Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump LOSES Key DEFENSE in Criminal Case, HE’S TOAST

Episode Date: December 3, 2023

Trial attorneys and co-anchors Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok are back with a new episode of the weekend edition of the LegalAF podcast. On this episode, they debate: the future ramifications in Trump’s criminal and civil cases of the DC appeals court ruling that there is no presidential immunity for Trump to avoid the civil suit brought by Capitol and DC Metro police and members of congress for his role in the Jan6 riot; a federal criminal trial judge finding that Trump has no “presidential immunity” from the Special Counsel’s election interference DC indictment; a NY appellate court reversing course and re-instating Judge Engoron’s two gag orders against Trump and his lawyers in the Civil Fraud case, as Trump starts bashing the Judge’s wife and the trial judge sets oral argument in January; a new suit claims that Trump’s favorite Alina Habba was used to “groom” a female employee of his Bedminster golf course to coerce her into a settling a sex harassment case without consulting any attorney; and so much more from the intersection of law, politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! RHONE: Head to https://rhone.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF to save 20% off your entire order! AURA FRAMES: Visit https://Auraframes.com/LegalAF and get $30 off their best-selling frames with promo code LEGALAF HIGHLAND TITLES: Go to https://HighlandTitles.com and use the discount code LEGALAF25 to receive a generous 25% savings. SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

on the same points vet app. The platform that gives you everything you need. You know what to do. Bet on it. Point Spets Sportsbook and Casino. Metrolinx and Crosslinx are reminding everyone to be careful as Eglinton Crosstown LRT train testing is in progress.

Please be alert, this trains can pass at any time on the tracks. Remember to follow all traffic signals. Be careful along our tracks and only make left turns where it's safe to do so. Be alert, be aware, and stay safe. At Salesforce, we're all about asking more of AI. Questions like, where's the data going? Is it secure? Are you sure? Are you sure you're sure? Get answers you can trust from Salesforce at AskMoreVi.com.

For your holiday season, Real Canadian Superstore has more legendary ways to save than any other major grocery. Until December 6th, get a free Jumbo Point Settle when you spend $300 or more. Plus, PC Optima members can get select PC or no-name cheese at $3.99. Conditions apply, so see fly for details. Your business has grown fast. From opening your first location, to planning an expansion in no time.

And with your business platinum card from American Express, you can access spending power and payment flexibility to fuel your growth. Sarah, the contractor's here with the plans. American Express, don't do business without it. Terms and conditions apply if it amx.ca slash business platinum. Defendant Donald Trump's four-year service as Commander-in-Chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens. No man in this country, not even

former presidents, are so high that they are above the law. Judge Tanya Chutkin, the federal judge in Washington, DC, overseeing the March 4th, 2024 trial date in the prosecution of Donald Trump for trying to overthrow the 2020 election. That case, of course, being prosecuted by special counsel, Jack Smith, and in that order that I just read, Judge Tanya Chutkin, denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss the indictment on constitutional grounds and on the basis of absolute presidential immunity, we're going to discuss that holding in Washington, DC. Also in Washington, DC, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Donald Trump does not have presidential immunity

in civil cases. So we go from Judge Tonya Chutkinson the criminal case this Affirmed a lower court ruling the DC circuit court of appeals did affirmed a lower federal court ruling in the civil case brought by DC police and members of Congress against Donald Trump for civil Damages and you'll recall that federal judge Amit Maita damages and you'll recall that federal judge Amit Mehta rejected Donald Trump's argument that he was entitled to absolute immunity in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. So that Donald Trump's behavior on January 6th was campaign activity. It was part of a quote unquote stop the steel process that Donald Trump was engaged in

spreading these deranged election lies that has nothing to do with the roles and responsibilities of a president of the United States. It falls outside even the outer perimeters that could be subject to immunity in civil cases. And then in Washington, D.C., a lot going on in D.C., Donald Trump filed a motion to compel all of these records that have nothing to do with the Washington, D.C. federal case. And in it, Donald Trump is saying that he wants documents regarding our national intelligence threat assessments regarding Russian interference with the elections. I want to hear from Popok and what that is all about. We go from Washington, DC, and we go to New York where the stay of the gag order imposed

by Judge Arthur and Goron has been reimposed on Donald Trump. You'll recall that there was a temporary administrative stay by the Appellate Division on the gag order. The gag order is now back in effect. So what does Donald Trump do? There after starts attacking judge and Gauron's wife since Judge and Gauron's wife is not subject to the limited gag order. We'll see if that changes. Also, Donald Trump's lawyers tried to, I think, just engage in some game playing during their case earlier in the week where they tried to call the financial monitor, retired Judge Barbara Jones as a witness in the case. Interestingly, not only did

Judge Angora on reject that, but shortly after retired judge Barbara Jones submitted one of her periodic reports to the court as part of being a financial monitor, telling the judge that there was about $40 million in previously unreported transfers to her from the Trump organization that was identified. Then I want to talk about this disturbing lawsuit out of New Jersey and Bedminster, where a employee at the Bedminster Golf Club is alleging that she was the victim of sexual abuse there by her supervisor and that Alina Haba pretended to befriend her in order to get this victim of sexual abuse to fire her lawyer and to enter into an NDA with the Trump organization as part of a severance agreement

not to sue the Trump organization and the victim in this matter says that it was a pattern and practice of grooming by Alina Habba in trying to silence her, just asking for declaratory relief to overturn the NDA and to overturn the severance agreement. That and more here on legal AF. Today is Michael Popock's birthday. Happy birthday, Michael Popock, from all the legal AFers out there. Everybody, you can throw your Michael Popock emojis up with your birthday cakes. Happy birthday, Michael Popock, turning 35 years old today. Yeah, it's my 23rd anniversary of my 35th birthday. Very excited by that. Thank you, partner, for bringing that up.

It was a great year. It's a great year for the Midas Touch, great year for the Midas Mighty, great year for the network for me personally and looking forward to an amazing 2024 for all involved. And we got a lot to do today. We were talking before the show about these kind of micro or incremental rulings and what makes them interesting

in our analysis of the law, politics, and justice intersection. And for us, as log geeks, and we hope we bring that passion and then enthusiasm to the podcast and to the hot takes, is that for us as log geeks and we hope we bring that passion and an enthusiasm to the podcast and to the hot takes is that for us as they're not incremental, they are really momentum, monumental, they are important and they are the links in the necessary links in the chain to justice. We talked a lot about when you and I founded the show many years ago, when I was your age and you were fresh out of school four years ago about how we were going to do the content

here, what we were going to talk about, and would there be enough to talk about? And we said that the wheels of justice move slowly, but they move in the right direction of the archipistry. And I think that's what we're seeing. We're seeing now, as we've said before, 2020, 2020, 2021 was the year of the investigation. 2022 was the year of the indictment. 2023 was the year of the beginning to look a lot like trials. And 2024 is going to be the trials.

There's been some along the way. There's been some civil things. And for the naysayers out there, not among our audience, but just in general, Trump's Teflon Don. He's not. Teflon Don is not, there's no such thing as Teflon. And you get 91 felony counts against you. You lose the civil rape and defamation case. And you've got three separate prosecutors, attorney generals, and then a group of attorney generals around the country investigating you with cooperating witnesses that used to be your lawyers. That's not the definition of Teflon Thon in any way, shape or form.

And we said, just be patient that we would see appellate rulings and trial rulings that are supported by appellate rulings to bring what is amounted to an out of control former president to justice. And I think that's going to be the topic on our show today, as we go through each of the matters, even in its own way, the one that you mentioned about the golf course and how out of control he operates his businesses links back to the civil fraud case in New York. And you think about it.

