Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump makes DESPERATE FILING as House GOP Antics IMPLODE

Episode Date: March 9, 2023

Anchored by national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, and former top prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo, the top-rated news analysis podcast Legal AF is back for its another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics at the midweek. On this week’s edition, they discuss: the impact on criminal proceedings against the Jan6 defendants of the GOP’s release of 41,000 hours of video surveillance footage; Trump’s late efforts to prevent testimony given by his former lawyers from being used by Jack Smith’s grand juries; and the state of abortion rights and the first case filed by women plaintiffs about abortion since the Dobbs decision stripped away a woman’s constitutional right of privacy and her right to choose, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! MIRACLE MADE: Head to https://TRYMIRACLE.COM/LEGALAF and use the code "LEGALAF" AG1: Head to https://athleticgreens.com/legalaf to get a FREE 1 year supply of Vitamin D and 5 FREE Travel Packs with your first purchase! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF. We sit at the intersection of law and politics so that you can listen to us and we'll catch you up. On today's episode, we have three stories ripped from the headlines. One, we're going to talk about what Donald Trump is up to and secret filings to stop the grand jury and Jack Smith from presenting evidence and testimony of his former lawyers, including lawyers who have already testified before the grand jury. It sounds like he's a day late and a dollar short once again, and we're going to explore it. Two, we got to talk about the Tucker tapes because everybody else is, but we're going to do it from a slightly different angle. We know that McCarthy, speaker McCarthy,

tried to throw a monkey wrench into the Department of Justice's prosecutions of the over 900 Jan 6 insurrectionist defendants by releasing the 41,000 hours of tape first to Tucker Carlson and then telling anybody who would listen, he would make them available as needed to other defendants. That was like a rallying cry for the Gen 6 defendants of their lawyers to try to either delay the trials that they're already in or about to start or try to

overturn their convictions. The Department of Justice is shoving back hard against that, judges that matter like soon to be chief judge Jeb Bospurg, who's also in his day job, handling some of these trials, has already said no F and way. That's my artist rendering. That's not actually what the judge said. He's not delaying anything. When we go over during our segment, the sheer volume of discovery data that has already gone to each Jan 6th defendant, you'll see why they're likely to lose their efforts to try to pick

through another 14,000 hours of stuff, having nothing to do with them whatsoever. And our third story today, because we have to, we have to continue to cover the world after the Dobs decision, taking away a constitutional right for a woman to choose the autonomy of her own body and her decision making about pregnancies. Now we have to do it through the first lawsuit that's been filed by women as plaintiffs, not doctors, not reproductive rights organizations, five women who have high risk pregnancies have now filed a lawsuit in state court in Texas

to get the Texas law situated so they can assert their medical rights with their doctor to make decisions about their own pregnancies. It's hard to believe this is the first time that women have been plaintiffs. You'd think they would be the only appropriate plaintiffs, but we've got our first one. We're going to talk about it. And also in the context of what's going on around a country where 13 states ban abortion completely where other states like North Carolina

are seeing a 50 to 60% increase in the amount of people traveling to their state to obtain abortions and Walgreens of all things decides to throw caution to the wind. All you gotta apparently do for Walgreens is send them a two-page letter with a computer and a printer and sign it with a bunch of attorney generals of red, right-wing states.

And they fold and they say they're not going to sell abortion pills, FDA approved abortion pills that are allowed to be sold at a retail pharmacy level in any state that has a problem with abortion. California's firing back as well and said, you know, what we do business with Walgreens, but I don't think we're going to do that anymore says the governor of California, Gavin Newsom. That's what we're going to cover. And we're sponsored today by Miracle Made Sheets and AG one. But first I'm Michael Popuck and I'm joined every Wednesday by Karen Friedman, Agnifalo, hi Karen.

