Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump LAWYERS Getting CRUSHED and Jack Smith SOARS

Episode Date: April 27, 2023

The midweek edition of the top rated legal and political podcast Legal AF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this special midweek’s edition, anchors national trial attorney Michael Popok and former top Manhattan DA prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo discuss: 1. Days 1 and 2 of the E Jean Carroll federal case against Donald Trump; 2. The revelations coming out of emails, texts, and secret recordings from the Dominion defamation case against Fox, now being used by class action lawyers against Fox, and by Jack Smith and his prosecutors against Trump, Giuliani and others, as Tucker Carlson is fired (a discussion joined by Anthony Davis of Five Minute News), and 3. an update on Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her prosecution focusing on new evidence concerning stolen election data by Trump operatives and cooperating “fake elector” witnesses, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! AURA FRAMES: Head to https://AURAframes.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF to get up to $30-off plus free shipping on their best-selling frames! LOMI: Head to https://lomi.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Day 1 and 2 of the E. Jean Carroll Federal jury trial against a non-show, but busy social media posting, Donald Trump are almost in the books. The jury selected opening statements completed, and E. Jean Carroll on the stand, as Trump posts lies against Jean and violating court orders from outside the courtroom. We discussed the jury composition, how the defense and plaintiffs are doing so far in the courtroom, and what sanctions the judge could rain down on Trump and his counsel for his actions outside the courtroom. Fox and the Murdoch may have thought that paying off to Minions $788 million and fired, firing Tucker would stop their financial bleeding and stabilize their control over Fox Corp and news. But all of the emails and text recordings now publicly disclosed in the Dominion suit

and in former producer Abby Grossberg suit threatened them a new with two new billion dollar cases filed in Delaware with smartmatic and it's almost three billion dollar suit hot on its heels. And Jack Smith pulling up the reel, the rear, the rear. Are the Murdoch's in trouble? Can investors and the SEC knock them off their perch? And then Jack Smith and his happy band of prosecutors are going after the Fox recordings and Dominion recordings for their federal prosecution.

They want to know it. Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell and Bartiromo and maybe Ted Cruz really thought as they go after Donald Trump. And then Fawni Willis update. She's moving towards her not her May prosecution, but likely her summer prosecution in July or September as she continues to get new cooperating witnesses and new evidence of cyber ninjas breaking into election data and trying to use it, not only to stop the peaceful transfer of power, but even the runoff election involving Senator Ossoff, Anthony Davis of the five minute news and the weekend show joins us for our discussion about Fox Fox.

That was it for me. Tucker Carlson, that stays in the pod. And it is the midweek edition of legal AF with your host, Michael Popock and Karen Freeman, Agnifalo Karen. That was like a Freudian slip. What did I just call Fox? I'm sorry, but welcome back to your show. How are you? I'm great. How are you, Pope? Okay, I'm doing it. It's me. I muted myself and forgot to unmute. I apologize. Did you mute yourself because I called Fox a bad word, a four-letter word? By accident. No, I muted myself because you actually made me chuckle on my That was not planned, but we like this shows everybody that

That was not planned, but we like this shows everybody that This is this is this kind of show. It's live live TV everybody. Let's jump into we're in day two already of E. Jean Carol suit Against Donald Trump in federal court York in front of judge Kaplan. We've got Robbie Kaplan no relation as we like to say. The lawyer for E. Jean Carroll. We've got Joe Takapina, who seems to be the lead trial lawyer along with one of his colleagues, Chad Siegel. Alina Haba is sitting apparently at council table, but hasn't done a darn thing since the

trial has opened. No surprise there. We know not the names of the jurors, but their composition. We do do know their background. We know there's nine of them. We know it's heavily male. It's six men and three women. We can talk a little bit about their backgrounds and where they come from. And we know a couple of other things that these two experienced trial lawyers, Karen and me are going to talk about. We know that in federal court, the jury has to be unanimous.

The plaintiff gets the break in civil actions by having a lower burden of proof. There's always a burden of proof, whether it's the prosecutions, the prosecutors have a burden of proof. Any plaintiff has a burden of proof because they've got to make their case. And in civil court, they have to make their case by preponderance of the evidence, which is I always like to say on legal AF are two balanced scales of justice, but a feather on one side just slightly more in favor of one position than the other. That's the burden of proof.

It's a low burden of proof. However, you have to get a unanimous jury in federal court. So you have to go nine and a, or just use sports analogies. Donald Trump only has to get a 10% on his report card, and E. Jean Carroll and her team have to get 100% in order to win. So we're going to talk about what the jury selection process in the final jury looks like from our perspectives, what it means for her case, how the openings went with Sean Crowley, a very experienced

and very good lawyer on the on the Robbie Kaplan side of the case. She also clerked for Lewis Kaplan, the judge at one time. She did the opening for E. Jean Carroll yesterday, and Joe Takapena did his attacking aggressive no holds barred attack on E. Jean Carroll in her case in his opening. And then we've had witnesses. We had the first witness up already, which was an employee of the department store where E. Jean Carroll claims the sexual assault happened. And then E. Jean Carroll, who's been on for most of the afternoon, but the big news, Karen, we've got so much big news in E. Jean Carroll, is that Donald Trump is elected

not to attend the trial, wasn't there for the opening, wasn't there for jury selection, is apparently not going to be there at all for the opening, wasn't there for jury selection, is apparently not going to be there at all for the trial. They're just going to use deposition transcripts and just the defense is just going to cross-examine their way to a win. They hope. We'll talk about that calculus. But Donald Trump, freed of being in the courtroom, has used this opportunity to continue to attack aging Carol inappropriately to fame her. Here's some social media postings that are up there calling her Missburg, Dorf Goodman, that her case was financed by political donors that this didn't happen in a very crowded

department store that she's a liar, that she's a scammer, and then brought up something that the judge specifically ruled the parties could not talk about, which was what she was wearing that day, and whether there was any DNA evidence at all there. It wasn't open. It wasn't mentioned in openings, but Donald Trump talked about Monica Lewinsky, which is a code word for the blue dress, which is the code word for DNA. And the judge is not happy. Before

the jury got there, he had a talk on the record with Joe Takapina about what the judge saw as potentially interference with the jury obstruction and witness tampering and influencing the jury from outside the courtroom. Judge is not happy about it. We got to wait till the end of the trial today to find out how the judge takes that up. That's enough of the framing. Let's get down to you with your vast experience. Yes, on the criminal side of prosecuting sexual assault cases, but tell, tell our listeners and followers, Karen, from your perspective about the jury that's been selected, the opening statements and what you've gleaned so far from the how the trial has been

going so far for E. Jean Carol. So we'll start with jury selection and as you said, there were six men and three women and I found that interesting clearly Robbie Kaplan the plaintiff has been talking to jury experts here because it's counterintuitive, I think, but most sex crimes prosecutors tend to think men, believe it or not, are better jurors for them than women. And in the past, people thought women would be better because they thought women would be more, um, along, you know, supportive of women's issues and other women. But what most prosecutors have found, just again, through experience, is that women were

more judgmental of other women and men were more protective of women. So it's interesting to see that this jury was picked and it shakes out that way that they had more men than women on this jury. As for the openings, I think that I think the Robbie Kaplan's lawyer did an excellent job at giving the facts as they expect them to come in through evidence, and Joe Takpina did the bull in a china shop, you know, attack, attack, attack, attack, which is what he does, and that's his strategy. But at the end of the day, this case really comes down to E. Jean Carroll, right? It comes down to her testimony and whether or not the jury believes her. And there's some, it's interesting. And again, I'm not in the courtroom. I was thinking of going and trying to get in there. But instead, I'm reading these live tweets

that a reporter from inside the courtroom has been tweeting. And so I don't know how it's landing. I don't know the demeanor. I don't, unless you're there watching, how is the jury reacting? And is she coming across as credible? It's really hard to say how these things are going. But I'll tell you a couple of things that have struck me as not great for