Of course, we've been talking about the cases in Washington, DC, in New York, and the Southern District of Florida. You know, but there are investigations now going on across the country as well, which you alluded to with other attorney generals in district attorneys in various states. Also looking into these fake electors, Donald Trump's involvement. And for example, earlier this week in Georgia, as part of the terms of probation for Ken Chesbro, who has pled guilty to his involvement in the Georgia criminal Rico case, Judge Scott McAfee revised the terms of the probation for Mr. Chesbro so that Ken Chesbro can cooperate with prosecutors in Arizona and Nevada where there are now criminal investigations

as well. And of course we know there are criminal investigations and criminal cases, criminal cases pending in Michigan. So as the Teflon Don image is being shown to be a complete bogus BS head fake of fascism if you will to your point there, Pope, I think other prosecutors are now getting equally emboldened to make sure that they are prosecuting the law to the fullest effect as we go to Washington, D.C., it's worth mentioning one of the other events that took place on Friday. There was a lot going on in D.C. And where you had George Santos expelled from the House of Representatives. And the only reason why I want to bring that up is first and foremost, you had all of

the Maga Republican leadership try to save George Santos. The majority of Republicans voted against expelling George Santos. It took the Democrats joined by about 105 other Republicans to reach that two-third number to expel George Santos. But why was leadership so keen on saving George Santos? Because George Santos has been indicted on 23 separate charges. 68 fewer charges, then the leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump. And we're going to get into some of those cases

involving Donald Trump's charges. Trump has 91 charges pending against him. So let's talk about presidential immunity, Michael Popak. And just the concept of immunity in general, immunity can be created by statute, by law, that prevents lawsuits or cases from being brought against specific people. I'll give you an example. In the Constitution, there's speech or debate clause immunity, which prevents members of Congress from being brought into court or from being sued for any of their conduct relating to legitimate legislative activity. Also while there is no express language about the immunity of presidents in the Constitution at all, the Supreme Court in a series of cases dating back for decades and being kind of

synthesized in the Nixon era and then refined with some cases involving Bill Clinton, developed a doctrine stating that based on the structure of the Constitution, there's a doctrine called presidential immunity. That the founders, that the drafters of the Constitution must have intended implicitly within the Constitutional regime that if a President is sued civilly that could harm their ability to function and to do the jobs that they're tasked with under the Constitution. So you've got this case, Fitzgerald versus Nixon, which is an employment civil case for retaliation, wrongful termination by Nixon against Fitzgerald,

where the Supreme Court said, even if engaging in retaliatory, unlawful termination of an employee may be viewed as an unlawful act that nobody would ever condone. Because it falls within the outer parameters of the responsibilities of what an executive, what a commander in chief is supposed to do hiring and firing, a president will be protected in civil cases involving lawsuits brought even in the outer parameters of presidential duties and responsibilities. Then you had a case involving Bill Clinton, Jones versus

Clinton involving conduct alleged against President Clinton. Before he was in office there, the Supreme Court said, well, clearly conduct that takes place before you're in office or after you're in office, not while you're in office, that conduct clearly should not be subject to the broad sweep of presidential immunity here. And so in the case involving individuals who were injured on January 6, DC police, capital police and members of Congress who brought the civil law suit. Another question had to be raised. Did Donald Trump's conduct on January 6th fall within the outer perimeter of their constitutional

duties, even if it was unlawful and illegal for purposes of civil case, like the Fitzgerald case involving Nixon, or isn't more like Jones V. Clinton outside of the scope of presidential immunity because he's not the president. And I want to hear your analysis there on this civil case, Popok, and how we got here. But ultimately, the reason that it's more like Jones versus Clinton, this three-judge panel, one-judge was appointed by Clinton, one judge was appointed by Obama, and one judge was appointed by Donald Trump. With those judges ultimately agreed with this, Donald Trump's conduct was in connection with campaigning, was part of his election functions.

That's outside of Article 2 that's not within the outer perimeter of what a president does. It clearly falls outside of article two that's not within the outer perimeter of what a president does. It clearly falls outside of that. But how do we get here, Popeye? But I wanted to give people a background in presidential immunity and the case law here. And then you can kind of get into the weeds here of that court analysis. And proceed. Yeah. And I think we've got an amazing, we don't normally get back to back decisions on presidential immunity,

civil and criminal, ex-president at the time in one week span, in the same location. First of all, as Judge Chuck Gensett and the other case we're going to talk about, which he found no presidential immunity to stop a criminal prosecution or indictment of Donald Trump to have his indictment dismissed. She said, and I don't know, the history of the Republic, there's never been another ex-president or president that's ever been entited. So I don't think we're going to open the floodgates as Donald Trump's lawyers like to argue, oh my God, this is the, the sky is falling.

If you allow this and you don't impose presidential immunity, all the presidents in the future in the past will have been indicted. That hasn't happened ever. So in 45 former presidents, we, you know, 44, 45 former presidents, we never had it happen. So what, what, what, this unique moment in time that you and I are standing, we're, you and I probably don't even realize, and certainly our audience doesn't yet, how unique of an event, center series of events happen just this week. You got the DC Court of Appeals as you outlined, which is the boss for Judge Chuck and ultimately, setting the precedent for the District of Columbia and all of its judges, which are really all the judges that matter now, where we talk about Donald Trump federally and anything related

to Jan 6, because it all emanates from there. And then you've got Judge Roberts, who was the, yes, he's the chief justice of the US Supreme Court, but he also has another role. He's the administrative circuit judge that sits over the DC circuit. He's the first stop on the training for an appeal

coming out of this courthouse, this courtroom that we're talking about. And I never thought it was that difficult of an analysis and certainly Judge Chucken didn't either and certainly she was buoyant and got the wind on her sail very quickly by the ruling just two days before she issued her ruling.

Both these courts were sitting on related but not identical issues as you mapped out and how you apply Nixon versus Fitzgerald and Jones versus Clinton in terms of the civil criminal, former president, ex-president, non-president, if you will. And how do you apply that under what the framers and the founding fathers wanted in terms of giving immunity at all to a person who happens to have held the title or was going to hold the title or used to hold the title of president.

And so Nixon v Fitzgerald for me just to tap on that for one more moment. I thought it was pretty clear from reading it. And in that one, as long as you said, and as this has been developed between 1980s and 1990s, in these couple of cases that you mentioned involving Nixon and Clinton, if you're inside the outer boundaries of official duty, then you have, then from civil liability for being sued not in crimes, not being indicted, being sued by somebody for damages,

you're gonna have immunity. Because we don't want our presidents, if they, we don't want our presidents to be sued for doing something that's well within, at least the boundaries of their official acts or those outer boundaries that have been established by case law that's why you and I always comment and our hot takes about judges struggling in let's say a removal statue to try to take a case from state to federal court with what are the outer boundaries like when like when the judge in Georgia turned to Mark Meadows lawyer and said, give me the outer boundaries of your client's role as the chief of staff. I need to understand them and he couldn't answer it. And there's and courts always have to figure out what is the box of official acts

and how far does that box in its boundary stretch? Because they've got to apply this case law that says if it's inside the box and it's civil and that guy was president or that person was president at the time, immunity outside the box or he wasn't president at any time during these relevant periods, probably not no immunity. Criminals a whole different thing. Even the court in the five-to-four decision in Nixon versus Fitzgerald, Supreme Court in 82 said if it's a criminal act, all bets are off, we're only talking about civil here. And then if a person is criminally indicted for something

within either an unofficial act, something outside their duties, and that's what we'll get to next, or outside of that box, or criminally doing their official duties, they're going to get nailed. They're not going to have presidential immunity. And as Judge Chutkin said in her ruling, which we'll dive into in a minute, there is no.

And the framers of the Constitution did not put in a presidential immunity clause. You can all the textualists and originalists at the Supreme Court and other court levels can go searching and go read line by line the Constitution. And there isn't, there is not a provision expressly in the Constitution to not prosecute a president, former president, ex president, current president, whatever it is. And so you got to get to the bottom of this. And it's relatively easy because the president under the Constitution has no role in the electoral process.

Does not. The Vice President does. That's back to the pressure campaign against Pence. The Vice President has a defined role in the Constitution and in other statutes passed after that in terms of the electoral vote count and presiding over the Senate for it and certifying the results of the election. The president is just a candidate. It's the candidate running against the other guy at that moment. There are many things the president has the power to do as defined by the Constitution and by Kaisla. But things related to his own election, that's called campaigning.

That's called, I want to stay in office. And now you're outside and now you're firmly in that area with no protection. You're just out in the open. That is where it's appropriate for criminal liability. So the good news for Judge Chutkin in ruling on criminal conduct of a person outside his official duties and then looking at what the framers wanted and the Federalist papers and Alexander Hamilton wanted and all the analysis that she does because she's very, very, she's, she's a, she's a, um, a genius, really. I'm really impressed with her writing, her analysis, her research, um, how she

expresses herself in her opinions. It's really, it's really a thing of beauty to watch as a lawyer watching a judge, uh, somebody who I think's on the short list for the Supreme Court, as I've said before. And judge Mehta, who's the trial judge, on the other case involving whether Donald Trump, because of his actions that he took inside or outside of those official duties, while president, that led to the bodily harm,

injury, maming, and death of Capitol Police, House of Representative members, and others, where he's being sued civilly under the KKK act. Yes, it's an act that it was a statute that was passed during reconstruction to ensure that people's civil liberties are not being violated and from a civil standpoint. Judge Mehta made that ruling two years ago, that the immunity would not, there was no immunity civilly for Donald Trump to avoid being sued because he was campaigning and he was clearly outside the outer boundaries of his official duties as a president, however,

you define them. Now, I don't know why the appellate, you know, I want to hear your opinion. I don't know why the court of appeals sat on that for so long. The case just moved along at the trial level. There was no stay in place. And the maid was like preparing the case for trial. I mean, he's talked about having a trial in 2024 on it. And then finally, after a lot of press over the last week or two media coverage saying, where's that order? Why are they still sitting on that? It's already returning into January here.

