Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump KEEPS LOSING as Co-Defendants SCREW HIM

Episode Date: September 7, 2023

Donald Trump spent the day losing in court across the country in the various cases where he is either a criminal defendant or civil defendant. Kaen Friedman Agnifilo is joined by guest host Ben Meiselas filling in for Michael Popok. Agnifilo and Meiselas also discuss what went down in the first RICO criminal hearing before Judge Scott McAfee which was streamed live.  DEALS FROM OUR SPONSOR! Miracle Made: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGLAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Green Chef: Head to https://GreenChef.com/LegalAF50 and use code LegalAF50 to get 50% off and Free Shipping! Athletic Greens: Go to https://drinkAG1.com/LEGALAF and get 5 free AG1 Travel Packs and a FREE 1 year supply of Vitamin D with your first purchase! 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 Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 MAGA Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump keeps on losing loser. In the other EG and Carol defamation case set for trial January of 2024, federal judge Lewis Kaplan has granted summary judgment for EG and Carol finding Donald Trump liable for defamation. Now, the only thing left for a jury to decide will be how many millions of dollars, seven figures, eight figures, nine figures, that Trump will have to pay E. Jean Carroll for his heinous, heinous conduct. Loser, New York State Court judge Arthur Engoron denies Donald Trump's request to delay trial in the Civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James a one sentence Terce order judge and Goran basically saying no get out of here Trial is set to start October 2nd and New York Attorney General

Leticia James is seeking at least $250 million in damages and an injunction that would effectively stop Donald Trump and his businesses from further conducting business in New York. Also, Karen Friedman, I gnifalo, I want to get your take on just how incriminating you think Trump's deposition was in that case that was taken back in April, but was just released. Again, Donald Trump, the loser in the Florida federal criminal case over Trump's willful retention of national defense information and making false statements and obstruction of justice.

We learned just how damaging the voice messages are that Donald Trump's former lawyer, Evan Corcoran, made of himself documenting the crimes that Donald Trump wanted Corcoran to commit for Trump. And in the DC federal criminal case over Trump's attempt to overthrow the 2020 election, Jack Smith is raising with Judge Chutkin, Donald Trump's extra judicial statements, meaning the threats that Trump is making in the various social media

posts about prosecutors, the judge, the judicial system, and witnesses. Donald Trump, the loser, and speaking of losers who are part of the Trump ilk, Maga Republican, George Santos appears to be negotiating a plea deal with the Department of Justice. We will see will George Santos be entering a guilty plea in the next 30 days? Karen and I will discuss, but we start tonight's program with the court proceeding in Fulton County, Superior Court in Georgia, where Judge Scott McAfee denied the severance request by Trump's co-defendants, Ken Chesbro and Sydney Powell who both demanded a speedy trial but then didn't want the speedy trial together.

This means that on October 23rd, like next October, next month, the first Rico racketeering criminal trial against Trump, co-defendants, Chesbro and Sydney Powell will start and we'll see what happens with the other co-defendants, but those will likely be tried at a later date. Cameras were in the courtroom. We got to see what the parties were arguing, what the prosecutors were arguing, the ruling by Judge Scott McAfee. This and more on Legal AF,

I'm Ben Myselis filling in for Michael Popak, join by host Karen Friedman, Agnipolo, Karen, thank you for letting me do the intro and to host this with you on the midweek with that's usually you and pop-up because pop-up is out and I will be filling in how you're doing. Great, it's great to have you on a Wednesday. We do all these duets together, but it's great to always fill in for each other too.

So I'm so happy to have you midweek in our deep dive. The hot takes are one thing, you know, our duets, but to be able to deep dive into these issues with you is another. So there's so much going on. There's, I think, 10 different topics that we're diving into tonight. It's on some level. It's a big, big night. A lot's going on.

So first, let's show our audience the video because cameras in the courtroom, Judge Scott McAfee created his own YouTube channel where this is being streamed. And so you could stream it on our channel, other channels, we're gonna be make sure that we're in the courtroom for future hearings. But this was the order that was issued by Judge Scott McAfee and then Karen, after watching the judge issue this order,

if you can then explain to our audience, what this all means, what watching the judge issue this order, if you can then explain to our audience, what this all means, what were the various machinations leading into this. But let's play Judge McAfee denying the severance request by Ken Chesbro and Sydney Powell. Play the clip. Talk about the jurors. I don't think it's, we can take for granted that these would both be two equally four month-long trials. I think it could easily be twice that with multiple defendants. And I think we need to take into account the fact that one

docket goes entirely unhold while this case is going. And instead of it being, if we're purely considering Asperch's judicial economy, which to me was the really the only valid argument here, I think taking up two dockets and for a's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I

think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I

think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I think that's the only thing I our pal is necessary to achieve a fair determination of the guilt or innocence for either defendant in this case.

And so I'll deny Mr. Chesbro's motion is a sever from this pal, I'll deny in part, Ms. Powell's motion to sever from Mr. Chesbro and the plan will be to enter a scheduling order for Ms. Powell mirroring that Mr. Chesbro with the October 23rd date holding. It sounds like the state is still sticking to the position that all these defendants should remain and they wanna address some of these removal issues. I'm willing to hear that. I remain very skeptical, but we can, I'm willing to hear which you have to say on it.

And break it down for us, Karen. What was he referring to by granting, or not granting the severance motion, or break it all down? What was he saying there? So Judge Scott McAfee, who's 34 years old in the bench for maybe six months, not old enough to be president of the United States, everybody was wondering,

who is this judge, and will he be able to handle this big case? Well, we saw today on television, frankly, that he has complete control over the case, over the courtroom, over the law, and he even came up with legal arguments that, frankly, the prosecutor didn't even think of and asked for more time to discuss. So I was very impressed by Judge McAfee today and how he held this hearing and he knows these issues and knows the law. He also indicated that they are going to have weekly court appearances between now and October 23rd because there is so much that has to happen before now and the court date, the trial date, I should say, when they're going to start picking a

jury. So he said, let's just start talking every week. And since it's, since it's Georgia, we'll get to see this every week on television. And what happened today was this was a motion, it was a hearing on a motion that was brought by both Ken Chesbro and Sydney Powell and this was a motion to sever from one another. So if you remember there are 19 defendants and two of the 19 defendants have asked for Speedy trial under Georgia's Rocket-Dockets Trial Act. And this is a lightning rocket speed, speedy trial, unlike almost anywhere else in the country, frankly, whereas if a defendant demands a speedy trial,

they have a right to it. And the prosecutor has to be ready, either in the court term where they brought the grand jury, the grand jury indictment or the following term. And so it's a very short period of time. This is like an early to mid-November deadline that Fannie Willis has to for these two have a jury sworn, which means picked, you know, a fair competent jury picked and sworn before the end of the next court term. So Fannie Willis asked for October 23rd, and these two defendants are scheduled now to

go October 23rd. And that's one of the rulings that Judge McAfee made today, which is, which is, I had set a trial schedule and a briefing schedule for Ken Chesbro. I hadn't yet for Sydney Powell. Now they are both on the same schedule. The other question that was asked, the other issue that was addressed, was these two individuals wanted to be severed from one another, meaning they didn't want to be tried together. They wanted their own individual trials from one another and from the other 17 defendants. Now, although these two have asked for a speedy trial, and their

case is scheduled for October 23rd, at this very moment, all 19 defendants are still on one indictment. But I don't believe, and the judge clearly was skeptical of this, there is no way all the other 17 will go on October 23rd. So let's go back to these two. The severance motion. And so what happened was that the little lawyer for Ken Chesbro, Scott Grubman went first, and he basically said, look, you know, he basically said there's multiple conspiracies in this big, rico indictment, but Chesbro is only charged with the fake electors, not any of the others, right? At most, all he did was send some emails. He, you know, was asked to give an opinion on the 12th Amendment and the Electoral College Act.

And there's maybe one or two other emails discussing logistics. And you know what, Sidney Powell, he doesn't know her. He had nothing to do with her. She was involved in the computer trespass, part of the conspiracy. They had nothing to do with each other. The charges don't overlap.