E.G. and Carol. And again, I know the burden of proof is different, but there's a couple of things that worry me a little bit because at the end of the day, this is a sexual assault case, right? This is, she has to prove that he sexually assaulted her because if he did, then it's also defamation, you know, the battery and the defamation because he's charged with both, right? He's charged with the adult survivors Justice Act, which is that one year window, that one year look, because the statute

of limitations has run on any criminal or civil sexual assault prosecution here. So, so, Robbie Kaplan, the attorney and E. Jean Carroll filed, I think on the very first day, there might have even been the very first case in New York State during this one-year window, November 24, 2022, to sue Donald Trump for sexual assault. And there's just a couple of things that I have to say, like I was saying, I don't love. So for example, I didn't hear anywhere that she ever said no, that she ever indicated to him

through her words or actions that this was not consensual. Now, again, he's not going consent defense. If he did, I think this would be a problematic case. If he said, look, she wanted this. She was with me. We were laughing. We were joking. Why do you think she went into the dressing room with me?

We were in the lingerie section. We were flirting. I mean, we were in the lingerie section. We were flirting. I mean, this was a consensual thing. I think given the way she describes the facts of this case, potentially, all he needs is one juror, right? One juror might buy that. But again, he's saying nothing happened. So it's slightly different.

But he's not only saying nothing happened. He's saying he wasn't there. This is all made up. Yeah, exactly. He says, I don't know her, whatever, all that stuff. Yes, he's saying this did not happen. It's all made up. And, but again, she needs to establish that this was not consensual.

And through her own admission, she talks about how they were flirting and how, and that's why she blamed herself afterwards, by the way, and why she didn't report it. Because she said, maybe I misled him, I was joking, even one of her prompt outcry witnesses, and I'll explain what a prompt outcry witness is in a minute, but one of the other people who are testifying, one of the individuals who she told right away, she, E. Jean Carroll, describes as giggling and laughing when she was telling the story. And the friend said, wait a minute, that isn't what happened. You know, this isn't funny. This is rape. So those little facts, I think, again, I'm summation, Joe Takapena, or whoever

does the summation, is going to make a lot to make a lot out of that. They're going to talk about, again, she kind of talks a lot about how this is something that she wasn't even sure was rape in the beginning. Now she testified that she kept the dress because she said, I thought I might wear it again. The dress is always coming in. It was the DNA that the judge ruled wasn't going to come in. The dress has to come in to evidence as a description

if nothing else because she's going to have to describe how he physically, what was she wearing? Was she wearing pants or a dress when he lifted up her dress or pulled down her pants? I mean, it's part of the narrative, right? So then she testified that she kept the dress and said it was because I thought I might wear it again. It's another fact that the defense, I think, is going to make a lot out of really. You know, you're going to wear a dress again that you were raped in.

Like instead, most of us thought that she kept it because it was it was this thing that oh my god look what happened to me I can't throw it out I don't know what to do because it was a symbol of what he did but you know if this was truly this traumatic event why would she keep it you know the thinking why would she wear it again if it reminded her of this so I think that's something else that that Joe Takapina is going to be able to bring in. Now, there's been also discussion during her direct to other sexual assaults, right? One was two other sexual assaults that that happened to her, one as a child, right? And one was Les Moonves who I believe.

And you know, I was moon vest, moon vest. Okay. And he, and, you know, she was talking about these, these other sexual assaults. And I thought, I didn't understand why that was coming in, right? Why, why are these allowed to come in in a criminal prosecution, You know, this type of thing wouldn't necessarily come in and how does that help her? Or I just didn't understand the relevance of that, but I'm sure we'll figure that out, you know, based on on summations, et cetera. And then, you know, she talks about how she was 52 at the time and she never had sex again because of this. But again, if she was sexually assaulted by others,

why was this the one? I don't know, I'm not quite following this logic yet. And then the final thing is I read in this transcript or the tweets, I should say. And again, I don't know how accurate these are, was she was, Eugen Carol was talking about how vile Trump is and how upset she was, which is why she came forward in this.

But she didn't say, but then she said, she's a Democrat, but then she says, I don't even know what his politics are. I don't know. I found that slightly not credible. There's no way she doesn't know what his politics are. And so I was a little bit, you know, I'm a little concerned, frankly, that this is a case that isn't as strong, and again, I'm just from reading these tweets as I was hoping. And the DNA evidence is something that you and I have talked about many, many, many times

about why aren't they bringing in an expert witness? Why isn't Robbie Kaplan bringing in an expert witness to show why there's no DNA? Because that's what every prosecutor would do witness to show why there's no DNA. Because that's what every prosecutor would do in a case where there's no DNA. You do not try a sexual assault or frankly any kind of case anymore without calling an expert about why there is a DNA, about the DNA or that there isn't DNA.

Jurors watch television. They read the paper. Everybody knows about DNA. They know it can last forever. They know that most of these cold cases that are solved are because some piece of evidence is found in a box somewhere and then they test it years later. And they figure out that this person was either innocent

or guilty because of that DNA, it's dispositive. And I just think that here, the fact that they didn't do it is going to be problematic. Every person I know has heard of this dress and has heard that she kept it and has heard of this DNA. Even the janitor on the jury, they have.

Every, but unless you live under a rock, you don't know that she kept this dress. Everybody knows. And they're all gonna wonder, where's the DNA? And again, I think it's a problem. I don't know why they aren't calling an expert to talk about it. I also think that they need to call an expert about prompt outcry, which is, you know, and about women who freeze and who don't report right away and who blame themselves.

All the things that they're talking about that she did are all consistent with sexual assault survivors and it's the way most women react and respond. They freeze, they don't scream, they don't report it, they blame themselves, they feel shame. And there are expert witnesses, there are sexual assault experts who will testify to those facts and I think

They need that here because otherwise it does sound a little bit problematic some of the things that I've heard Okay, so let me Let me comment on a couple of those things. I mean it's civil cases DNA is not as prevalent as it is in criminal cases in fact it's We're in a weird world of a civil sexual assault case that mimics in certain ways criminal proceedings, but is not a criminal proceeding. The reason there's no DNA evidence,

Robbie Kaplan, the lawyer for E. Jean Carroll, did test the dress. There's a report about it. It was inconclusive as to, you know, whose DNA was on it. You live in Manhattan and you travel with 8 million people. You're going to have other people's DNA on you. But, you know, she was wearing tights. I don't think she saved the tights.

I don't know exactly how DNA travels when somebody's being sexually assaulted. But the DNA is out. Robbie Kaplan didn't fight for it because she didn't have a case for it, whether she needed to put on an expert as to why it doesn't exist. I think it exists, but it was inconclusive. And then Trump played around with DNA and missed a bunch of deadlines.