Why isn't that a pellet court ruled those three people? A lot of head scratching about it. Suddenly, it popped out earlier this week, and hours later, Judge Chuckkin put the finishing touches on her decision about whether criminal conduct of a president in this context and what's been charged in the indictment, which is not first amendment protected speech, but as alleged, but is criminal conduct outlined in paragraph after paragraph in excruciating date detail, excruciating for Donald Trump in paragraph 10 of the indictment, paragraph three of the indictment listening the unindicted Co-conspirators and all the things of conduct elements of conduct not speech

That they did and the judge started the whole judge Chuck and said okay I've got the ruling that just came out in the case involving the suit against the civil suit against Donald Trump Which said he doesn't have presidential immunity because he's a campaigner and chief only at that point He's outside his official duties. I think it was even easier for Judd even if that ruling let me put it this way Even if the DC ruling had not come out hours before she issued her ruling I don't think anything at all would have changed in her decision making It just gave her one more piece of steel to undergird her analysis and to show where she was right and her bosses said so.

Which so for you, I know you're going to you're going to cover Chuck in more too, but why do you think the what was with the delay for two years almost with the appellate court on the civil issues. I think there was a lot of cases where this had an impact. There was a lot of consolidated cases. I mean, you had also, I mean, Judge Amit Mehta made this ruling. It was, and remember the ruling by Amit, we covered it. I think it was in February of 2022, Popeye.

And it was a 112 page order with massive implications on this doctrine of presidential immunity, lofty implications on the scope of presidential powers in civil cases. I want to emphasize that again. In civil cases, analyzing, and we did it in an abbreviated version here for legal AF Nixon versus Fitzgerald Jones V Clinton the interplay between them and so the briefing here

took a significant period of time there was a lot of amicus briefs that were filed friend of court briefs that were filed here a lot of voices wanting to have their own positions heard. And I just think the court had to come out with a very thoughtful order. It was an interesting composition of the panel here and how they kind of grasp with it. I mean, you had a Trump judge on the panel, Judge Katzis, who if Judge Katzis is holding that there's no immunity in this setting, that's probably the most devastating news for Donald Trump. This was a 3-0 opinion with Judge Rogers, a senior circuit judge, and Judge Sirri Vasson, who's the...

Sorry, I didn't to interrupt, go ahead. No, and judge, Sriniv Vasson, who's the chief judge. So you have the chief judge of the DC circuit. You have a Trump judge, and then you have a Clinton judge. That's why to me, this ruling is extra devastating. And when we talk about what's going on in the Washington DC ruling by Judge Tanya Chutkin, the ruling by the DC Circuit, to me, even gets layered on and provide special counsel, Jack Smith, with kind of double or triple protection, if you will, of avoiding this case

being derailed before this March 2024 trial date. I want to discuss that and I want to discuss obviously more and get into the weeds, but I want to take our first quick break of the day. This is Michael Popok from Legal AF. If you like me, you understand the pains of choosing what to wear. Let's face it, most clothes are uncomfortable or too tight or are never actually the size you really are. Not to mention the annoyance of trying to put a good outfit together. And when you do have a good fit, you can only wear it for a few hours before you have an important meeting or dinner. And then you've got to change all over again.

Everyone wants to dress the best and look good at all times because, frankly, it's a confidence booster. So here's the deal. Men's closets were due for a radical reinvention and Ron stepped up to the challenge. Ron's commuter collection is the most comfortable, breathable, and flexible set of products known to man. And here's why. Ron helps you get ready for any occasion with the commuter collection, which offers the world's most comfortable pants, dress shirts, one quarter zips and polos. You never have to worry about what to wear when you have the Ron Commuter collection. Ron's comfortable for-a-way stretch fabric provides breathability and flexibility that leaves

you free to enjoy whatever life throws your way, from your commute to work to your 18 holes of golf. It's time to feel confident without the hassle. With Ron's Rackle release technology, Rackle's disappears as you stretch and wear the products, it's that easy. And with its gold fusion anti-odor technology, you'll be smelling fresh and clean all day long, and on top of that, Rones 100% machine washable, so you can ditch the dry cleaner altogether. I absolutely love Rones. As you can see, this has truly become my go-to commuter fit, and on the legal AF podcast recordings.

We're on the move a lot, whether it's jumping from meeting to meeting or catching a flight or an important dinner, the Roan commuter collection has never let me down. The versatility and comfort of the collection is undefeated. Even after I wear it all day, I still feel super fresh because of that goal fusion anti-order technology. The commuter collection you can get you through any workday and straight into whatever comes next. Head to ron.com slash legal a f and use promo code legal a f to save 20% on your entire order.

That's 20% on your entire order when you head to our H O N E slash legal a f promo code legal a f. Find your corner office. Do you remember your first holiday ever? Probably not, but I bet your parents do. And they have the pictures to prove it probably a lot of pictures to prove it. But even if they have one or two on the wall, there's a ton they haven't seen in years.

You can put all those amazing childhood holiday photos in a place where your parents can actually see them. And or a digital frame. Look, there's sort of a famous photo in my family. Every year at Thanksgiving, when I was three and four, we'd go to my grandparents' house on the island. It was near my birthday, my birthday a few days after Thanksgiving. And there's this amazing photo of me, my mom, a birthday cake, and a turkey on Thanksgiving. It was so great people used it at my 40th birthday party. But look, I haven't seen it since. And what do you do with it?

Think aura frames. aura frames was named the number one digital frame by wire cutter, the strategist and wired. And it doesn't have to be just your pictures. In the app, you can add other members so your siblings and cousins and friends can all upload their own photos too. There's unlimited storage so you don't even have to fight over it.

Visit oraframes.com slash legal AF today and get $30 off their best selling frames. These frames sell out quickly though. So get yours before they're gone. That's a you are a frames.com slash legal a f used promo code legal a f to get $30 off their best selling frame terms and conditions apply. Welcome back to legal AF Michael Popock. I know you wanted to make a point there.

So I wanted to throw it back to you. And again, how's the birthday going today, then? Good birthday. It's still great. It's so my wife asked me, what do you want? How big of a party and having just had a wedding recently? I said, I don't want a party. I just want you, me, nice dinner in New York.

And I think we're gonna see a show tomorrow, but thanks for asking. Yeah, you wanna turn to Chuckkin? Let's turn to Chuckkin, and here's the distinction I wanna make. Yeah, do that. So in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals case, that was dealing with a civil case, right?

These were lawsuits for monetary damages against a president or former president, and the doctrines attendant to immunity in a civil case is defined by the Fitzgerald case that I mentioned and the Jones Clinton case right there. But that's civil. What really has never been tested before until Judge Chutkin, okay,

well now what happens in the criminal context to do the same doctrines of presidential immunity apply in the criminal context? And Michael Popak, how did Judge Tanya Chutkin address that and answer that? Yeah, and I thought she picked up where Nixson and Fitzgerald left off. People at home might be thinking around the country. Nixson and Fitzgerald again, different Fitzgerald, it wasn't JFK. It was the guy that's been outlined.

There was a civil servant that was sewing. But even there, they anticipated the what if. Sometimes Supreme Court cases are different than trial level courses cases because judges or the the majority decision tries to anticipate the future and Intelli graph where they may be and even though it was a closely held you know five to four decision Even Nixon v. Fritz Gerald anticipated a world of a criminal president and gave the message like the ghost of Christmas past speaking to Judge Chuckkin. So I think using what was already embedded within the analysis and the dicta of the Nixon

and Fitzgerald case, combined with her own cheat of two things in her order, which again, I can't by saying that her order was masterful, I am saying that among the writings that we've seen of judges and you and I read these things for a living and for these our show and hot tick, it does stand out as being valedictorian. I mean, it was really well done and spot on and no word was wasted. It was like just efficient in its devastation, which, you know, it doesn't have to be prolics. It doesn't have to be thousands of pages to get to the bottom of the point. She was trying to accomplish two things. One, she was telling Donald Trump and his lawyers, you got to do better than what you're

doing. What? This constant refrain of the Biden administration is prosecuting its leading candidate against it in the election. It's a version of an election interference. It's completely unsupported. No, no, no, back, back up for that. No, no support for that.