Hello, how are you? I'm doing great. So this doesn't look for those that watch this on YouTube and for those that listen to us, I'll in equal measure, I will try to describe this. Karen, you look like you're on some sort of movie or TV set. Well, what is that? Where are you right now? Actually, what I look like is on some sort of movie or TV set. Well, what is that? Where are you right now? Actually, what I look like is on I'm in a police precinct.

That's true. Because that's where I am. I'm on the set of, like, see if you can see, lawn order. I'm in Lieutenant Dixon's office on the show, original lawn order. And I'm the legal advisor to Law and Order. So I come to every episode that gets shot. In addition to practicing law and all the other things that we do, the most fun job that I have is

I'm the legal advisor on Law and Order. So it's really fun, really interesting. That stays in the pod, by the way. So I thought you were gonna say the most fun job you have is every Wednesday with legal A efforts in me. But I don't consider this a job. I don't consider this a job. Oh, that's true. That's true. So I thought you were going to say the most fun job you have is every Wednesday with legal lay efforts in me. But I don't consider this a job. I don't consider this a job.

That's true. This is a labor of love. So I don't know people, you know, a lot of people ask us like, where do we have the temerity to comment on legal issues as if we are expert or we have experience? And here's an example. Besides the fact that I've been a practicing lawyer for 32 years and tried over 30, I think 35 cases in courtrooms around the country. My co-anchor, former number two in the Manhattan DA's office, the illustrious career, side gig legal advisor to law and order. And not any old law and order which law and order are you the legal advisor for?

The original we're in season 22 with you know Jack McCoy and the whole nine. It's really it's really great. It's really so fun. So interesting. I love it so much. And you're and you're the only one. There's only one legal advisor right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I how long you been doing this? This is my first, this is my first season. So we're on episode 20. So love it. It's been a while. It's, it's a lot of fun. It's really interesting. I've been told though, but a few people today that I am looking like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which is not the look I was going for. You know, I thought you were trying to, I thought you were gonna try to outpopock the popock with your glasses, but now that I see the total ensemble, the for those that are not watching us, black, some sort of black, very attractive. It's a sweater, it's not a judges robe. Some sort of white-colored, coming out from underneath it,

and your hair, your hair pulled back. You know, there's worse things to look like. That's a rock star and the legal profession. So I do. She is a rock star. I'd be happy. I was hoping not to look like I'm in my 80s yet, but. My, as long as we're sharing, my mother went to sleep away

camp with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Bader's, her parents and my grandparents, at least the mothers, stayed and shared a house together. They rented a house together while their daughters were at this, this sleep away camp. That's incredible. And I did not pre-internet. I did not believe my mother, which I should always believe my mother, when she told me when I was in, I think I just graduated, that something along the lines of, isn't it great that Clinton just nominated Kiki Bader to be on the Supreme Court unless it's, less like pre-internet? So I have no idea what my mother's talking about.

I'm like, who is Kiki, I mean Ruth Bader Ginsburg, mom? She says, yes, I went to camp with her and and her mother and my mother, you know, my grandmother. And I'm like, and I trust, believe me, I did not believe my mother until I read The New York Times the next day. And above the fold where they had a box that was describing the new nominee, the first sentence in the article was from camp Shanawa to the US Supreme Court. That's how important that camp was, the lives of people like my brother in Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It was in the

first line of her bio in the New York Times. Well, that's all around. Yes. And Camp Shanawa, I got, I got, I got, I got cousin's second removed that go there. Well, that's all the time we have today, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for tuning in. Yeah, no, we do have to hurry up because our producer, Salty, has to get his girlfriend to dinner tonight. It's a birthday. We are oversharing so many personal details today. Let's get on to some serious matters and let's lead in with the Jan six tapes that everybody's all abuzz in a Twitter about. Let me frame it first, because I don't want anybody to think that our department of justice headed by Merrick Garland and ultimately by the executive branch and our president, Joe Biden, did anything wrong.