And so that became sort of an issue that judge wasn't comfortable. So the best that they can argue to the jury on the defense side is that there's no medical evidence. She did not report the rape. She there's no rape kit. You know, that's the checklist of things and cross examination. They've done so far with her, which is you didn't cry out. If you agree that you were flirting and having playful banter with him, you invited him into the dressing room. You didn't cry. You didn't run away. You laughed along the way. You laughed with one of your friends, Lisa Bernbaum, who wrote the preppy, the preppy guide. It actually interviewed Donald Trump at a certain point. It was another person

who told you, you know, why are you laughing? You were raped. As you said, Karen, all things really, really inconsistent. I always thought that the dress was held also because she was traumatized by it, but that's not what she said when, obviously, in her deposition, she didn't say that, and she didn't say that on the stand. So this is not as a perfect presentation as either you and I would like in terms of the facts, but this is the witness. This is the person who says that she was sexually assaulted and attacked. And this is the best evidence that she can put on. She's trying to explain to a jury who reacted a certain way in the opening

statement as reported by court watchers about how something went awry that started as playful banter. She admits that she found him attractive, that she liked him, that she liked the banter, that she liked the playfulness. She said at one point, because she used to work on Saturday Night Live as a writer, she saw it in her own mind as a Saturday Night Live skit, you know, that it started out innocent with a little bit of sexual tension, but innocent. And then it turned, as it often does, and you know know this better than anybody's a sexual assault prosecutor. It turned dark and it turned ugly in a fast way in a way that overwhelmed her.

She said even when he first pushed her up against the wall inside the dressing room, even then the lights didn't go off in her head that she was being sexually assaulted or sexually attacked. And then it went really into a very bad place in her testimony. The jury's either going to believe her and based on this other evidence or they're not. And I agree with you. She has other corroborating witnesses at the time. But even if they believe her, even if they believe her, she has to indicate through her

words or actions that this was not consensual. I don't think she does. I'll tell you why because he's claimed that it, not it didn't happen. I think you're exactly right. If he's arguing, yeah, I met her. Yeah, I met that whole thing she said about us meeting at the revolving door and I'm shopping for a girlfriend

for a lingerie and I held up a teddy in her words. And I said, why don't you try this on? You got a great body. That was all true. And then at that moment, I kissed her, and she never said no. And so we had consensual sex. But that's not his defense.

His defense says, I don't know her. I never met her. She's not my type. I wasn't in the dressing room. I wasn't even in the department store. This is all a hoax. So he can't go with, oh, and by the way backup plan if I did rape her it was consensual No, I agree with that

But I'm saying she still has he as you said perfectly earlier. She has the burden of Proving by preponderance of the evidence that she was assaulted sexually and her I'm not sure and again I haven't seen the transcript. I'd like to see it. I haven't seen so far her describe a sexual assault because you have to, it has, a sexual assault means it's non-consensual, right? But if, let's say you are in your head saying, I don't want to do this, but your body and your actions are such that you are consenting

with your actions and through your actions. You don't have to scream. You don't have to fight. You don't have to punch. You don't have to do anything. In fact, you can give in because you don't want to get further beaten up or assaulted or that you can even just be overpowered. But she, but something, you have to communicate to the person in some way through your words or your actions that this is not consensual because people aren't mind readers.

And like I said, she didn't so far what I have read and I'd like to see the transcript. I don't necessarily see her having described a non-consensual sexual account. And the reason you're focused on that rightly is because even under the Civil Battery Code, which is what she's under, she has to show that these actions were without consent. And you're right, Karen, because I think she's done with the description of what happened. And she goes from, he's attractive, giggling, flirtatious, that she was participating in willingly, thought it was a skit went into a dressing room, him pulling down her tights and then what happened. And you're right, there's nothing in there that says not consensual.

So if this is what the jury is focused on, you're right, if Joe Takapina's smart, that's what he's gonna do in closing. We have a ruling now that just come out. There's a whole, you know, in the opening, we know that Joe Takapina's gone after her for, it's a hoax, it's politically motivated. She's financed by LinkedIn founder Reed Hoffman.

That's out. The judge has ruled just now that before the jury came back after an afternoon recess, because they're ending at 4.30 Eastern time today, that Trump can't continue his testimony or cross examination of E. Jean Carroll about the litigation financing related to LinkedIn's billionaire Reed Hoffman.

And so that looks like it's out. There was a little bit of a kerfuffle before the trial even started about whether she lied under oath, about whether part of her costs of her case were being supported by Reid Hoffman and his public interest firm or public interest company, and they let him take a one-hour deposition. But that seems to have landed sort of with a thud, a dud with the judge who's not letting that continue. But we're gonna have to watch closely on what Karen you've identified as a potential major flaw in the presentation of the case. I mean the facts are the facts. The truth is the truth. If she didn't do the things and we have to

balance that with, as you said, and there's not gonna be an an expert. We know the witnesses. There's not going to be an expert about why she did why she's reacted a certain way. But you're saying forget that. Look at the, look at the timeline for the five minute assault. And where would Donald Trump have gotten the impression that that this was non-consensual. Right, she was giggling. And even her friends, she was giggling. So, you know what? Even inappropriately giggling if that case. Right, whatever it is, how is he supposed to know

that she didn't want to, you know, whatever it is? I just inquiries me, it worries me because he's such a predator. Right, and we have an interesting jury. You made a great point about six men and three women, and that's not being a bad thing for Robbie Kaplan. A lot of things came out of the jury science around the OJ Simpson trial where Marsha Clark thought I think all women would really help her, and it doesn't, in certain circumstances, especially about a sexual assault. But we've got our jury.

And one in particular concerns me. We've got a 31-year-old security guard who gets all of his news from right-wing podcasts. So he's a potential trumper. They got to go nine and a half. Now, by the way, if he is the one that got in there, I don't know where he was in the jury pool, and the lawyers didn't use their the one that got in there, I don't know where he was in the jury pool, and the lawyers didn't use their challenges to get rid of him, people must have been worse behind him,

like that they were really worried about it. They allowed the right-wing podcast listening juror to get on there, but you've got a public library employee, a physical therapist, a retail worker, a retired janitor, a mother who works in healthcare field on the collection side, a person who works for a hospital, a mother who lives in the Bronx and a security guard.

And I think I said a former janitor. So this is the group that's going to decide this case and they got to go nine and a one to the federal rules of civil procedure in this jury. So every day is going to be very, very interesting. And the redirect, you know, so there's the cross examination of E. Jean Carroll. But then that's not the final word. The final word is the lawyers, if they feel like they've been hurt on the plaintiff's side, or they feel like something's got to get cleaned up.

That's now been opened by the cross examination. They come up for what's called redirect, which at the rate they're going, make it started today, but not finished. And then she's done. And apparently they're going to bring on the contemporaneous witnesses who she spoke to back in 95 or 96. They're going to bring in the two women who are also sexually assault claim to be sexually assaulted by Donald Trump, not related to E. Jean Carroll, and they're going to play the Axis Hollywood tape.

And that's an expert about damages to E. Jean Carroll. It's only one expert in the case. It's about money and then he'll testify. And then it's going to go to the jury, you know, probably Monday, Tuesday, next week. And we'll have to follow it closely. Anything else so far about E. Jean Carroll that you'd like the viewers to know about your analysis? I have two questions for you, if you don't mind. So nine jurors, right?

And a criminal trial, it's 12 unanimous jurors. Why nine? Is it always nine? No, it's the federal rules say between six and 12. And normally, I've had, I just did a Southern District federal trial recently. And mine was nine also. I think that's the sweet spot.