You got gotta stop. And you gotta stop telling me that what I read in the indictment is to be ignored. And you'll tell me what the indictment says and how you put it through your first amendment filter. And everything in the indictment boils down for the Trump group and the Trump lawyers too. That's first amendment.

That's protected first amendment. All social media talking, making comments, going after the election results, that's all first amendment. And she's like, you got to stop. You got to read the indictment. First of all, she reminded them at the beginning two things that I love. One, Donald Trump said indictment criminal. Indicted, yeah, indicted, you know, who could be convicted

criminal. She said he's indicted in four counts, felonies, first line of the order. And then she says to him, as a trial judge looking at the indictment, I have to accept everything in the indictment as true. And my powers to dismiss an indictment are very, very limited. And so you got to show me where this privilege comes from. And it's not helpful, she's telling the Trump lawyers, to distort and create a straw man out of the allegations of the indictment, because I can read and I can go to paragraph

10 where all of the conduct, this is about conduct. This isn't about first amendment speech alone. Every crime has some sort of speech, or as I joke, we're not charging mimes with committing the crime, or mental telepathic people, like, I like you to do this, but you don't say it out loud. Every conduct has, or crime has speech, but not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. So it's like stop. Then her second thing that she did so masterfully in the motion in the order is to take apart brick by brick,

the historical and framer analysis, founding father, framer analysis of the constitution and the president and the protection of the president because they did it and they wrote in the revol, Alexander Hamilton, once in the Federalist Papers, they distorted something that Alexander Hamilton said. And she said, and you're also not only can I, there is not a presidential immunity clause in the Constitution for a good reason.

But the tyranny that our founding fathers were worried about, inditing and prosecuting a former president for crimes he committed while president is exactly what they would have expected. And then she turned to cases like Nixon v Fitzgerald. For instance, they argued as one of their fallback positions, the only way a president can be tried for crimes is through the impeachment process in the Senate. So that's ridiculous.

That's not even the plain reading of the constitution and the clause that you're citing doesn't even say that. So I don't know, you know, I guess when they write it, like you look, you and I practice law, you and I have looked at each other's writing. And if something doesn't make sense, or is inconsistent with the facts, the Constitution, the Statue we're relying on, you and I will call each other out like that's not what it says, Pope, it says this, you're misquoting it. That's not what the, that's not what that complaint says that we're up against. And so we go, you're right, because you don't want to lose credibility

with the court in easily dispatched arguments that take two seconds to knock over. You know, you want to have, because you're going to one day being in front of an appellate court, and they're going to go, that's not what the indictment says. The indictment said, and then she got a chance to outline everywhere in the indictment and all of the bad conduct from the fake electors that Donald Trump was involved with using the pressure campaign on Mike Pence, Donald Trump inserting himself into phone calls and meetings with members of the state legislator, you know, state legislator speakers of the house, that type of thing in order to try to change the outcome of the state legislator's speakers of the house, that type of thing, in order to try to change

the outcome of the election. And she said, none of that stuff, citing back to the case we just talked about at length, in the civil KKK case, and that stuff is part of your presidential powers. All of that stuff is well outside of it, and we can't live in a society. This is our concluding thought process,

or this is the, this is the line of analysis that's pulled through the entire briefing, which is we are a country of law, not men. And no one is above the law. She said that from day one, when she did the arrangement and the off the indictment and a person that can make his own law, which is what Donald Trump and say what if whether he, and say whether he's saying whether he's complying with law or not complying with law, he gets to say that because he used to be the president, that's just a fast track to the road to tyranny.

And I'm not going to allow that. And when you and I said it yesterday in a hot take, when we reported on this particular resolution, that I am convinced, I was before and I am now, that Tanya Chuck get among all of the judges that are am convinced, I was before and I am now, that Tonya Chuck get among all of the judges that are handling matters, where Donald Trump is on the other side of the V, where he's the defendant, especially in criminal matters.

Feels isn't crushed by it, but feels the weight of her responsibility and in history to get these decisions right and to make sure that the voters in November have a jury verdict, either in an either a conviction or an acquittal for Donald Trump and she's not going to let anything, including improper analysis, improper recitation of what's in the indictment, you know, claims of prosecutorial misconduct or selective prosecution or Joe Biden vendetta campaign against Donald Trump. She's not going to let any of those paper arguments get in the way of what her

poll star, which is we are going to trial in March, unless my boss is at the appellate courts telling me I'm not. And we're going to treat this case like any other with the bumpers around it, guardrails around it to protect America. So we're not surprised sitting in our seats as podcasters and doing this work that she rejected all of these and she's about to reject all of these motions that have missed the indictment and move this case towards towards the March prosecution. The question now is, with this order in place

and her analysis so eloquently laid out, the next step on the train is obviously an appeal by Donald Trump. Comment on whatever you picked up with Chuck and that you thought was really fascinating. And what do you think happens next when the next a new three judge panel, because these three judge panels rotate, they spend you, you don't get the same panel to decide all the issues.

You get a different random panel. What do you think the next three judge panel does? Do they stay the case in order to get the decision made on this immunity issue? Or do they say, that's an interesting academic issue. Continue with your trial. We'll get back to you on the immunity issue and we're ready.

What do you think happens? So ultimately, the outcome seems already determined in terms of on the substance, not on the issue of the stay, based on what the DC circuit already ruled in the civil case that we were talking about before we were talking about the criminal case. Why I said there's double protection is that judge Chutkin's ruling is based on the fact that this is a former president, this is a criminal case. If you look at the text structure and history

of the Constitution and immunity, it does not apply to criminal cases involving former presidents. It's narrow on that issue. This should be a no-brainer. But then, even if you said, Judge Chutkin, you're wrong on that. And the panel says, we think that the text structure and history provides something in the criminal context that's quasi analogous to what we see in the civil case like a Fitzgerald. The double protection I'm talking about as well, in the decision just reached by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, they said that Donald Trump's conduct is election related. That Donald Trump was trying to overthrow the results of an election, and that clearly falls outside the outer perimeter.

So Popok, substantively, I think that it's the judge, Chutkin's decision is buttressed by what the DC's circuit did. And I think that they'll agree with her that the Fitzgerald doctrine does not apply in presidential immunity. He's not applied to former presidents in criminal context. Now, on the issue of a stay, on the issue of, did this case be delayed pending adjudication on the immunity doctrine with emergency briefing? Here's the thing. This is an interlocutory appeal. And the case law is pretty clear that immunity issues are always to be determined as threshold issues before trial. So the panel is going to have to order some sort of expedited or emergency briefing, right? Because as you saw with the last case that we were talking about, Judge Amit Mehta's decision, the federal judge,

in the civil case, made that ruling in February of 2022. There wasn't a decision reached until December 2023. That becomes the key issue, Pope. And look, if I were to place a bet on it, I would say there's about an 85 to 90% chance that there is no stay or delay of the Washington DC case that I think the judiciary wants that case to go to trial. You know, the only hedge that I have is I need to see what that panel is and who that panel is. If that panel is made up of, you know, trumpers and George W. Bush and there is no countervailing voice on it,

I just don't know what that panel is going to react. So my equation changes if I know the panel, but I will say this, in the DC case that addressed the civil issues, and with their precedent established, Judge Katzis, a Trump lawyer, was one of the people who found that there was no immunity in the civil setting. That doesn't mean that Katzis would rule on the issue of a stay pending adjudication on the immunity issue. So overall, that's at least how I think about the process, but I would put it at an 85 to 90%. Let me comment on that. I agree with you about the panel, I think ultimately, though, any panel, given the most recent

precedent, is going to find an expedited way that without a stay, I agree with you that not just for Donald Trump, but for the future, the next Donald Trump, God forbid, or Trump is Donald Trump. And then similarly with the Supreme Court, first stop on that train after that ruling, just like the gag order rulings for this or that, we're still waiting on the gag order ruling for the District of Columbia.

