Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump LEGAL NEWS before Holiday has BIG IMPACT

Episode Date: November 28, 2024

Karen Friedman Agnifilo is joined by MeidasTouch Legal Commentator, Dina Doll (sitting in for Popok) for the Midweek Edition of the top-rated Legal AF podcast. On this episode? 1) What’s happening the NY Hush money case? 2) Where do the Federal cases against Trump stand as Jack Smith winds down his cases 3) What’s up with Rudy Giuliani as he was in federal court again this week: and what we still can be thankful for, plus so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Subscribe to the new Legal AF channel: https://youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN Subscribe to Meidas+ at https://meidasplus.com Thanks to our sponsors: Aura Frames: Visit https://AuraFrames.com and get $45 OFF their BEST-SELLING Carver Mat frames with promo code: LEGALAF Beam: Get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to https://shopbeam.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF at checkout! One Skin: Get started today at https://OneSkin.co and receive 15% Off using code: LEGALAF Calm: Get an excluslve offer of 40% off a Calm Premium SubscrIption at https://calm.com/legalaf Lume: Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with Lume deodorant and get $5 off your Starter Pack (that’s over 40% off) with promo code legalaf at https://LumeDeodorant.com! #lumepod VIIA: Try VIIA Hemp! https://bit.ly/viialegalaf and use code LEGALAF! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial 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 On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Two freshly cracked eggs any way you like them. Three strips of naturally smoked bacon and a side of toast. Only $6 at A&W's in Ontario. Experience A&W's classic breakfast on Now. Dine in only until 11 a.m. So money's a thing, but it's not everything. I think you really look at the importance of what are you doing with your time?

The conversations that we've had with our financial advisor is very much building what that framework looks like that helps support those important things. The places where you're investing your time and your resources, your family clearly, and those closest to you. Edward Jones. We do money differently. Visit edwardjones.ca slash different. Visa and OpenTable are dishing up something new.

Get access to primetime dining reservations by adding your Visa Infinite Privilege Card to your OpenTable account. From there, you'll unlock first-come, first-serve spots at select-top restaurants when booking through OpenTable. Learn more at opentable.ca forward slash visa dining. Upper Canada College inspires boys from senior kindergarten to year 12

to find their passions and realize their potential. An IB World School, UCC offers a supportive environment, cutting edge facilities, and a best in Canada financial assistance program. UCC, a place where tradition, excellence, and innovation meet. Learn more at our open house events on October 15th and 16th. Register now at cause and effect.ucc.on.ca.

This episode is brought to you by Miller Lite. Miller Lite's all about celebrating friendships, especially during fantasy football season. And there's no better way to show your friends slash fantasy leagues last place finisher that you love them than Miller Lite's last placements where you can get their face on a billboard. Yep, a real billboard.

Just go to lastplacements.com to find out how. Miller Lite tastes like Miller time. Welcome to the Thanksgiving Eve edition of Legal AF. I'm here with my favorite substitute co-host for Legal AF, Dina Syagdahl. Thank you so much for being here with Michael Popok, who can't be here tonight. He's traveling on this Thanksgiving Eve. And I'm happy to be here with you, taking a break from the kitchen and cooking all day to be here to

to talk about all things at the intersection of law and politics. How are you doing today, Dina? Yeah, I'm great. Doing the same thing, traveling to see family, you can see the new background and so glad to be able to touch base with you, you know, as we go into this holiday weekend. Yeah, exactly. Well, you know, I want to keep this upbeat. There's so many people who are choosing to be with us tonight, the night before their family descends upon them. I think it's important that we give people the information and the tools that they can have discussions with people and with family and have positive discussions and listen to what people have to say. I've been saying that I've been on this kind of listening to people part of my life. I want to hear why did you vote for Trump?

A lot of people have voted for Trump who aren't crazy. And so people I respect, people I'm related to, and people I want to understand what it is and what it is that we as Democrats can do differently and hear why it is that this person who they will admit is flawed and not ideal, you know, if you want to call a rapist, convicted felon, fraudster, not ideal, but they, to them, that they still, to them, he's going to lead the country in a different direction. And it's more a condemnation of where we are than it is any sort of kind of celebration of him or the people he's wanting to put in office. They're really unhappy with where we are as a country.

And that's what I'm taking from this and listening to. And I think it's important that we all do that. And especially the night before people are going to get together with family to hear that they should have facts, they should have tools so that when they listen and they respond, they know what's going on and what's not going on. And so to the extent that we can do that this evening, I think we'll be giving people a valuable tool. And of course, I just always enjoy being here on Wednesdays to talk about these issues. And tonight, I was thinking we could talk about the criminal cases that are pretty much all dead against Donald Trump. But to you know, to say that is a little tongue in cheek because they're all at different

phases, different stages, different, different potential stages. And it's important to understand the various nuances because they're not all the same. And the result of what's going to happen isn't necessarily all the same. There's a bunch of different possibilities. So we should talk about all of those and end with the complete hero to villain story that is Rudy Giuliani. I mean, he has just turned, he has literally become a villain

and what was once a hero. And so I do think we should talk about what what is happening there, because he's really trying to continue to lie, cheat and steal from Seamus and Ruby Freeman, and it's a disgrace. And so we have to hold him. It's easy to just think of him as kind of a shell of who he was and kind of a clown and a carnival barker, because that's what he's turned into. But at the same time, it's very serious what he continues to do. He continues to defame them. He continues to not pay them. And there's a very real possibility

that he's going to be held in contempt soon, which could mean all sorts of trouble for him. So we'll talk about that as well. So why don't we just jump right in and- And to our story, jump into the legal stuff, just to kind of a touch base on the Thanksgiving part. I also think it's okay for us not to talk about politics with our family tomorrow. I've read so many comments of people who feel like

they have to cut people out of their lives because of this last election. And if we are still, I think a lot of us have lost people in our lives, whether it's friendships or whatever, because of values and how divisive things are. And so if there are still people in your life that you're celebrating with tomorrow, I would hold onto that closely and just don't talk about politics. Life is really short and the relationships we have ultimately are like the most important thing and impact us even more than most of Trump's policies ever will.

And so I would say, you know, maybe we lay down our swords for one day at least and just be grateful for, you know, everybody has something to offer and maybe appreciate whatever that person has to offer. It's going to be a long four years and having a community as flawed as that community may be in your outside world is important. And we get to have our Midas community here where we get to be really frank and we get to be fired up and we get to all be on the same page. But we live in multiple different types of communities. And a lot of times, I'm grateful my family are all diehard

Democrats, but a lot of people don't have that. And I don't think we should turn our back on our family if we disagree. So maybe tomorrow we get to try to just have a meal and discuss it another time as I'm sure probably will come up again. No, I agree with you and I love it. And I love that what you just said. And thankfully all the people I'll be with tomorrow are also people who are in agreement with me. But the interesting thing that fascinates me is that things that aren't political

have become politicized. Our health, for example, science, the weather, global warming, the environment, things that just shouldn't have anything to do with politics. It's almost impossible to have a conversation today. And whether it's, again, gay marriage is another one. How is that political, right? Who you love. But it's, again, gay marriage is another one. How's that political, right? Who you love and it's just, but it's like everything has turned political.

So to the extent that it's bodily autonomy, whatever it is, every everything is political at this point right now. Yeah, the additives in your turkey. Exactly. Right. Exactly. Exactly. So to that extent, I'm not trying to say that people should talk about Donald Trump. In fact, I agree with you. Like, you shouldn't talk about him. But to the extent that so much is political,

it just, where you wouldn't even think it, it's unbelievable to me how things that you would just, shouldn't be political have become, you know, whether or not you vaccinate your children, you know, like religion and like, you know, what religion you choose to be what everything and it's just, it's just an unbelievable state that we're in. And, and yeah, but I think that's a great reminder. And I appreciate that. So and look, I'm sure a lot of people are also feeling the way I've been feeling, which is part of it doesn't want to talk about any of these things. I don't want to think about any of these things. I had the hardest time podcasting right after this or appearing on any TV shows.