The judge will say, how many does everybody want? I think it should be nine. And then nobody usually objects to that. Because, you know, you don't want, I mean, if I were the plaintiff, I'd want six. Does that only have to go six and oh. But sometimes if you have, yeah, I would want six. And if I'm the defendant, I want 12. Because that's more opportunity for you. We have events one, yeah, I would want six. And if I'm the, and if I'm the, the defendant, I want 12th because that's more opportunity

for events. Yeah. Yeah. So I think that they get to. That's how I'm not curious. So it's an, is she an agreement? Yeah. It's a agreement.

Usually the judge pushes you in a certain direction, Southern District. I think the standard rule for civil is dying. I try to case it down in Florida, like you where it was six in the box, you know, civilly, but I was state court action. But again, if you're the plaintiff, you want less because it's less you have to convince. If you're the defendant, you want more. There can't be less than six. It can't be more than 12 in a federal jury. And you got to have unanimous in some state court actions. I know a lot of people on Twitter was like, it's gonna be less than unanimous, not in federal.

Not in federal, less the parties agree, which of course Trump's never gonna agree to that. And so he didn't, but that's where he are. Did you have another question about that? I did. Okay. One other question. If they don't agree,

do you get another, is it a hung jury? Do you get another chance? Or is it done? No, if they don't agree, is it a hung jury, do you get another chance, or is it done? No, if they don't agree, and if they don't agree, then they're really done. There's not even the equivalent and criminal court of an Allen charge to get them back to considering anything, because it's just like we don't have a unanimous agreement your honor about it. It'll be over. They'll discharge the jury and the case is over.

And probably that, if that were to happen, subject to appeal, that probably kills the first case that she filed, which we call Carol one, which has to do whether, not whether she was sexually assaulted, but whether she was defamed by Donald Trump who said her case was a hoax when he was president. That case is alive and kicking based on some recent court of appeals decisions,

but the judge put that on ice until this case about him defaming her after he was president is tried first, but it all stems on what happened in Berkdorf Goodman. Do they believe that that happened to her? Yes or no? And I don't think it's going to be hard for her to try the second case, even if we give her a second bite at the apple, but she still has to prove to the jury. And the judge may try to rule that that's already been decided against you and not allow

it to go back to a second jury. So, so there we go. We've got some new reporting just in from our producer that apparently E. Jean Carroll's lawyers are getting upset and bringing it to the court's attention about Eric Trump tweeting about, here we have it here, Eric Trump, Jean Carroll's legal battle against my father is being funded by Reed Hoffman.

The judge just ruled that that can't come in. And this jury is anonymous, but not sequestered, meaning they are not, it's not like 12 angry men where they're sitting in a hotel room and they're cut off from any kind of communications. You know, I mean, the judge says, you know, you really shouldn't read the news, but, you know, and you go home at night. And the judge is concerned that this tweeting by proxy or social truthing by proxy is having an impact in the courtroom inappropriately and the lawyers and ultimately the Trump is going to have to pay for it.

The judge could pull in, let's just put it this way, and we'll find out at the end of the day. The judge could pull Donald Trump in for an evidentiary hearing, not involving the jury to decide whether Donald Trump is in contempt. I mean, the judge right now is being quoted as telling Takapina, without the jury present, they've been excused for this conversation. Quote, if I were in your shoes, I'd be having a conversation with your client because there are some relevant statutes here and somebody on your side ought to be thinking about them. I mean, that's the judge saying the C word contempt.

That's the judge saying witness tampering obstruction of justice and different things. And the judge as the administrator of all things justice in that courtroom could be conducting a hearing in the middle of it. I bet cases where jurors have done inappropriate things and we took an entire afternoon off while we had a trial within a trial just involving the juror and evidence the judge took and a cross examination by the juror by the judge to resolve whether they had done something inappropriately. This things happen in federal court and they're going to happen to Donald Trump. What do you think about what's... Before

we move on to our next segment and a sponsor, talk about what he's doing outside and what do you think the judge could do as a result? Well, he loves to push the line. He's been doing it in the Judge Juan Mershon, Alvin Bragg case where he's threatening people. He loves to push and push and see where he can go and see how far he can go. And to kind of show, test the limits here and show judges that he in some ways is slightly above the law,

if not completely above the law, because he knows they're not gonna do anything. I mean, this judge even said, are you coming, are you coming, are you coming? And they're like, I don't know, I don't know. Well, you have to tell me by this day, whether you're coming, if he changes his mind, it decides to come, you really think

that the judge is gonna keep him out. There's no way, and he knows it. And he does it almost, it's almost like he's a cat torturing a mouse. You know, you like he likes to do this, you know, it's it's some weird, like it's some weird, you know, personality trait of his. He likes to push and push and show that he can do it and get away with it. And so I don't know what this judge is going to do. I mean, he, you know, he's going to, he's going to tell Takapena to control your client.

Everybody knows that nobody can control him. And I mean, at the end of the day, we'll see if Trump actually crosses a line that Judge Kaplan will hold him accountable for. Judge Kaplan is known for keeping control of his courtroom. He's known for being a fair judge, but also being one who's not going to let this type of behavior go on. And if he was any other defendant, this would not, you know, he'd be hauled in front of the judge who would wag a finger and threaten him and say, look, you know, you're going to be held in contempt and possibly sanctioned. But, you know, he's Donald Trump. So, well, let's see, because we have

reporting in the courtroom that the judge has told the other side but, you know, he's Donald Trump. So, well, see, because we have reporting in the courtroom that the judge has told the other side about, for instance, Eric Trump that telling Joe Takapina that these posts by Eric Trump could put the ex president and conceivably his son in harm's way. The fact that the judge is being sort of gentlemanly in, he's saying the right things. And the question is whether there's gonna be a breakout hearing about all of these bad things or referral by the judge. I mean, we'll see. We'll see.

He's definitely a tester. He's definitely, how many times can he put his hands on the stove before he gets burnt and will continue to follow. But let's, we got so much to talk about. Let's move on to our next segment. We're going to talk about it in the next segment and bring in Anthony Davis of five minute news and the weekend show, also on the Midas Touch Network.

And we're going to talk about this combination of Murdoch, Fox News, Dominion, really having legs in mileage because all of that cash of information is being used not just by smartmatics of the world in their case, but the new stuff that's come out about Abby Grossberg and her 9090 tape recordings and recordings of Tucker Carlson of Bartolomoh of Sydney Powell of Rudy Giuliani of Ted Cruz has now gotten the interest of one Jack Smith, who is also subpoenaing Abbey Grossberg's 90, 90 recordings and Fox news. So we're going to talk about, you know, if they thought Lopin off Tucker's head and paying

$787 million was going to be the end of their problems there. It's far from it. But let's hear a word from our sponsor first. Do you take millions of photos like me only let them sit on your phone or get lost in your files? What if you could put all your photos, including those random camera roll picks onto one gorgeous frame? You can, with a connected frame from Aura. on to one gorgeous frame. You can, with a connected frame from Aura. Name the best digital photo frame by Wirecutter, the strategist, and featured in hundreds of gift guides.

Aura frames are guaranteed to make mom or grandma or anyone you like or love smile. And Aura frame brings all your photos and videos together in one stunning high resolution display, where mom can really enjoy them, not just the recroupved texts are on social media, preload any frame with meaningful memories and a special message will appear as soon as set up.