They did nothing wrong. They produced already in discovery, in providing to the other side in each of the Jan 6 cases, terabytes of information, you know, hundreds, millions of pages, hundreds of thousands of data points, body cams for officers, social media video that they obtained, Body cam from other Jan 6th insurrectionists, all the film footage that was customized for that particular defendant, for whatever they were charged with. If they were outside at the West Portico,

they got all the video for the West Portico. If they were inside in the speakers tunnel, they got all the video for the speakers tunnel. If there were video, it's hard to believe you would think there was no blind spots, but there were blind spots and there were places where none of the activities were video, not every crime has a video evidence to support it, but this was a custom package

that each defendant that's going to trial or is charged has had for like 16 months. So I don't want the talking point to be, oh my God, the government withheld critical evidence from these people. That's one. Then we'll talk about Tucker Whitewashing, what happened on Jan 6, the bloody battle for the Soul of Democracy and calling it a peaceful chaos and a walk in a park. Talk about that second, but let's frame it. That's what happened with the Department of Justice in turning it over. Of the 41,000 hours that's out there

that Tucker's going through or has gone through, most of the 14,000 of it, that's relevant, already went to each of the defendants that custom packaged. The rest is like alternate angles of the exact same thing or things that are completely irrelevant. That they were walking without incident, you know, to the outside battles, who cares. It's what happened once they got there, went into military formation led by the proud boys, the oath

keepers to three percenters and battled with police on the steps in the West terrorists in the tunnels, hand to hand combat. That's what that's what these people are being charged with at the highest level. You know, 150 police officers suffered injuries. Five police officers died. One Brian Siknik, the following day from multiple strokes. This was a young 40 year old fit police officer, chemically sprayed for which his defendants, his Jan 6th defendants are serving seven years.

He died the next day. That's a victim of Jan 6th. Four police officers because of how traumatic that battle scene was committed suicide after Jan 6th. That is fatalities that are on the hands of people like Donald Trump, the Jan 6th people and ultimately Fox News. That is the full package. That's what's going on. And now we've got in court rooms, Jan six defendants taking the, the, the, the life preserver, the lead from the GOP right wing in Congress and saying, Oh, we want to look at all the videos, delay the trial, delay,

overturn my conviction. What, what is going on there, Karen? Two questions to lead you in. What do you feel about, or, two questions to lead you in. What do you feel about, or what you've learned about the Department of Justice's production of discovery to each of these defendants? And should they, these defendants, get additional time to review? Who knows what on other videos that weren't produced to them. So the issue here, as you framed it perfectly, has to do with the new recordings, most of which was already turned over to the defendants, but some of it that was not.

And I'm not really concerned about this discovery dump that happened to Tucker Carlson, meaning all the tapes that were given to him, because really what happens in court cases and criminal cases is prosecutors have an obligation to turn over any recordings or any evidence that is relating to a particular case. And they've already done that. There's also a second requirement that they have to do, which is to turn over what they call Brady material, which is anything that tends to be exculpatory. They've already done that too. And then there's other stuff that has nothing to do with a particular defendant who's on trial.

And that's the stuff that these lawyers now have and are going to look at. Now, let me explain that a little bit further. When you are investigating and prosecuting an event of massive proportions like this was, right? It happened all over the capital, lots of people, you're gonna have recordings from lots of different angles and different rooms and different hallways and different locations, and not every

single defendant would have gone to every single place in the capital that was recorded. So as a result, there's no need necessarily to give them all of the recordings that don't relate to their case at all. So what prosecutors typically do is they will, in a case like this where you have so many recordings, so many hours of recordings and so many angles of recordings, is you'll look for the particular defendant that you are on trial with and they've tried a lot of cases now so they know how to do this. And you try to get them entering, you know entering the capital grounds, you try to get them entering, you know, entering the capital grounds.

