,

somebody would have to run to like their appellate court. There's two different ones we're dealing with here. The 11th Circuit for alien cannon, the DC Court of Appeals for Judge Chuckkin and the ultimate bosses at the US Supreme Court level to try to get relief. Like if Donald Trump is forced to go to trial by Judge Chukkin, let's say in April, or even in May, oh my God, I've got two trials. What do I do? Now look, the normal defendant, yes, should not be subjected to the terror and the pressure of be a facing trial in two cases at the same time in federal court system.

And somebody at the appellate level, one of these appellate levels, is going to have to make a decision if these judges can't work it out. And the 11th and the DC aren't going to talk to each other. It's going to ultimately have to be another, unfortunately, maybe Supreme Court issue. Judges are allowed to control their own dockets. That they're given wide latitude and discretion to do that. But then when what do you have what what happens when two federal judges aren't getting along about the same

defendant and we don't have a lot of body of law on that issue because usually you don't have an ex-president that's an insurrectionist or committed rebellion against the constitution and is tried in multiple jurisdictions at the same time before an election. That is what we call sui generis and it doesn't normally happen, it's unique. And so we're going to have to figure out on hot takes and on podcasts what happens when aileen can and stands firm to try to help Donald Trump in may and chucking comes chugging along to say,

I'm taking it. And I, you're out. Somebody's going to have to be the referee in that. And it's likely to be some sort of a pellet process that you and I have even contemplated because it, you know, it just has never happened before. So I, and then what will happen while nobody's looking is that the judge Mershon up in New York is going to call a jury for the trial in March related to stormy Daniels. So if Karen Freeman, Agnifala, our colleague is right, there will be a trial in 2024 involving Donald Trump, but that one's going to be called the stormy Daniels case. And we haven't even talked at all on this podcast about Georgia and whether Donald Trump, who's now, as we'll talk about in the next segment, is not going to be able

to take his case over to federal court, at least along as the 11th Circuit has anything to say about it. He's going to have to stay and sit in Fulton County for his prosecution over the summer, and even if it doesn't conclude by then, and what happens to federal presidential immunity in its application, yes or no, in a state criminal prosecution? We'll have to do a whole podcast just related to that. Well, Donald Trump didn't want, even though he previously said in New York that he was an officer for a federal removal there,

and even though he tried to remove the Colorado case at first saying he was an officer. And then with Drew that saying that, oh, one of my arguments is that I'm not an officer and therefore the 14th Amendment Section 3 disqualification clause does not apply because it only relates to officers. It just goes to show you just how Trump is filing

inconsistent contradictory and very kind of sloppy briefing just across the country. But we'll talk about that as we talk about what's going on with the 11 circuits ruling with Mark Meadows and Jeff Clark. One thing that's not getting a lot of attention though, and we like to get in the weeds here on legal F, especially when it comes to Judge Eileen Cannonist, the first issue that Jack Smith could potentially appeal, and I think Jack Smith realizes that Judge Cannonist

is gonna have to make some substantive orders soon that are likely going to get appealed because she always makes the wrong decision. The first one that she's confronted with that she actually has to make an order in theory fairly soon. At least before March 1, is this issue on CEPA section 4, which is a X-part A in-camera hearing that the government has with judges or with the judge

presiding over the case in a case that involves classified information. And by X-part A in-camera camera what I mean by that is the criminal defendant doesn't get to be at this hearing because the judge looks at certain documents that the government wants to withhold in discovery about whether these documents are so sensitive in terms of national security documents and are not relevant or helpful enough if you balance them out versus the national security harm that could be caused, that these documents can be withheld before Judge Eileen Cannon, Donald Trump and his co-defendants, Walty Noughton, Carlos De Oliveira have requested that

their lawyers be present at these hearings and have attorney's eyes review at these hearings, which is just never, it's something that doesn't happen. That's not the way CPC section four works. This isn't a controversial issue, but we'll see if Judge Eileen Cannon makes the wrong ruling there and allows Trump's lawyers to be at this thing. That'll be the first interlocutory appeal that special counsel, Jack Smith will take to the 11th Circuit that if Canon rules incorrectly, she will get reversed by the 11th Circuit. And then Donald Trump's going to be filing a bunch of Dispositive motions with Judge Canon, the same way Trump's been filing motions to dismiss with Judge Tonya Chutkin in the DC case, and Judge Chutkin's denied

those motions to dismiss. Do you think Judge Cannon's going to grant Donald Trump's motions to dismiss? Do you believe if Judge Cannon was presented with the same issues that Judge Chutkin was presented to? You think Judge Cannon would come out the same way, or do you think Judge Cannon would incorrectly rule, for example? I mean, there is no absolute presidential immunity in the Mar-a-Lago document case because it involves Trump taking these records outside But who knows maybe Trump will try to come up with some weird way to assert that but

Trump will try to come up with other things and say that he had the authority to do it He declassified it with his mind, all of those things. You think judge canons gonna rule the right way on those things? No, judge canons gonna make the wrong rulings and then special counsel. And by the way, it'll be a horrible headline, right, Pope, Pope, judge canon dismisses the claim or dismisses the charge. That's happening, like in the future, like I want to, just like we prepared our legal efforts, like judge canon will probably grant one or some of Donald Trump's motion to dismiss, but double jeopardy doesn't attach to that. It's not before a jury.