Invite the whole family to add to the frame and feel close from anywhere. My favorite thing about the aura frame is that the photos look like real prints because aura frames have meticulously calibrated high-resolution displays. Unless you really look closely The photos look like real prints, because aura frames have meticulously calibrated, high resolution displays. Unless you really look closely or see photos in transition, you'd never know it's a

screen. Also, it takes only about two minutes to set up a frame using the Aura app. Super easy. Right now, Aura has a great deal from other's day. Legal AF listeners can visit auraframes.com to get up to $30 off on their best-selling Carver Matt Frames. That's AURA Frames.com. Plus listeners can get a free shipping with code Legal AF at checkout. Thanks aura Frames for sponsoring our podcast. That just showed me I needed a haircut for that, which I got since then. And speaking of haircut, Anthony Davis,

thanks for, I don't know, bad segue. What can I tell you? Anthony Davis. Thanks, sir. I don't know. Bad segway. What can I tell you? Anthony Davis, our favorite British broadcaster and podcasters that's now in LA and is on. All things might as touch. We thought it'd be a great idea, a care to bring you, Anthony, in to talk about this, you know, the Tucker Carlson toxic work environment and the Murdoch's approach to trying to throw people under the bus in order to save the Murdoch family and their control over Fox News and Fox Corporation.

You got some background in that having worked overseas and worked in the UK. And I want to hear it from a journalist perspective. And then we'll kind of tie it together with two things that have broken out related to the Fox dominion Tucker issue, right? So the way we framed it earlier was if the Murdoch thought that lopping off the head of Tucker Carlson, being all tuckered out and paying $788 million was going to like solve their problem, is far from it. All of that evidence that was developed by Dominion is paying dividends now to shareholders who have filed not one but two billion dollar suits in Delaware Chancere

court seeking to suck. Well, one is seeking to put money back into Fox News and coming from insurance and the Murdoch family, particularly and the board of directors. And one is seeking to pay it to to class action stockholders who have suffered now because stockholders who have suffered now because of all of the lying and cheating and false news that was used to gin up ratings and inflate them artificially and bring in money artificially on the backs of a lie, which was about Dominion and Smartmatic in this conspiracy. So and then you've got Abby Grossberg, a former recent recently recently, producer, booker for

Tucker Carlson, who enough was enough with her. She had been not only in her view abused in a sexually toxic, hostile work environment, including by Tucker Carlson saying some, if it's true, saying some really disgusting mind-blowingly disgusting stuff about women, primarily about women and children in that order, but also and that she recorded. But in addition to all of that, you now have these tapes of Barter Romo talking to Sydney Powell and Giuliani and Jack Smith is interested in that. So to post a minion, you've got two billion dollar cases filed in Delaware. We're going to talk about you got Jack Smith going after Abby Grossberg's 90 tape recordings

and recordings of that to see how that relates to the fake electric scandal, the criminal intent of Donald Trump and others as he puts together his case. And Tucker Carlson gets summarily booted, the number one ratings getter and revenue generator for the firm gets canned in an attempt to save the soul of the company, in a soulless company, as the Murdoch family, which only owns 44% of Fox Corporation, tries to cling to power, but they could be forced out as well. Let's start with Anthony.

Anthony, what do you did a great hot take on all this? What do you think about Tucker Carlson, the Murdoch's approach, and 93-year-old, Rupert Murdoch giving the kill order to get rid of Tucker, and what do you think it means for the future of Fox and the Murdoch family control of Fox? Well, first of all, isn't it interesting that some of us were a little disappointed that the case wasn't going to go ahead because they settled out of court within the first 48 hours. And now it seems that actually access to all this

dominion information has been very useful. And I think we should just pause and be like, yeah, good on your dominion, because this is our democracy, this is free speech and misinformation and all of these conversations. And it's taken a voting machine company to actually bring about some change because in any other democratic country, you wouldn't allow someone like Tucker Carlson on screen. And it's only the US where the First Amendment is, you know, weaponized, taken advantage of that people think that the hate speech is acceptable as free speech. And from where I come from, it simply isn't. Hate speech is a is a is another is free speech. And from where I come from, it simply isn't. Hate speech is a, is a, is another, is a crime.

And that's what he's been doing for, for years. So good on dominion and then good on this young producer because it takes whistleblowers or people like her to actually make change in this country. Clearly politicians are not up to it. Yeah, I, let me, let me get it from background, because I don't know how much contact you have with the Murdoch family when you work to broad. But what is there?

Let's have you make a prediction. I'll set it up. The Murdoch family has only 44% but are generally in control of the company. But institutional shareholders are not happy right now with the way the Murdoch family is being stewards of this public company. You know, news corp, I'm not sure it was a public company, but Fox corp is, and it's a Delaware public company,

meaning a chancey record judge is ultimately going to decide who should be on its board, who should be its managers, and how much money should be paid. There's always been rumors, including recent ones, taking pages out of succession, the show on HBO, that Mertox have been planning to sell large portions of Fox for quite some time. Disney, at one point, of all things, was rumored to be a purchaser of a lot of their assets. Do you think this is the beginning of the end of the Murdoch family? Do you think they start heading for the exits?

You know, with a lot of money in their pockets, but heading for the exits and they sell off Fox. You know, the way they sold off the newspaper in London after the phone hacking scandal closing its doors. Do you think we're seeing the beginnings of the Murdoch's losing their grip on their assets at heading for the exit? It's hard to say. I mean, I worked on in the media in England for 30 years, and it's very hard to be on air in Britain without working for Murnoch because he owns so many of the networks. So I started working for Sky which he owned in 1996. And then most recently before I moved to the US I was appearing on Sky News which is one of his channels and it's not an extremist channel like Fox News or even Sky News Australia

which he owns and is very far right. But what I would say is that power is very important to these people. And you know, you mentioned succession. That is based on this. You know, these types of families, not just the Murdoch family, but Conrad Black is another character

and the former owner of Mirror Group who disappeared off a boat in the 1980s, and the father of Robert Maxwell, his name is, the father of Galein Maxwell. So these kind of dynasties have always existed in the media, and one of the reasons that they like to own these types of companies is because they do want to wield power, with politicians.

I mean, Rippet Murdoch was famously going scene going into number 10 downing street in England or the time, like photograph going in the back door. I mean, why on earth is this kind of top media guy meeting the prime minister of England? And that would happen often. So they love power. They love owning these territories. There's a succession in as much as the kids of Rupert Murdoch are in line to inherit this. He's an old man, right?

I mean, he looks like he might outlive everybody, but he's a bit like Trump. Why don't these people die? Does it make sense to me? You know, there's this is so old. And yet for maybe they can afford decent healthcare or personal trainers or good nutrition or something But the people that you don't want running these organizations because they're so power hungry

like Trump and and like Murdoch they are just They keep going and he's had opportunities over the years to hand it over to the kids And he is not he's held on because he wants to maintain control But something that's very interesting is that in the phone hacking scandal that happened where he had to close the news of the world newspaper as you describe. He kind of, it's almost like he admits that he didn't really know what was going on.

And that happened with the dominion case as well when he gave his deposition. He said that, you know, he had the chance, I guess he had the chance to tell the hosts not to claim that the election was stolen, but he didn't. He didn't intervene. And you have to ask yourself, did he not intervene because he wasn't paying attention or did he not intervene because he's got a million other businesses and all that he cares about

is the bottom line. And I honestly feel that these types of people, they run these organizations and they buy these organizations, they own these organizations just in terms of the ledger, you know, the bottom line, they look at the, they look at the finances and they just go, is it making money? It doesn't matter to them if they're using extremist tactics or misinformation or in the tech case of Tucker Carlson and most of the hosts on Fox, let's not pretend that Tucker Carlson's the only person lying through his teeth. They just care about whether the business is successful.