I couldn't do it. And I didn't turn the TV on. And I'm sure a lot of people are feeling that right now. And so to the extent that the people who don't feel that way are tuning in and listening are loyal listeners and followers, we appreciate you. And we very much appreciate this community. As you as you point out, this is a very important community. And, and one that that actually is helping me get through this time because it is a hard time. The only other thing I will say is I hope your your prediction that this is a difficult four years. I hope it's only a difficult two years because I'm hoping the midterms, I hope we have a chance at getting the house and send it back. And if we can do that, at least we can hopefully not, some of his really bad things hopefully won't come to light, but who knows, maybe he'll have done too much damage.

I don't know, but I'm hoping it's only a dark two years. But let's dive in, let's dive in and talk about him. Let's talk about his cases because unfortunately, they all happen to be coming to a head right now today, literally as we speak, each and every one of them. Where do you wanna start? to be coming to a head right now, today, literally, as we speak, each and every one of them. Where do you wanna start? You wanna start with Washington, D.C., Jan 6 case?

You wanna start, let's just start there. Jack Smith. Jack Smith filed a motion to requesting that the judge dismiss the indictment. And the reason he did it that way is prosecutors don't have the power to dismiss something, only judges do, right? They have the power to request

or make a motion that a judge does it. And they wrote a seven or eight or nine page letter and in it, they cited the law and talked about how they actually consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel, which is the kind of the premier legal advisory office in the country on all, it's a government office, works in out of the White House and they're the experts on constitutional law and the Department of Justice views them as they're, when they need an advisory opinion on something, that if they say something is to the

Department of Justice, that's the law and they have to follow that. And so the Office of Legal Counsel has weighed in in the past, I think as recently as 2022, on whether you can prosecute a sitting president and you cannot. You can investigate or prosecute. But Jack Smith had a question and the question was, does this count? Does this stage that we are in, he's already being prosecuted, right?

He's already been indicted. Can we just press pause and then can we continue later without having to go forward? Because of course, this is only a temporary immunity status that he has right now when he becomes president. And the Office of Legal Counsel said in no uncertain terms, it absolutely does apply to this stage, right? This stage that we are in, and you have to dismiss the case. What was surprising to me was in the motion at the very

last sentence said that they had consulted with Trump and his lawyers, and they consent to this request for a dismissal without prejudice. And the reason I found that surprising, Dina, was, uh, was you would think that if you were Trump, you would only agree if it was with prejudice, right? Like, because with prejudice means the case is dead forever. You can never, ever, ever, ever bring it again, uh, without prejudice means in four years, theoretically, they could bring the case again. Now, I'm sure they're all laughing at me even just saying this because they know that Donald Trump will just pardon himself or, you know, whatever it is he's

going to do that there's this case will never ever be brought again. But it could. And without prejudice, let's say let Trump gets impeached or does something really terrible or whatever. The case could be revived, right? Because it's been dismissed without prejudice. And the judge didn't waste any time. I think within 20 minutes, she dismissed the case, Judge Shutkin. And again, in my fantasy brain, it was because she did it quickly before Trump's lawyers

figured out that they should have asked for with prejudice instead of without prejudice. But again, that's probably just wrong because it's ridiculous. This case is never going to be brought again, practically speaking. But that's what they did there. Yeah. I think like you said, practically it's dead. I mean, first of all, too, it will also be almost eight years after the case.

I mean, any typical prosecution that much later is very difficult to prosecute. Witnesses may have died. In this case, his own Department of Justice will be kind of in charge of the evidence, how much of that is going to get lost or destroyed, and ultimately pardoning himself. I could very much see him pardoning himself. So I don't, I mean, I think the risk, the Department of Justice policy makes sense to the extent, you know, he has a job to do, and you don't really want to get distracted

by a prosecution that's not fair to the American people. I understand that philosophy. It is a little bit scary though, because he's the type of person who doesn't want to leave office anyway. And now you've just given him a huge incentive to never leave office because you would then continue the prosecution. So to that extent, him pardoning himself and being willing to leave office, weirdly, might be our best case scenario, because I do not see him stepping down with this idea of another indictment looming. He either won't step down, he'll have destroyed the evidence, or he'll have pardoned himself. He does not strike me as

the kind of person who's gonna roll his dice to have a special counsel come after him again. And of course he has immunity, right? The Supreme Court has granted him immunity to do any of these things. So that kind of doesn't matter what it is. So that's true. It's just all academic anyway,

but it was still surprising to me that it is in that posture, but it is what it is. And so that case is essentially gone. And you know, I was wondering to why Jack Smith did it two months early, right? Why Why did they do this right away was another sort of question I had. Maybe he's writing his report, You would think he had already written his report because of course the special counsel law says that he has to provide a report. So, and then he knows that. So I'm sure he's been writing it all along anyway, right? So I don't know what you make of this, why he did this two months early, whether, I don't know. Do you have any? I mean, I think it's the appearances. And I think that is why Merrick Garland took so long to bring this to the first place,

is they are overly worried about appearing impartial to the point that they really did a huge disservice to the American people. And so I think that it's just appearances. He got elected, then he's doing, quote, the right thing as soon as possible by dismissing it. And the thing is, the other side doesn't care about appearances. In fact, it's a badge of honor for them to seem

like they're being vengeful. But I don't think Jack Smith wanted to appear like he was being revengeful. This was political. So I think he tried to do it right away to mitigate that. Yeah. Yeah. I think, I think you're right. I mean, Jack Smith is a straight shooter. He's somebody I worked with a long time ago back in the Manhattan DA's office. We started around the same time we were in the same small trial bureau. And so I knew him quite well back in the day. And he's a real straight shooter.

He's not political. I couldn't even tell you what political party he is. That's how apolitical he is. He's just a prosecutor's prosecutor. He follows the facts wherever they lead. He brings cases without fear or favor. He never really had any agenda to make money or seek higher office.

Like he was just sort of this guy who was a true public servant and a really good guy and a really great lawyer and a great trial lawyer, very well respected by, he was sort of one of the stars of the office back in his day. And you're right, he's gonna be the kind of guy who feels that you do the right thing.

I mean, this was never, despite what Donald Trump said, for Jack Smith, this was never a political prosecution. If the evidence wasn't there, if the case wasn't there, he would have never brought it. That's just who he is. And so if- Gosh, the timing, the timing of them bringing it, though, made it look political and was I don't honestly

know what they were thinking. And maybe you can get maybe Merrick Garland was political. I don't know. That is not political. I mean, I just think no, I don't even know if either one I think it was like they were trying to bend over backward. But by bending over backwards, they made it more political because it was too close to the election. The fact that, you know, he brought the indictment for Mar-a-Lago in June of 2023 and August of 2023 for January 6, that's way too close. I don't know in what realm they thought they could even complete their case ahead of time. They knew they were dealing with somebody that was going to have presidential immunity issues. Why bring it so close to the election? It was if they just counted on the fact of him not,

I mean, he was already announcing he was going to run by August of 2023 when they were doing that second January 6 thing. So it was too close to the election. The fact that they brought it a year from the election, one, it gave argument to the fact that they brought it like a year from the election, one, it gave argument to the fact that it was political, because by then he was the nominee, basically. And second, I think that they were completely unrealistic

to think that they could actually have finished it in time. And so three, you're kind of counting on him losing. It was too late. They brought the charges too late. And I think it backfired because now Trump has a playbook and he's gonna do the same thing. And he's gonna say, oh, you know, the Democrats did it. We're gonna do it. But then he's gonna do it in an unethical way

and he's not going to be thoughtful. And oftentimes that happens with the Democrats. I think we do a strategy, but we do it tentatively. And then the Republicans do it. I mean, gerrymandering. Gerrymandering came out because we started it first. We started it for a good reason, right? We were trying after the Jim Crow error to give black voters equal votes. And then Republicans have taken it, totally weaponized it against Americans. That's what they do. I think by Merrick Garland doing it so late

and knowing he couldn't actually be successful by doing it so late, he just gave the Republicans a playbook to like then use against us. Yeah, I mean, I will say I agree with you that Merrick Garland has shoulders a lot of the blame here for waiting so long to even appoint a special counsel to investigate this case and bring this case. I never understood why. Thank God for the Jan 6 select committee, because if it wasn't for them, really basically doing the job of the Department of Justice to say it was bipartisan, right? You had Adam Kinzinger, you had Liz Cheney, it was a bipartisan, and

they interviewed thousands of people and they had those hearings, those eight public hearings that were televised so that the whole world could see. And finally, Merrick Garland was shamed into doing what he should have done to begin with and take a look at the case. I mean, it was outrageous. And so and so, you know, I do think Merrick Garland shoulders some of the blame. The other I'll tell you who else I think shoulders some of the blame. And that's the Senate, because they could have impeached and should have impeached him, but chose not to because they said they said, you know, it could be he could be prosecuted. Right. And they but they could have impeached him to because really, guess what?