And he wants to get far away from what he calls the third conspiracy, the one involving, he said, the poll workers. He didn't want to name Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss. Of course, he wants to get as far away from them as possible because they are the best witnesses in this case. When they testify at this trial and they talk about what these defendants and Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani in particular did to them and what it did to

their lives, there's not going to be a dry eye in the courtroom and the jury is going to want to stab in the eye every single one of these defendants and hold them accountable. So Ken Chesperer wants to get as far away from that as possible because he does not want that as part of his trial. And he basically tried to say that, look, you know, these are multiple conspiracies. And all the only thing these people had in common, Sidney Powell and Ken Chesbro was, look, all we had in common was we were all trying to get Donald Trump elected. That if that's the case, if that's the standard, half the country could also be co-conspirators

in this case. Otherwise, we have nothing in common and that's the thing. And Sidney Powell essentially said something similar and said, look, her lawyer said, she's not in most of the case. She's only in that computer breach coffee county part of the case where she broke into the, reminds me of Watergate. This is the 2023 version of Watergate,

where instead of breaking into a hotel room and stealing and stealing election data, she's breaking into the election office and breaking into a computer and stealing voter data. And basically said, look, I'm not in most of the case, just this part, and my defense will be washed away by all the other evidence and overshadowed, because really everything I did that I'm charged with doing was on one day. It was just January

7th. And if I had any role in it at all, that's the only thing I had a role in. And so therefore, and since I had nothing to do with Kanchesbro, we don't want to be together. And then the government's position was no, I think all 19 should still be together and try them all together. The government said that one of the things the government, the prosecutor was asked to provide today, was how many witnesses do you plan on calling and how long do you think the case will take, the trial? They said that the trial would take four months for their case, plus jury jury selection plus any defense case. Now,

what does that mean? They said they have over 150 witnesses in this case. But jury selection, they said they don't know how long that could take. And unfortunately, there's another trial going on, a RICO case where they've been in jury selection for over eight months in Fulton County. Now, Fanny Willis doesn't have that luxury here because in that other case where the selection is over eight months, that defendant didn't demand a speedy trial. Therefore, they don't have that same restriction of having to have a jury sworn by a certain period of time. So this cannot take that long, but it could take weeks. And on top of that, depending on how many defendants are going, we'll also increase the amount of time that her direct case could go, because there's be multiple openings, multiple cross-examinations,

multiple, every defendant and defense attorney gets to cross-examine and give summations, etc. So the judge was a little skeptical about her four month, about their four month guess of how long it would be, the prediction. By the way, Fannie Willis was not in court today, which I thought was noteworthy, but some other defense attorneys were in the courtroom, because really only Khenchess, Brow and Sydney Powell

were on the calendar today, but other defense attorneys for other of the 19 defendants were there watching. And the judge says, well, I think this is really more like an eight month trial, but he ruled from the bench, he basically said, he said, I'm not severing Chesbro and Powell, you guys are staying together for I don't see your argument that you had nothing

to do with each other. If anything, that helps, that hurts you because there's no way that there could be prejudice, right? Because you don't know each other. You had nothing to do with each other. You both concede, both defense attorneys conceded that they don't have antagonistic defenses, which would be one of the elements or one of the reasons you could sever. So he said, look, I find no reason that there's no spillover

from one evidence to another because you don't know each other. So there's no prejudice either one of you would suffer. And so I'm keeping you together. You're both going on October 23rd. Part of it's for judicial autonomy reasons. And I don't want to put witnesses. And he said, yeah, this is a long trial. I don't want to put witnesses and he said yeah this is a long trial I don't want to have two courts having to do this at the same time and plus it wouldn't be fair to the witnesses and

victims in this case so we're having one trial But there was one issue that this judge brought up that no one else brought up that I thought is really going to be the biggest Issue in this case which is he said one defendant will not more than one, I think two, have asked for removal to federal court. Mark Meadows and now Senator Stills have asked for removal, state senator, have asked for removal to federal court. And that's in front of Judge Jones in federal court in Georgia. And what this judge asked, what Judge McAfee asked, the parties was, look, if there is, if the removal, no matter what the decision is, both sides have a right,

you agree, right, that both sides have a right to appeal to the 11th Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court, and everybody said, yes. And he said, so I anticipate that no matter what the judge does in the Meadows case, it's going to be appealed. And do you also agree that we cannot enter a verdict? We cannot enter a judgment of conviction until that issue is resolved and all appeals are resolved. So he said, what am I going to do?

I'm going to sit a jury. We're going to open. We're going to take testimony. We're going to cross examine witnesses. We're going to have jury reach of verdict. And I can't enter that verdict until we know what happens in removal. And then what happens if the whole case gets removed. Then what was all this for nothing?

Will double jeopardy attach? So he brought up, I think, not only an excellent legal question this judge, but an excellent logistical question. And that's when everybody said, hey, we need more time to brief this and to think about it. But that's going to be the wrinkle in this case, I think, the biggest question about whether or not this case can go to trial on October 23rd. And this is just an unprecedented situation where in the other thing is, you know, Fannie Willis, I have to say I disagree with their position that all 19 defendants should go on October 23rd. I think legally by asserting that I think she loses credibility or

Prosecutors lose a little credibility with the judge because there's other rights that defendants would have to wave in order to go to trial on October 23rd in addition to speedy trial and she even filed a motion last week It was some strangely named motion You and I did a duet on it, Ben, that basically said, are you, judge, can you please be, make sure, ask the defendants who, for Chesbro and Powell, can you please ask them to make sure they realize by asking for a speedy trial

that they're also giving up these following rights, and please make them put that on the record. Because she acknowledges, unless they do that, her conviction could be in danger. All other 17 defendants, all they have to do is say, no, I don't weigh those other things. And then of course, they're not gonna get a trial. You know, they're not gonna have to be forced

into a speedy trial. So I think there's no question that the 17 will be severed from the two. The judge signals as much from the bench, a judge macaphy, but I think the whole thing is potentially in jeopardy because of this removal question and the appeals, etc. That's what judge macaphy was saying at the end when he said, I'm skeptical of the state's position that all 19 can be tried on October 23rd because of these removal issues, these appellate issues. And look, I think we all appreciate and Karen, as someone who led them in Hatton District

Attorney's Office, who were the number two there, spent three decades there. I'm sure you appreciate prosecutors being aggressive in utilizing all the tools in the prosecutorial toolkit has do I, especially when it comes to prosecuting Donald Trump and Donald Trump's co-defendants, but I do agree with you there too. You also wanna make sure that the position that you're making with the judge maintain your credibility.

So it doesn't seem that you're just being so aggressive with anything that some of the other motions inevitably that you're going to have to make are in viewed with a bit of skepticism, right? Like the absurd delay tactics of Donald Trump are so transparent to look at, right? But there's the opposite of that, which is if you're so aggressive that you're not willing to even concede, wait a minute, there still are certain very important due process rights and constitutional rights that criminal defendants have that their case truly couldn't be tried for everybody on October 23rd, you know, but I think Judge McAfee did a very good job at seeing that, you know, it was funny because when you think about

the arguments being made by Chesbro, what it really boiled down to Karen, right, is that Chesbro wanted to invoke this right to a speedy trial and didn't really think many steps ahead. Just wanted his case to go so he could say, I'm just this gentleman. Ah, look at me, I'm just a lawyer who writes memos, right? And then Sidney Powell released the Kraken, you know, she came into this and now they're joined together.

And so what his lawyer really couldn't say, but was trying to articulate without going there by talking about spillover is, you're on her, she's crazy. And this is someone who said, released the Kraken, she broke into election offices. And we don't want to be associated with her at all. Just the circus that she brings would be harmful.

And I don't think his lawyer did a good job articulating that point, which I don't think you had to say it the way I said it, but I think you could have articulated that point better. But at the end of the day, the retort to that is she may have said, release the Kraken. But who came up with the Kraken plan, Chesbro, Chesbro acts like, oh, I just sent 18 emails. Well, if one of those emails of the 18 were a plan to overthrow our democracy, oh, I'm so sorry if you just robbed 12 banks instead of 18 or one bank instead of 10. You still robbed the bank. I mean, Chesbro was instrumental in creating the fake collector plans. He was instrumental in the plan to have former vice president then vice

president. It depends delay counting the electoral votes. Just because you call it a memorandum still doesn't mean that you're not engaged in a crime. If you're memos a crime, you could be a criminal, even if it's just 18 emails, Chesbro. So, Adriatic hearing though, I was glad that it was being recorded. And also a number of the cases that were being cited by Chesbro and Sydney Powell's lawyers about why the case should be in the posture that it's

at didn't involve Rico cases at all and so the prosecutors pointed out hey you know these cases don't involve Rico and Rico cases. The case should be combined and that's exactly what should take place here. But again, these hearings are going to be broadcast and we will be covering them all here when we did a hot take. And it's what Karen. Just on your point about these being broadcast, you know, federal courts are not televised and many, most state courts, criminal cases are not televised, and many most state courts, criminal cases are not televised.

And the reason that is often given is because it could create a circus, it could create a distraction. I think this today proved that to be completely wrong. There was no circus, there was no distraction, there was nothing but transparency. There's a right in the Constitution for an open and public trial. In this day and age, that means it needs to be televised, especially this case. And I think this case and the way it's being handled

will be cited by every news agency that's going to make motions in every other case and saying why it should be televised. And I'm hoping and I think that other courts will take notice of this and will absolutely allow it to be these other cases to be televised. The public has a right to see what

is happening in these cases in these courtrooms. The thing that Donald Trump has done more than anything else is to try to de-legitimize our institutions, especially the criminal justice system. There's two phrases that he uses and then we see George Santos who we're going to talk about later, also uses and it's kind of code.