And in the case of Fox, unless advertisers start to run away from Fox, they some have, as we know, but if they don't, if they desert the company altogether, that's when the company is no longer viable. And that's when he might think it's time to jump ship. But I don't think he's going to do it over editorial policy.

Yeah. So there's a carer. Let's bring Karen in. Karen, there's been, as we know, we've got these 90 audio tapes that have been recorded, a spreadsheet's been turned over to Jack Smith about the summary on each of these items. The lawyer, George Filipados, who's been on the Midas Touch Network. He was interviewed recently by Ben and by Jessica Denson. Sorry, Jerry Filipados.

I can't read my own handwriting, salty. You wanna see what it looks like? But thanks for the correction. I mean, we do it a real time, in-camera editing, they call it. But, you know, they, so Jack Saul excited and his people are all excited because there's a treasure trove of information there. I mean, the Tucker is a disgusting sexual pervert. I mean, that's interesting.

That's not interesting as much to Jack Smith and prosecuting Donald Trump. It's interesting to the rest. It just confirms what we've always known about Tucker Carlson. Hopefully, puts a stake through his heart like a Dracula to get rid of him once and for all. And he is disgusting and apparently Fox news, much like succession, is running an opposition plan against Tucker Carlson to leak a lot of this information. You know, but he was so public, though, we rephrase that. He used the company email and text messages to dump on management, to crap on on Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump and the rest. So if they were looking for a scapegoat, it was easy, even though he was the top rated guy at the time,

just like Bill O'Reilly was the top rated guy, but they had to give him the heave ho because he was a sexual deviant that chased after women in the workplace and they had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars as a result. And he's off in the hinterland of, I don't know, where he's at these days, podcasting a Newsmax or doing something. But Karen, tell me about, let's make the connection to Jack Smith. And what do you think from a prosecutor standpoint, the new information that's come out and what he's focused on? How do you think it's going to help him in the cases

that he's presenting to these various grand juries? Yeah, don't you think it's because he's trying to prove the big lie, right? I mean, that he kind of he has to prove that it was a lie and that this was just a scheme to overthrow the government, not to just stop, you know, it's it'd be one thing if if Trump and Giuliani and Ted Cruz and all the other Sydney Powell and everybody else under the sun, it'd be one thing. If they really believed what they were saying, which is that there were problems with the voting machines

and that there was the election was stolen and that there were suitcases of ballots underneath the table. You know, all the things that have been proven to be false, but they're all lies. These recordings that Abby Grossberg made, and looks remember, she made them to prepare for segments. She was the assistant who, when she was interviewing people, would just tape record it so that they can then prepare for the later segment where they're going to interview the person and she

kept them all. And this I think these tapes, the reason Jack Smith wants them, it's going to prove the criminal conspiracy that this wasn't a well-meaning mistake that they really thought that the election was stolen, you know, not stolen. They really thought that the election was somehow not, didn't have credibility, that the voting machines weren't working properly, that, you know, there was double counting of Biden ballots. And all the other lies they've been spreading, this shows they knew that this was,

that are potentially shows, that they knew this was a lie. They knew this was false. And they were still doing this anyway because this was a coup. This was a coup to take over, to take over the presidency that they lost. I mean, that's what it means to be in a democracy. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

And when you lose, you can't be a sore loser. You have to have a peaceful transfer of power as the phrase that everybody's using. But that's what has always happened in this country until now. And I think these tapes are going to go a long way to showing the individuals who knew that it was a lie, but we're doing it anyway. And so that's why I think Jack Smith is

very interested in these particular tapes. And I just want to say one thing about what you said earlier about Tucker Carlson being a sexual predator. And whether or not that Fox is going to unleash this information. It's funny when I read that, when I read the things they were saying about him, that it's a misogynistic workplace that he used frequent ludes, remarks and sexual discussions about female guests and public figures, and he subjugated women based on, you know, vile sexist stereotypes and religious minorities and he belittled people, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, you know, no regard for those suffering from mental illness. I, as far as when I looked at that, I thought he would love for that to come out. That, him, this sort of toxic alpha male persona that Tucker Carlson is and that he that he that he he

presents to the world. His followers, his listeners, they love that to them. That's how you should be. They think that anyone with mental illness is weak. They think that you should be able to joke around about women in sex and make these stereotypes because it's funny. Don't be weak. And believe me, I have spent my entire life around these people.

This is a badge of honor for him. This is not a dirty dossier the way Fox might think they have against him. That stuff, that'll only make his star rise higher in opinion, amongst his type of followers. Yeah, that's an interesting perspective about it. Anthony, I'll give you the last word with this connection with Tucker. We can focus on Tucker. What it means in the future, with your perspective of what happens when you leave Fox News the way he's leaving Fox News and the followers and listeners to him. What's your view? Well, I think he feels that he's got away with it for long enough. And that, you know,

there are some recordings that I've been looking at this morning of him saying, you know, you've got to, you know, I'll just say this stuff as long as they'll have me. I mean, he's on the golf course, as we speak, he has this video of him today, writing the golf course and his golf buggy, he's in Maine, he has his studio in Maine. I mean, that's part of the reason why so much of this stuff was, these text messages were available. He wasn't really talking to people in the office.

He had to communicate to everybody via electronic means. And of course, there is a record of a lot of that. But I don't think he really cares. I think he'll either set up his own network or he'll go and work for one of the others, or he'll just take time off. I mean, he's made hundreds of millions of dollars for spouting all of this stuff.

But you know, he is mentally ill. And this kind of, I interviewed Dr. Bande Lee on the weekend show last weekend. And she talks about this Trump contagion phenomenon, that there is a national mental illness that has affected people. And once you get into this kind of Trump position, where you defend him and you start to hate America

and you hate women and you, all of these things, all of this language that they use both subtly and overtly. You don't change. Like that is a serious mental illness. And all of the stuff I've seen of him off camera where he's being interviewed, he is the same person. It's not an act. He is a disgusting human being.

He's a professional liar. And he's been paid handsomely for it. And that is a national tragedy. Anthony Davis, this is the reason we bring you on. We're so, we're so happy to have you on our, that we can tap the bench for, for a might as touch network and have somebody with your journalistic chops and world view, talk about things that are at the intersection here of journalism, politics and the law. And we're so happy to have you.

Coming up next on the podcast, we're not done. We're gonna be talking about Fannie Willis and her announcements about the grand juries that she's gonna be presenting her evidence to, as she uses the time between her original announcement that her decision about whether indictments were coming was gonna be imminent, but she's not letting grass grow under her feet.

And she's just as Jack Smith is doing is developing new witnesses and new evidence every day to present to that ultimate regular grand jury as she develops her civil rico conspiracy case. But first a word from our sponsor. And now let's think a quick break to talk about our next partner, Lomi. Now, I've never been able to compost before. It was always too complicated, too much work, and frankly, I don't think I even knew exactly if I was doing it right.

Then I got a Lomi. Lomi allows me to turn my food scraps into dirt with just the push of a button. Lomi is a countertop electric composter that turns scraps to dirt in under 4 hours. There's no smell when it runs and it's really quiet. Thanks to Lomi, I have way less garbage each week. My family worked down from 3 bags per week to just 1. And here's something pretty cool, my wife she recently started gardening, and we've been able to use the dirt that Lomi produces to help fill the garden. And since I got my Lomi, I threw out way less garbage. That means it's not going to landfills in producing methane.