You try to get them the first time you see them. And then you piece together the cameras from, say, in front of the capital, you know, where the water, I forgot what it's called, the pool of water is in front of Congress, or going up the stairs on the outside, or whatever it is, wherever you see them first, you would start there. Congress or going up the stairs on the outside or whatever it is wherever wherever wherever you see them first you would start there and then you'd follow them camera by camera and you put together a montage if you will a video montage that

shows the individual going through wherever it is that they're going in this part of the capital and that part of the capital onto the Senate floor, into Pelosi's office, whatever, in this hallway. And you would show all of that to the jury, and you'd also for sure give all of that to the defense up until the end when they were either escorted out or arrested or whatever it is that happened to them. And so you would turn all of that over to the defense on a particular case, as well as anything that tends to be exculpatory.

So in other words, it might not show your client or your defendant, but it'll show something that would tend to be relevant or exculpatory to your particular case. And the Department of Justice has a team of people who do nothing but make sure that their discovery and Brady obligations in each case are met. And they are confident that all of this was turned over in each individual case. So what happened the other day was Tucker Carlson got all the other footage that wasn't

given over and he's using it to try and show that this was a peaceful protest, not a violent insurrection. So he's looking for the pieces of video that show people who are just walking and not necessarily breaking windows. And there's one particular video that's getting a lot of play of the QAnon Shaman where he is what the way Tucker Carlson characterizes is he's being he's on a sightseeing trip around the around the senate floor and there's two capital police officers who are showing him around and when I saw that and heard that I was so offended

it was so preposterous for him to characterize it like that. All police officers are trained to not in de-escalation, to not make a bad situation worse. It's so terrible if you have a situation like a riot or an insurrection where you have these violent extremists who have broken their way into the capital, you don't know what they're going to do. The capital police are completely outnumbered. The last thing they're going to do is do anything to inflame the situation and get themselves into a predicament that they can't get themselves out of because it is because they are outnumbered and outgunned, if you will, right? There are just too many people with weapons and other things who have already shown themselves to be violent.

I've always already shown themselves to be riotous, maybe not every one of them, but many of them. And so what they're trying to do is deescalate. They're trying to escort people away from, they know where the congress people and the senators were escorted to. So they're trying to encourage people to go in directions that are opposite of that. They're trying to get people towards the door. They're trying to maybe talk to people and calm them down so that it doesn't become more violent and more people's lives are at risk.

So they were doing an excellent job by trying to de-escalate the situation. And so for Tucker Carlson, though, to characterize the way he did, I think, is sort of outrageous and really shows what the other side, frankly, is going to do and can do in mischaracterizing these tapes. But I think to answer your question that no judge is going to give more time to go through these. But if something comes up later that a defense attorney deems to have been Brady material or discoverable or a violation, then they can bring it to the judge's attention

then and ask for a remedy. But I'm fairly confident in the Department of Justice that they over included tapes and footage, not under included. There's one other thing a judge could rule as well, by the way, that if it does turn out that the Department of Justice missed a couple of times where a particular defendant appeared on video and that was turned over, they could, if it doesn't show anything that's exculpatory, they could just say that it's duplicative and that it's just piling on and they didn't need to turn it over and it's not enough to reverse a conviction. So let's talk about that. Sorry, I just need to unpack that a little bit. Brady material is material that the government at the prosecutor level has.

An obligation to turn over that it has in its possession and that is exculpatory meaning it tends to prove or can prove somebody's innocence. So when we use phrases like excopatory or Brady material, which is named after a case, that's what we're talking about, the exhaustive nature, the government doesn't have to turn over every scrap of material, even if it was in its possession. And frankly, these videos were in the possession of the Capitol police and ultimately the legislative branch and not the executive branch or in the Department of Justice's hands, despite that, the Department of Justice turned over a almost unfathomable volume of data to each of the defendants already.

And the judges by and large all know that forings. So it's not you just have to make a good faith effort. You don't have to be exhaustive and turn over every, every clip, every camera angle, everything. Now, look, if it turns out it's Karen, just as you just laid out, there's this clip showing something that's exculpatory, somebody pushing somebody else into the fray as opposed to them through their own momentum and voluntarily decision making, ending up there. Okay, that's a clip that probably should have been played

for the jury and be given to the defense and they'll deal with it. As you said, on a one by on a one on one basis. But let me just give you an example. In the Ryan Nichols case, an Alex Hark Rider and Shane Jenkins, the Department of Justice has filed their first major pushback against the attempts by the defense and ultimately their handlers over at the GOP in the house to delay delay delay, right? When things are going poorly for you and they are for the Gen 6 defendants who are all on trial, make it go slower.