So then Jack Smith will be able to go take an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and that will create an opening right there with Judge Chutkins trial. So a lot still happening like every day there there's gonna be some like bombshell news from now until the foreseeable next 18 months. So Buckela, Popeye called you thought for just trying to let you to react to that, but I wanna take our last quick break of the day. You're like me, morning coffee, non-negotiable.

But I was tired of either waiting in line for an overpriced cup or settling for gritty bitter coffee at home. Now I've switched to using Arrowpress and I'm never going back. It's so easy and convenient and incredibly unique. I never knew coffee at home could taste this good. Arrowpress is like a French press, only better. It's the only press that uses a patented 3-1

brew technology, combining the best of several brew methods into one portable device. For a completely unique and delicious flavor profile, smooth, rich, and full-bodied, without the bitterness and grit found in other presses. And as a bonus, Aeropress can brew thousands of recipes. Aeropress travels better than others too.

It's compact and incredibly durable. That means you'll never have to endure terrible coffee at the hotel, on the job, or on an adventure again. It brews and cleans in less than two minutes. Just add medium-fine coffee grounds, pour in hot water, stir for 5 seconds, brew for 30 seconds, then press into your favorite mug and enjoy. There's a reason why Arrowpress is the barista's favorite home brewing tool. Arrowpress is the best-reviewed coffee press on the planet, with more than 55,000 five star reviews. Thoughtful, proven,

and under 50 bucks, Arrowpress is the perfect gift or stocking stuff for every coffee lover in your life this holiday season. Don't settle for less than the best. They'll love it. Arrowpress is shockingly affordable, less than 50 bucks, and we've got an incredible offer for our audience. Visit arrowpress.com slash legal a f that's a E R O P R E S S dot com slash legal a f to save up to 20% that's arrow press dot com slash legal a f to save up to 20%. It's time to ditch

the drive through toss the French press and say yes to better mornings fueled by better coffee, arrow press ships to the USA and over 60 countries around the world. And we thank AuroPress for sponsoring our show. Great ad reads there by Michael Popak, special thanks to our pro-democracy sponsors and the discount codes are in the descriptions below. And that's one of the ways we support this network. We don't have outside investors here at the Midas Touch Network.

So those pro-democracy sponsors go a long way, the emojis that you see below and the YouTube memberships go a long way. And our Patreon at patreon.com slash MidasTouch. P-A-T-R-E-O-N.com slash MidasTouch. So as we approach to holiday season, comm slash might as touch PAT or EON dot com slash might as touch. So as we approach to holiday season, you can get yourself the gift of the Patreon dot com slash might as touch account right there. And then we'll have some big news.

I think early 2024 about some expansions of legal AF into other areas as well that Popeyes and I are talking about. But with Karen as well. Popok, can you, sorry, I cut you off there. Yeah, just one comment, just to give some people, you know, reading the chats, give some people some hope here. The good thing about where we are in late 2023 and early 2024, where we were it when you, Ben and I talked and Karen, talked about Alene Cannon when she was first assigned way back when when she was busy interfering illegally and improperly

with the criminal investigation process led by the Department of Justice. Before the indictment even came out, that's how long ago we've been talking about this. There's a good, there's a, there's a silver lining here because behind both you, Ben and me now There is an imaginary bookcase that is filled with precedent of Cases coming out of places like the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the 11th Circuit that we didn't have before When Alien Cannon was first assigned and have names on cases usually ending with Trump and others and other people. There's a body of law that's now been developing that sometimes when you and I do our hot takes because we're so in the moment we're so in real

time that we can't take the plane up 5,000 or 10,000 feet and look down at the the legal landscape and think about the precedent that's been, that's being established day by day, break by break in these various courts, primarily good ones that we like and that we continue to talk about and apply. It is boxing in, Aline Cannon. She's going to have to cite to cases that have already been decided by many panels of her bosses at the 11th Circuit, including Chief Judge prior, who we're going to talk about again, who already and Judge Rosenbaum, who we talked about in the past, both of which slapped back Aline Cannon in past rulings, DC

Court of Appeals judges like Judge Pan and Judge Child and others there and then ultimately the US Supreme Court. So she's not going to have the free range to do whatever she wants when she ultimately writes that terrible decision that you and I both know is coming because she's going to have to do it and distinguish precedent that is hopefully hemming her in and boxing her in. And not to beat the Steadhorse any further than it needs to be. But it's important because it's not just about, it's not a Trump stock market.

It's not like he's up, he's down, he won, he lost. There was a paper order, there was a docket entry. What we try to do on this show is try to step back and talk about what is happening to the justice system, not just today, but into the future because of the precedent that's being established. Just as there is an entire body of law, they came out of the failed Nixon presidency. Lots of cases that we talk about now about Trump have Nixon's name in it for a reason coming out of Watergate and that

corrupt presidency. A few cases that are interesting that came out of the Clinton issues that related to his presidency and his impeachment, but an entire new body of law that would fill the imaginary bookshelf from top to bottom will have everybody that worked for or was in the orbit of Donald Trump's name on it. And that has an impact on what trial judges and ultimately other courts of appeal can do going forward. They don't have an empty slate or a clean slate like they did two years ago to make their rulings in Do Mischief. So if you think about it from that more 30,000 square foot level. We have previously the Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump cannot hide his tax returns and financial records, right?