They use presidential immunity. So he could not have been prosecuted for much of it. And so they really of course, they didn't know that because this was a made up doctrine. But they were counting on something to that that did not happen. And so, look, live and learn. Obviously, there's so many you can you can look backwards and finger point. But we are where we are. And he is, you know, the next president of the United States.

And I am the kind of person and I know not everyone agrees with this, but I'm the kind of person that, look, if he succeeds, we all benefit. Right. In terms of the economy and in terms of, you know, making America great again, if he succeeds in that regard, we all benefit. So let's let's hope for the best and hope that he does. If he succeeds in the ways he wants to succeed, it'll destroy all of us, which take away so many of our rights and potentially destroy the economy. But hopefully the American people are smart enough and they'll say, wait a minute, that's not what we wanted.

And they'll vote. They will condemn this horrific MAGA right turn that the country has taken. And we can go back to looking like a country that I recognize because right now we are not in one. But I just hope he can't do too much damage. I really hope. And and if he does good things and we all benefit from it, then great. You know, I it's I love our country. You know, I don't I don't want to see our I don't want to.

I don't want to crash the plane. We're all flying in either. Right. So so we'll see. We'll see what happens. But it's terrifying. There's a lot of things that are, again, I'm trying to stay positive because it's the night before Thanksgiving, but I say these things and it's like the words are coming out of my mouth and I want to pull them back. So I'm like, wait, it's terrible. He's terrible. He's evil. But I'm trying to stay positive and look at the positive. Dina, before we move to Mar-a-Lago, which is in a very different posture, although it's

still Jack Smith, I need to go to our first app break because we have the most amazing sponsors on Legal AF. I love them. And so many of the products, we try them all ahead of time. And frankly, we wouldn't be doing these commercials if we didn't really love our sponsors who choose us. And we don't have outside investors, as Popak always likes to say and point out,

which is very true. And as a result, we can say, we say whatever we want. We don't, people are often, they often find it interesting that other than knowing what the general topics are, we don't talk about what we're gonna say. We don't, we just sort of show up and we give our expertise. Dina, you're a very successful, well-known attorney

back in California. And you give your perspective. I'm a three decade practicing attorney. I give my perspective and here we are. So let's go to our first ad break. Like a lot of people, my 88 year old mother is not the most tech savvy. So it seems weird to get them a tech adjacent gift,

but Aura's digital frame is actually perfect. That's because yes, it's tech, but it's so easy, and we were able to set it up for her and load all our digital photos and hers in just minutes. Now we can send mom photos of her new granddaughter in New Jersey, and she gets them in real time in an instant directly to her frame in Atlanta. Seriously, it's so easy to get started. But then once you do, the tech is incredible. I can upload photos right from my phone in just a click.

And my wife and I have three frames that we easily maintain, home, office, and with my mom for those adorable granddaughter photos. It'll even pair photos together for me like two pictures of the same person or from the same day. There's no memory cards or USBs required. There's a reason Wirecutter named it the number one best digital photo frame. For a limited time, visit AuraFrames.com

and get 45 bucks off Aura's best-selling Carver matte frames by using promo code LegalAF at checkout. That's A-U-R-A, frames.com, promo code LegalAF. This exclusive Black Friday Cyber Monday deal is their best of the year. So don't miss out, terms and conditions apply. Proper sleep can increase focus, boost energy and improve your mood.

Introducing Beam's Dream Powder, a science-backed healthy hot cocoa for sleep. If you know me, you know that dream has been a game changer for my sleep, and boy, do I need sleep these days. I drink Beams Dream Powder each night in order to get my optimal sleep. And I gotta say, I wouldn't be recommending this if it didn't actually help me.

And today, my listeners get a special discount on Beams Dream Powder. Their science-backed healthy hot cocoa for sleep with no added sugar. Better sleep has never tasted better. Now available in delicious flavors like chocolate peanut butter, cinnamon cocoa, and sea salt caramel with only 15 calories

and zero grams of sugar. Other sleep aids can cause next day grogginess, but Dream contains a powerful all-natural blend of Reishi, Magnesium, L-Theanine, Melatonin, and Nano CBD to help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed. The numbers don't lie. In a clinical study, 93% of participants reported Dream helped them get better sleep. Beam dream is easy to add to your nighttime routine. Just mix dream into hot water or milk froth and enjoy before bed.

Find out why Forbes and the New York Times are all talking about Beam and why it's trusted by the world's top athletes and business professionals. If you want to try Beam's best-selling dream powder, get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to shopbeam.com slash LegalAF and use code LegalAF at checkout.

That's shopbeam.com slash LegalAF and use code LegalAF for up to 40% off. There's a lot happening these days in our personal, professional and political lives. It can feel especially stressful or hopeless when things are outside of our control. But calm can help you restore your sense of balance and peace amidst outside chaos. Have you had difficulty focusing lately?

Things like parenting pressures, work challenges, school commitments, or just personal drama can wreak havoc on your ability to stay focused and productive. If this sounds like you, I know something that could make a real difference. Calm. Calm is the number one app for sleep and meditation, giving you the power to calm your mind and change your life. For me, winding down after a long day of representing clients

and analyzing stories at the intersection of law and politics makes it hard to turn off my brain at night. And with a newborn in the house, of representing clients and analyzing stories at the intersection of law and politics makes it hard to turn off my brain at night. And with a newborn in the house, I need to maximize my brain turnoff time. And Calm and its meditation and sleep programs have helped me do just that. Calm knows that everyone faces unique challenges in their daily lives. And mental health isn't about a one-size-fits-all solution. That's why Calm offers a wide range of content to help you navigate life's ups and downs

with programs like meditations to help you work through anxiety and stress, boost your focus, build healthier habits, and take better care of your physical wellbeing. Sleep stories, sleep meditations, and calming music that will help you drift off to restful sleep quickly and naturally. Grounding exercises if you're feeling overwhelmed. These short guided sessions use sensation, movement, and breath work to help you relax and reset. Expert-led talks designed to help you handle grief, improve self-esteem, care for relationships, and more.

Comm puts the tools you need right in your pocket and can help you dedicate just a few minutes each day to live a happier, healthier life. Stress lasts, sleep more, and live better with Comm. For listeners of our show, Comm is offering an exclusive offer of 40% off a Comm Premium subscription at comm.com slash legal AF. Go to calm.com slash legal AF for 40% off unlimited access

to Comm's entire library. That's comm.com slash legal AF. All right, we're back in the Legal AF midweek edition with myself, Karen Friedman-Agnifolo and Dina Syed-Dahl, who's standing in for Michael Popok, who is traveling for Thanksgiving. We're so happy that all of you are here with us and we're trying to keep this positive and talk about the things that we're grateful and thankful for and give people hope because there's a lot to be hopeful for, especially on this night before Thanksgiving. Dina, let's pivot to Jack Smith's other case, Mar-a-Lago.