You know, it's Donald Trump speak, Donald Trump language when he talks about either weaponizing the criminal justice system or a witch hunt. You know, those are the words that he uses. And what are those words do? They de-legitimize prosecutions. And they de-legitimize the criminal justice system. And the only way to get that back is for it not to happen in a black box, for it to not be in secret, and for it to be open and transparent and televised for the world to

see. in secret and for it to be open and transparent and televised for the world to see when people testify at trials, at criminal trials, there is no hearsay allowed. It's live witnesses that have to come in, raise their right hand over the Bible, and they have to swear or affirm that this all only swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me God. And they can only talk about what they have seen, what they know from their own personal knowledge. It has to be admissible, and it has to be relevant

to the case. And every single American needs to hear the testimony, see the evidence, and watch, and get our criminal justice system back on being a legitimate institution. Because I spent my entire career in the criminal justice system back on being a legitimate institution because I spent my entire career in the criminal justice system and to see what Donald Trump has single-handedly done to it is just absolutely disgraceful and this is step one towards getting that back. And so I think the fact that this was televised and it worked out so well, nothing happened.

Like I said, there was no circus, nothing. It just, it's about getting the truth out there and letting people see for themselves. You know, it's the exact opposite of what we see in right wing media like Fox and OAN and Newsmax where Donald Trump and his lawyers go on those shows and just spew lies that are not tethered to evidence. That's why when the lawyers enter into a courtroom, they don't make those arguments and they act very different than

they do on the right wing media networks. And that's why it's so important to see the way our system works, to see the reason why there needs to be evidence and admissible evidence, and that search for objective truth that we are so committed to here on Legal AF to see that play out is so critical. I think that's such a great point. And by the way, if anybody wants to learn more about Karen Friedman Agnifalos origin story, we have that on our Patreon site. If you go to patreon.com slash mightestouch. P-A-T-R-E-O-N dot com slash mightestouch M-E-I-D-A-S-T-O-U-C-H. We have bonus features there because we don't have outside investors here on the mightest touch networks are the

way we build and grow this platform is through our Patreon. We have a video on the origin story of Karen Friedman Agnifalo and how we all met and how she made it here on the Midas Touch Network. Same thing with Michael Popak and how he made it here on the Midas Touch Network. We all got to know each other. Check that out patreon.com slash Midas Touch. We get back. I want to talk about people like George Santos and how what he's been spewing on right wing media is different and what's going on in court. Same thing with Donald Trump. He did this interview with you, you, it where he's like, I can do whatever I want to do. I want to show you what he said there versus what's going on in court. And

Donald Trump had some major court losses, just two in New York alone, where a state court judge Arthur and Goron denied Donald Trump's attempt to try to delay the civil fraud trial brought by New York Attorney General Leticia James, and also a federal judge in New York, Judge Lewis Kaplan, granted a summary judgment motion by E. Jean Carroll finding Donald Trump liable in the second defamation case.

So now it's just a matter of damages. How many millions of dollars in actual damages and punitive damages will the jury award E. Jean Carroll? And I think they're going to hit him for a huge verdict in January. We'll talk about that and more after we come back from our first quick break. Did you know that your temperature at night can have one of the greatest impacts on your sleep quality? If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend you check out Miracle Maid's bed sheets. Inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid uses silver infused fabrics and makes

temperature regulating bedding so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long. Using silver infused fabrics originally inspired by NASA, Miracle Made Sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long. So you get better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with silver that prevent up to 99.7% of bacterial growth, leaving them to stay cleaner and fresher three times longer than other sheets.

No more gross odors. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands. And feel as nice if not nicer than bed sheets used by some five-star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores, causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with miracle. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF to try miracle made sheets today.

And whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today, you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo legal AF at checkout, you'll get three free towels and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product. It's back the 30 day money back guarantee. And if you're not 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle made.

Go to try miracle.com slash legal AF and use the code legal AF to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40%. Again, that's try miracle..com slash legal I have to treat yourself. Thank you Miracle Made for sponsoring this episode. Eating well doesn't have to be boring. Feel your best this fall and satisfy your cravings with adventurous eats made nutritious from green chef. Discover exciting new flavors with recipes that feature certified organic fruits and vegetables,

sustainably sourced seafood, and unique farm fresh ingredients like tart cherries, truffle zest, and rainbow carrots. Green Chef is the number one meal kit for eating clean with dinners that work for you, not the other way around. My experience with green chef has been game changing. Their meals genuinely taste amazing and I don't know how I'd get through the work week without them. Plus it's super fun cooking with my family because of how easy green chef makes it. Green chef is also the only meal kit that is both carbon and plastic offset. Green chef offsets 100% of their delivery emissions, as well as 100%

of the plastic in every box, plus nearly all packaging materials are curbside recyclable in most areas in the US. Green Chef delivers everything you need to eat clean the easy way this September. Feel your best with nutritionist-approved recipes packed with clean ingredients that support your healthy lifestyle and taste. Great to go to greenchef.com slash 60 legal AF that's 60 legal AF and use the code 60 legal AF that's 60 L E G A L AF to get 60% off plus free shipping. Once again, that's greenchef.com, GRE, C-H-E-F, dot com slash 60, ledG, AL AF, and use code 60 legal to get 60% off plus free shipping.

Greenchef, the number one meal kit for eating well. Welcome back, legal AF. We are live Karen Friedman, Agnifalo. Ben, my cell is here filling in for Michael Popak. Thank you for letting me host this midweek with you, Karen. I have so much fun doing the duets we do every day and especially hosting this with you live, especially I get to pick your brain as a former prosecutor or the number two at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. So when I ask you a question about the deposition transcript, the deposition of Donald Trump that New York attorney general Latisha James took back in April. Recall that Donald Trump previously invoked his Fifth

Amendment rights and did not testify during the special proceeding, but back in April, he waived his Fifth Amendment rights and testified because if he invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, that could be used as an adverse inference against him in the civil fraud case. So he testified depositions over 450 pages long. The way I looked at it, Karen, it was just one incriminating emission after another. He was bragging about Marlago's 1.25 billion, Miami, Doral, billions. If you don't believe me, I bet you I could get the Saudis to buy it.

He repeated over and over again, that he could get the Saudis to buy the property at whatever value that he set. He also claimed that he had what he referred to as a worthless clause. I'm not sure what he knows what that means. It could be somebody telling him that the clause is worthless, but he was referring, I think, to the disclaimer,

which he believes you could just defraud people if you put a disclaimer in there, which you absolutely can't. And then he also threw Eric under the bus because someone clearly told him about the five or six year statute of limitations. And so he was saying, I actually

haven't done anything in six years. It's been all Eric and Weiselberg. But he continued to, I think, incriminate himself. We know Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg made the strategic decision to first bring the felony hush money case for falsification of the business records, the misclassification of the hush Money Payments as legal fees first, which was controversial, but now that Alvin Bragg has, and you interviewed Alvin Bragg about that, and a lot of people didn't get the decision, but you told us, I think that's the smart decision to make.

Now, Alvin Bragg has this deposition. How incriminating you worked at the Manhattan DA's office, if you got this deposition transcript, what would you be thinking? So, yeah, like, you know, just, yes, I was at the Manhattan DA's office for 30, almost 30 years, and but I never worked for Alvin Bragg, so I didn't really know him that well, and when he first became district attorney as I work for Sivance the prior DA, there was a lot of criticism of him, mainly for his decision to press pause on the companion case that goes along with

the Tisch James, the Attorney General of the State of New York, her civil case that set to begin October 2nd, just a matter of weeks, about the inflation and deflation, devaluation of his assets. And those were joint investigations that were going on at the time. And it was widely anticipated that the Manhattan DA's office was going to bring a criminal indictment based on those exact same set of facts that are going, that are happening in this trial at the Attorney General's office. And when Alvin Bragg took office within a few weeks, the senior prosecutors who were at

the Manhattan Days office basically said we would like permission to go into the grand jury. And to be fair, Sive Ants gave Alvin Bragggg, didn't wanna make the decision for Alvin Bragg. He had already given a mature, indicted case against the Trump organization, the 17 count case that ultimately went to trial under Alvin Bragg's administration. That was a case that Sivance had decided to bring, to indict, and then Alvin Bragg took that case,

tried that case, and got a conviction against the Trump Organization and Alan Weiselberg who operated, but Sivance was not ready to make the decision regarding this case and wanted to leave that decision to Alvin Bragg. And so when Alvin Bragg, in the very beginning of his administration, decided he was not ready to bring that case yet. He wanted to see, he wanted more evidence, frankly, he wanted more information. He was widely criticized for that decision. And you and I did a hot take months later where we said, wow, you know, that was a brilliant

decision that he made because, first of all, he said number one, the Stormy Daniels election interference case, that has a statute of limitations that is running. So I need to bring that case as soon as possible. This other case, I have more time. So let me, that open investigation, let's go forward on that. This other case, since I come from the Attorney General's Office, that's where Alvin Brad comes from, he comes from the state attorney general's office.

That's his background. So what he had in the back of his mind was his chess move that the rest of us, frankly, did not think of and did not have, which is Trump might speak in a deposition, right? Because he already was deposed and took the fifth, you know, 400 times or whatever it was. But once you do that in a civil case and you take the fifth, you get this adverse inference that goes to the jury that basically said, you can hold that against him. You can hold it against him that he is, that he has, the reason he's not speaking is that he has, you know, he, he basically, you can tell everybody what that, what that charge is because you've had it in civil cases.