Instead, I turn my waste into nutrient-rich dirt that I can feed to my plants. I feel so great knowing that I'm composting and creating soil instead of waste. And I have basically a limitless supply of dirt for my garden. The other week I had my in-laws over for dinner and the food cleanup process was such a breeze. Plus, they all think I'm super eco-conscious now. If you want to start making a positive environmental impact or just make cleanup after dinner that much easier, Lomi is perfect for you. Head to lomi.com slash legalaf and use the promo code legalaf to get $50 off your Lomi.

That's $50 off when you head to lomni.com-i.com slash legal AF and use promo code legal AF at checkout. Food waste is gross. Let Lomi save you a cold trip out to the garbage can. And now back to the video. And we're back for our final segment. We're going to talk about, so it's speaking to prosecutors, let's talk about Fony Willis, I'll frame it and turn it over to Karen, former prosecutor, talk about where she thinks

the case is going. Fannie Willis, it's got a couple of things going on at the same time. May 1, she's got a respond to a motion to dismiss brought by Donald Trump's lawyers to try to get rid of the Special Purpose Grand Jury report and all that good evidence that she's going to use to bring in to her regular grand jury for the ultimate indictment. And she's got to do some hand-to-hand combat with her opposing lawyers there in front of, these grand juries in Fulton County meeting every two months. So she

didn't do March, she's not going to do May. She says, maybe it's going to be July or maybe it's going to be September. And everyone's like, what is it get in there, get the indictment, but just like every other prosecutor that we've evaluated and followed on legal AF, they are using the time to continue to develop their case, crack the case, get new witnesses to cooperate. We now know that at least two fake electors, people that sign these fake certificates in Georgia at the behest of the Georgia GOP are cooperating.

And Funny Willis now has evidence that's now been leaked in part to CNN about something we heard about in September that in coffee county, about 200 miles southeast of Atlanta, the head of the GOP in coffee county here taking pictures, not only a let cyber ninjas working for Donald Trump come in to the election facility, but she allowed them and showed them how to crack the voting machines and to image and take off of it actual voting data of people. And then

lawyers for Donald Trump have now been caught in emails saying, well, we got this illegally obtained voting data from coffee county. What do we do with it? Should we use it to try to stop the runoff election of the Senate race involving John Ossoff? How do we use it? This is such great stuff. And now that's all come out. What my point is that if she had stopped her investigation in its tracks three or four months ago, she wouldn't have the benefit of these witnesses. Just as Jack Smith wouldn't have the benefit of all of the inside the West Wing consultants and advisors to Donald Trump and lawyers for Donald Trump, who he is methodically stripped of any of their privilege, made them testify in front of the grand jury.

But if you drop the needle on the record at any point and stop the prosecution, they wouldn't have all of this good stuff that they're now developing. And she is developing, in my view, a more expansive case that even that was presented to the special purpose grand jury as she continues to connect the dots, literally, using a conspiracy theory that's taking a minute to develop. Yes, she got a very good head start with a seven month special purpose grand jury and 70 witnesses going in, but she's not done. And her investigators are not done obviously Obviously, because we're getting new reporting

about her meeting with people. Talk about, so I don't want to get hung up on imminent or non-iminent, she's going in July or September. One of those two grand juries, and she's going to have all of this developed in the meantime. You've developed complicated cases as a prosecutor. Talk about it from a prosecutor standpoint. What's going on in the mind of Fony Willis as she continues to develop new facts and witnesses as she

gets ready to bring in a conspiracy case to a new the only in dieting grand jury in Fulton County. So you said it yourself right don't talk about imminent because that's her biggest mistake she should have never used the word imminent because it raised expectations and it's caused a lot of people to scratch their head. When you do a big, as a prosecutor, when you do a big complex case like this is, and what makes this big and what makes this complex is not that he is the former president, it's that there are so many witnesses, there are so many potential defendants, there's so many charges.

This was a big sweeping effort to try an overthrow in election. This isn't just one phone call, find 11,780 votes, right? If it was, that would be fairly simple. This is all about what led up to that, what the efforts were, and the end, what they tried to do and what their motive and intent was. And it's a big sweeping case. So that is why this is taking so long. It's really hard, though, when you're a prosecutor, when you have a big sweeping case like that. You have to know, I mean, it's one thing, you do have to uncover every stone and you

know, you have to do absolutely everything you possibly can in the case in order to know as much as you can, but you also have to know at some point when to stop. And you have to know, you have to be able to pull the trigger and say, you know what, it's time to go. And I've met prosecutors who are the best investigators I've ever seen in my life, who can't ever stop and they can never pull the trigger. And at a certain point you have to know when to pull the trigger and when to do it. I am a little concerned here because she did have the special grand jury and the seven months to go in there. And she did kick all the tires and test all the witnesses and put them under oath. And there is no reason why she couldn't be

doing all this other stuff at the same time. And so and and by the way, once she brings the indictment, she will continue to develop more evidence and flip witnesses. And the case will keep growing and changing. And may or may not have a superseding indictment, but the trial will look very different from an evidentiary standpoint, ultimately, than what it looks like when it goes in the grand jury, because you do develop further information. So I think that she needs to pull the trigger. And she has that report.

She's done all the work. Here say is allowed in Georgia, which is a big deal because if hearsay weren't allowed, she'd have to redo that whole grand jury to get any of that information into her case. But she doesn't have to even do that. She could pick and choose what she liked from there and have an investigator read from the report. Now, I do think it is good to have a little distance between the odd four person and her giggling media tour and this indictment. I do think that's the case. And I do think, finally, Willis was getting a lot of heat for saying imminent.

And there was a lot of speculation about whether or not it would be May. And everyone thought it would be May, because as you've pointed out many times, the grand jury here meets every other month. So it was either March or May or July or September, and everyone said it's gonna be May. Well, if May had come and gone, and there was no case, I think everybody would have lost their mind.

And so she had to come forward and say something, but she is not permitted to talk about an investigation or a case that she's presenting to the grand jury for secrecy reasons and other reasons. So she did it in a very smart way, which is to couch it in terms of security to a sheriff and to law enforcement and said

to the Fulton County Sheriff that, look, I just want you to know that there's a likely need for increased security at the Fulton County courthouse around July or September. And so, therefore, you need to prepare for that. It is, they don't need that much time to prepare, but again, I think she was doing the whole, I think she wanted to manage expectations for May, but she also wouldn't have done it if she doesn't expect to be going in the grand jury and bringing in indictment and a really big indictment. So I do think that that's the case here.

I think that the motion to disqualify the attorney that you and Ben talked about on Saturday with the fake electors, how there was 11 of them, but 10 were represented by one lawyer and one was represented the head of the Republican fake elector party thing. He was represented by a different lawyer and those witnesses came in and said they'd never heard that immunity was on the table, so she made a motion to disqualify that lawyer. I think that when you look at that, it's telling us that she's developing

further cooperators. And that takes time to get cooperators to go into the grand jury. And so I think it would, I wouldn't be surprised if it's with those electors. So look, she could go on for another year and keep developing evidence because that's how these cases are. So she needs to pull the trigger. It looks like it's going to happen in July or September.

And I think it's going to be one of these big, rico conspiracy type cases. These organized crime, you know, just huge sweeping cases, like they did mafia cases, et cetera. And it'll be interesting to see what it finally looks like, but I think that's what's happening in Georgia. Yeah, I think the analysis by paralysis issue that you raised with prosecutors is a good one. And I've seen you. The analysis by paralysis. Yeah, well, it's paralysis.