That's in a slightly different posture because that case has already been dismissed by Judge Eileen Cannon. And that case was dismissed because she found that the appointment of any special counsel, not just Jack Smith, but the appointment of any special counsel ever is illegal and unlawful despite the fact that every president has done it over the last, I don't even, Popak would know, because he knows things like this, he would know, but it's been many, many, many special councils throughout history, including Donald Trump appointed special councils, right?

Like this is a thing that is done to create this arm's length, apolitical, just prosecutor who's not affiliated to with any political party. He's just going to follow the facts wherever they lead, as they say, and bring the case. And so, but Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion where he spelled out for Judge Cannon exactly what she should say in this case, in a case that this was not even an issue before, right? This is in the US v Trump case, in his concurring opinion, the issue of the special counsel

wasn't even before the Supreme Court. But Clarence Thomas decided to write this concurring opinion, which is essentially was like a blueprint for Judge Cannon on what to do. In my mind, I was thinking, he's like, Oh, I have all these smart law clerks, Judge Cannon, who you're by yourself in Florida, doesn't have a lot of experience. So we're going to write it for you. We're going to do the research for you and we're going to spell it out for you, what you should do. And of course, lo and behold, what did she do on the day?

The first day of the Republican National Convention, she hands, you know, she gives a big fat love letter kiss to Donald Trump and dismisses the case against Donald Trump and Walty Nauda and Carlos de Oliveira, the two co-defendants who don't have presidential immunity. And by the way, she didn't dismiss it on presidential immunity grounds. She dismissed it on the grounds that special prosecutor is an illegal thing. You're not allowed to do it. And so that case is up on appeal. It's not fully briefed. I think it's been briefed, but not the reply brief has not been done and oral arguments haven't been scheduled.

and oral arguments haven't been scheduled. And the question is, will Jack Smith continue this appeal at least as to the two co-defendants? Now they're very low level, obviously, and you're not gonna necessarily wanna prosecute them. They're gonna be pardoned by Trump anyway. But wouldn't you at least wanna get the 11th Circuit to reverse Judge Cannon on the law just to get that? I would hate to have that out in the ether that she did that. I don't know.

What do you think? Well, okay. We're in this upside down world where everything the Republicans were fighting for, like trying to have more court oversight over agency heads. Now we are thrilled because Trump is appointing all these agency heads who Now we are thrilled because Trump is appointing all these agency heads who aren't going to know what they're doing. It's a similar idea here, because we know that Trump does plan on appointing special counsels to go after his political adversaries.

He's said that many times. So ironically, Judge Cannon's opinion that special counsels are kind of illegal and kind of how that came about is under Nixon, there was an act, the Senate passed an act to kind of formalize the special council process. And then under attorney Janet Reno, they let that expire and the reasoning at the time was it was not necessary, that it was already kind of constitutionally allowed for the attorney general to appoint a special counsel. So since Janet Reno, there's been the assumption that you don't need like a Senate action in order to kind of formalize that, right?

So Judge Cannon's opinion is helpful if Trump's attorney general plans on appointing special counsel. So I don't know how strategic you get out there, right? I have a question for you, Dena. Yeah. Why do you think Trump is going to appoint a special counsel? Why wouldn't they just have their Pam Bondi? Yeah. I mean, the Republicans don't even try to play by the regular rules.

They don't care. They are in this destroyer mission. Why not just have the attorney general? even try to play by the regular rules. They don't care. They are in this destroyer mission. Why not just have the attorney? I assume he's just going to have the attorney general do it. He doesn't need a special counsel. What's the point anymore for Trump? I mean, trying to make the appearance of impropriety.

I think the only is maybe practical. It's a lot of work. I don't know if Pam Bondi wants to run a whole case and also oversee the whole Department of Justice, right? I mean, just because of the personal job for him. Yeah, no, I don't know. Even if it were for other deputies. Yeah, but she's got, I mean, I don't know.

Like, I don't mean, I just feel like you've got, she's gonna be the head of the Department of Justice. She's got thousands of lawyers that work for her. She can appoint any one of them to as just to hand them this investigation. Right. They handle there's thousands of cases in the Department of Justice all the time. Like, why can't you know they do that? Like, I just don't see the only reason why you would give it to a special counsel isn't because I don't think because it's too much work, but it's to create this arm's length, apolitical thing. But I don't think Trump cares about that. Yeah, that or you're trying to get somebody who's

willing to do something, maybe a career DOJ attorney is not willing to do. There is talk about him appointing Matt Gaetz. Matt Gaetz is going to be willing to do stuff that somebody who's been at the DOJ for 20 years doesn't. But I see what you mean. It's like, well, that's a good point. You're right. Because most of the prosecutors I know who work at the Justice Department would never do this. So you're right. You need to find someone who's willing to do that. And somebody good in front of the microphones, because half of this is all about public getting the PR move. And we are going to hear a whole bunch of stuff that isn't true. And I mean, I think it is interesting.

I mean, Hunter Biden also benefits, let's say, from the Judge Cannon lower ruling. You know, he tried to use that. He's trying to use that to overturn his conviction. I really hope Biden commutes his sentence. But who knows what's happening with that? But generally, if I actually care about the law and I'm talking about it fromutes his sentence, but who knows what's happening with that. But generally, if I actually care about the law and I'm talking about it from a legal perspective,

of course I want Jack Smith to be able to correct Judge Cannon's opinion. But I'm at a position right now where I think we need to use every single tool. I don't know, maybe you do leave that out there. So that's a tricky one. Do you think that he could even finish this before the inauguration?

Because if he's kind of in the middle, let's say he files that, does the briefing, does he even get to the oral argument in time? Because in that case, it's kind of moot anyway. It's not like Trump is going to go out. No, it's a good point. You definitely raised a good point. And look, one question I have is the pardoning

as you were pointing out that Biden could commute Hunter Biden's sentence. He could also pardon him. He could also pardon Jack, he could say, look, I'm gonna pardon Jack Smith. I I'm going to pardon every other Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, not that any of them need to be pardoned, but to the extent that because they didn't do anything wrong, but to the extent that Donald Trump is going to bring these political

persecutions, if you will. Why wouldn't he give like across the board pardons to all these people? And, you know, he might even throw in, I'm going to pardon Trump, you know, just to like, let's wipe the slate clean. the board pardons to all these people. And he might even throw in, I'm going to pardon Trump, just to like, let's wipe the slate clean, let's wipe the slate clean and move forward and heal as a country. All of it. I don't know. I wouldn't put a past Biden to do something like that because- I mean, it's one of the last powers he has to protect people from Trump.

I really hope he uses it. I really hope he uses it for his son. His son cannot be the only one who is prosecuted from this. I agree. Trump cannot walk free and have his son. It's just too much. But I do think he should do a blanket pardon to Jack Smith, Letitia James, himself, his wife. Yeah. And at this point, Letitia James, himself, his wife.

Yeah, and at this point, maybe Trump too. It doesn't matter anyway. The federal cases against him are completely gone. And he has, you know, the pardon power is an exclusive presidential power. And then the Supreme Court just gave him immunity for it, said it was unquestioned. That's, you know, what I see as immunity.

It could sell them. Yeah. Yeah. Not even that it could be criminal, but what the Supreme Court was really saying was that it cannot be questioned. So yes, that means that his pardoning cannot be questioned. I think honestly, he's so play by the book kind of person, I'm worried he won't, but we're not in a play by the book situation. Democrats have to start learning to color a little bit outside the line. He literally has the right to do it. He's a play by the book kind of guy, but he's also a reach across the aisle kind of guy. And I could see him saying, this is my way of healing the country.