I think it, the Supreme Court is gonna be less interested in the gag order now, if the assuming the DC court of appeals, which we are all, I'm in the 95% tile that now especially since New York just gagged him again We'll get there later a Trump that they're gonna reag him and find Tonya Chuck in Properly they're gonna so they're gonna Support her again. She's rarely overturned or vacated or reversed by the appellate court. I think the first stop of the train Could say I'm not gonna stay the case. You'll just do a normal appeal

or he turns it over to the full Supreme Court. And I think that there's at least five votes before the future of our republic to find that an indictment like this one, alleging criminal conduct of a president trying to cling to power and stop the peaceful transfer. If it can be the subject of an indictment in a criminal prosecution, I believe that's the law that five at least on the Supreme Court is going to want to set in this area following

up on the Clinton case, the Paula Jones Clinton case, and the Nixon V if it's Charles case. And I think that'll go quickly. And again, to your point, I don't think anything derails. I just don't think it's going to derail the March trial. I want to mention this about Judge Tanya Chutkin, and this is why we've been following all of the judges in Washington, DC, all of their rulings. If you go back to a legal AF that we did around, I don't know, when was the, when was the

judge Chutkin order issued November or December of 2021, you know, or around that time period, Judge Tanya Chutkin ruled back then the following. She said that presidents are not kings, and Donald Trump is not the president. He retains the right to assert that his records are privileged, but the incumbent president is the one who holds executive privilege. That was regarding the early days of the January 6th committee

when they were requesting documents in Donald Trump tried to block it claiming executive privilege. He said as a former president, he is the right to assert executive privilege. So Judge Chutkin's ruling back then in November or December of 2021, whatever that really was, November, early November, 2021, that really set the tone for the January 6th committee getting these records. And we covered Judge Tanya Chutkin doing that. So compare her language back in November 2021, presidents are not kings and plaintiff is not the president to the most recent line in this order that she says she goes, defendants four years service as commander

and chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens. No man in this country, not even the former president, is so high that he is above the law. So when we make these predictions on legal AF and on the Midas-Tetch Network about why we think the judges are going to rule certain ways, how they're thinking about the issues. It's why we track all of these decisions because you can interlay exactly what she was saying back then and her intellectual and constitutional consistency with the ruling that she just

made on Friday, rejecting Donald Trump's claim of absolute presidential immunity. She also rejected Donald Trump's claim of other constitutional immunities Donald Trump tried to assert the first minute do process and double jeopardy as defenses and she just said And all of those that they're basically frivolous as well want to go from Washington DC pop up though to New York I want to go from Washington, D.C. Pope, I'll go to New York and discuss what's the latest on the gag order in New York. Of course, Judge Engor on back on October 3rd,

then on October 20th, and later on, later in October. Impose this gag order on Donald Trump, not to attack his principal law clerk. And then when Donald Trump's lawyers later in October started attacking the law clerk in the courtroom itself, the gag order was then imposed on Donald Trump's lawyers, Christopher Kice, Cliff Roberts, and Alina Habba. We'll talk more about Alina Habba later in the show. Then Donald Trump sought an emergency temporary administrative stay to press pause on the gag order.

And last week and the week before when that occurred, Donald Trump was bragging about it. The appellate division said that I'm the greatest and they said that I'm right and they said that judge and gore on was wrong for imposing this gag order and look at a big win. Popoque, you and Karen Freeman, AgniFlo took right to our digital channel here and said, no, no, no, that's a temporary administrative stay. Donald Trump's taking advantage of a loophole in the law that basically provides for these temporary stays on things

like this. It's the same thing actually that the Washington DC circuit court of appeals did as well. This is something that, unfortunately, when there's good faith belief in people following the law, and when the constitutional and judicial norms are followed, this is just part of our process here for better or for worse. And we're seeing with Donald Trump. It's for worse because he exploits it. That's why the appellate division only granted this temporary stay with this article 78

lawsuit that Donald Trump filed. Remember, then the New York Attorney General through the Assistant Solicitor General filed a brief with the Appellate Division, the court that oversees Judge Engoron laid out 275 pages. Single spaced all of the threats that Judge Engoron is principal law clerk who receiving, immediate direct threats, Donald Trump's response to that is, these threats may be vile and they may be

reprehensible, I think were the words, but Trump's lawyer said Trump shouldn't be, just because Trump's a Hecaller, you shouldn't apply a Hecaller's veto to Donald Trump. He should not be responsible for people following what he says. And then the Donald Trump's lawyers said that there's not any immediate threat to the principal law clerks, despite the fact that there was a declaration submitted from a safety officer of the court saying that there's an immediate threat

and they need to get security for ingorant and ingorant's principal law clerk. So that sets the framework for what the appellate division did in upholding the gag order. I want to talk about that and then I want to talk about what Donald Trump did in response. The gag order gets reimposed. What does Donald Trump do? He attacks judge and goreons wife because this narrowly tailored gag order applies to judge and goreons female principal law clerk. So what does Donald Trump do next? Donald Trump attacks judge and goreons wife. Donald Trump's

MO attacking women, strong women, women in general, just attacking women is what Donald Trump loves to do. And I don't want to lose sight of the fact that this is a case involving civil fraud. The fact that Donald Trump's acting like such a maniac and attacking the judge's wife and the judge's son and the judge's principal law clerk, I mean, this behavior is, it shouldn't be a political thing. It's just despicable behavior. I want to talk about what the Appellate Division did, Donald Trump's recent attacks, and

then we'll talk about this new lawsuit against the Trump golf course, a new lawsuit in Bed Minster that also describes horrific conduct of grooming. It's alleged against Alina Habadonal Trump's lawyer. We'll talk about that and more take our last quick break of the day. If you still have some last minute shopping to do before December 25th of the holidays, don't worry. Our show sponsors Highland Titles have you covered with an incredibly popular downloadable gift. downloadable gift. Highland titles sell a unique gift with a legal twist. In the Land Registration Act of 1979, lawmakers in Scotland legally defined a souvenir plot of land. This is a plot of land so small, most often one square foot that its value is solely

commemorative or sentimental, so you can buy a square foot of Scotland for just 30 bucks. Why do people do that? Well, Scottish landowners were traditionally given the courtesy title of Laird. The English translation is Lord, and the female equivalent title is Lady. Buying a plot of land from HighlandTitles.com will enable you to legitimately style yourself as Lord or Lady of the Glen. You get a legal right to a plot of land you can visit at any time and best of all for you last minute shoppers, there is an instantly available downloadable gift option. So it's not too late. Highland titles is the gift so good they made it legal.

Check it out at HighlandTitles.com and use the discount code legal25 to get 25% off your order. discount code legal 25 to get 25% off your order. Welcome back. Michael Pope, Pock, happy birthday one more time. You say it three times. It's it's it's it's it'll just be it. I was in Lauren Boberts Congressional District do not mention Beetlejuice. But I did have the opportunity to interview President Biden. It was an incredible honor. And everybody watching this, you should go. It's free. It's on our YouTube feed, go and check for it.

My interview with President Biden, I made sure to give a shout out with the Midas mighty. And it was just, I think a fun casual conversation where I got to ask him what was going on in Pueblo, what was going on with the inflation reduction act. I had him react to a video I showed of Lauren Bobert, where she was saying the inflation reduction act was a massive failure. President Biden's response is priceless. And I just think it was great for the American people to see President Biden and just such a compare and contrast. I said to him, you know, I think it was President Biden's data used to tell me, don't compare

me to the Almighty, compare me to the alternative. And to what we're doing here and comparing him to the alternative, we're talking about that right now, Pope, you've got Donald Trump attacking the judge's principal law clerk, attacking the judge's wife. I hope and Goron extends that protective order to protect his wife I wouldn't be surprised if that happens next week. What would you make of what the appellate division did here? Yeah, yeah, so let me let me start with kind of sprinkling in here a little bit of real practice

That thing that happened two weeks ago, when after a one hour hearing, one justice, who's like the duty administrative justice for the day, issued a temporary interim stay of the gag order, and everybody was all up in arms on our audience. And as you said, Donald Trump and his lawyers misused that temporary stay even in the filing of the District of Columbia about the gag order. Let me just let me just drive home for our audience how ephemeral and temporary that issue is.

The last time that I was involved with arguing with one administrative judge for the same court, the first department palette division, is I got I was I was I had taken a day off on a Friday and I was with my wife at the beach. And I got a phone call at random from the court clerk that said the judge wanted to hear this judge just got assigned wanted to hear our emergency application to stop this real estate development project from going forward pending the appeal. There was no briefing.