That's the old adage. They want to make it really, really, really slow. So in those, the Department of Justice said there should be no delays in a filing against the motion to continue. That was filed by Nichols. That's in front of Royce Lambert, former, oh, well, current senior status judge Republican, but I think he was appointed by Reagan or Bush, one, that kind of, that kind of Republican, not necessarily maga. And they're, their paper they filed today, or yesterday,

the Department of Justice said there should be no delays. We've given them, and then they did, just for one defendant, listen to these numbers, Karen. They've given them 4.9 million pieces of data, representing seven terabytes of data. That's like huge hard drives of data being provided to the other side. 30,000 video files. This was for one defendant. This is not across. They're not bragging about what they've done across 900 defendants. This is for one defendant. Okay.

5 million pieces of data, 30,000 video files, 20, 20 separate electronic servers were searched, 111 police officer body cam footage for every angle of everything where this one defendant was located because they weren't everywhere, you know, they weren't any everything everywhere all at once. They were in one place primarily. They were either fighting in the, you know, in the West Portico at the terrorists, at the stairs, at the tunnel, breaking into doors. And then there's the whole group that got inside into mischief and violence and other things as they attacked the seat of our democracy.

So they can reconstruct this as you laid out, Karen, all of these things. So this is the sheer volume. So standing on top of that, they can say with confidence to the judge, judge, 5 million pieces of data, every, every, we were able to reconstruct for this defendant, every minute he was in one location, except for a place where there are no cameras and there is no video evidence. And so to speculate about what could be in other videos that we haven't produced

or we haven't reviewed, should not be the measure by which a motion for continuance is granted. But the most spectacular thing for me in the filing was a comment that was made that the based on the defendant's continuance motion, that the defendant or his lawyers had been in contact with members of Congress and maybe the speaker who were going to give them access to the 41,000 and maybe some leftover boxes from the Jan 6th committee. And the DOJ said, who is that?

Who did you talk to? What's in the boxes? What's in the video? Make a proper. Tell us what you think is in there that will be helpful. That it exists is not enough to either accuse the government of violating its Brady obligations to turn over relevant information that's a scope, potentially a scope of Tory, nor to delay this trial.

Judge Boasberg, who you're going to be hearing a lot about on legal AF and beyond, because he's taking over for chief judge, barrel, howl as the chief judge, the DC circuit, meaning he becomes the grand marshal of the grand jury's, right? He's going to be now responsible for all of those hearings after I think next week, all of the hearings about executive privilege and, and people asserting the fifth amendment and attorney client privilege by all of these people in and around Donald Trump that had been heard for two years by barrel Howell is now going to Jeb Bozberg, but he's got a trial in front of him where they tried the exact same thing.

This one former New York City police officer who used to be, I don't know if you know it, Garrett, but she used to be a spokesperson for the NYPD. She I call her tambourine lady because she showed up with a tambourine for the insurrection. And they gave her every minute and every camber angle of the 45 minutes that she was shaking her tambourine up the steps inside the capital building. And that wasn't enough for her. She wanted a delay to go look at the other 41,000 hours. And the judge said, no, you're going to trial. So we're already seeing judges, but there's, but then there's another judge out in, I think in Texas that's

cons, because there's a trial there for him who's, who's considering it because he read about the Tucker tapes and wants to know it's in the 41,000. So look, this is going to be an issue. I think the vast majority of judges are going to reject efforts to overturn convictions, certainly, and delay trials because of the existence of these additional hours given what the Department of Justice has already done. On the Tucker climate, which is really a great one, I did a hot take on a very similar observations. You and I didn't talk about it, but you and I often have very similar observations. The battles and the micro battles that were going on over the three-hour span

