Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Lawyer Gets SMACKED DOWN in Oral Argument TO HER FACE by Judges

Episode Date: December 15, 2023

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump’s lawyer Alina Habba getting destroyed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel of judges when she wasn’t aware of the basic cases on absolute presidential immunity involving Trump. Keep American farming going by signing up at https://MoinkBox.com/LEGALAF RIGHT NOW and listeners of this show get FREE ground beef for a year! Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So you think you know sports? Points vet is the sportsbook for you, because we've got the features for true competitors. Like live, same-game parlays. Use your sportsmarts to make picks live on the players and teams you're watching. And qualified vets can use our early cashout feature. So you could take your winnings to play live blackjack

on the same points vet app. The platform that gives you everything you need. You know what to do. Bet on it. Point Spets Sportsbook and Casino. Alina Habadonal Trump's lawyer was getting smack down left and right by the second circuit court of appeals. First, getting smack down for not asserting presidential immunity in a Firmative defense back when E. Jean Carroll sued Donald Trump in 2019. The second circuit said as a result of the conduct by Donald Trump's legal team, Donald Trump waived the ability to assert absolute presidential immunity in that case then, in a case involving Michael Cohen's appeal of a dismissal of his civil

rights case against Donald Trump, the Department of Justice and the government, when they remanded him into custody for not signing away his rights to put out a book in 2020 or to post about Donald Trump and locked him in solitary confinement. Alina Habba stepped up to give oral argument. And she was trying to assert that her client, Donald Trump, should be subject to absolute presidential immunity. And then the second circuit panel, I'm going to play you this audio recording, turn to Alina Habba and they said, okay, well, what about the

blasting game case and how does that relate to this? And you'll hear her say the the blasting game case, I'm sorry, I don't know what that case is. The case is blasting game versus Trump, Alina Haba, your client. And it is now the preeminent case involving absolute presidential immunity in general and involving Donald Trump. And that's where the DC Circuit Court of Appeals recently in the past 10 days made a ruling that Donald Trump is not subject to absolute presidential immunity. Can a certain absolute presidential immunity in a civil case regarding the January 6th insurrection,

because the DC Circuit Court of Appeals held that Donald Trump's conduct falls outside the outer perimeter of presidential authority because his conduct involved campaigning and election activity, which is not article to executive power. It's not presidential authority. So when Alina Habba, who goes around and tries to talk about, oh, he's subject to absolute presidential immunity, there's presidential immunity, that, when she was asked, can you talk about the blasting game case

by this panel? She didn't know the case that we've got the oral argument. So I want to play it for you now. And then you'll see by the end of it, the second circuit judges were just fed up with her and they were basically just like, all right, Alina, can you just sit down Alina, thank you, thank you. Go like, here, play this audio clip. This is wild. Play it. Okay. Are you familiar with Blasting Game versus Trump, the DC Circuit case. So it was recent. Let me say it was a nightmare. Not off the top of my head, Your Honor.

OK. They got this issue before we did. And obviously, it is not finding authority on us, but it is persuasive. And I was hoping that you could react to it, that you don't have any reaction to it at this time. I don't, but I can say that if it's not from the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court

has made very clear that we are not to extend bivines unless it passes the two factor test. That's a that's a that's a official act case. It's more dealing with the immunity. Okay, but if you're not prepared happy to talk about the immunity and official acts actually Mr. Cohen's complaint states on paragraph 47 that at all relevant times herein, the individual defendants acted within the course and scope of their employment and under the color of law. So right there, nevermind Bivens, the president, he admits that the president was working as within his job as the president of the United States and he was complaint fails under absolute immunity. So, under two, frankly, it fails on two levels.

I can speak generally of Nixon, the case serves as an independent basis of dismissing a pawn's case against President Trump. As I stated, former President of the United States is entitled to absolute immunity from damages, liability, predicated on his official acts that was stated in the Nixon-D-fits-Jerald case. But that is precisely what a Pallant is attempting to do.