You've got now precedent said there. You've got the DC Circuit and Washington DC courts consistently overruling Donald Trump's assertion of executive privilege. Remember, we did all those shows back in the day leading up to these cases being filed when Donald Trump was trying and all the people who worked for Trump meadows and others were trying to hide all of their documents asserting executive privilege. We talked about how executive privilege is with the current executive and there has to be also even if the current executive

asserts executive privilege, which they're not, there still has to be some, it can be overruled if there was some kind of compelling interest by the Department of Justice. And then on these issues of kind of absolute presidential immunity, that Trump is asserting. By the way, going back to what we were saying with the, you know, if you have like a mega friend or a Trump supporter who tries to argue with you on the holiday season, why doesn't Donald Trump ever argue that he didn't do it? The argument's never, I didn't do the crime.

The argument is I have immunity from doing it. You can't, I have special privileges beyond anything, anybody has, king like privileges, and therefore what I do is fine. Not I didn't do it, right? Like that's so anyway, I think that's an important basic point that we shouldn't miss the, you know, forest as we start looking and analyzing the trees here, if you will.

But then on the issue of absolute presidential immunity, we now have a DC Circuit Court of Appeals case that says when it comes to a civil lawsuit against Donald Trump for his conduct relating to the January 6th insurrection, Trump's conduct involving the insurrection is outside the outer perimeter of absolute presidential immunity because it involves campaigning in election activity, and that's not within the authority of the executive of Article 2, of what presidents

are supposed to do. That's like, states control their elections. And, you know, and when Donald Trump's involved in campaigning, he's just a politician at that point. He's not serving as the commander in chief or as the executive of the country, and no president has this power forever in every context everywhere. You're involved in election activity. Importantly, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in two decisions this past week, Michael Popak, I think are holding hands with their sister court in the DC circuit court of appeals. And the 11 circuit in a different context, yes, it's a scathing order against meadows. Yes, it's a scathing order against Jeff Clark on the issue of federal officer removal.

But there is a broader point that I think the 11 circuit is making here, which is it is outside the color of your official responsibilities as purported officers when you engage in this interference with elections and you are acting like your arms of the campaign and then of course when you're engaging in efforts to overthrow the results of the election. But these are not areas you're supposed to be in and Donald Trump, if these are areas you go in, okay, you're just not going to have

immunities that we give to the commander in chief and to the executive when those immunities are intended to protect people who are protecting our democracy and carrying out their constitutional duties, not whatever you're doing on news, max and Fox news and all of those other things. So the issue when it came to Meadows and Clark were they were a co-defendants of Donald Trump's in the Fulton County District Attorney Rico indictment. The case was filed in state court,

a criminal case in Fulton County's super court before Judge Scott McAfee, and Meadows and Jeff Clark removed the case to federal court under the federal officer removal statue. When you remove it, the removal happens automatically. So the case that was in state court gets automatically transferred to federal court, and then there is a hearing that takes place in federal court where it's disputed that they had the right to move it to federal court

about whether it stays in federal court or whether it gets remanded back to the state court, sent back to the state court where it was filed, and then ultimately what Meadows and Jeff Clark were trying to set up was a two tiered approach where once they were in federal court they were going to say that they are immune and they have sovereign immunity and they can't be prosecuted by the state and they have other immunities as well and then the case should automatically be dismissed but part one of their plan they wanted to get into federal court and so the

district court judge rejected, denied the federal officer removal. Then it went to for both of them, for both Clark and Meadows. And we covered those hearings here. Meadows testified and basically incriminated himself and admitted to having Hatch Act violations. Jeff Clark had like, just procedurally didn't even know what the heck he was filing.

Like it was like just a horrific hearing that took place. And the judge was like, you're not even introducing evidence. I don't even know what it is that you're doing here. But then Meadows filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit. And then the 11th Circuit went above and beyond what the district court judge did and said, actually federal officer removal does not is not allowed for former federal officers. So number one meadows you're not the chief of staff anymore. So on that basis alone you didn't have the right to remove your former federal officer.

Only current federal officers can remove which wasn't even analyzed by the district court judge or the Fulton County district attorney that we talked about it here on Legal AF as an issue in real time. And then the 11th Circuit then called on that issue to be briefed among the others. But then the 11th Circuit, basically, as I said, went on to say, look, this is not within your authority at all of Mark Meadows within Article 2. You're involved in Hatch Act violations. You're involved in campaigning in elections and overthrowing the results of the elections.

And just your behavior is not something a chief of staff is supposed to engage in, or that the president's supposed to engage in. They said that, these are not, this is not conduct of the presidency. This is someone who's running for office and is engaged in crimes to overthrow it. That was an important signal, and then very swiftly they then moved to Jeff Clark. Jeff Clark had not reached the appeal stage yet with the 11th Circuit. He was seeking a stay of the district court proceedings and all of the lower court proceedings in order to pursue an appeal.