at the Capitol were different in quality and different in police response and the numbers were different. How many police there were, the ratio of police to crazies was different depending about where you were at a given time. Police, there were only a set amount of them. They didn't get, wasn't like a war movie

where there were like reinforcements sent in during it. This was like the same hundred or so Capitol Police battling every aspect of the Capitol all at the same time. When you're outnumbered inside and you're facing a six foot five shaman wearing a bear hat and holding a flag as a weapon. As you said, Karen, you may want to defuse the situation by opening a few doors and letting the idiot walk around because you're outnumbered and you have to do whatever you can do. As I said, I'm my hot take. It's like any shiny object like when we were children, like,

hey, over here, over here, and then you run the other way. And they were like zombies on the walking dead. And then they followed them over wherever they were walking, which kept them away from the speakers hallway, the chamber of Congress. And what is the result, right? The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. The Capitol police outmatched outnumbered fighting a battle for their lives and for the lives of elected officials didn't lose one elected official. Every one of them and their staff,

every one of them, every one of them got to safety, every one. No one died from that group. Okay. So that's what's going on outside. It's hand-to-hand combat at certain aspects Everyone, no one died from that group. Okay? So that's what's going on. Outside, it's hand-to-hand combat at certain aspects of the Capitol. How do we know that? Because we've all seen the Gen 6 tapes by the Gen 6 committee. And we all know what's going on in these courtrooms for people that are going to jail for seven, eight, and nine years of what they did with bear spray and weapons and police

shields and battle ax, you know, ax handles and anything else they could get their hands on, including the law enforcement, the cops own protection gear or weaponry. We know all that because it's on body cams, it's on social media cams, it's on their own helmet cams, these, these idiots posted on social media. We know what happened. Don't focus on the daisy picking that went on at the ellipse, or some small fragment where their cops are using other techniques in order to stop future violence while their brethren are fighting for their lives on the Capitol steps, or at the tunnels, or on the portico, or wherever, right, to keep these zombie, you know, trees in a zombies out of, of the Capitol and out

of their murderous rants to try to kill Nancy Pelosi, Mike Pence and anybody else they could have gotten their hands on. And the Capitol police got every one of them out. Blue, green, red, independent socialist, you know, right wing, Mago, whatever it was, they were belly crawling their way, they were tunneling their way, but they got them out. And to sit there now and show, you know, clips as Tucker Carlson introduced it that it's going to blow the doors off of the myth that Jan 6 was an insurrection. It was just peaceful chaos. Show the video of all the ones that are that violently attacked the police, bloodied them, and are

now serving serious jail time as a result convicted by juries. Show that video. Don't show the shamans trolling around because they were trying to, as, as you said, cared, they were trying to distract him from doing, while they were still unloading, you know, getting all of the elected officials out. So that, and the good news about the Tucker, the Tucker tapes, is that it is putting a tremendous wedge between the, the Senate Republicans, like Mitch McConnell, who don't want to touch this with a 10 foot pole and, and are done with Fox and done with Tucker.

And they've, they've walked away and say, we support our capital police. And they're against the House GOP, but the House GOP doesn't care. You know, Marjorie Taylor Greene today announced she's leading a class trip to visit the Jan 6th insurrectionist defendants in jail. Is she gonna visit all of them? All the ones that bashed police officers

that led to their deaths that that even crushed other Jansics insurrectionists. One woman died in a stampede during this peaceful, peaceful protest. So look, I'm hoping that at the end, this will tremendously backfire on both Tucker Carlson, McCarthy, and the GOP in the house, because people will call this out for what it is, which is an attempt to whitewash history. Right? I mean, as I said, in a hot tick, Goibles, the propaganda minister for Adolf Hitler, would be very proud of what they're doing with the self-selected tape to act like Jan 6th was