The complaint specifically alleges, as I said, that he was working within the porcenscope of his employment. So for those reasons alone, it must be dismissed under Nixon. And then a peasant also tried to skirt this issue by claiming the President Trump's alleged conduct was done in bad faith. I mentioned this prior, but my client adamantly first well denies that he had any involvement whatsoever

in the conduct alleged in the complaint, and there is no specific facts that go to President Trump. Let's remember there were seven accounts. One was against President Trump and it had no factual basis. But regardless, I think I thank you for your time. Yes, your colleagues don't have a short account. Thank you. And so to give you some further context, though, just about that clip and remind you again, what this case is about. It is a lawsuit filed by Michael Cohen, as I said, against the Department of Justice, against Bill Barr, against Donald Trump, against the government for the unconstitutional

remand. He says it's a violation of his first amendment, right, and other constitutional rights. Back in 1971, there was a seminal supreme court case called Bivens, and Bivens found an implied cause of action within the constitutional rights of the United States Constitution, where individuals like Michael Cohen could be able to file lawsuits to adjudicate file lawsuits to adjudicate damages they suffer as a result of constitutional harms and constitutional injuries. But as the court turned to a far right wing court, as the Federalist Society got more influence, bivines this doctrine of allowing these causes of actions.

It was gutted. And what the courts were basically saying is Congress has to pass a specific law about specific circumstances in order for there to be causes of action. There can't be an implied cause of action. So in lots of these cases now where people are suing government officials and trying to assert bivings and trying to assert an implied constitutional remedy. Courts have now been holding over time and the Supreme Court has been holding that there

is no constitutional remedy, even if someone's been badly injured, unless there is some extraordinary circumstance. And what is that extraordinary circumstance? Well, Michael Cohen's lawyers argue the United States president ordering that I be placed in prison and solitary confinement, unless I waive my first amendment rights, that falls within the bibbens doctrine still in this extraordinary circumstance. So I should be able to sue and the government lawyers and what Alina Haba, I guess, was was trying to argue, although she took it in an issue of more of absolute presidential immunity, but then didn't really know the key doctrine involving

her client based on a DC circuit court of appeals, opinion that was, what that that was just issued. The government's going to argue, no, this is, there may be a constitutional violation involving Michael Cohen, but there is no remedy. There is no implied cause of action right here. And so there you have Alina Habba not knowing even what she's talking about. But then by the way, you have Alina Habba at the same time just the day before going on television networks and saying that the United States Supreme Court really needs to step in to help her client Donald Trump. She says, this Supreme Court needs to step in and help Donald Trump on the issue of absolute presidential

immunity. Play this clip and then let's talk about it. And I believe someone had called on the Supreme Court to do this exact thing. We need the Supreme Court to step in and stop this. This has become complete mayhem. And if they don't start looking at these decisions and as the highest court in this country, as the arbiter of law, the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, the people that are supposed to enforce our bedrock. If they don't start doing it, which thank goodness they are, we, you know, have some law and order, hopefully soon.

Well, people, what if you could support small family farmers and reduce your environmental imprint all while enjoying the highest quality meat on earth? When you join the Moink movement, you can. I'm so excited to tell you about Moink. That's Mo plus Oink. Moink is a meat subscription box company on a mission to fight for the family farm. They're located in rural America run by an eighth generation

female farmer. Their animals are raised humanely. Their employees are paid a living wage. And the quality of their product is better than anything you'll find in a store. Moink delivers grass fed and grass finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and sustainable wild caught alaskan salmon, straight to your door. Moink farmers farm like our grandparents did, and as a result, Moink meat tastes like it

should, because the family farm does it better and the moink difference is a difference you can taste. Unlike the supermarket, moink gives you total control over the quality and source of your food. You choose the meat delivered in every box. Like rib eyes, the chicken breasts, support chops, the salmon fillets, and much, much more. Plus, you can cancel at any time. We here at LegalAF are unapologetically pro democracy, and it's so amazing to know that Moink is helping save rural America. I love

it, and you will too. Join the Moink movement today. Shark Tank host Kevin O'Leary called Moink's Bacon the best bacon he's ever tasted. And Ring Doorbell founder Jamie Simanov jumped at the chance to invest in Moink. Plus, they guarantee you'll say, Oink, oink, I'm just so happy I got Moinked. I know I do, and you will too. Keep American farming going by signing up at moinkbox.com slash legal AF right now. And listeners of this show get free ground beef for a year. That's one year of the best ground beef you'll ever taste. But for a limited time spelled M O I N K box dot

com slash legal AF. That's mink box dot com slash legal AF. And then in this next one, I'll just play you one more here alina hava says that you know donald trump is a victim and that that's why that's what people like about him that he's a victim your play the split so i keep hold up in court right right it's actually playing against them he's getting a lot of voters that he normally wouldn't get because they're seeing this and he is the victim all of a sudden they've made him a victim of complete and utter election interference and law fairs.