And then the 11 circuits, why would we grant you a stay? You just saw what we did to Meadows. We just basically called Meadows a criminal. We said former federal officers cannot remove the cases and then his conduct was outside the color of his official federal responsibilities. So why would we do allow this for you?

You have no chance of succeeding on your appeal. So before the appeal is even heard, the 11th Circuit's telling Jeff Clark, this disgraced DOJ official who Donald Trump wanted to make his acting attorney general to send out a letter in 2020 and 2021 to all of the states telling him to overthrow the results and their states and lying about their being fraud.

And that's why the state should name Trump as the president. Jeff Clark was the person who Trump wanted to appoint as actin AG, all the other people in the Department of Justice that they were going to resign and then Trump back down. But that's a message that the 11th Circuit sent to Jeff Clark. But to me, Pope, and this is the take that I want to hear from you and then I want to hear about the Colorado Supreme Court from you, I thought the 11th Circuit was going a step beyond here intentionally because they could have ended their analysis

just at federal officer And saying you're a former federal officer that's it But they spent a lot of pages in the Meadows decision and then just swatted down Jeff Clark to, they were saying, we are in the 11 circuits conservative. I think they were saying, we're conservative in the 11th circuit. We ain't MAGA. We are conservative.

This MAGA stuff, we're not okay. We're not okay with this. That's to me what was really resonating on those pages. Yeah, I agree with you. that that's to me what was really resonating on those pages. I agree with you. I think Bill Pryor, who's the Chief Judge of the 11th Circuit, who we've talked a lot about on the podcast, because he's going to involve with some of the most momentous decisions, short of the DC Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court involving Trump and Maga since the very beginning. He's the judge that presided over at least

one of the major decisions that told Aline Cannon, what are you doing as a trial judge? You're not supposed to interfere with the executive branch and the Department of Justice and FBI during a pending investigation. Your work starts when there's an indictment and not before. And so we knew, because when we're doing the map in the grid, on legal AF, Ben, you and me have always said that there are districts, there are courts of appeal that we worry about. Fifth circuit being first among them, because it's so right wing MAGA and packed by Trump a lot. And this is where all those decisions about a woman's right to choose and the ability to use the abortion pill

and the ability for Joe Biden as Commander-in-Chief to make regulations about COVID policy. You know, when there's a wacky case that's a headscratcher that tries to stick their thumb in the eye of the Biden administration and against women's rights, it's coming out of the Fifth Circuit. The 11th Circuit is not monolithic, though. It does lean right, but as you just so put so properly, it doesn't lean MAGA. And yes, it was most of the people on there, most of the judges on there were appointed

by Republican governors, whether it was DeSantis or Rick Scott or even going back in time in Florida and in Georgia because it's the circuit where Georgia and Florida and Alabama send their judges. We were a little worried at the beginning. We took some comfort in the original decisions against Aline Cannon's case, in the case of Mar-a-Lago that we talked a lot about. And now we've got the 11th Circuit with the spotlight on them, the way it's on the DC Court of Appeals almost at the same time, making decisions that matter about things coming out of the Georgia prosecution.

And you're right, because Bill Prior who wrote that decision that you're talking about about Mark Meadows, which was then the precedent to continue with our imaginary bookcase, the precedent that was cited a week later in the Jeff Clark dismissal of his, you're not going to get a stay, you're not even going to win your appeal. Have you read the Meadows decision from just last week, which we're relying on? And what they could have done is just said as the, that it doesn't apply to former federal officers. They made a decision that in 190 years, no federal court has ever said

about the federal removal statute 1442A on our books. They said it only applies to current, not former federal officers. Would you believe that in 190 years of jurisprudence, no federal court had ever taken on that issue? It's hard to believe. But they said, we know, we know it's different, but nobody, but we're right on the law. We're so right, think about this better than I'll get to what Bill Pryor said in his order that you're referring to. We're so right that even though at least one of the three judges on that panel, Judge Rosenbaum from Miami or from Florida, even though she said that that

the greed with the majority position that it doesn't apply, the removal statute, to take your case, your state criminal case across the street, the federal court as a way to get the case dismissed ultimately under the supremacy clause or otherwise, that she said Congress needs to go change that statute. She believes that the better public policy is that it does apply to former federal officers. She just can't make her way through it based on the legislative history and the language of the statute and the way when you read the different provisions of the statute trying to glean congressional intent. She says, I tried. I am in favor of applying to former federal officers by Mark Meadows.

Like Mark Meadows. Doesn't answer the question as to whether looking at the facts as alleged and presented and developed in the hearing in front of Judge Jones, Jones, Jones down in the North edition of Georgia, whether she would have found that Mark Meadows met the test, but the fundamental issue first, whether it applies to former or current occupants of that office, she said, I'd like it to apply to former. I just can't get there. Congress needs to make that change.