it, what it was, which was a bloody insurrection on our capital steps. Yeah. Now, you put it beautifully. This is a perfect example also of how difficult a police officer's job is. These capital police officers, many of them, still work there. And they are going to have to protect Marjorie Taylor-Greene and all all of the and Kevin McCarthy and every single other member of Congress who is putting these police officers in danger who's basically calling them liars for saying this was a violent insurrection that day. And the police officers will gladly do it. They'll put their lives on the line in order to save the lives of the members of Congress because that

is what they have sworn an oath to do, that is their duty. But this is a perfect example of how hard it is to be a police officer because they will still do their job and protect these individuals despite the vitriol and the rhetoric and the actual danger that they're going to be putting these police officers and and the that's working so closely with law enforcement that was that was a very uh... point in observation care and and and the worst part and i so many worst parts stuck a carolson doesn't even believe his own bullshit

we know from the fox versus dominion thank god dominion sued right there's a god and have we get to sued, right? There's a God in heaven. God, because we get to hear all this. Yeah. There's a God in heaven that Fox news got sued by Dominion that the discovery went the way it went and all the emails and texts came out. And we know them for what they are. They are complete utter liars. They don't believe a word they're saying on air. They hated Donald Trump. At one point of Tucker Carlson called him the great destroyer who will destroy everything in his path. We can't let him destroy us. And I hate him. But this is like a grade school, you know, eighth, this is like seventh grade notes being passed. I hate Donald Trump, right? But he might end up destroying them because he is, they're going to win.

I think this is an incredibly powerful definition. Dominions, yes. I think dominion's going to win. And if they get a huge amount of money from Fox, they could, I don't know if they could put them out of business, but they could certainly hurt them. Agreed. So let's move on from the Tucker tapes and what's happening in the courthouses around DC as a result to a really weird one. You've got Trump and his lawyers finally getting around to filing motions about his lawyer's testimony back in September.

Listen, I don't know much, but I know how a calendar works. And this is March. And those testimonies of Patrick Sipalone, Sipalone, Chipalone, I'm just going to throw them all in there to make everybody happy. And Patrick Philbin, who were the lawyers of the White House Council for Donald Trump and his assistant. And we're in the all the rooms that mattered, including threatening to resign if Donald Trump in the waning days of his administration, really after he'd already lost in a couple of weeks left on the clock, replaced Jeffrey Rosa with Jeffrey Clark to do

his bidding in Georgia and all of that. But that testimony has already happened. There is already litigation, we call it secret because it's in front of Barrow Howell, the chief judge of the grand juries and when she wears that hat, all of those proceedings and filings are sealed and secret while the grand jury is still in progress. And we're likely talking about the one, there's four or five of them that are under Jack Smith's auspices, but the one we're talking about is the one in which they're looking at what happened on Jan 6th, as opposed to the election interference one and the Trump grifting,

fundraising one and all that rest. At least, I mean, witness is contestified before multiple grand juries, but we think it's that one. But everything that's filed there and everything that's heard there by barrel howl, we don't hear about it until after when the press kind of snoops around and tells us the result. So but we know that the Trump and his lawyers have filed the motion. We know that there was already the hearing in which barrel howls, the chief judge already heard argument as to whether the attorney client privilege would stop Chipalone and Philbin from testifying.

And she already ruled that likely the crime fraud exception to the ethical rules that make confidential, the communications between a lawyer and a client and vice versa applies and stripped away the attorney client privilege and ordered them to testify. She also did the same thing with the attempted assertion of executive privilege. So without any privilege and with no fifth amendment, these two lawyers did not assert to fifth amendment, they testified in September more than one day up to three days in front of the grand jury. It happened already.