I'm going to reach across the aisle. I'm going to be the bigger person and I'm going to reach across the aisle, I'm going to be the bigger person, and I'm going to pardon everybody. Let's just start thinking of the American people instead of us fighting with each other. And I could see him thinking that way. What I don't like about it is in some ways, I just don't like buying into this thing that it's like tit for tat political back and forth, because I really, really believe, and is where I'm just maybe I'm just totally naive, but I don't believe that the prosecutions of Trump were political. I really don't. He's a criminal and he deserves to be prosecuted. That doesn't make it political just because you make yourself a politician. That doesn't make it political. Trump is a fraudster, a criminal, you know, he sexually assaulted women. He lies, cheats, and steals any way he can.

Frankly, he's a bit of a grifter with all his various... He lies all the time. I don't know. I just, the whole thing is- I think one of the best arguments for it not being political is how many January 6th defendants are in jail. They did it because of him. They said over and over and over again, they truly believed this was stolen and they were showing up for him. That to me is the best argument for one, why he should have been like, if you're going to start prosecuting

January 6th defendants, Trump should have been right there in that timeline. And also why it wasn't political. I could see if he was the only one being held into account, fine. But all these everyday people who answered her call paid a price for it. So to me, that's the best argument for why it was not political. Yeah, no, you're right. I find myself I'm trying to keep it positive. And here I am like, he's a rapist. He's a fraudster. He's a cheater. I have to calm down. I know. This is me trying to be positive, Karen. Okay.

I mean, this is how I'm getting through it is like, I just see us as delivering information and then people are receiving information because in the darkness, more bad stuff happens. Maybe for now, that is my purpose and all of our purposes is just to be informed. And it's not nothing. Like I was a journalist before I became a lawyer. I truly believe that journalism, the fourth state, is a huge check on power.

And if we don't, as people, as citizens, disengage because it's too difficult to listen, then there is no check. The people are the check and it's the check through information. So that's how I'm saying, Stain is not even so much like, what can we do? This is what we can do. Honestly, staying informed is not nothing. That is how democracies last because people are informed and they do have a check. And our country doesn't always fix things right away. We have horrible history with slavery and the fact that women just had a right to vote not that long ago.

Progress takes a long time in this country, but staying informed allows that progress to happen. Yeah, that's true. You're right. You're absolutely right. But staying informed allows that progress to happen. Yeah, that's true. You're right. You're absolutely right. Manhattan DA, let's pivot to the Manhattan DA's office. That case is in a very interesting posture because

there's two things that have to happen in that case. Number one, that the judge has to rule on how the US v Trump presidential immunity case applies to the conviction, the 34 count conviction there, because that ruling, that decision by the Supreme Court came down after the conviction. And so the judge has to apply that law to the facts and see whether or not it creates harmless error, reversible error, was there any evidence that shouldn't have come in, all that kind of stuff. And so that has to happen. And until that happens, he cannot be sentenced. So there's really two things. And he can't be sentenced until the judge makes that ruling and then somebody, they appeal

it all the way up and down to the Supreme Court because you can appeal presidential immunity. And so I am certain not because I have inside information, but because I just know how the office works. I am certain that they are also asking the Office of Legal Counsel how this applies to this case. Because you might ask, why would the Office of Legal Counsel have anything to do with the Manhattan DA's office? And it's because the US Constitution has something called the Supremacy Clause,

which basically says federal law is supreme over state law and it's binding. And so they are bound by it. And the fact that Jack Smith did it and had to do it about prosecuting a sitting president, does this constitute prosecution? In other words, does a post verdict, right, post verdict, pre-sentence limbo purgatory, does that count as prosecution to the point where it can't be held in abeyance and press pause? Will that be too distracting to Trump knowing that he could be sentenced to prison once

he gets out? Will they have to dismiss that case? And they are going to feel that they are bound, they are bound by what OLC says because of the supremacy clause. So that is my one concern is that because there's no reason they shouldn't press. This is temporary immunity that he has temporary immunity from prosecution. He's already been prosecuted. He just hasn't been sentenced. So press pause on the litigation.

That's my feeling and my opinion. We'll see what OLC says, but that is the one wild card that we don't know what's going to happen with that case. Well, we've talked about this a lot, so people may have seen my opinion on it, but here's the situation. The law is interpretive for a lot of... you know, for people that have been watching your show for a long time, they understand that's a reason why lawyers could have more than one opinion is because the law is flexible.

It's constantly changing. Coming up with a new interpretation is sometimes how you win for a client, right? Especially like in civil litigation. The fact of the matter is no matter what the Office of Legal Counsel says, nobody knows what the law has said is on this, because no court has ever decided whether or not a former president who has been convicted of a jury can be sentenced while they are just president-elect

and before the president. The Office of Legal Counsel, it's just an opinion and I can have a different opinion and the DA can have a different opinion and the Trump's lawyers can have a different opinion. But until frankly like one of the courts and ultimately if the Supreme Court takes it, the Supreme Court decides, we don't know what the law is because it's uncharted territory. It's novel, as we say in the law. It's a novel area. And so to me, I would rather interpret it not so expansively to say the supremacy clause doesn't apply yet.

He's not a federal official yet. He hasn't even frankly signed most of the documents he needs to sign under the Presidential Transition Act as according to Senator Elizabeth Warren. So, and the jury has already spoken, we're not talking about having to, I mean, the whole point of that Department of Justice is so you do not have to take away the president's duties unnecessarily, take away his time and attention. Sitting for a sentence, saying helping with immunity briefings at this point is not that much time.

You have to balance that. You have to balance that with a jury verdict. You have to balance that with the fact that he's not quite president yet. So people could take different interpretations of it. I wish the DA Alvin Bragg and Justice Marchand would not take such a expansive view of the Department of Justice opinion on, I mean, the White House legal, if White House legal counsel says it

had to be dismissed. They don't really know. Nobody has, quote, spoken. No court has spoken here. And I do think it would be a real disservice to that jury for it not to happen. But here's a question about this immunity, Karen. why didn't Justice Murchon, like I understand he didn't want a sentence before the election. He said, election interference, I don't wanna do it. Why didn't he come out with his immunity decision? He was supposed to come out with that,

I think it was like September 12th or something. Why do you think he deferred that also? Do you have an opinion? You know, it's a tough, I think he it's just more Sean is somebody I know very well professionally, I've appeared before him many, many, many, many times. He is a very thoughtful judge, and he's going to take whatever time he needs to make this. I think it's a hard decision. I know it.

Pardon. So you think he didn't know yet what he wanted to do? Because to me, like the immunity thing, like, you know, he saw the Supreme Court opinion like the rest of us, right? He probably, you know, and then he got briefings on it. I don't see why he needed like, he faces difficult things all the time. I don't see why he didn't want to just decide that. I think he's taking whatever time he needs. I don't think he's doing... He's just taking the time he needs.

I don't think he's going to think about the political... He couldn't delay that till October. I mean, immunity one didn't have to be delayed till after the sentencing, until after the election. Like that's like, like now, now that he's delayed that immunity decision, you're like crunching everything together. But if you recall, if you recall, the Manhattan DA's office did a whole, I'm sure Judge, you'll decide what the right thing to do is, right? It's almost like, if you remember, there was a, they used that kind of language that was essentially saying,

we take no position and judge you'll, you know, but by doing that, you're kind of throwing, you know, and the judge kind of called them out on that and said, sorry, you're not doing that. You know, you're going to, you're essentially not taking a position and telling me all the reasons why I should delay it. But then at the end claiming why I, you know, basically saying that we take no position, but it's clear they're taking a position. I mean, I called the Manhattan DA's office, my old office,

who I love out on that position too. I was like, come on, don't be too cute by half there. And the judge wasn't gonna have it. And he basically was like, okay, you know, and I do think it's a tough decision. I do think it's a tough call. And I do think everyone's made it so political and it is what it is, right?