I haven't yet to have that charge, but it's an amazing charge that basically says you can hold it against him that he didn't speak, that, you know, that he, that he, that you can have a negative inference against him for that. But, you know, and, and I think that Alvin Bragg thought there's going to be another opportunity to depose him and he might speak. And he did. And he spoke for what seven hours, seven hours, where Fahni, I'm, it's Fahni well, is Leticia James and her, and her staff, they didn't cross examine him, you know, they literally just let him speak and speak and boy did he speak and it was brilliant to that, I mean let him hang himself with the's, you know, it's something that's, that's damning and, you know, that, that is, that's like a confession. Number one, he has now locked himself in to seven hours worth of facts, right?

His defense can't change. His defense is what it is. He can't now say something different from what he said during those seven hours. So that in and of itself is just pure gold for a prosecutor. Number one, number two, he basically, he just goes on and on and they're talking about things that he just sounds ridiculous. He basically says he can do whatever he wants. You know, he's like, he basically said, you know, I have the strongest, whatever this worthless clause was.

I was sitting there Googling at going, I went to law school, I'd never heard of the worthless clause. Like, what is that? So I'm glad to know that it's not really a thing. But he says, you know, I had this worthless clause and all of my statements of, you know, financial conditions, but which basically says, you know, they can all be false in misleading

as long as there is a worthless clause, I can say whatever I want. He's basically saying he can lie and that it prevents people from taking legal action against him. I don't even know. I think you said in one of your hot takes that he's talking about a disclaimer. I mean, I think Karen, somebody told him that disclaimer is worthless. And he, I truly think that's what happened. And then he said, oh, the worthless clause means that,

because he justifies it like a malignant narcissist. So he then held on to that and says, I got a clause that means all of my statement of financial condition representations could be worthless and I'm okay. And it was someone saying, no, your disclaimer's worthless because measures who are your accountants, they're saying you shouldn't rely on us measures, rely on him because we're being fed this information. It was actually a very weak disclaimer. It's not even a strong disclaimer because mazer says we don't know of what we're doing is telling the truth We're relying on them and they may be lying to you. So what the clause is worthless Wow, well, I have to say there was so much in there that is rich for a prosecutor and

So much that we don't even know, frankly, that it's valuable, because we don't know what their evidence is, right? We don't know that some of the things are lies, you know? So until we see what the evidence is in compare it to his statements, we won't really know what are just absolute, provable lies or not. But some of the stuff he said that was just bananas, frankly, was that he could put outrageous amounts of money on whatever, you know, that he could say my properties, everything I have is worth these outrageous amounts. Why? Because the Saudis, okay, the Saudis will pay that for my brand, you know, they will basically, they will basically

pay anything for me. And so as a result, I can just make it be valued whatever I want. I mean, that is not the standard. You know, in, that is just not how people do business. And that is not the standard A. And B, that's kind of scary, right? That he was president of the United States. And, you know, and I think Jared Kushner was receiving billions of dollars from the

Saudis during this time. And the whole issue with the Saudis and the reporter and MBS and the murder, I mean, this is not necessarily something to brag about that you have, you know, this relationship with this, you know, the Saudi Arabian royal family so much so that you can, that they will do your, they will protect you by, by paying anything just so you don't get into trouble for your properties. Like, I don't know how he could possibly say that that is a good thing to say to people and to celebrate. I just didn't quite understand how, how that was, he thought that was helpful for him. I thought that actually made him look horrific, you know, frankly. I don't know.

I thought, what did you think? Because I thought it was a terrible. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was in charge of Middle East policy for the United States of America. He couldn't get a security clearance, MBS bragged that he had Jared Kushner in his pocket and then gave Jared Kushner $2 billion and now we see Saudi run golf tournaments at Trump properties while Donald Trump and his Elk spread 9-11 conspiracies like wake up America like what is going on? But, you know, I think the strategic decision that was made in a deposition, a great cross-examiner, I think exhibits a characteristic

that we refer to as fluidity, right? And you can go in there with a plan, but as Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face, right? So you have to adapt to depending on what is going on. And so I think at a certain point, the person from the New York Attorney General's Office who was asking the question,

you know what, I'm just gonna let him talk, because this is gold for our case, because I'm not gonna let that happen during the trial. We're gonna have a very rigid trial. Yes or no, sir, isn't it true that you said that Saudi Arabia would buy anything from you? And that's how you valued it? Well, I don't know.

Isn't that what you said, sir? Yes or no? Like you can do that at the trial, but they just let him talk himself into all of this incriminating stuff. And if I was from the New York Attorney General's office, the way I begin my opening statement is Donald Trump said that he could value his properties at whatever he wants

because Saudi Arabia will buy anything for him. Donald Trump said he didn't want to do appraisals because that would be too difficult. So he just thought it was common sense. Donald Trump claims, ladies and gentlemen, the jury people of the jury, that one of his NFT cards is $82,500. He claims that my amy doorow is billions of dollars. He claims he has a worthless clause and that all of his statements should be viewed as

worthless. That is what he thinks. So you can take what he did and give a brilliant opening and really cross-examine the right way, I think, at trial. But it was a perfect setup. I think it was incriminating. I think it was disastrous. And I think it is disastrous for Trump, good for justice. But that's why we have to go through all these things, Karen Wright.

We have to be in an evidence space. This is what he said. This isn't, you know, might as touch saying, oh, Donald Trump, these are his words. This is what he is saying. And that's why evidence is so important. And you know who sees right through all of Donald Trump's tactics, judge Arthur and Goran, because Donald Trump tried to delay trial trial set soon October 2nd is when trials taking place so Donald Trump asks judge and Goran for a three-week delay until after the

Summary judgments are ruled on right Trump filed the summary judgment motion asking to dismiss the entire case He says there are no disputed facts. He should win the case, which is just absolutely ridiculous. New York Attorney General, Letitia James says it's undisputed. He engaged in these fraudulent valuations. What Donald Trump's plan in filing this, what did he even call it? He called it like a motion for an order to show cause about a brief delay of the trial He didn't want a brief delay what his plan was no matter what judge Arthur and Gora does in summary judgment If there was a three-week extension Trump was then gonna rush to the appellate division that say look There's no urgency for trial. I've got three weeks now

So appellate division stay or stop indefinitely this trial from taking place while we deal with these issues on appeal. Pull up Judge Arthur and Goran's order right here. I love this order. What do you say? I love this order. The order is so good. It's basically a handwritten note. Look at that. Look at that. It's basically a handwritten note. Look at that. Look at that.

Decline design. It's like, Trump doesn't even deserve to get a tight, you know, like official order. We're going to write it on the back of an envelope, basically. You know, a handwritten, like, and then the clerk will stamp it. Like, this is just, you know, it's so frivolous that it doesn't even get a real order. He looked at it, took his pen and was just

like wrote it on a napkin, declined design, defendants, arguments are completely without merit, A.E. Arthur and Gora and clerk, can you just stamp it and the clerk stamps it and puts their initials on it. This is going to trial. We should be aware that Donald Trump's gonna try to do anything he can to derail this. But, right, that's not the conduct of people

who are innocent. Because if you were innocent, if you were not liable, you would say, I'm in an evidence-based world. By the way, if Trump has the facts to win on summary judgment, that's your due process. I think the fact that heard some of the most is even if you can say, look, I can value this as for as much as I want, right? Because I have a buyer, I have buyers lined up who will just buy anything of mine. Okay, let's

say you say Mar-a-Lago is worth 1.5 billion because I can get the Saudis to buy it for 1.5 billion. Therefore, I'm going to value that, to get a loan and take out money on it, by valuing it at 1.5 billion. Then you're stuck with that. You can't then say, you know what, to, you know, the IRS, this actually is only worth 100 million because I want to pay less taxes. You can't have it both ways. And that's where Donald Trump is going to be in big trouble at either a criminal trial or civil trial. You just can't have it both ways.

Yeah. And then another big loss that he had this one in federal court. Remember, there are two e gene carol defamation cases, e gene carol one and e gene carol two and e gene carol defamation cases, e-gene carol one and e-gene carol two and e-gene carol two actually went first because that related to conduct after Donald Trump left disgracing our office and just disgraces our country on his social media platform. He made defamatory statements in October of 2022 and also New York passed the Adult Survivors Act that led victims

of sexual abuse, bringing claims up to one year, revived the statute of limitations for one year for statute of limitations that expired. And E. Jean Carroll brought one claim under the Adult Survivors Act and defamation claim against Donald Trump for his conduct in October of 2022. That's where the jury found Donald Trump liable and awarded $5 million. There's a concept in civil law called collateral a stoppil, which is also known as perclusion, right?

So where a jury's already made the finding that one Donald Trump engaged in sexual abuse, that's what the finding was. And two, that he engaged in defamation by making the statements, That is perlusive. It has what's called collateral a stop-al-impact on other claims that are directly related or almost identical in nature. And Trump made the same comments back in 2019 when he was disgracing our country in

office. So, E.G. Carole I took all of this circuitous routes with all these appeals because Donald Trump tried to evoke every immunity in the United States, substitute it under Bill Barr, but that's finally set for trial now in January of 2024. And the judge says, you know what? Based on the finding by the jury in EGIN Carole 2, Donald Trump, I'm finding you liable in EGIN Carole 1.