That was a very interesting descent. But here's what Pryor said, I think is right on the money for what you're talking about. He said that we, this is a quote from the case, we cannot rubber stamp Meadows legal opinion that the president's chief of staff has unfettered authority at bottom. Whatever the chief of staff's role with respect to state election administration, that role does not include altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate. Skaving. Skaving, they didn't have to go there. They're just, it hasn't applied to a former we're done by. No, they wanted to comment on the indictment and the allegations and the fact that Mark Meadows as alleged and as indictment went beyond that or as Judge Abadu said, the Biden appointee said in her oral argument, what about the Hatch Act?

Why isn't the things that you're talking about? Not only not within the scope of your authority, even if we stretch it to its outer limits, like some sort of constitutional silly putty, why isn't it a Hatch Act violation? All the things that you do that you say the chief of staff has to do as part of getting a first term, a first term president, a second term. Why isn't that campaigning while in office and a crime under our statutory system that was never properly or accurately answered or appropriately answered by the bettoside. So I agree with you.

You have the 11th Circuit, a small sea conservative Republican, not MAGA bench, who now on a number of occasions has gone against Donald Trump properly citing this jurisprudence. Now, you and I knew that something was up with the former federal officer issue because there was a prior ruling in the 11th Circuit in October that happened right around the time of the briefing. And they asked the parties to especially brief the issue of former, a weather former federal office holders get the benefit of that removal statute. That is something that was not addressed below by the trial judge.

In fact, as everybody in 190 years has argued, everybody thinks that at least every prosecutor, even judges thought if they were asked the question, it would have applied to a former federal officer as long as the other elements are present for removal, that the thing that you're alleged to have done wrong, civilly or criminally, is within the ambit, the scope of your federal office, the color of your federal office, and you have at least a good faith colorable federal defense to this particular action, then you're okay. I mean, even the judge in the E. Jean Carroll case, who, you know, no, I'm sorry, in the

Stormy Daniels case, when Donald Trump tried to bring it over to federal court over the summer, assumed that even though Trump was no longer a federal officer because he was no longer president, that the statute would still apply not for the 11th Circuit. So I really appreciate the, the, the, the, the, uh, I'm trying to think of the word, the conviction by which, no pun intended, the 11 the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, talk about the Colorado Supreme Court justices that said virtually the same thing and their decision against Donald Trump's position, which is this is a weighty decision, but this is what we get paid to do as civil servants wearing the black robes. And if anybody takes anything away from any aspect of watching legal AF or any of the hot

takes, it's the leaders of legal AF do. It's that there are people in our system that are dedicated public servants who who aren't corrupt, who aren't part of a conspiracy, who aren't, you know, fallen down the rabbit halls of some QAnon theory. They're just doing their job assigned to them by their respective state or federal constitution they've taken in oath and that's what we're watching. It can't be the situation. It cannot be the situation. And I refuse to accept it that the only reason Donald Trump has gotten indicted and is

losing regularly in these courts is because there must be corruption and or a conspiracy theory against them involving the prosecutor, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the state prosecutors, and the judges. I refuse to believe that that is the system of government and the justice system, state and federal that has developed before my very eyes for the last 50 years. You mean to tell me that alternatively, it's Donald Trump, who's bankrupted everything he's touched his entire life before he disgraced the Oval Office, someone who's lied, bragged

about sexually abusing women, somebody who then was found bragged about sexually abusing women, somebody who then was found liable for sexually abusing women, Giuliani who's seen pulling down his pants to an underage, someone he believes to be underage in a Borat movie, who's engaged as an heinous defamatory conduct with duty dripping down his face and and and farts at these hearings on people next to him in public hearings that he is trying to while trying to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. You mean to tell me that they're the alternative view that maggot believes that they're the ones who hold all of the kind of secret answers and and they don't want to tell us about it

You don't want to share with that evidence It's always just you see just you wait. It's it's coming everybody Well, it's like Giuliani said I'm not gonna tell you now I've waited this far and then I'm going to testify and I'm gonna show you or Donald Trump Yeah, I'm gonna show up, but I'm gonna testify and I'm going to show you or Donald Trump. Yeah, I'm going to show up, but I'm going to testify and I'm going to be there. Being by the way, just even look at the contrast though, I don't want to take this on a tangent. I mean, Hunter Biden showed up when he was subpoenaing said, I will testify publicly. No conditions attached in front of the world. Right? When the January 6th committee subpoenaed

Donald Trump, what did Donald Trump's lawyer say that he was going to show up that's what alina have said is donald trump show up no he doesn't show up it's and adam kinsinger former republican congressman who also helped start the hashtag donald trump is smelly or whatever it was over the past he he will he it was a more sophisticated point you wanted to make though is that just this maga thing is just like It was a more sophisticated point you wanted to make though.

Is that just, this magazine is just like, they're just snowflakes and it's weak and they just lie and then they cover up their lies. It's like just a constant weak fashion. I don't even know how to describe it. And that's what Kinziger is like. They're just like losers Like they're just weak losers. Let me do it. Yeah, go ahead. Let me do it this way What how did your parents teach you to deal with a bully on the playground?