And he needed more. Well, it doesn't seem like he's ever had a trouble making tough calls. I mean, this whole case- He doesn't have a- I don't think he has trouble making a tough call. I mean, that's not the issue. I just think he's taking the time that it takes. Right? I don't know. I mean, to me, they don't need to be linked. I guess that's my point. They didn't need to be linked, the immunity and the sentencing. And by linking them, they have kind of hampered themselves because we are running out of time. What do you mean immunity and the sentencing? Yeah, because the immunity was on the book on a separate time. Like back in September, there were two different dates talking about

the immunity and the sentencing. So Justice Marchand could have said, I'm going to delay the actual sentencing until afterwards, but I'm going to decide this immunity issue. I'm going to decide whether or not introducing evidence regarding, while he was in the Oval Office talking to Hope Hicks, writing the check there, I'm going to decide whether or not that was allowed to be admitted at trial. He could have made that decision back in September. He could have, but what if hypothetically he is, I mean, he's going to what if he reverses the conviction? And then, you know, and then suddenly he becomes the new Jim Comey, who

interfered with the election, you know, the whole Hillary Clinton email thing. I think he really is just saying, look, you know, he genuinely this whole thing has become politicized. There's no guarantee that he's not going to reverse this conviction. I've said all along that I'm concerned about the Hope Hicks testimony. I mean, you know, the the the. What Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky then you think have had immunity? Because this is saying what is it? How is that like any different? I mean, at this point, you're I mean, you point, Monica Lewinsky was working for Bill Clinton

at the time. Are you saying anything that a president says or does to his employee while in the Oval Office is going to have immunity? That can't be the case. No, but I think it's clear that the conversation with Hope Hicks would not be allowed in. I think the conversation with Hope Hicks would not be allowed in. I think the conversation with Hope Hicks

at that point would never be allowed in in a trial. I think the only question is whether that's harmless error. That's my opinion. That's funny. I think, yeah, okay, I disagree. I think their conversation was very clearly not about his presidential duty as a president. It had to do with what he was doing before, and her.

She had a job with him before she was president too. She was part of their campaign. They were talking about what they did before he became president. So to me, I don't think it's that blanket that anything a president says or does with an employee. I don't think anything a president says or does while president by any means is 100%.

But she was a White House employee having a conversation about White House things that included, it was a communications, it was White House communications at the time, right? About this coming out and it was communications about how we're gonna talk about this at the time. And then he also says, gee, I'm glad this didn't come out for the election. But the communication was about White House communication. Like to me, it's clear that that is evident.

Just to me, the way I view this is- Well, maybe part of it. Yeah, I guess to me, the- That wouldn't- The conversation to me under this new law will not come in in a future trial if there ever was one. And I can tell you right now, Judge Marshawn would rule that.

The question is, was Josh Stein glass's summation, this prosecutor, when he summed up and said, Michael Cohen, don't rely on him. He's unreliable. There's so much evidence here. You don't have to worry about him. You know, you can decide this without Michael Cohen. In fact, look at, you know, because the whole thing about making this

from a misdemeanor to a felony was about whether or not this was to influence the election. And Josh Stein glass said over and over and over again, we know this was because of the conversation with Hope Hicks. Like, I don't know that this is harmless error. So that's the analysis. And I'm worried that he that the judge would have said, you know, I'm reversing this, which could influence the election and he could have won.

And everyone's going to blame Judge Machan and say, no, that's the reason he won because he interfered with the election, not that he would have won anyway. So I'm actually glad he didn't do it, frankly, because I think it's such a tough call and there was no guarantee on how it goes, there's still no guarantee. And so to me, the best case scenario is that the OLC allows them to press pause for four years

and then we can deal with it then. That's my feeling, because I do want it to get sentenced in this case, but who knows? I think it should happen before. Sentence and defer the, if he ends up getting sentenced, defer the sentencing. I think that maybe part of the conversation with Hope Hicks, but I think when they're talking about what they did to interfere with that election and that's what he's referring to in his summation, that isn't part of his presidential powers and duties.

That is part of him as a candidate. So even if maybe some of her testimony would have been not allowed, I do think she testified to stuff he said that was referring to their conspiracy basically of how to help get him elected. So yeah. Well, this is, you know, I just wish he would have, would make a decision one way or the other. I think it's an important thing for the law. I mean, I agree with you. It is important. And I wish, I mean, if you

would, but I kind of don't, because I want, I, what I don't want is him to reverse it. I want him to, I want him to, I want OLC to say, I want OLC to say, Oh, no, you can press pause for four years and make him take office while he's out on bail, not money bail, but he's out on bail and a convicted felon. That's what I'm hoping. We can always refer to it like that. But what am I like, you know, who am I? I would hate for him to go and have his that the Mar-a-Lago case dismissed this case reversed, you know, this case reversed. It would really, it would really, he's the luckiest person on the whole planet, unfortunately. Unfortunately for all of us,

because he frankly is making a mockery of our justice system in so many ways, right? He's just the mere discussion that he's gonna appoint Matt Gaetz. It's almost like an fu to to all of us as lawyers and as as people who try to do the right thing and people who try to be ethical just that he would even that that's his pick is such a huge just middle finger to to justice and the justice system and to what he thinks of of, you know, all of this

and that's that's just really, really, again, here I go negative again, and I apologize, but that's just, you know, it can be a little bit frustrating. Anyway, Salty is gonna kill me if I don't call to our last ad break. So we're gonna just quickly go to our next ad break. Lumi is a great alternative to regular drugstore deodorant and it's my go-to all over whole body deodorant

that's safe to use anywhere in your body. You can use it under your arms, under your boobs, in your thigh folds, belly button, your butt crack and all the other nether regions and your feet. It's created by an OBGYN who saw firsthand how normal body odor was being misdiagnosed and mistreated. It's clinically proven to block odor all day and control odor for up to 72 hours.

Lumideodorant has so many product options, whether it's their solid stick deodorant, whether it's their sweat control deodorant or their spray deodorant, and all products are baking soda free and paraben free, pH balanced. That means it's safe to use below the belt. Choose from a variety of fresh, bright scents like lavender, sage, clean tangerine or toasted coconut. And Lumi's starter pack is perfect for new customers because it comes with a solid stick deodorant,

a cream tube deodorant, two free products of your choice and free shipping. So as a special offer for listeners, all customers get 15% off all Lume products with our exclusive code. That's right, not just new customers, but returning ones as well. So if you combine the 15% off with the already discounted starter pack, that equals over 40% off their starter pack. Use code LEGALAF for 15% off your first purchase at lumie.com. That's code LEGALAF at lumiedeodorant.com. Please support our show.

Tell them we sent you. Smell fresher, stay drier, and boost your confidence from head to toe with Lumie. Do you need a break from the crowded stores and endless gift lists? Restore your zen and embrace the natural power of cannabis this holiday season with VIA. Whether you're enjoying a quiet evening at home

or embracing the festive cheer, VIA's premium THC and THC-free gummies will help you find your perfect holiday balance. VIA is well renowned for their award-winning THC and THC-free gummies and vapes, THCA flower, soothing topicals, and calming drops. All crafted with the highest quality hemp sourced from trusted, independently owned American farms.

And the best part? Viya legally ships to nearly all states in the U.S. in discrete packaging directly to your door with a worry-free guarantee. No medical card required. Their Cloud9 relief gummies help me unwind and relax after a long stressful grind of a day and help me maximize my sleep. So if you're 21 plus, check out our link to Vaya's website in our description and use code LegalAF for 15% off.

Unlock the power of nature with Vaya's organic and vegan hemp extracts. Perfect for relaxation and rejuvenation. Vaya is the only lifestyle hemp brand. They use compounds found in hemp along with active plant extracts to create products, each with a specific effect in mind. Whether you want to get better sleep, ease anxiety, enhance your mood, or just relax. They have something for you. They also have zero THC products. And if THC isn't for you, you can still take advantage of their CBD line with products designed for sleep, focus, and energy that will keep you glowing all year long. Their products range from zero milligrams to a mg of THC, so these guys have you covered,

whether you're looking to microdose or enjoy more potent effects. The THC-A flower strains are grown with care and rigorously tested to ensure the highest quality, free from harsh pesticides or nasty chemicals. Over a half a million customers served, farmed and crafted with care in the United States. This holiday season, gift yourself some peace of mind. If you're 21 plus, check out the link to Viya in our description and use the code Legal AF to receive 15% off. After you purchase, they ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them that we sent you. This holiday season, enhance your everyday with fire.