Now all the jury needs to decide is damages and punitive damages. And E. Jean Carol amended the complaint a few months back to add the new stuff that Donald Trump said after he lost the E. Jean Carol II trial where he further defamed her, showing that this is why really harsh punitive damages are necessary. So now the jury's going to be instructed. Donald Trump committed sexual abuse on E. Jean Carroll and defamed her and then made comments defaming her more after he lost a trial where a jury found him liable. Now provide a dollar value for that, right? So E. Jean Carroll's lawyers are going to go in there.

I think they're going to demand a hundred million dollars. They're demanding at least ten million, but they're going to demand $100 million. They're demanding at least $10 million, but they're going to demand $100 million, Lewis Kaplan. I think a jury is going to award that amount. Eging Carroll deserves that. Donald Trump engaged in the most heinous conduct imaginable, and it keeps on compounding that, but that's another loss by Donald Trump in court. And I wanna play this clip, this is a view you.

Did you hear this one, Karen? Because as we talk about what was happening in the Southern District of Florida proceedings with some news, we're learning more about smoking gun evidence that special counsel, Jack Smith has, Donald Trump's attitude to all of this, the same way we heard him in his deposition is, I can do whatever it is that I want to do whatever.

President, he just makes up things. Worthless clause says I can do it. Here he talks about how presidential records acts as I can do it. That's just not true at all. Let me just show you this clip and then I want to talk about it, but play this clip. This is from today, you, you, it by the way, he's a right wing radio host,

but actually had before going that route 20, 30 years ago, had a decent reputation as a lawyer clerked for some significant judges, he knows Donald Trump is screwed, but he's now part of this magamutation Republican party that he aided and embedded and created as part of play this of you you it did you direct anyone to move the boxes mr president you tell anyone to move the boxes that i don't know anything you know why because i'm allowed to do whatever i want i come under the presidential record jack i'm not telling you you know every time i talk to you all i have a break in store if you don't have any story i come under the president's director jack I'm allowed to do everything

I did but if you have to go to trial will you testify in your own defense oh yes absolutely you'll stand that I would that I look forward to because that's just like Russia Russia Russia that's all the fake information from Russia Russia Russia remember when the dossier came out and everyone said oh that's so terrible that's terrible and then it turned out to be it was a political report put out by Hillary Clinton at the end see they paid millions for it they gave it to Christopher steel they paid millions and millions of dollars for it and it was all fake i think that obstruction charges gonna get the trial mister president

i i think that i'll just a book okay if you do and they ask you on on the stand did you order anyone to move boxes how will you answer i'm not answering that question for you but i'm totally covered under the law okay presidential records act just read it you take a look at it i'm totally covered under the law it's a civil act law presidential records act you take a look at it

i'm totally covered under the law it's a civil act it's civil now by that civil act that things he did a criminal but that he doesn't have a deranged person on his case you know they gave me deranged jets yeah setting aside for the second that he's a malignant narcissistic criminal

trades industry to like he sounds like an actual baby Like he's almost just making sounds at this point like Russia Russia Russia like soon It's just going to be like Google Gaga Google Gaga and you're gonna have like Republicans being like yeah, let's give the Google Gaga guy You know nuclear codes Karen I have to get your thoughts on that and much more But let's take our last quick break of the show. Our next partner is HG1, the daily foundational nutrition supplement that supports whole body health.

I drink it literally every day. I gave HG1 a try because I was tired of taking so many supplements and I wanted a single solution that supports my entire body and covers my nutritional basis every day. I want a better gut health, a boost in energy, immune system support, and wanted a supplement that actually tastes great. I drink AG in the morning to start my day. It makes me feel unstoppable and ready to take on anything. And on top of it all, I'm doing something good for my body. I'm giving my body the nutrition it craves and I'm covering my nutritional

basis. I've tried a ton of different supplements out there, but this is different. And the ingredients are super high quality. I got started with AG1 because I used to take all these different pills and gummies, who knows what, and frankly what I was taking was expensive, and I didn't even know if it was good for me. But with AG1, I know what I'm consuming has the best ingredients and also taste delicious. AG1 makes it easier for you to take the highest quality supplements, period. When I started my AG1 journey, very quickly I noticed that it helps me with improved digestion, energy, and overall, I just feel great. It's just one scoop of powder mixed with water, once a day, making it a seamless and easy daily habit to maintain.

I'm asked all the time about the one thing I do to take care of my health if I could only pick one. It be foundational nutrition, and AG1 is a top foundational nutrition product. Just one daily serving gives me the comprehensive foundational nutrition I need, and supports energy, focus, strength, and clarity with 75 high quality vitamins, probiotics, and whole food source ingredients. I can't think of another daily routine that pays off as well as AG1, which is why I trust the product so much. If you're looking for a simpler, effective investment for your health, try AG1, and get 5 free AG1 travel packs and a free one year supply of vitamin D with

your first purchase. Go to drinkag1.com slash legal AF. That's drinkag1.com slash legal AF. Check it out. Welcome back to legal AF. AG1 definitely an important cleanse after listening to what I made us all endure right there. Karen Friedman Agnifalo, what do you make of Donald Trump just going on right-wing radio shows like that? And by the way, he's doing it almost every day now, multiple times a day, just basically

saying, I can do whatever the hell I want to do. And he also claims there he's going to testify in the various federal cases that special counsel, Jack Smith, I don't think that's going to happen. What say you? Well, number one, there was a motion that was filed this week by Jack Smith. And it was a fight between Trump and Smith in the Gen 6 DC case in front of Tanya Chetkin.

And it was about whether or not a different filing should be under seal. And in it, one of the things that Jack Smith hinted at, or basically called out, was this whole argument is about the fact that Trump on a daily basis is saying things that is going to infect the jury pool and potentially taint the jury pool. And so I think it's things like what you just played, this hue, hue at interview, where he's talking about things like the Presidential Records Act,

and that he is 100% allowed to do this. What he's trying to do is put that in the minds of potential future jurors to say, I could do it, the presidential records act said, I could do it, I can do it, I can do it. Well, look, I urge anyone to just Google the presidential records act. It's in, it's the presidential records act of 1978. It's not that complicated.

You don't need a law degree to understand it. And it basically talks about, and the reason I bring it up and the reason I Google it myself and I read it myself is because when somebody who was the president of the United States says something like, I was allowed to do that, read the statute. Part of me is like, what is he talking about? Is this a misinterpretation? Is there a different interpretation of the law? that read the statute. Part of me is like, what is he talking about? Like, is he, is this

a misinterpretation? Is there a different interpretation of the law? Could the law be viewed two different ways? No, he flat out lies. He just comes out and lies. Like, that's what's was shocking to me about him. He says, the law says something, it does not say. You, like I said, you don't need a law degree to understand the Presidential Records Act of 1978. Pull it up and read it yourself. It's 44 US code, 2201 to 2209. It says it governs the official records of

presidents and vice presidents that were created or received after January 20, 1981. So beginning with the Reagan administration. It changed the legal ownership of the official records of the president from private to public, and it established a new statutory structure under which presidents and subsequently the National Archives must manage the records of their administration. It was amended in 2014, which established several new provisions. Specifically, it established public ownership of all presidential records and defines the

term presidential records. What does it mean to be public? It means they belong to us. It does not belong to Donald Trump. It belongs to the taxpayers. It requires the vice president to be treated in the same way his records or hers. It places the responsibility of the custody and management of incumbent presidential records

with the current president. It requires that the president and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from presidential records. So love letters from Melania or more likely hate letters from Melania, those get filed separately than his love letter from Kim Jong Un, which was, frankly, one of the things

that the National Archive noticed was not among his documents, and they knew that Kim Jong Un gave him a love letter when they met. And so that is not personal, that belongs to the taxpayers. It basically says that it allows the incumbent president to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational,

or evidentiary value once the views of the archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing. So it means, guess what, Donald Trump, if you don't think that some of these have any value, you have to get the National Archives Archivist to tell you that and agree with you and put it in writing. It says that the records that are held by the archives,

you know, it goes on and on about custody and how the president has to request access to the records, et cetera, it talks about how, you know, how they get transferred, the process by which the president may restrict and the public may obtain access to the records. It's just very specific about, and it codifies the process by which the former

and incumbent presidents conduct reviews for executive privilege, establishes procedures for Congress and the courts, and it establishes preservation requirements, and it prevents an individual who has been convicted of a crime related to the review of retention removal or destruction of the records from being given access to any records, which will be interesting if he ever gets convicted

of any of these crimes, then he can't see his own records. But it's very specific. What this does is it talks about who owns it, how it's possessed, how it's transferred, who gives people permission about who can do what, and it's easy to understand. So read it for yourselves and tell us, do you agree with him that it says he can do what he wants, that he could take classified documents, he can keep them, he can just store them wherever he wants. When asked for them by the National Archives,