It's all right. So if Alina Habba is out there talking about the United States Supreme Court needs to intervene to stop the case against Donald Trump on the basis of absolute presidential immunity, a few things Alina Habba needs to learn about. First, the doctrine of absolute presidential immunity as a threshold matter. And you may want to read the blasting game case by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals because that relates not just to absolute presidential immunity, it relates to your client, Donald Trump, and why

he does not have absolute presidential immunity in civil cases regarding the January 6th insurrection because his conduct involved election activity, campaign activity, that is not within the outer perimeter where absolute presidential immunity has been recognized in the past for presidents or former presidents for conduct that occurred while they were in office like in the Nixon versus Fitzgerald case. Nixon v Fitzgerald involved a wrongful termination, a retaliatory termination of Fitzgerald, and even if it was an illegal act, Supreme Court still said, falls within the outer perimeter of executive authority, hiring and firing within

the executive branch. So that's civil issues regarding absolute presidential immunity. But Alina Haba, the second thing you may want to learn about is what's going on in the criminal case involving your client with absolute presidential immunity, where federal judge Tanya Chutkin ruled that in criminal cases, former presidents are not entitled to absolute presidential immunity for criminal wrongs committed while they were in office. Judge Tanya Chutkin, the federal judge in the Washington DC case involving Donald Trump's attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 election says, look, at the text and the structure and the history of the

United States Constitution, it all goes against a concept of absolute presidential immunity. Donald Trump is appealing that you may remember that Alina Habba to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has expedited briefing. Briefing will be completed by January 2nd of 2024. There's probably going to be oral argument shortly thereafter. And you may want to remember, Alina Habba, that special counsel, Jack Smith, then filed a petition immediately

with the United States Supreme Court for them to hear, search year, or a grant search year, or in other words, for them to hear, surgery or a grant, surgery or in other words, for them to hear oral argument on the issue of absolute presidential immunity in criminal cases for conduct committed while Donald Trump was in office. So if what you are saying, Alina Habba, is that you want the Supreme Court to step in, you've got an opportunity for it. Because Jack Smith wants it to.

So Jackson Smith has requested it. The Supreme Court has now set a date of December 20th of of 2023 for your client, Donald Trump, to respond about whether or not the Supreme Court should or shouldn't hear oral argument. It's called granting surgery or R.E. court should or shouldn't hear oral argument. It's called granting surgery or re. So I suspect that you and Donald Trump are going to argue that the Supreme Court should not grant surgery or re that the Supreme court should not hear oral argument, even though you're saying you want the Supreme Court to intervene. By the way, this is Donald Trump right here in the speech that he gave in Iowa, where he says that now, special counsel, Jack Smith is trying to get the Supreme Court to take

a guilty plea. I don't even know what he's talking about. It's just gibberish here. Play this clip. He did and waited and waited and then they saw it was running and they waited and then they saw I was hot and they filed lawsuits. These are very dishonest people. That's called election interference. These are very, and now they're fighting like hell because they want to try and get a guilty plea from the Supreme Court of the United States, which I can't imagine because you have presidential immunity, but strange things happen, but they want to get that because

that's the only way they're going to win the election. It's a very sick thing. So it is a complete and utter clown show in Donald Trump's legal team. And I really wanted to play you that audio at the beginning because it goes to the most fundamental issue, Elena, but how do you not know the case, the main case, an absolute presidential immunity. And that's why you saw the second, you heard the second Zergajub judge have no time for that at all.

Tell me what you think in the comments below. Hit the thumbs up, subscribe to the YouTube channel. It's free to subscribe to our YouTube channel. If you want to go a step further and help the growth of this network, check us out at patreon.com slash mitestouch and have a great one. Hey mitest mighty, love this report. Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram. At mitestouch, to keep up with the most important news of the day.

What are you waiting for? Follow us now. you