People often say they are surprised to learn that I'm 58 years old and I'm a grandmother. Well, I attribute that to my skincare routine because I am always trying to have younger healthier looking skin. So one skin is a cream that I put on my face every single day. It has a proprietary OS1 peptide, which is the first ingredient proven to switch off the damage senescent cells that cause lines, wrinkles, and thin, crepey skin. It's free from over 1,500 chemicals and preservatives that can make your skin red, irritated, itchy, and it's really great for sensitive skin. It's dermatologist tested and

approved by independent testing platforms like SkinSafe. So it was founded and led by an all- woman team of skin longevity scientists. OneSkin's products are backed by extensive lab and clinical data to validate their efficacy and safety on all skin types. They've got over 6300 five star reviews for their full line of face, body, sun and travel size products. OneSkins multi-purpose products prove you don't need a complicated routine to achieve healthier skin, the cleaner that you keep your skin and use it and put these topical supplements on they can be used with other products or treatments and they easily fit into your current skincare routine which is what I've done. So OneSkin, the world's first longevity company for skin focuses on the cellular aspects of aging.

It keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. For a limited time only you can try OneSkin with a 15% off code using LegalAF at oneskin.co. That's 15% off oneskin legal AF at oneskin.co. That's 15% off oneskin.co with legal AF. After you purchase, they'll ask you, were you heard about it? Please support this show and tell them we sent you. Go to oneskin.co.

There's no M at the end, it's not.com. Thank you, Oneskin. All right, Dina, we're back. Thank you for that spirited debate on the evidence, the Manhattan D.A. case. I mean, you know, it's funny, we're going to be those people who it's like, you know, who are going to be debating this till the end of time, even though the case is over, you know, it's like people are going to be like, it's over, it's done, he's president.

Why are you still focusing on this? And I don't know, because it's not fair. You know, it's one of those things that you just have to... Anyway, but I appreciate so much that your perspective and your viewpoint, and I appreciate you so much being here and substituting for Michael Popok and that you're willing to engage in this kind of discussion and debate. And this is the kind of thing people should be able to do, right? Have these discussions and disagree and not suddenly everybody get an arguments and, you know, like it's just this is the way life should be.

Right. You should be able to have a have a spirited discussion and debate and and still walk away as friends and respect each other, which is which is how I feel about you. So my gosh, of course. So but let's turn to let's turn to Rudy Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani. Like this story just is one that I can't help but just I look back to 9-11. And, you know, I'm I live in lower Manhattan. I was there that day. I have I have my own 9-11 story that was very traumatic and difficult

and all of that, the way so many do. And and Rudy Giuliani was really America's mayor, but he was our mayor who helped us through such a difficult time. I mean, just really was the person who we all looked to as the leader that we needed in that moment. And to see him, what he has become is so awful and so terrible and so just kind of disgusting actually,

that I just feel like we have to talk about it. And look, he had a mixed reputation back then because he was somebody who was very aggressive. He was an aggressive prosecutor. He was the United States Attorney for the Southern District And he had a very aggressive kind of run people over. He did not rule with a velvet glove, as they say. He was definitely someone who had a lot of casualties in his wake, but he was strong. He was considered strong and a leader and everybody respected.

And I don't know, a lot of people are saying, maybe this is what, this is who he was all along. Right. And and he's really just kind of fallen from grace in a big way. But he's also just really horrible person. I mean, what he's doing and has done to to this mother daughter duo, Seamus and Ruby Freeman, who are true public servants who were literally just trying to help out in Georgia and be poll watchers and poll workers. And he said the worst things about them and really destroyed their life in a huge way.

And they had death threats, they had to move, they I mean, just really horrific things happened to them. And if you remember, they were, they brought a defamation lawsuit against him and won $150 million judgment, and he has to pay that money, right? You have when you when you have a judgment against you like that, you have to pay up. And in order to avoid that, he goes and files bankruptcy. He files for bankruptcy in New York, actually. And so he's got these two court cases, one in Washington, D.C., in front of Beryl Howell.

That was the defamation case. And as part of the defamation case, he filed a... He signed a consent decree where he agreed to never defame them again, which of course on his podcast, he has gone on to continue to defame them. So I think that Judge Howell in Washington is potentially going to hold them in contempt for that. But he's also got this bankruptcy proceeding in front of Judge Lyman in in New York, where he's trying to avoid having to deal with giving over his assets to Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss. Now, he's already given over some he gave over his New York apartment that's worth maybe, I don't know, five or six or seven million dollars.

Not nothing, but it's not so long way to 150 million. He after showing up to vote in a Mercedes convertible that once belonged to an old Hollywood celebrity, I can even remember now who he as kind of an FU to them without turning it over to them. He finally turns it over to them

kicking and screaming and a few other things he's turned over as well. But there's a couple of things he has not turned over his his his World Series Yankee rings that he has. He says he gave to his son, even though he's been working where seen wearing them since and his apartment that he has in Florida.

Now, Florida, I think, is the only state in the country that has something called a homestead law where something is your primary residence and you declared it as such before a judgment, then that's judgment proof. You can't take someone's home. And so there's this question out there about whether or not it is, whether it is his primary residence or a secondary residence.

And so there was a hearing in federal court to discuss whether or not to hold a hearing or to talk about the future hearing about this issue. Right. So it was like a scheduling conference kind of. Right. And Rudy lost his mind. And how do we know he lost his mind? First was the sketch artist. You always know how you're doing based on how the sketch artist is sketching you. My husband is a trial lawyer. Look at that. Look at that sketch artist. You know, they're artists and it's a real art to capture someone's not just what they look like, but their emotions, what's going on, you know, kind of it's a true art form. And, you know, my husband is a trial

lawyer. Sometimes, you know, he had he had this one trial that I'm not gonna mention, but it was very unpopular. It was very public trial, but a very unpopular trial. And the sketches of him were just, my husband's very handsome, in my opinion. We've been married a very long time, and I think he's extremely handsome. And the sketch artists did not capture, clearly hated him. I was like, sketch artists don't like you. So yeah, because it was the way they were clearly hated him. I was like, I was like, sketchers don't like you.

So yeah, because it was it was the way they were sketching him. And you know, it was it's it's you can tell kind of the mood in the courtroom or how it's going based on on on how they're sketching you, frankly. And and that sketch. This was a scheduling conference. That should have been nothing. That should have been kind of an easy going, not that big of a deal. But he apparently was screaming

at the judge, yelling at this judge, and really just being totally inappropriate. I mean, Dina, have you ever seen anything like that in federal court? State court, maybe, but federal court is a very different place. You do not behave like that in federal court, right? And then on top of that, he walked outside and gave a press conference where he clearly is, you know, goes to Donald Trump's tanning salon because they all look the same now with the same, you know, orange complexion. And he goes outside and, you know, let's play the clip. It was, it's turned into a meme, but it's terrible. But let's play the clip. Reality is I have no cash. It's all tied up.

So right now, if I wanted to call a taxi cab, I can't do it. I don't have a credit card. I don't have a checking account. I have no place I can go take cash out, except the little bit that I saved, and it's getting down to almost nothing. I have a business. I can do business expenses, but I'm very careful about that,

because God forbid I should make a mistake between a personal and a business expense. Unlike Hunter Biden, I go to jail right away. I mean, you know, so, so terrible. I mean, it's just, it's kind of pathetic. Honestly, it's pathetic and it's pathetic. And this is something that, that Trump can't save him for from, you know, he can't, he, right.