There was no prep and I'm in a swimsuit. I went up into the parking lot behind the beach, got behind a tree where it was quiet and argued for 15 minutes. And that justice made a decision for that moment that eventually got reversed or vacated by the full panel at a later time. But you can just see that that's how much people in New York, how much weight we put on. Yes, we'd like to be on the winning side of that and not on the losing side of that. But as we said before, just this freedman

who had made this decision to stop the gag order and the reporting was he had been almost dismissive of the New York Attorney General's position because he had no evidence in front of him, he had no briefing, they did a one hour oral argument in front of him in the courtroom down on Madison Avenue in New York. And he was like, well, you know, what's the big deal? And a law clerk was bashed, I mean, she's got social media postings with her in pictures. You know, who cares?

It doesn't really matter. Like, okay, great. But that is the same justice that also put a pin in the trial and granted Trump's motion to stay the trial on an emergency basis before the trial even started because of it, you know, complaints that they were making even back then about judge Angkoran and Goran not having ruled on motions for summary judgment yet. And they didn't know how to do their trial yet and all this other stuff.

And he ruled for, if you will, Donald Trump on that, and then got reversed, even when he was a part of the appellate panel. Because what happens on these appeals is, there's this one random loan administrative justice. And if they ultimately also randomly get assigned to the full merits panel, which is the panel of the appellate court hearing the merits of the case.

You know, they don't have to be on the full merits panel, but in the last case, he was. And after hearing all of the evidence about judging Quran and all of the evidence about the state of the trial, they were like, no, we're fine. Tragos forward on Monday. So he got reversed. So when David Friedman, the Justice, is the one doing it. And as I describe this process, I'm not that concerned about it.

We knew that when the New York Attorney General, the Tisha James had the opportunity to submit in briefing the full record of the merciless, relentless, misogynist, dangerous, you know, as what we say, stochastic terrorist attacks on the principal law clerk. And by extension, the judge and other people with the, with the a captain or a commander of the Department of Public Safety responsible for threats against the judiciary and their staff, putting in an affidavit about how there's been an increased threat assessment rating related to the law clerk and the judge.

The judge, they wouldn't even bother putting that in the affidavit because they didn't want to signal to the world the ways in which the judge may be insecure. For the law clerk, they listed, as you said, 250 single space pages, a disgusting voicemail and text messages and doxing that she had been attacked, and they symmetrically for her, for her weight, you know, body shaming, her stender, and, you know, and everything else, all leading to the same road, you should die. We'd like to kill you. Now, to your point before I get into the thing, you are so right when you say, and this isn't even about whether Donald Trump is going to jail or not.

This is about money in a case. This is a civil fraud case. And the only thing Donald Trump had to not do based on the gag order, just one, was not go after the poor principal locklark. This position that is the primary staff member that aids and assists the judge whose role becomes even more important when the judge is sitting as the lone soul trial effect for a complicated case going on for what will amount to 12 weeks

for a complicated case going on for what'll amount to a 12 weeks with tens of thousands of documents and exhibits and dozens and dozens and dozens of witnesses that this guy's got to keep straight in order to render a ruling. Of course, he's got a person next to him that's paid by the state and part of the process who happens to be a lawyer and is his senior most advisor, right, as for him to do his job as trial effect in judge. That's the only thing Donald Trump and his lawyers, Alina Haba, Chris Keiss, Cliff Robert, Mediah, and everybody else has to stay away from them. That's the third rail.

Don't bash, docks, attack, you know, foment disc content against my law clerk. Not me, not me as the judge, not the New York Attorney General, and they can't even do that. That shows how low and despicable they are. Why anyone in America wants to consider putting this person back in office and don't feel that he's completely forfeited any right to be a president and represent this country and the universe as the leader of the free world based on his conduct is beyond me. I'm not even sure why I can't even believe, pardon me, can't even believe we still have

this discussion and debate about whether he should be president. What everything I have seen in his conduct is a disqualifier from him. Well, we're seeing as the true Donald Trump and people are like, yeah, it's the part of it like let's put it back in office. Now, the appellate court, the reason they reinstated the gag order and found completely for in a one line two line order and found completely for the judge, Judge Angkoran, is because they had the benefit of not only full briefing, but they had all of the evidence that was put in. I mean, to the massive affidavit,

which is a sworn statement under oath, attaching all of the attacks on the principal lock lurk and also by the judge against that, you had Chris Kaes in the lawyers for Donald Trump saying, oh yeah, it's pretty bad. My guy's not responsible for that though, because he's just talking. He's just criticizing. He gets to criticize.

He's a critic. He's a critic. He's a heckler. Who knows what could happen next? No, we are beyond. In the judiciary around the country is beyond this, as you'd like to say, this gaslighting. What me? I didn't do anything.

There is a clear link. We've seen it. Jan 6th is the most most most acute kill me. Let them go then we don't need magnetometers They they can be armed with they're not they're not here to use their weapons on me Right he knows full well that when he pushes buttons his people respond and often in violent ways as we saw on Jan 6th as we saw with people Romino bomb his neighborhood trying to hunt the Obama family as we've seen with assassination emails and voicemails left on judges, on judges, voicemails that that is it.

So he can't get that anymore. He can't get them. I did it, but what did I do? So that's gone. And all they needed to do, I thought this was relatively straightforward. All they want to do is gagging from bashing the principal lock clerk. And then when he couldn't do that or in the waning moments of that, he decided to go follow Lumer or whatever her name, Laura Lumer.

Lumer, who, who, she was a lunar, is more lunar than Lumer. And she went and found a fake, fake, Twitter account, ex account for his, that presumably purportedly was for Angora's wife in which it was very anti-Trump. So he won a problem with that. It's a phony and the wife of the judge had to come out and say, I'm not on Twitter. Now for those that think, well, that can't be. There is a fake Popock account. I shouldn't promote it. There's a fake pop-up account. I shouldn't

promote it. There's a fake pop-up account. Thank God it's got spelling errors in it. So people know it's not mine. But it's very easy to create a fake account on X. And so he fell for it hookline and sinker and then decided to bash her and other family members of Engoran for as long as he can. I don't get, let me just leave it on this. There is no purpose or benefit within the fork walls of the judicial process for him to be doing this. He's not gonna get a better decision. His pressure campaign against Angkoran is not gonna result in Angkoran foot faulting

or creating reversible error. Goron is a colorful character. I'll just say that. He says a lot of things out loud like many, many New York state court judges too. They always say the mayor of your city should reflect the personality of the city. That's why everybody in New York loved Ed Koch. How am I doing? We have a lot of New York judges, and I appear in front of them regularly, who are characters who reflect

the personality and the no nonsense of New Yorkers. They say things out loud that sometimes for comedic relief or sometimes serious and they express they have personalities. They're allowed to that doesn't create reversible error. And so you've got a pellet panel that yes is keeping a watchful eye on the trial. But so far, Donald Trump and his people, despite trying to sue the judge personally, his official capacity or get the judge reversed, has all been unsuccessful. So it's not working within the wooden paneled rooms of the court rooms. So where is it working then, Ben? In his campaign for election?

What he's not used to is, and this is where he's totally losing it, is the bullying being resisted by more powerful people. If you think about just this case, just the New York Attorney General civil fraud case, a civil case, Donald Trump has sued the New York Attorney General twice in two federal courts, one in a federal court in New York in Syracuse, another in the southern district of Florida, that then Donald Trump dismissed when Judge Donald Middlebrook basically said, this is one of the most frivolous things that I've seen after Judge Middlebrook's sanctioned Donald Trump and his lawyer, Alina Habba, basically a million dollars, right? Donald Trump has now sued Judge Ingoron, the judge, twice under Article 78 proceedings.

Donald Trump attacks New York Attorney General Leticia. James attacks New York Attorney General Leticia. James is deputies. Donald Trump attacks the judge, the judge's principal law clerk, the judge's son, the judge's wife. Now, I just want you to think about that conduct relating just to this one civil case.

And that's not to, I should also mention that Donald Trump didn't turn over the discovery so he was found in contempt of court and sanctioned over $100,000 based on his conduct there. Donald Trump invoked his fifth amendment right and then switched and then ended up testifying. Donald Trump engaged, did not turn over all of the documents. Donald Trump also recently we've learned through the financial monitor Judge Barbara Jones who was appointed back in October or November of 2022, Donald Trump did not disclose $40 million in assets that were transferred from the revocable trust to help him pay his taxes and to pay what looks like the civil judgment of $5 million in the E. Jean Carroll case that had to be uncovered by the financial monitor. So just think about all of that conduct in this case.