he doesn't have to give them back. He can lie and have his lawyers lie and say that those records aren't there and that he gave everything over and then have his underlings move the boxes. And then when the underlings realize that that's on tape, that they can then try to destroy the evidence that it's on tape. So there is no tape of them moving the boxes. I mean, you tell me, you read this for yourselves

and you say, if there's anything in that that gives him permission to do what he says he can do, you will not find anything that says that. He has once again just flat out lied, but he's doing it because he's trying it because he's trying to convince the public and future jurors that in fact, he is allowed to. And so that is why Jack Smith is trying to get some kind of, I don't know what he's asking for because it's under seal,

but some kind of sanction, gag order, admonishment, you know, I don't think no one thinks that he's being asked that he be put in jail. Although any other defendant who continuously on a daily basis violated court orders and was trying to taint the jury pool on purpose and go out and try and taunt the prosecutors and the judge and threaten them, would be put in jail. I don't think anyone's going to do that because he's a presidential candidate. But there is some little war going on between Donald Trump and Jack Smith under seal about his use of doing this every single day and going on TV and going on radio shows and lying and lying

about what he's allowed to do, not allowed to do, and what the facts actually aren't and what the facts actually are to try and taint the jury pool. And to answer the question, do I think he's going to testify? I would have said no, probably not because then he could be prosecuted for perjury and he lies. He can't not lie. So I don't think he ultimately will testify, but I think he will want to because he thinks he is actually a narcissist and he thinks that he, anything he says is the truth. I mean, the guy, I've actually, other than George Santos. I don't think I've ever seen someone lie as much

about literally everything as Donald Trump. And, but I think he will want to get on the stand. He thinks he's charming. He thinks he can talk his way out of anything. And he will absolutely do try to do to any prosecutor cross-examining him what he did to Caitlin Collins and that disastrous town hall that he was in when he railroaded her. And I think that he will want to, but I don't think he ultimately will, because then he

will be prosecuted for perjury, because he commits perjury every single day. And I mean, well, a well-known judge stated, presidents are not kings, and Donald Trump is not the president. That judge is Judge Tanya Chutkin, who made that very prescient statement over a year ago in one of the first skirmishes between the January 6th Committee and Donald Trump, where Trump was asserting executive privilege and trying to block the national archives from turning over records.

That's one of the reasons why Donald Trump and MAGA so despises Judge Chutkin, who by the way, got unanimous support in the Senate, is a law and order no nonsense, Judge, and the contrast between the way she runs her court and judge canon is night and day. Also, when we talk about the presidential records act, Donald Trump's not the president. You don't, when your private citizens, Obama, Clinton, George W. Bush, they don't get to

steal classified records. It don't get to steal classified record. It doesn't belong to them. It is the most absurd concept to claim that our nation's classified records and top secret records and sensitive compartmented information are owned by Obama, are owned by Clinton. Just think about it. When you hear all of these hosts on Fox, which we do, right wing propagandists on Fox. So are they saying that Obama, Clinton,

George W. Bush own our nation's top secrets and classified records and can bring them to Hawaii or resorts or wherever they wherever they live. Go clinic. It just bring it to his home in New York. Absolutely not. That is a crime.

And there are criminal statutes that directly deal with this. The espionage act obstruction of justice, making false statements. By the way, I saw falsely reported today that Judge Chutkin made an order giving Donald Trump a win. She didn't, you know, that's why watch Midas Touch Network and Karen in my breakdowns. I had to do a story right away on MidasTouch.com

because I'm like, this isn't a win. Donald Trump's lawyers were asking Judge Chutkin every time Jack Smith files under seal to have a three week briefing schedule. And Judge Chuck in responded, look, yes, I didn't do a prior order that addressed this ridiculous issue that you want briefing for three weeks on every time Jack Smith wants to file under seal. So let me be clear right now about what my orders are. I'm going to order expedited briefing on issues that are subject to the protective order. So you have until September 11 to if you're objecting to Jack Smith filing

the document that Karen, you were talking about, issue it. Do your objection by September 11? Jack Smith respond by September 13th. Sure. I will for five days vacate the order that I allow Jack Smith to file that document under seal. Make your argument, but I'm not gonna let you do this again is basically what she says in her order. That's not a win for Donald Trump. And so I assume somebody saw it said,

order as to Donald Trump, that a motion to vacate is here by granted. And that sounded like, oh, she must have said Trump one granted Trump motion. But that's not the she's saying, I'm not going to let you delay matters here is what she's saying in this order. And I'm not going to allow every time Jack Smith wants to file under seal. that we have to do motion hearings on whether the document can be filed under seal and then address the merits with another motion. So it's not a win.

It's actually a loss for Donald Trump if you actually read the context. That's why again, it's so important that we contextualize this with everything that's going on and that's why we do a very, we do a lot of work here to make sure that the information that you're getting is. Although, although in fairness, Ben, Donald Trump has lost now hundreds and I probably thousands of emotions, but hundreds of cases, right?

He is lost. He is the biggest loser. I've never actually seen anyone have a worse track record. So the fact that he got a judge to give him like three days, you know, that, that, that, let's give him a big hit. He got a judge to give him three days to, to do something that that counts as a win in his track record because he has lost everything.

Everything. Karen, talk to us about Evan Corcoran, Trump's former lawyer. We knew that one of the key pieces of evidence, Jackson Smith has is that Corcoran would use his iPhone to cover his ass, right? He would do the CYA voice note memos to himself. So Corcoran was hired around April of 2022

and Trump was asking him to do all of these illegal things. Hey, can we destroy the records? What happens if we don't comply all of these things? And Corcoran, after he would be done, hanging out with Trump and Trump's people, he would go back and he would do the recordings. So Donald Trump asked me to do this today and he narrated everything that was going on

while normally stuff like that would be attorney, client, privilege, the crime fraud exception was applied by a district court judge in Washington, DC as part of the grand jury proceedings many, many, many months ago before an indictment was brought. So, Jack Smith got his hands on these recordings. And we got from ABC got their hands on the transcript. And the way they probably got it, because again, I don't think you and me don't think Jack Smith is leaking pop-up things that they are doing strategically. No, no, no. I think this is coming from the fact that the discovery was turned over to Trump's lawyers

and they're the one strategically leaking these things for their own reasons. And as you look at it, you've got Corcoran being approached by Trump's other lawyer, Jennifer Liddell, who goes, if you tell Donald Trump to stop, he's gonna go ballistic on you. So you can't tell him not to do that. And it's like, okay, what are you talking about? Like, what kind of a lawyer is, what do you make though? Like, these are smoking guns, huh? I mean, how long have we been a lawyer?

How long have you been a lawyer for? I mean, have you ever, you know, of course you take notes, right? But do you go back and put voice, have you ever, you know, of course you take notes, right? But do you go back and put voice recordings of what happened, you know, what you're like? This is the biggest cover you're, you know, what I've ever seen. I've never seen a lawyer do anything like this.

But clearly, you know, look, we've learned now that Donald Trump was hiding things from Evan Corcoran, you know, and Evan Corcoran knew that he, that this was being, that he was being used as like a tool, as a way to commit his crimes. And so I think this is smoking gun evidence. At one point, there was a poolside chat, apparently away from Trump and Corcoran said that if you push Trump to comply with the subpoena, he's going to go ballistic.

And there was all these voice memos on his phone that basically talked about a roadmap that really shed light on Trump's state of mind and words that Trump was using. And I think this is going to be key. It was a road map for Jack Smith's case for sure, but it's also going to be key evidence that's going to come in in this trial. But this is really devastating, damning evidence that his own lawyer in real time is, this isn't like a thing where you have to, you know, memories fade and you have to try to remember and it's, he said, she said, it's hard to say he said, she said, when you've got someone who's almost giving contemporaneous observations and notes, you know,

in some ways, I think that the courts, they're going to, they're going to say it's, you know, hearsay exception called present sense, you exception called present sense impression, which is basically your, you know, it's things that are happening in real time. Some of this is in real time. I also think it's going to, you know, these things are going to come in because of, you know, this crime fraud exception. I think Trump was using him to commit crimes. And I don't, you know, to really hide behind

the attorney client privilege while he was committing these crimes. And I think Evan Corcoran was so aware that that was happening, that he was making these recordings and taking notes so that when the shit hits the fan, not if, but when, because he knew it was going to happen, it was happening, right?

He knew that the DOJ was breathing down their neck, that they were gonna be coming to Mar-a-Lago. He wanted to make sure that, yes, I'm a lawyer, yes, I feel like I'm being used, but these are the things that are being said to me, these are the things that are being done, and I'm gonna make sure this is not a he said, she said when the shit hits the fan.