He can't pardon them. This is civil. This is a civil judgment. And so, you know, anything, but the question is going to be, is he going to be held in contempt for defaming Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss again? But I don't know. What do you, tell me your thoughts on Rudy. Yeah.

I mean, what I thought when I, you know, you see him unraveling before us, that the lack of power and control he has over the process is just making him more desperate, right? I think a judge had to like mute him another time. Is this maybe the only guardrail we have in the next Trump administration? Is people like him were so willing to lie for Trump, commit crimes for Trump, and Trump himself may not have been held to account, but a lot of the rest of them are, right? I mean, John Eastman lost his law license, Rudy Giuliani is losing everything, the Mark Meadows and the other co-defendants still have Georgia and Arizona.

It's the only thing. If you are in Trump's circle right now, and you want to go out and do the same thing that Rudy Giuliani did, you see there is a consequence. And like you said, Trump can't save him from it. I think there's probably a lot of people in his circle who don't want to be Rudy Giuliani. It might be the literal only guardrail we have at this time,

because we are seeing a major fall of grace. And from the top, when you lie repeatedly and you lose in court, like this happens. It may be happening to somebody so publicly, but it happens to everyday people too. That is just part of the justice system and he can't handle it. He can't handle having an equal treatment under the law,

let's say against him. Yeah, and Trump doesn't seem to have loyalty. Like he values loyalty towards him, right? When like that that woman who the the good news woman I forgot her name, the she's like 33 years old, like the human printer that like only prints good news and hands it to him because that's what he likes to see, you know, he's giving her a position and you know, loyal to him, he gives them positions but if they fall from grace, he walks away.

He doesn't like losers. He doesn't like losers. Yeah, he doesn't take anyone take him down with them. And so, you know, you start you're starting to see rumblings in, in Boris Epstein, who's another one of his lawyers, who's been a loyalist by his side. And really someone I think he was, I think he's one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Jack Smith case. I mean, he's really right there.

But apparently, Elon Musk and he are a little bit, it's not a bromance. We're seeing that there's a little trouble in paradise and Trump is choosing his new first buddy So, you know, we'll see it. We'll see if he remains loyal or whatever after after the fact It's just a very interesting world he's gonna turn on so many of them like he has so many in the past and At the end of the day, we'll see we'll see who's last man or woman standing. But Rudy Giuliani is exhibit A of what happens.

And yet the crazy thing is they still stay loyal to him. I mean, just hopefully they will think twice about doing the same things. I mean, we saw it with Fox. They did correct a little bit when you know, when Smartmatic, there were some lies brewing before the election and they did come out and correct it. You know, when you have to pay almost a billion dollars, you're going to do it. You know, there may not be people so willing to lie and defame others like Rudy Giuliani did. And frankly, the prosecutions around his co-deferents haven't quite happened yet either. You know,

if Arizona goes and Georgia goes and they end up behind bars, that is a deterrent. Nobody as loyal as they wanna be to Trump. They have a line, some people may not want to completely forsake their own life for it. It's just everything is, look at how long this is taking, right? I mean, even here, the fact that we're talking about statements he made four years ago, it just takes a long time. And so I think that's why it feels like nothing has

happened. Nobody wants to change. But if we see George in Arizona starting to lock people up, like Mark Meadows, I think that will be, there will be a chilling effect from that. there will be a chilling effect from that. I hope so, because so many people really like me, you know, and you and so many others, like, we try so hard to do the right thing in general in life. It's so important. And it's so frustrating when you see people who really just don't play by the rules and who thinks that we're suckers, because we do play by the rules, you know, we're suckers because we do play by the rules, you know, and they think they get over because and to them it's like good for me, I got over, you're the sucker, you know, I got away with it. Like they value that and they think that that's

actually a good thing and that's something and to me I still think being a good person is more important than necessarily winning, you really, really do. Hopefully those values will mean something again at some point, but right now they don't seem to. And as you said, Dina, he doesn't like people who lose. Isn't that why he didn't like John McCain? Talk about it. He didn't like John McCain because John McCain was captured. He's like, yeah, he's a loser. He got captured. He's a bad, he's bad at being in the military. Like, are you kidding me? And yet people in the military vote for him. Right. I just don't understand it. Yeah. That's going to take a whole other show Yeah, but that's going to take a whole other show for us to understand the insanity and all the many layers.

It's not even just insanity. There's so many layers on it. But I think that it's just a reminder that Trump, although he can control a lot, he doesn't control everything. He doesn't control the civil law. He doesn't control state prosecutors. And they will end up becoming more powerful in these next times, because frankly, I'm sure there will be more people who try to either break the law or be negligent or liable

in some ways, like Rudy Giuliani. So that's what we get to watch for is kind of, you know, I think that there's some people who think that Trump has no check anymore, right? That there is even with the Supreme Court, like the Supreme Court didn't give immunity to all the co-conspirators or accessories, right? And it's actually quite hard to plan something criminal, as you know, as a former criminal attorney by yourself, right? There always is like a group in the Supreme Court didn't grant immunity to everybody. So I think we have to realize that although as president, he has a lot of power,

there is still a lot of law that can and will check him. And there's a, you know, I mean, the state attorney general of California, he said he has been preparing, based on Trump's stated agenda, he's been preparing lawsuits that California can file since May. That was his plan B. So there's going to be a lot of people ready, and then we're going to finally see some of these prosecutions from the 2020 that's going to come out at the same time as these other lawsuits kind of being more proactive to stop it.

So there's still, you know, we should be grateful right now that we have a system where the federal government and the state government share power. You know, that's, we're flipping. That's another place where the parties are flipping, right? The Democrats used to really count on the federal government because you couldn't count on states protecting civil rights because there were so many states that wouldn't.

But now we're grateful for the system of states because it means that Trump won't be able to control everything. It's really true, and you're so right about that. And it's another one of the geniuses of the Founding Fathers. They created federalism. It was all about not concentrating power in any one place. And, you know, it was even at the federal level, you check some balances with the three branches of government, and then you have the check of independent states, right? And so it really is something that, thank God God we have because what do they say? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And all of those cliches that you hear about, but somehow they are coming true all under Donald Trump. Well, Dina, we have reached the end of another midweek episode of Legal AF. Thank you so much for being here on this night before Thanksgiving. We have a tradition on the midweek where Michael Popok always gives me the last word and I always don't love being put on the spot, but now I come to anticipate it and I always try to end it with something positive. So since you're the one feeling more positive today, I would love to give you that honor

and have you give the last word of this night before Thanksgiving. I think less positive as like refocus. Refocus, like I said, the intention about being informers and being informed. And also the night before Thanksgiving, honestly, if we're all able to listen and talk to each other and have that kind of good health, then we're winning the game.

Life has many facets. Life has many ups and downs. Life can be really hard and it can be really beautiful. And maybe tomorrow we get to just appreciate, you know, whatever little things in our life, you know, are good and unique to us and just enjoy it. Take a pause. The chaos of Trump will continue at some point

and maybe tomorrow we all get to give ourselves that break, the Thanksgiving break. I'm kind of terrified of that feeling of you ate too much. Knowing that that's coming tomorrow, I'm like, oh my God. But yeah, it is coming tomorrow. Anyway, you can do it. But the food's so good, the food's so good, God. But yeah, it is coming tomorrow. Anyway, you can ask me. The food's so good, Gary. It's worth it.

Happy Thanksgiving to you. Happy Thanksgiving to all the Legal AFers, the Midas Midis, everybody out there who tuned in tonight. And until we meet again, Happy Thanksgiving. By the end, you'll be standing there, wishing you could high five that truck. That's what we call being Tundra Struck. It's time to be impressed.

It's time to Toyota. Lease a 2024 Tundra 4x4 Croomax SR from $129 weekly for 40 months at 2.39% with $5,300 down. Visit shoptoyota.ca or your local Ontario Toyota dealer today.