Bullies are bullies until you stand up to them call their bluff and maybe punch them in the throat at that point and steal their own lunch money at that point They go run away. It's easy for Rudy Giuliani Donald Trump Trump, and the rest of them for a different audience. It's not us to say, I'm just let me, well, don't be back. I want to get in that courtroom and testify. Hold me back. I'm going to get in tomorrow. You're going to see just wait and see, walk away from the microphone. But that's a bully talking. And then once you call their bluff and you say, great, sit down in the chair, swear in, and testify. Oh, no, I got a golf opening.

I got to do in Scotland. I got to go run to bankruptcy court and go file against my judgment. The judge hates me. I can't testify in front of her. They're bullies. And this is how, well, that's what we're doing. We're calling out the bullies. It's just a, but let me ask you a question.

It's just amazing to me. I get that they want their guy to win and they're willing to ignore everything that looks disgusting, immoral, and wrong, and criminal about their candidate, which is remarkable to me, because the Democrats and our party would never do this. Never, if there was one thing about the anything truthful at all about the Biden family, corruption,

family allegations, you and I would be the first ones talking about running the guy out on a rail, all right, and getting somebody else that's not corrupt, but that's us. Okay. You know, as we only have choked, you know, Al Franken is no longer a senator because of a stupid photo where he did something, you know, as a comedian against another comedian when he was going overseas to entertain the troops. He's no longer president. I mean, senator because of that and potentially a president. You know, Doug, I mean, what I want, I want, we'll never open the show to that kind of question. We don't have a phone line, but I want one day, somebody on that side of the aisle in

in Maggette to tell me what is it that Donald Trump could do that would lose your vote? What just describe it to me? Does he have to, it has to be proof that he slept with his daughter? Like what is it? Because all the things that I'm seeing as a thinking human being, any one of them, let alone 95 or 100 of them, would be enough for me to walk away from that candidate, not support him for the election. What is it?

Tell me what it is. Because I've yet to see it. Yeah, it's nothing. He channels a very dark side of our nation that leadership has always been aware, existed, and where you need leaders to basically contain and control. He brings that to surface, but he directs that eight, that anger, this magma mob on people, right? That's why in the court cases, you see him,

he punches down and he tries to find who, who he can attack the most and who will, how will it influence and kind of try to derail the proceedings? And fortunately, we've had judges and prosecutors now who do not give into that, but we've seen people who have back down and entire Republican parties, an example of people who back down into fear of Donald Trump's tactics.

And so Donald Trump attacks judge and goron, judge and goron's wife. Like, why do I know judge and goron's wife's name? I'm not going to repeat it here. Why do I know the name of judge and goron in the New York Attorney General Civil? For a case, why do I know the name of judge and goron's son? I shouldn't know the name of judge. And why do I know the name of judgeging, Gauron's principal law clerk, as Donald Trump's attacked all of them. He spent like the way he's behaved in that New York Attorney General Civil fraud case is nothing short of beyond any,

as low as my expectations were for him, he found a way to get to the depths of depravity even more than that. He's gonna say the depths of the privateer even more than that. He's going to say that he's the brother. When it comes to special counsel, Jack Smith, I know special counsel, Jack Smith's wife's name, he attacks Jack Smith's family, judge Chutkin, he attacks Judge Chutkin's father. He attacks his daughter. He, he, he exactly he attacks the, he attacks the daughter of the judge, the Manhattan

District Attorney, the judge and the man is returning. He has a baseball bat with a photo of him and the Manhattan district attorney. A lot of women. It's a lot of women being bashed by Donald Trump if anybody has it noticed. I don't hear a lot about Judge Chuckkin's husband. He just goes after Judge Chuckkin directly. It's a lot. If he thinks women are the weak link, how women vote for him?

I have no idea. But the fact that all of these people are talking about daughters and sisters and wives. What's the common denominator? They're women. And this is how Donald Trump treats women. And Donald Trump now attacking the Colorado Supreme Court justices, the four who voted that he should be disqualified by having a very plain understanding of what the 14th Amendment section three states

I mean the bottom line is that if you don't want to be disqualified Under the 14th Amendment section three don't do what Donald Trump did like we all saw it with our eyes The reason that there's any controversy or this has been politicized is because the Republicans have politicized it. The Republican Party has rallied around the insurrection, the shaman, the behavior, the proud boys, and said, this is our crew. What are you talking about? This is legitimate, act January 6th was a great day the Maga Republican say in the New Republican Party so they Cast this as something that is fine So therefore if you oppose that then they go oh you are being political in your attack on

The Republican viewpoint. And it's like, that shouldn't be a Republican viewpoint. It should be an American viewpoint that that day was horrific. And that Donald Trump should be disqualified because he was engaged in an insurrection and that the questions are, and that the legal issue here is super simple. I mean, if you just look at the 14th amendment,

you have to ask yourself just some basic questions. Number one was Donald Trump and officer is the presidency and office. And then Number one was Donald Trump and officer is the presidency and office. And then number two was Donald Trump involved in an insurrection against the Constitution. Was he hating and abetting, facilitating, supporting an insurrection? I don't know how you can objectively answer to any of those questions. No, that the office of the presidency is somehow not an office, that he's not an officer or that he was not involved in an insurrection that day. And so really, you could go through this 133 page

ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court where in a four to three decision, they ruled that Trump should be disqualified and they disqualified him from the Colorado ballot, although they stayed their order pending, not all Trump's ability to appeal to the United States Supreme Court, but to me, it's a fundamentally very simple analysis. The secretary of state is the one who decides whether someone meets the threshold qualifications. One of those qualifications is embodied in the United States Constitution. It's in the 14th Amendment Section 3. 14th Amendment Section 3, simple. That's it. That's what it says.