And this is what the evidence, you know, this is what happened on this date and who said what, and where we were standing and where we were sitting and what his tone of voice was, I mean, that's the other thing. Again, I've taken notes with clients or, you know, meetings because I wanna remember, right? I don't sit there and say, oh, you know, he was breathless and his tone of voice was, you know, and like, you know, he was yelling oh, you know, he was breathless and his tone of voice was in, you know, and

like, you know, he was yelling and, you know, whatever, like he was, you know, his eyes were bugging out. Like, this guy was really being, like, making sure that when I testify at trial, this is going to be, this is going to be really good. So he's going to turn out to be, I think, these recordings, these tapes and him, I think it's going to turn out to be absolutely key in this upcoming trial. That brings us to George Santos. So George Santos, we, we hardly knew yet, but the reality is is that I think other than Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor-Green and Lauren Boebert and Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz, and well, I guess there's a lot. I guess they're all like that, Karen. But let's just say that George Santos definitely defines the modern day mutation that is the

Magna Republic and Party because, yeah, that's what I call it a mutation because it's like they're not conservative, you know, at all. And I refuse to refer to them as like a normal political party. And it is problematic when large media networks normalize, the behavior of what's going on. They normalize what Trump's saying and doing and his attacks on the judicial system and the types of interviews we played earlier. Like George Santos, here's someone who's lied

about everything of his life. And then you get to his crimes, right? I mean, here's someone who's lied about every school that he's ever attended. Hainus lies about his grandparents being in the Holocaust, claiming that he's Jewish. When he's not Jewish, claiming that his parents were 9-11 victims and then 9-11 survivors, I mean, starting a fake charity to steal money from homeless veterans, promising them that the money was going to go to save their dogs and then killing their dogs. Like, you can't.

It is the height of evil and they knew all, like they knew that stuff. Right. And the Maggar Republicans gave him the right to be on the small business committee and like the space and technology. They put him in charge of PPP fraud, originally. I mean, just put that in perspective, and then he like left that position as it was clear. He is an expert. He is an expert. I mean, you know, just think about like what's going on. And then the Maga Republicans censure Adam Schiff,

a former top federal prosecutor because he pursued evidence against Donald Trump. Like, again, this whole period is defined by your Marjorie Taylor Greene's, your Lauren Boberts, your people like your George Santoses and George Santos may have said, you know, but let me just show you this clip before me saying it. Okay, this is the same way we had like Donald Trump, right? Like Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google,

Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google , Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, rassar, rassar, we'll chun, we'll chun. That is something you wanna talk about trickle down, right? Freaking trickle down weirdos, right? Is the Maga Republican dangerous, fascist, trickle down weirdos?

Cause that's the only thing that trickles down. Watch George Santos, this could be Donald Trump saying this outside of his arrangement after the Department of Justice indicted him after an indictment was issued for his wire fraud for raising money by lying and then making false statements in Congress

and defrauding unemployment insurance here. We'll get the audio in a second there. That was a salty we'll pull up the audio. But let me show you what makes me believe Karen that they are negotiating a plea agreement. This is, there was a hearing that was supposed to take place.

Actually, I think the hearing was gonna be, it was gonna be tomorrow, the hearing was gonna be on Thursday. And the government requested an extension of time and it's not like the government's looking for extensions of time here. They said they've been having communications with George Santos's lawyer.

And the parties have continued to discuss possible paths forward in this matter. The parties wish to have additional time to continue those discussions. So I'll tell you what I think that means that I want to give your thoughts. The Department of Justice said, we're about to file a super-seating indictment, okay? We could charge you with a hundred other crimes right now. And here are people who have flipped

on you. Here are other witnesses. We're ready to bring that. Do you want to enter into a guilty plea? And I think he's saying yes I do and that's what these further discussions are what what do you think her. Yeah, like George Santos might not be the most dangerous person, you know, so many other people in Congress who have more power are much more dangerous than he is, but he might be one of the worst I've ever seen in my life. I've never seen anyone who is such a fraud and such a liar and absolutely everything he says is atrocious.

I mean, everything from claiming his grandparents were in the Holocaust, his parents were 9, 11 victims. I mean, he's just, you know, as you said, the whole sham charity where he prayed on the homeless military vets, you know, he's so, he's absolutely is such a fraud. And he's not just a liar, he's a fraud. And he perpetrated a fraud in the American people,

or at least the voters in New York, to get elected. But what's really sad is we hardly hear about him anymore, because his lies are overshadowed by the fact that a former president has now been indicted four times. But luckily he's back in the news and we have to not normalize this behavior and accept it and let him be on these committees and take votes and let the, you know, the Maga Republicans in Congress continue to allow him to serve and to continue to allow him to serve in this position just because they either, either because they think what he's doing is okay or because they don't want the seat to go

democratic. But this letter that was filed basically says two things. It says, you know, the government filed this letter and says, look, can we get an adjournment from tomorrow, September 7th to October 27th. This is on consent of both parties, meaning the government and George Santos' lawyer agreed to this. And the reason is because number one, we've turned over a ton of discovery and the defendant needs more time to look at this voluminous discovery and we plan on turning more discovery over as well. And so he's going to need more time for that.

But then there's a sentence in there that to me sounds like they are trying to work out a disposition or a plea where he says, you know, further the parties continue to discuss possible paths forward in this matter and wish to have additional time to discuss. Now, you know, therefore, we're jointly requesting an adjournment to allow the defense attorney to review this material and for the parties to continue to discuss a path forward. It sounds to me like this is code for they're looking to see if there's a plea agreement or some kind of disposition. This could be a case where in exchange for resigning and agreeing never to run again, perhaps they work out some kind of disposition, I don't know what is on the table, but clearly something is on the table, because this guy's

dead to rights. He has no defense, and he will absolutely be convicted of all of the multiple crimes. In that tape that you are going to play, he uses the Trump code words, which hunt and weapons, and weaponization. Yeah, it's exactly, there's no investigation into the Biden's, he says he's going to clear his name,

all that kind of stuff. It's just absolutely crazy. There was another clip in another interview where he talks to Pierce Morgan, where Pierce Morgan actually said, how did you think you were going to get away with all this stuff? And he says, look, I ran in 2020 for the exact same seat and I got away with it then, so I thought I'd get away with it now. That's a confession. That's what's called a confession. That will be used against him at trial. He confessed to doing this.

He has no defense. There's no way out of this. Therefore, the only path forward, what they have to be talking about has to be a plea deal. Has to be. Yeah, I want to show you that clip of George Santos. The same way we had Donald Trump, a the same way we had Donald Trump, a Google Gaga, a mega Republican party. This is George Santos, like doing the same thing. And by the way, like when I look at this, it's not, I don't believe it to be political for me to say WTF, to look at that and go, what? The political, the politicalization are people in this

Maga Republican Party who want to then gaslight us and say, well, that's conservative. Really, really, play the clip. Fight to defend myself. The reality is, it's a witch hunt because it makes no sense that in four months, four months, five months, I'm indicted. You have Joe Biden's entire family receiving deposits from nine, nine family members receiving money from foreign, from foreign destinations into their bank accounts. It's been years of exposing. A lot of you here have reported on them, and yet no investigation is launched into them.

I'm gonna fight, and I'm just, I'm getting back to that. I'm gonna fight my battle, I'm gonna deliver, I'm gonna fight the witch, and I'm gonna take care of clearing my name, and I look forward to doing that. Congressman D.D. By the way, in Washington, DC, you have one of Donald Trump's other top aides, Peter Navarro, who is a criminal defendant in the contempt of Congress for defying the January

6th committees, Sapina for deposition and documents. And again, Google Gaga, here is Navarro as he leaves, you know, when he tries to basically like beg for money here, play this clip. Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. WW This is this is what's wrong with America here WWW dot defend Peter dot com Defend What's wrong with the country is that there is and there are people like you, Peter Navarro, Donald Trump, George Santos, and Maga Republicans who do not care and intentionally want to destroy evidence, who do not care about law and order, who do not care about our judicial process and want to tear that down.

That's to me, you know, you know, Karen, why I get so thrilled to do legal AF shows, particularly with you and PoePoc is, there's so much work that we need to do when it comes to evidence because I know that there are such huge amounts of disinfo out there that have, that are well funded, that are trying to provide inaccurate information. And where I owe, I have an opinion on political matters that everybody knows where my opinions are, but I try not to lead with the opinion. When, when you give the analysis, when Popoq gives the analysis, it doesn't start lead with the opinion. When you give the analysis, when Popok gives the analysis, it doesn't start off with a rant. I hear that I feel it's, let's look at the documents,

let's look at the evidence, let's look at the video, let's look at what they say, and if their behavior is that of a petulant third grade fascist, then I offer my opinion, Karen. You know, look, the other thing is he mentions Hunter Biden and the Biden's. Well, let's just, again, look at facts, right? That investigation started under

the Donald Trump Department of Justice. Donald Trump didn't find any evidence against Hunter Biden, didn't bring a case against Hunter Biden, didn't bring any case against any of the Biden's, and he could have, right? Because they keep saying, oh yeah, they've had this investigation for years. Yes, many years, including the years that the Department of Justice was controlled by you, Donald Trump.