It's paralysis. It's analysis paralysis, right? Yeah, and I agree with you But you know, I want to be a little bit fair to her your old office had Investigated Donald Trump for a long long time years even if you add this Three long two You took too long also Wait, let me I'll make the point. Then you can jump on me. Right.

The, the, the, this, all right. The point is, let's say James, New York Attorney General, two years in the making before she brought her civil case, which is a complicated case the way you've just described this to be a complicated prosecution. That's two years. Your office had it for like five years

and then it became what we call a zombie case and then got resurrected by Alvin Bragg. So it's like six years in the making. She even if you add like the three months that we've been sitting around tapping our foot, she's only had the thing for 10 months. And she wants like another 90 days in order to go to her charging decision. We all want it like yesterday. But is it really in the grand scheme of an investigation of this magnitude?

Really that much time. And she's got to skip every other month. So I agree with it. If she doesn't do it as if she's drawn the line in the sand now, she never said may. She never said March. We did as pundits following it. But now she has said July or September. And, and I think you're right, if she doesn't fish her cut bait July or September, then

there's going to be a whole bunch of hand-ringing about what is Fondie Willis doing? But, but I think when I read that, I was like, sounds like a Trump indictment of July and September to me, but, but we will see. And now you've got this competition in adverturn or otherwise between Jack Smith and Fawney Willis, because in the Venn diagram of what they're evaluating, there's overlap. You mean the election interference, the stealing of election data, the fake electors, is all on Jack Smith's stocket as well, you know, across the whole country, including in Georgia. So I used to think there was going to be faunny out of the box in May and Jack Smith better

hurry up. But now I think, and it's hard to tell, that it's Jack Smith, Mar-a-Lago first, then maybe faunny, then the other ones. But you know, we're talking about, I'm trying to think what we're talking about. We're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic for Donald Trump. Which one goes first and which one happens

and does it happen before the first presidential debate in August or after it? He is getting indicted in all of these places for one or more of these things state and federal. I'll bet my hat on it. I don't know, I'll bet something on it. I bet, I bet, I don't know what I'm betting. I'm going to bet something on it. But it's going to happen. And we just have to be again, the wheels of justice move at their own pace. And process, as you know, prosecutions are ready to prosecute when they're ready to prosecute and not a moment before.

I have a question. That you may or may not know the answer to, but we should find out. So in New York, if the feds indicted Trump for something and then the state did it, we would be jeopardyed out. We couldn't do it. If we went first, they can go second and not jeopardy it out because New York law controls this. So if they, but if they went first, we wouldn't be able to do it. It would be considered double jeopardy. Interestingly, if Jack Smith goes first and indicts for election interference in Georgia. And then Fahny Willis goes, I wonder if Georgia's law is similar to New York's and that something I would like to we should research to see.

And for the I don't know the answer that we should get the answer to it and to add a little shorthand, a little in front of the shorthand, Karen, you're talking about double jeopardy and a person being prosecuted for this can't be prosecuted for the same convicted, prosecuted convicted for the same crime, right? The prosecution's okay, isn't it? You can, you just can't, and once there's a conviction, you're kind of out of the box on the other one, right? Correct, yeah. Yeah, and that was the issue with, with, with, with Matt Afford in New York, I guess at one point about your old office that happened, but we should look into that.

I know people are also worried about, well, what is it matter if he gets convicted in Georgia? You know, Governor Kemp is a Republican, and he'll just pardon him. But fortunately, Georgia had a lot of corrupt governors back in the past, and they took away the power to pardon away from the governor and gave it to a committee, gave it to a commission. And so it's probably all Republican too. Well, I don't know because George is weird.

I'm not sure about that, but it is weird, but it might be, but yeah, I mean, that's always out there. That's why the, you know, we have to play the numbers here when it's a federal prosecution, but you got a Democrat in office, you're out of the home stretch. Although if a Republican comes back in, you know, Donald Trump could be pardoned at some point or sentence computed by somebody somewhere, but that doesn't stop justice. That doesn't stop the prosecutions from happening. You have to put the peltz on the wall, and then we'll see what happens with the politics of it all.

That's the intersection of law and politics, criminal justice and politics. Right? So we've reached the end, we've reached the end, I think. On that note, of another edition, the midweek edition of Legal AF, with your co-anchors Michael Popock and Karen Friedman, Eknifalo, we bring you politically charged stories at the intersection of law and politics in litigation.

Whether it involves Donald Trump or not, we're following everything related to Gen 6 constitutional law, the abortion issue, any issue really that we think in our curating matters to our listeners followers and watchers. The way to help us is just do a lot of things that are for free. Continue to watch us on YouTube, go over and listen to us on the podcast, even if you watch us on YouTube and vice versa because those things help our show. We've got a merchandise. If you want to fly our flag, you can go to the MidasTouchgearsstore.mitustouch.com and buy legal AF gear, including coffee mugs and the t-shirts that are represented there. And you can leave comments for us and you can rate us and you can put thumbs up

on these types of videos. And that all helps us bring this content, which you obviously would like to hear and see on a regular basis. That's really the main way to do it and support all the other shows that are on the Midas Touch Network. Karen, you gave a very moving and poignant final word last week, something that was near and dear to your heart with the loss of somebody in a tragic accident in the collapse of a parking garage here in New York, anything else as a final word for this that you'd like to have? On a just cases that people are following note and one that really for whatever reason, yeah, I'm sure you're the same. There's sometimes there's a

case that just really you want you catches your eye or you just for whatever reason, you know, I'm sure you're the same. There's sometimes there's a case that just really you want, you catch your eye, you just for whatever, you just follow it a little more than everything else. This Disney versus Ron DeSantis case, I'm a little obsessed with. I want Mickey to win over Ron, like there's something about this, but you know, there's just something about it that is so, you know, for everybody who's for people who aren't as obsessed with it as me, it's the, you know, it's, it's, when Florida passed the Don't Say Gay Bill, Disney came out against that, and Ron DeSantis decided to punish Disney by taking away their autonomy that they've had since the 1960s.

They're almost like this little city onto themselves. And so they've been going back and forth with Ron DeSantis saying basically taking away that status and then Disney fighting back by saying that they are going to, they did something equally as stealth-like and then they've just been going back and forth, back and forth. And now Disney brought a lawsuit against DeSantis about this. And I just can't wait to see who wins. And I really hope it's Disney.

Because I do love Mickey. I do love Mickey. I have lived in Florida for 20 years. You don't mess with the big mouse. They filed a lawsuit against DeSantis up in Northern District of Florida, federal court. They got to sign the chief judge who is an Obama appointee. Nice. And they're basically saying as they've threatened to say in the past that they are being improperly retaliated against for First Amendment and political speech and having their rights ripped away from them, including in documents signed by the State of Florida going back over 50 years and that they did everything right and proper in running that city, that that greedy creek

improvement district all this time. And we're going to see they got the right judge. They have the right court. They have the right court. They waited to see what would happen. They waited for DeSantis to have his new board, his new banana republic board, try to strip away everything that the prior board did in favor of Disney. And now it's going to be up to a federal judge to decide whether there is a case it will follow that. On legal AF.

We have it on Saturdays with Ben Micellis and me and every Wednesday with Karen Friedman at Niflo and Michael Popak shout out to the Midas Mighty and the legal AFers. you