You're just qualified. And Donald Trump's response to that shows why he should be disqualified. He goes on his social media platform. He posts the photographs of the four judges who are now receiving. And not only that, he amplifies the people on his social media platform who attack those justices. And now they're all subject to death threats. And the message that Donald Trump sends is, hey, if you don't want to get these death

threats, if you don't want your life ruined, if you don't want all of these things to happen to you, you know, do what the trial court judge did, right? Do what Judge Sarah Wallister in the Colorado trial court who said, yeah, I'm an insurrectionist, but she found on some technicality not to disqualify me. But think about that. You have any doubt that she would be receiving all of these death threats right now. Her family would be targeted if she ruled the other way. I think she, I think she knew what the law was. I think she knew what she had to do. I think she got scared.

And that's the thing. Like we're not seeing to your point, Popo, you know, just different kind of legal views and the normal process of how cases, you know, used to get argued. I mean fundamentally, you have Donald Trump who's arguing for the end of our judicial system. And that going putting this episode back full circle is ultimately the un-stated issue in special counsel, Jackson Smith's brief to the Supreme Court. And what the Supreme Court has to recognize. Okay, Supreme Court, you've taken away the reproductive freedoms of women, okay Supreme Court, you very quickly struck down President Biden's attempt to provide targeted relief to individuals who had student loans, okay Supreme Court, you are demolishing the separation between church and state, okay Supreme Court, you're

allowing weapons to happen throughout the country. All right, you view those issues with urgency, but then when it comes to the issue of fundamentally destroying our democracy, even if you're waiting 20 or 30 days and you're like, yeah, we'll wait with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals says, as I said from the outset of the episode, it's why I don't believe that the Supreme Court's order for now is anything that causes me any degree of kind of worry or consternation right now,

but nonetheless, as a human being, when the Supreme Court's like, yeah, well, just wait, let's see what the DC Circuit says. And we are all living in this mega dystopian threats of destroying the American democracy. We're like, that's nice that you want to wait three weeks Supreme Court to hear it when it comes back from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. But you realize that while Jack Smith has to play by the rules, Trump is apparently just

threatening judges and their families and their kids and Magas threatening all of them and they're talking about sending people to Guantanamo Bay and this and that and that's you know one of the you know things that all these Magas are talking about with these justices and Colorado it's it's a terrific Popeyes what's it what's you're taking that yeah I think I did a hot take on this one I get a couple things going out with Colorado that I think are very interesting. The headlines were all, as you said, Colorado Supreme Court rules to ban Donald Trump from the ballot. And everybody's going to be shocked then when Donald Trump wins the primary in March. I go, what happened? What happened is they built in a already self-executing stay into the order basically blocking their ban, right, continuing to talk about legal terms They're blocking their own ban to allow Donald Trump if he files by the 4th of January a Supreme Court appeal

But he's going to do to the US Supreme Court So now we've got two two feeds being plugged into the Supreme Court at the same time They're gonna have to decide on an appeal whether the Colorado Supreme Court and their four to three decision were right or wrong first time in our Republic to decide how that 14th Amendment Article 3 applies to a guy who used to be president and whether the he held an office under under the Constitution agreed to defend support or otherwise whatever to the Constitution, if his relationship with the Constitution was appropriate enough to apply it to it. Two of the dissenters who were happened to be Republicans on the four to three Colorado Supreme Court

wanted to go a different way. One wanted to go the way of, why don't we let Congress decide this, which is what Minnesota and Michigan Supreme courts had done. This seems like a really hard decision. Why are we doing this at the judiciary in our state? We're doing it through the Secretary of State of our state. Let Congress do it. They're the ones that put the disqualifier in there.

Let them decide whether he can be on the presidential ballot or not. Seems really hard. We don't want to do that. I think that's a abdication of responsibility by justices to as the trial court judge said, we get paid to look at the law, apply the constitution to the law, and make decisions. That's what we get paid to do. The other dissenting judge said a version of, no, I think there needs to be a criminal conviction of somebody like Donald Trump before we even get to the point of deciding whether the 14th Amendment comes up.