For most human beings, that's exhausting, right? That's exhausting. Donald Trump fascism relies on just exhausting the crap out of you so that you tap out. Donald Trump's very weak, but he will you so that you tap out. Donald Trump's very weak, but he will try to make you tap out. And then you, I'm not gonna do the whole analysis here because we've talked about it all the time and other programming,

but think about what Donald Trump did regarding January 6th, leading up to it, with all of the efforts, all of these, you know, kind of kamikaze warriors of his, if you will, Maga War, who were out there sacrificing their own lives and their careers to do the most despicable, contemptible things to everybody. Same tactics, threatening the lives, causing death threats, defaming people. Think about what happened with the Georgia election workers, Ruby Freeman and Shema. I could go on, this is their tactics. This is the tactics of fascism.

It's not how we are supposed to engage and interact in this great country, the United States of America. We're supposed to look at it. That's how fascist interact. That's how authoritarians, Donald Trump uses the term banana republic because it's projection and confession. That's how it works. They're attacking the judge's wife in the United States of America. Are you kidding me? One footnote I'll add to that, Michael Popak, though, is that this account wasn't even pretending to be judge and go around his wife. It's not the fake account of someone saying that they're Michael Popa. It's just someone who may have had the same name as the judge. For all we know, it was an account created by one of the Trumpers. Who knows? And that they said, oh, this is an account that's whatever and it posts these memes about

Trump. It's just the same name as the judge's wife. It doesn't mean it's the judge's wife's account. And the judge's wife said, this is not my account. And to think about the death threats that are occurring to this family and judges and prosecutors across this country and elected officials across this country, and that this is the leader of the Republican Party, the Republican Party tapped out of democracy. They're done. They're maga. They're done with the democracy experiment that made our country an incredible place. And as you say with the show being the intersection of law and politics, part of it is undermining law and order.

It's why they say law and order so much because they know they are undermining it and replacing it with something that is truly and utterly horrific. One more point. Judge and Goran said closing arguments for January of 2024. And so we will likely have an order by Judge and Goran. I would think before March. So leading right up to the trial in Washington, DC that we've been talking about with Judge

Tanya Chutkin. I'm talking about probably during jury questionnaires being sent out. We will likely see an order from Judge Angoran where Donald Trump will be found liable to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and Popo. That brings me to this Elise Bianco versus Ben Minster. Can I say one thing before you turn to that? I think we're gonna get the order quicker than March and then go on. I think he's, by the time he gets to the oral argument, you and I've done this before,

I'll do an oral argument, and as soon as I'm done, the judge hands out the order. And you're like, God, I didn't the oral argument didn't matter at all. I don't think the oral argument in this case, he has to set it, you know, he either gives lawyers some, they can either submit briefs where they can do live oral argument. He's going to get moral argument. He's going to have 99.9 percent of his opinion done at the time of the oral argument. If he catches something that he thinks was interesting the changes his mind there is no way that the Chris Kice or Alina Habba or Suarez or Cliff Robert or anybody else on the G team, you know, G, you know, not even the A team. This fourth level group of lawyers that are left that are working for Donald Trump to make a living are going to change the mind of, you know,

12 weeks of testimony and evidence. And I think within hours, if not days of that order, maybe I think when the jury is being selected in the E. Jean Carroll case in the middle of January, we're going to get a ruling from Judge Engross. We'll see. It'll be a fun bet between you and me. We will. We will see. My view is there is no incentive for him to rush this thing. I'm with you. I think he already has most of it written actually or in his mind already. I think he may even allow some post trial briefs after

the closing arguments are given. And I think that he makes this thing bulletproof. And I think in judging Goran fashion, may just want to drop it right before the DC criminal case is about to start. But we will, we will see we will will rewind the tape. Right. Mark this clip, salty. And finally, I want to talk about this behavior that's alleged. I want to be clear about that against Alina Habba by a former employee at Ben Minster, Donald Trump's golf course in New Jersey, the employee who's not sued under a Jane Doe, her name is Alice Bianco, alleges that in 2021 she started working at Bedminster throughout her time working there, her supervisor, a male

supervisor who was in his mid-50ies began sexually harassing her sexually abusing her and the conduct got progressively worse and worse and worse. It's alleged that this male supervisor in his mid fifties would use his connections to Donald Trump show photos of Donald Trump as a way of harassing and intimidating his victims. That Ben Minster to show that he was a powerful person and had powerful connections. There was some rumblings that other women were bringing cases or had reached resolutions

with this individual. And then Alice Bianco realized that she needed to get a lawyer as the victim of sexual assault and sexual abuse at bed Minster systematically and persistently at bed Minster at the Trump golf course there. So she's alleged that she got a lawyer who then started interacting with the Trump organizations Leadership at maybe want to call that at at Ben Minster, at which point Alina Haba got involved. Alina Haba befriended Alice Bianco and Alice Bianco. It doesn't specifically say what her job tasks, but it sounds like that she was a server, a bartender, a waitress, you know, and perform functions like that under the supervision

of this individual who abused her. I think, yeah. And so Alina Haba befriended her, and then Alina Haba basically said, oh, you should, according to the allegations, you need a derivative of your lawyer. Your lawyer's no good. I can take care of you here.

Like your lawyer's not gonna get you anything. Let me help you out here. At least tons of like the receipts are in this complaint, again, wanna state their allegations, but it alleges all of these text messages, sites the text messages between Habba and Elise Bianco, and Habba basically saying things like like, like, you go girl, I got you, like, we're gonna be great together.

You wearing your gym clothes. Come on, let's hang out, you know, in all of these things. Eventually leading to Elise Bianco firing her lawyer at the behest, it's alleged of Alina Habba going into Alina Habba's office where Alina Haba's other partner, Medeo was there. It's the Medeo Haba or Haba Medeo firm. And then they had Alis Bianco sign a settlement agreement with liquidated damages for money damages if she violates the NDA.

And it was a severance agreement, termination of her employment with the non-disclosure agreement. And then it's alleged that one of the things that Habba had told Bianco about signing this agreement is that the settlement would be tax-free. And then after Bianco signed this, she then tried to, she thought she was friends with Alina Habba and said, Hey, you know, I'm hearing that it's not tax-free now. Can you help me out here? Or hey, you want to hang out? Because Bianca thought that she was friends with Habba. But once Bianca signed the agreement, Habba was basically like, I can't talk to you. I'm not your lawyer. I can't give you any legal advice. And then and then Habba started ghosting Bianca after befriending her for

purposes of getting her to sign this severance agreement and then Bianca didn't hear back from Habba. So Bianca now hired a lawyer to sue for declaratory relief first to undo the NDA to undo the severance agreement for violating New Jersey law. You're not allowed to have an NDA to undo the severance agreement for violating New Jersey law. You're not allowed to have an NDA like that in a sexual abuse situation like that. And also this agreement being unconscionable because you had a lawyer in Alina Habba. It's alleged interfering with the attorney-client relationship of a victim of sexual abuse. And in the terms of the agreement, it claims that neither of the parties are represented by council. It claims that it makes other false allegations in the underlying

severance agreement. But, you know, if this conduct is true, and again, there's a ton of receipts here. This is heinous. And by the way, my own opinion is I certainly, I mean, this is consistent with the Alina Haba, we know, and I believe Elise Bianco here, and I wish her nothing but the best. And I wish her new lawyer, Nancy Erica Smith, nothing but the best here in this prosecution. But this is horrendously unethical conduct. One of the things that's being asked for is a referral of Alina Habba to the State Bar of New Jersey for engaging in this unprofessional

and unethical behavior, violating the rules of professional responsibility and a declaratory relief. So once the agreement is dissolved, then allowing the victim here to file a lawsuit against the Trump and Minster property and probably it seems Alina Habba will probably be named although it's not clear perhaps Donald Trump but this is the first step in that as I was reading this Pope, I mean this is a fact pattern that you would get in a professional responsibility class of

the most unethical conduct that exists. Like that's what it almost so unfathomable that when you would get a fact pattern like this in law school, you would think to yourself like, okay, they're just perfectly, this is an easy exam because they're showing me, they want me just to knock out the sections that are gonna be disbarable offenses So Alina Habba is an interesting cat character She starts out with an office near Bedminster in New Jersey

This is this is the way that she got in with Donald Trump. She met him at Bedminster at the golf course Where she and her husband were a member her law office is him at Bedminster at the golf course where she and her husband were a member. Her law office is in Bedminster very near the golf course. I like to joke that it's near the 19th hole of the golf course. And then she met him and he was having difficulty with keeping lawyers and keeping any lawyers of merit, like the lawyers in New York, like like the lawyers in New York, like Mark Casowitz, where Eric Hirschman came from and entered the White House with Donald Trump as the deputy chief of staff.