And your Department of Justice did not have it either. In fact, there was a US attorney that you appointed Donald Trump, his name was David Weiss, and he was investigating Hunter Biden. Joe Biden, because he's a stand up guy, when he became president, and he knew that his son was being investigated, that this ongoing investigation that started under Donald Trump

with no cases brought by Donald Trump, right? He said, you know what, because I'm a stand up guy, and even though normally it's customary to fire all the US attorney's office throughout the entire country and point my own, because that's what all the presidents do, I'm going to keep this one. I'm going to keep David Weiss, because there's an ongoing investigation into my son,

but I don't want it to look political. I don't want anyone to think that I'm putting my thumb on the scale. I don't want anyone to think that I'm putting my thumb on the scale. I don't want anyone to think that I am going to do anything here other than what's already happening because if there's evidence, then go for it. If there's evidence of a crime, then me, Karen Friedman Agnafulla would be the first to say, indict him or prosecute him, right? But there isn't any. And there hasn't been any. And he kept David Weiss except he did find some evidence of of tax, you know, owing money and taxes. And there was there was a gun possession that came out of words from a book as well as from his ex-girlfriend who he was dating saying she found a gun in a dumpster

that while he was addicted to drugs and that came out in his book. Okay, we all know that. And there was supposed to be a plea agreement happening. There was supposed to be a plea recently to these two charges, the tax charges and the gun charge. It fell through. And what came out today in the news, that this US attorney, David Weiss,

is going to indict Hunter Biden for the gun charge. And why is that happening? Because the statute of limitations is about to run. And that is a case that he was going to plead guilty to. And if the plea fell apart, the US attorney has no choice but to indict on that charge. So it's just business as usual. This is not new and it's following the facts where they lead and that's what's happening

and that's all there is. There was a guy who had a gun while he was addicted to drugs. He's not even being charged with possessing a gun by the way. He's going to be charged with this addict a gun, by the way, he's gonna be charged with this addict in possession, a charge that every person I've ever spoken to who is a federal prosecutor has never heard of this charge, have never prosecuted this charge. But they're looking for something to prosecute him for,

to hold him accountable because of the fact that Donald Trump and all his cronies are trying to deflect the, deflect, you know, the news away from their conduct and talk about Hunter Biden, who's not president, by the way, and is not running for president. He's just, you know, the near-do-well son of a president, you know, who doesn't have someone in their family member, who, you know, in their family, who struggles with something, you know, and who, you know, we don't want to be judged by our family members, right?

But because it's his last name is Biden, that's where we are. And so you saw George Santos in that tape, use the Donald Trump, you know, tropes and, you know, dog whistles and all, they all use the same language. It's like a special language, right? It's like, it's like they talk about witch hunts. They talk about weaponizing the Department of Justice. It's the Biden's are corrupt. Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden.

OK, whatever. Even if he did all these things, what does that have to do with Joe Biden? Nothing. The other code that the Trump's in, whenever they talk about people, they good people or people, that's white people. Anybody else is black people or women. It's like they have these code that they use and the same language and the same words

that they all use. And one of them is this hunter-biden thing. But you know what? Lex, let's just be honest about what hunter-biden is and what he is and leave the guy alone. You know, he's struggling. He's trying to, you know, deal with his demons. It's not easy being an addict and being in recovery. And the guy is literally tortured on a daily basis

in a way that is so sized compared to what anyone else who's an addict has ever had to deal with he's lost his brother You know, he lost his mother, you know in a car crash when he was young I mean like the guy has had a really tough life and yet he is tortured by these people in an effort to deflect attention away from them and it's kind of outrageous and You know it it absolutely the fact fact that we have a Trump appointed US attorney who's doing this investigation. And this is all he's found is stuff that he's confessed to in an effort to try to get better

is just flies in the face of what we should stand for as a country. It's outrageous. So the Trump-appointed prosecutor urged by Republicans wants to go after a private American citizen for having guns. So they want to use government to go after people for having guns.

Isn't this the party that wants everybody to have AR-15s and oh, when it's Hunter Biden, then it makes sense for the government to go after people for having guns while being addicts, which I believe the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has also held to be unconstitutional. So there's that. Also Hunter Biden has always been a private citizen. And so at the end of the day, unlike Jared Kushner who held an official government position,

unlike Ivanka, who held an official government position, Hunter Biden never held a government position. He was not an aide to present in Biden ever. He's a private citizen who was a drug addict. And what's the other potential charges are tax evasion, but he paid back all of the money. And everybody who says they've looked at that charge says that that's again a charge that's rarely if ever utilized but but again That's what mega Republicans are going after which is which is fine if it's a crime

It's a crime if they think that in their prosecutorial decision go after it go after it but At the end of the day Hunter Biden is not again a Government official now or ever so if the Republic can say things like they have 17 audio recordings of Biden engaging in bribery, and then those audio recordings don't exist. Karen, could you imagine what would happen if you and I were in a courtroom and we told the judge, hey, judge, we've got these audio recordings and we're going to put it on the record

that these things exist. And then we go and we show up at trial and the judge goes, where are the audio recordings? Ben, KFA, where are these audio recordings? We just made that up. Oh, it was just a sorry. That's what the Republicans do every single day. And now they say they want to return and have an impeachment inquiry. Probably off of this stuff, it is complete garbage, but that's why I'm so grateful for this pro-democracy community here at Legal AF that you all created.

I mean, it's an honor for Karen and I and Michael Popok and all of our contributors, my two younger brothers and everyone else here at the network, to be a part of this community with you. Intelligent, compassionate, unapologetically, pro-democracy, data-driven community. There are so many communities that are built on negativity or misogyny or hate and fear. We see those communities every single day. And oftentimes communities every single day. And oftentimes it's unfortunate. Those are the communities that large media and mainstream type of media promotes those communities. But that's not, that's not, that's not where the majority of Americans are. The true silent majority of Americans are people just like you who watch legal AF, you know, who are hard working, wanted to care of their families, who want the best for this country, who care about the

Constitution, not in performative ways and in real ways, who want to make the country better, who want to treat all humans equally with care and compassion, who we don't want the government controlling women's, who we don't want the government controlling women's bodies, we don't want the government and people like Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene and James Comer and Donald Trump saying who you can marry and what you're making decisions between you and your doctor like like absolutely not. And so if you just share these videos, share the show with the friend, family, member, coworker, neighbor, whoever, let them know about legal AF, let them know about this community.

It's just so important that we get out the word. And that's always the best way you can help out of you. How can we help out? That's great. If you've become a member of our YouTube today through that membership button on the bottom and you gifted memberships. Thank you so much. We don't have outside investors here on the Midas Touch Network. The way we grow this is through the emoji memberships and then separately through the Patreon. If you're not a member of our Patreon yet, if you're not a patron, I would really suggest that you become a member as soon as the shows over because we have bonus podcasts there, including a bonus episode with Karen Friedman

Agnifalo, where she discusses going to Georgetown Law. I went to Georgetown Law as well, which is just the commonality that we have. We talk about our backgrounds, Karen shares, how she became a prosecutor, how we met. It's really incredible. Also, we do one with Michael Popak that's posted there. My younger brother, Brett just came back from Japan. He shared some things that we don't have time for on the show. And again, by becoming a member of the Patreon that helps grow this platform.

So if you can go to patreon.com slash might as touch as soon as the show ends and you spell that. go to patreon.com slash might as touch as soon as the show ends and you spell that you write this down p-a-t-r-e-o-n dot com slash might as touch and make sure you spell might as touch correctly me i d-a-s t-o-u-c-h patreon dot com slash might as touch Karen I'll give you the final word before we close yeah so we've been doing this live tonight. And of course, I read the chat live while we're doing this. And many people have asked, what's the deal with these paintings behind me and on the wall that I always have in all my podcasts? And this is from a local artist here in New York.

His name is Ben Lenevitz. He's affiliated with the store Fish's Eddie, which many people, it's kind of a famous store in New York, and his mom Julie owns the store, and it was for birthday yesterday, happy birthday, Julie. Anyway, they're huge supporters of the movement, of the pro-democracy movement, and the store is often has political messages in it. Julie has a huge, funny sense of humor. She always has things in her store that are pro-democracy, whether it's about women's rights,

voting, abortion rights, etc. One of my favorite ones, which was hilarious, was she had Donald Trump condoms. And it would say, it's huge. Whatever, it was like whatever, however, she did it was hilarious, but it was not huge. Anyway, it was hilarious, and she's very funny. And they're a great family. And I love Fish Is Eddie the Store, Ben check out Ben Lenevitz's

website. He is just an incredible, incredible local artist. So I just wanted to give them a shout-out because they do a lot in their own way for this pro-democracy movement and they listen to, they listen to legal AF. They're huge, might as touch fans. they're huge, might as touch fans. Karen, I'm a huge KFA fan. It's an honor to host this show with you. This is not an exaggeration that, you know, you think you're one of the most experienced prosecutors that we have in our nation.

The knowledge that you have, the first-hand knowledge of what it was like to run a district attorney's office, it's frankly second to none, and we're so honored to have you here on the Midas Touch Network sharing with our audience the wealth of knowledge that you have. And I just had so much fun hosting with you that I'm just like, yeah, we were almost two hours in. Should I just keep on going, but no, we'll let everybody get back to their friends family. And thank you all for watching this.

And shout out to the minus mighty. See you, bye.