In other words, the criminal justice system should decide on a charge of rebellion or insurrection. There's those kind of charges out there that were not used for good reason by the Department of Justice. And why didn't they use those charges? And they should use those charges. And let's just have that come back after there's an actual conviction of Donald Trump. Very similar to why a judge had done when we tried to get, when people try to get Marjorie Taylor green, off the ballot back in the day in Georgia, a lower level, much lower level administrative

law judge said the same thing, which is like, should there be a conviction for that count? And to which I respond, as I've said before, under the history and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, the answer to the end article three, the answer is no. Because there was no way, and you can tell for the legislative history, when it was being debated, that they would ever have required that members of the Confederacy, like Jeff Davis

and others would have to go through a public trial and get a conviction in order for them to get banned from the ballot on the next election cycle coming up. They were never going to put the U.S. through the U.S. coming off of the civil war in this country, brother against brother, right? Blue versus grace, splitting the country in half. The sounds familiar. And comparing that to the reconstruction trying to put the country literally back together again with an assassination of a president in the middle named Abraham Lincoln, they weren't going to say, well, it's one more step because they would have baked that into the 14th

amendment. You got to have a conviction. They didn't say convicted. It says if the person engaged, engaged, not engaged, proven at a trial, engaged in insurrection rebellion against the Constitution. And so that falls by the wayside. Now the two feeders that are coming into the Supreme Court

at the same time that could lead to a horse trade by John Roberts. And it's the thrust of a hot take that I just did, is that you've got this decision, whether once and for all, it applies to a president, the 14th Amendment, the Squalifier, and what kind of facts do you need to have developed in order to apply it up at the Supreme Court at the same time that the issue, ultimately, of absolute immunity for presidential prosecution, or prosecution of a president comes in at the same time at the Supreme Court.

Now you know that that Roberts is going to be running around trying to get the votes and broker a deal. And one deal that could happen is everybody gets something. It's like Christmas, everybody gets something and they're stocking. Donald Trump gets a ruling that he can't be banned from the ballots. Okay. Thumbs up or thumbs down, state by state electoral vote whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden win in November, mono a mono. Let's do it. Okay. I can, frankly, I can probably live with that. A lot of Democrats can. However, in order to get that vote, they got to give

something to Jack Smith. The thing they give the Jack Smith is at this stage in the game, absolute presidential immunity for crimes that are charged even for somebody that part of those same activities as the subject of an impeachment that didn't lead to a conviction, no way. That's not going to be the law of our land. And we're going to give. So we're going to see some potential horse training. There's no way that these two cases are just coming in by accident. As we've said in past podcasts, the Supreme Court does nothing by accident. Whether they decide to hear something, not hear signs, hear something, the timing of it, the decision whether to punt on the issue,

whether to claim the election is too close or too far away. All of these things go in, this is all a political game strategy that we are watching among the nine justices in the Supreme Court and their clerks. It's just what we're watching. And so these two things landing at the simultaneous time on purpose, these two planes landing are gonna have to be addressed and maybe there's gonna be a tradeoff between those two things landing at the simultaneous time on purpose, these two planes landing are going to have to be addressed.

And maybe there's going to be a tradeoff between those two things. In the meantime, as you started the transition into the segment, we've got an out of control Donald Trump and his MAGA blowing the dog whistle, calling for violence against these four. Yes, democratic, appointed majority of the Colorado Supreme Court. That's what people in their state get to do. They get to pick their judges and the governors of their states. And that's democracy in action. You know, that's what happens.

And it's okay that a person's of a certain political party. But there's so much violent rhetoric being directed towards them. The FBI and the Department of Justice have now intervened because of violent threats of assassination and worse, if you can believe it, against those justices who have been horribly doxed again by Donald Trump who can't help put their picture up along with everybody else's picture. Here's a version of his picture, Colorado election interference,

the four judges, and then all the information about them. I, some of the stuff I read on the darkest web, including theDonaldWin.com, which has already been outed as a major source of fomenting and promoting and coordinating Jan 6th in direction, let alone what's going on now, was I just can even I just can't I won't I won't repeat it But but at least some Monica. I'll leave it on this least some Monica the deputy attorney general number two under Merrick Garland in an interview that she's giving this weekend It's you know, we got some early reports of it She's she's revealed that the threat level a threat level assessment is so high right now because of Donald Trump

That in this last week alone like Donald Trump that in this last week alone, listen to this, Ben, this last week alone, the FBI in the Department of Justice is investigating assassination threats against a sitting US Supreme Court justice not named, two presidential candidates and FBI agent and all four members of the Colorado Supreme Court. And that's just a week. Well, you know, it's why it's so important that we continue to get out the facts, get out the truth, let people know in the pro-democracy community that not only are you not alone, that you're the real silent majority out there,

that all this mega movement has is fear and fear itself and we need to all come together, know the facts, be armed with the actual data. And we need to stay steady, we need to stay calm, we need to, you know, especially as we head into 2024, make sure that we're all doing our part each and every day. That's what we'll continue to do here at Legal AF and want to make sure that everyone of you as well has a great holiday. I want to make sure that you all know how much you're appreciated here at the Midas Touch Network and you're a part of our family here at the Legal AF community as well as the Midas Touch Network. So thank you all very much for watching this. You can check us out at store.midasTouch.com for all the best pro democracy gear that's store.midasTouch.com. And as I mentioned

before you could also check out patreon.com slash MidasTouch as well. Have a great one. We'll see you next time on Legal AF. I'm Ben Myceles, joined by Michael Popak, Happy Holidays, everybody. Merry Christmas.