All those kind of lawyers were back and away from Donald Trump, and he needed a lawyer to handle a discrimination case brought against him by a celebrity apprentice,ice employee or participant. And Alina Haba somehow without the lawsuit being filed got the case to go away. And that was the beginning of this unholy relationship between Alina Haba and Donald Trump. You know, he signed her and there was big Sharpie Penn, something that she hung up in her office, and now she's often running

with that very first case. And she's had her own problems that have been well reported with discrimination and harassment in 2022. She was sued and she settled out a court with a woman that worked in her office that claimed that Alina Habba was racist. And we play really, we would play rap music and hip-hop music and do like ridiculous voices

and say the N word. And this was a person who was black or a person of color that worked in her office. So she's out of control. She does not know, as we know from hot takes you've done, Ben and others, that Alina. She does not know, as we know, from hot takes you've done, Ben and others, that Alina Habba does not understand the bright lines that are supposed to exist between you and your client.

And we used to say, somebody's gotten to bed with somebody else when their relationships are too close. I don't want to use that particular phrase for obvious reasons, but she has crossed the line of professional conduct just in how she, her relationship with Donald Trump, I mean, she goes with him to MM, you know, MM mixed martial arts fighting things where she's wearing an F. Joe Biden necklace. And so it would be that exact person, the one that I just described, who would try to groom a employee, a lower level employee who's been the victim of sexual

harassment or discrimination as alleged in her work environment at the bed, Mr. golf course, would try to get, just insert herself into that relationship, act like she was a buddy, put her arm around her, have her fire, her, her independent lawyer that was providing her with proper advice, I presume. And then say, come over to my office. I, good news. I got you money. I got you money.

Just sign here and then lied to her about the amount of the money that you're getting. There's something you mentioned about. She thought she was going to get her taxes paid for. We call that in the business a gross up that she would get the amount, but it would be net. And the difference would be paid by the employer. That apparently didn't happen. So there's a lack of consideration, which is a concept in a law why a contract is not enforceable. But the person that you just described as being the test case literally for us when we took our ethics exam is the kind of person that I just described who is lost sight of and has now so put herself into the orbit of Donald Trump that she can't, she can no longer make proper independent

decisions or judgment because she's gotten too close to the client and that's Alina Habba. And the reason, as you noted, this complaint had to go into such excruciating detail about her grooming of the plaintiff. And it is because they have to get out from under a piece of paper that she signed, which on its face would be binding.

There's aspects of it that may not be enforceable about the confidentiality under new law, but she signed a contract and she got money for it. The only way you have to get around that is you have to argue that it's again, that that was, it was, she was defrauded, that there were bar violations by Lena Habba that contributed to that and that it should be against public policy or unconscionable for given these facts for her to enter into that agreement and I've had some cases in

New Jersey when I headed the employment world of a large Wall Street company, and we got dragged into New Jersey on a case. And you know, it's not a friendly place necessarily for management or employers, and I'm not sure it's a friendly place for a New Jersey bar member who's now gonna have to answer for this. You know, Alina Hamba doesn't do well in New York where she's not a bar member and where

she's there by a permission, a permission slip. And in her home state, where she's supposed to be at least that her tiny little firm, you know, at least be ethical. It's obvious that based on the allegations that likely she's not. And the good news for the plaintiff, as you pointed out, as she does have, and I know this law firm, she does now have a very good, well-respected employment law firm in Montclair, New Jersey. That'll handle this case and as well respect it in the courtrooms in which this will be filed. I don't know if it's Essex County or where, but it's somewhere in Jersey. And so that's the background.

I mean, Alina Hamba crosses the line. She is the client as far as I'm concerned. I thought she was actually kicked up stairs. It was no longer going to be loyering for Donald Trump when she got that big job over at the Make America Great PAC. And I thought she was going to just be a kind of spokesperson executive director.

But she still shows up regularly to get her face, her mug on the photos at the civil fraud case There's always that photo of her with Donald Trump and And the other lawyers Chris Keiss sitting there in front of that you know the Bank of computer screens in there She did nothing in the E. Jean Carol case literally she did nothing there. That was led by Joe Takapina And she did nothing there. That was led by Joe Takapina and she did Nothing she's done nothing here except she did a cross examination of Michael Cohen at one point that I didn't think was that effective here And she's not handling any of the major criminal cases in Florida

Georgia or in DC against Donald Trump, but you know He's still you know likes her a lot Obviously and she's a close confidant, and you can see how she was being improperly used here. And I'll just end it on this before we sort of wrap up our show. You know, we had two giant historical figures that passed away this week. And one has to do with the Secretary of State. But the one that's in our world is Sandra Day O'ConConnor. And you know, for an episode where we focus primarily on strong women, prosecutors, and attorney generals going up against successfully,

against Donald Trump and his misogynist ways, I think we'd be remiss not to mention Sandra Day O'Connor, Reagan appointee, who I admired back in the day when I could admire people on the other side of the aisle, came off the Arizona Supreme Court, left the court well before she had to. She had a lifetime appointment. She could have actually died on the court this week if she had wanted to, but God ill a little bit and decided she wanted to spend her days doing something else and left the court, you know, 15, 20 years ago. But frankly, if it wasn't for Sandra Day O'Connor, I'm not sure in rapid succession we would

have Ruth Bader Ginsburg by Clinton, you know, Katangi Brown Jackson by our current President Biden, Kagan, Sotomayor, and others, if that hadn't happened. And I think it's just a reflection that, you know, the people that broke that glass ceiling are to be credited because, you know, it's hard to tell in the world of, you know, the hummingbird, the butterfly wings that influence history and the course of history. You know, but, but leticia james, faunee willis and others and all the judges on the Supreme Court that are women. You know, oh, oh, at least a tip of the hat, if not a debt to Sandra Day O'Connor, paving

the way it's hard to believe that it took that long to put the first woman on and they haven't always been on, but they haven't. And somebody had to be a pioneer. So in the same breath that we talk about, somebody who's a low light for our profession, I think we had to talk about Sandra Day O'Connor for a moment. And I'll leave you with this. Sandra Day O'Connor appointed by, as you mentioned, a Republican president, Ronald Reagan. If you want to know how far the Republican party has fallen from what it once was,

let me just give you some of these quick cases where Sandra Day Okana again, in a pointy by Reagan, a Republican was a key deciding vote affecting civil rights, environmental protection, personal privacy, voting rights, and protection against discrimination. Again, this is a former Republican pointee. Grudder versus Bollinger, 2003 case affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in admission policies. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, verse EPA said the EPA could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the clean air act.

Rush-prudential HMO versus Iran, upheld state laws giving people the right to second doctors' opinions if their HMOs try to deny them treatment. Plan parenthood, VKC, broke with Chief Justice Rehnquist and other opponents of a woman's right to choose as part of a 5-4 majority of Firming Roe v. Wade Hunt v. Cremardi a 2001 decision affirming the right of state legislatures legislators to take grace into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting Tennessee versus Lane a 2004 decision upholding the constitutional Constitutionality of title two of the American with Disabilities Act that required courtrooms to be physically accessible to the disabled.

Hibbs vs. win, subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary. Zavadas vs. David 2001 told the government it cannot indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under a final order of removal, even if no other country would accept that person. Brentwood Academy versus Secondary School Athletic Association, 2001 affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating inter-scholastic sports. Lee versus Weissman 1992 continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored

prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events. Brown versus legal foundation of Washington 2003 maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor. Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia 1996 said that key anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act applied to political conventions that choose party candidates. Federal Election Commission's versus Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution limits. McConnell versus federal election commissions upheld most of the landmark McCain fine gold campaign finance law, including its ban on political

parties use of unlimited soft money contributions. Steinberg versus Cahart 2000 overturned a state abortion ban. Macreary County versus ACLU of Kentucky upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional the 10 commandments displayed in several courthouses. I could go on more, but I think you get the point. Those were the decisions of a Republican appointee in Sandra Day O'Connor.

So when I say that the modern day Republican party and their appointees have gone so far extreme, remember that list that I just gave you right there. That's a Republican appointee, Sandra Day O'Connor's key votes in those cases. Michael Popak, happy birthday. Love you brother. Love you out there as well. All of the legal a efforts. Thank you so much for watching. We will see you next time on legal a f shout out to the Midas mighty. you