What the Trump lawyers could have done when they didn't like the result, when Barrel Howell ruled against them is that they can ask for a stay of the trial, judge, chief judge, and go take an appeal. They didn't do that. And the testimony came out already. Now they want to shove the toothpaste back in the tube and say, oh, we want to, we want to assert the privilege again in front of you, Barrel Howell. It's over. I think this is a loser argument. They're doing it now about Eric Hirschman as well, who was also in in the White House as counsel, very colorful chap that that works here in New York. And he told John Eastman very famously that he didn't want to hear another F and word out of his mouth other than peaceful transfer of power and you better get yourself a really great criminal defense lawyer. That Eric Hirschman, now I'm not sure I did my research before we got on the

air. I don't think he actually testified, but he was subpoenaed to testify. But I think as to testified, but he was subpoenaed to testify. But I think as to Sipalone and Philbin, Karen, I don't get it. What do you do now? They already testified. How are they going to claw that back from the grand jury and how have they waved it? Well, yeah, I mean, I think so. I think are they just trying to preserve the legal argument? I mean, I think that might be the reason why they're filing it now, but also so that they can use the legal argument for others who they want to stop from testifying before the grand jury, right? So there's this whole thing going on with Pence, where Jack Smith is trying to get Pence to testify before the grand jury. But, you know, he's saying that there's the speech and debate clause prevents him from having to do it because he has the ceremonial role

as president of the Senate to certify the election and count the electoral college votes. But now Trump is trying to say there's also an executive privilege that applies. And I think that he's trying to just draw out, you know, it's more delay, because even if he will lose, it just delays things longer, and then he can appeal, and it delays things longer and longer and longer. He's just, it's just part of the delay tactic, but also, I guess they woke up and realized this was an argument they could make, and they're finally trying to make it so that they

can preserve it for some sort of appeal eventually. I don't know. I don't actually understand any of their legal strategy because their lawyers, I will say, aren't the greatest lawyers I've ever been. You're being kind to term legal strategy. We're going to find out after it happens another secret hearing this week, one of the last ones for Barrel Howell before she turns over the reins to Jeb Bozberg as Chief Judge is the fight over Evan Corcoran's testimony. Evan Corcoran, now that one's probably related to the Mara Lago documents because he was intimately involved with the Mara Lago documents. The certifications under oath that were filed with the federal government

attesting that there had been a complete and honest search of all of Mara Lago for classified documents when we know that was a lie and the and the DOJ knew that was a lie. His role in guiding a Bob, Christina Bob, his co-counsel, and all, and the movement of documents on video, caught on video, speaking of video, around Mar-a-Lago, in and around the Department of Justice Arrival to do an inspection, Evan Corcoran's blocking of the Department of Justice from doing their own inspection or looking into the room prior to the execution of the search warrant. That Evan Corcoran, they the hearing about whether he has to testify about his conversations in and around and with Donald Trump is going to be heard this week

by um, Barrel Howell. And we're going to know the result. Well, know the result because if we see Evan Corcoran going into the grand jury and the press will report that, that means that Trump lost that hearing too. And we'll keep everybody apprised of all of that. But the fact that all of these lawyers, you know, that, you know, thought so full of themselves when they represented Trump, and now are being dragged, kicking and screaming without any protection, without any attorney client, without any attorney client, privilege protection or executive privilege protection is gotta be a really bad day for Trump. Don't, and let me just leave it at this so that we'll move on. The CPAC performance, this, as Ben, our co-worker says, the performative piece of CPAC,

don't lose any sleep about that. If that, that was nothing more than whistling in the graveyard. These indictment, these prosecutions are real. These witnesses are serious, and he's in serious jeopardy as a result. And anybody that tells you anything differently, whether they're trolls or maga or fox or newsmax are just gin and up ratings, they don't believe it themselves. And the reality is what is what practitioners and people that closely follow this intersection of law of politics, especially as it relates to Donald Trump, listen to us, follow us, look at our track record over two and a half years of doing legal AF and all of that.

But we've reached that part of the show where we have sponsors. We talked about them when I first started. We've got Miracle made and we've got AG one and we've got a special guest. We love when Jordy comes on the show. We got Jordy Masalas and our sponsors. And now let's take a quick break to talk about our next partner, Miracle made. Did you know that your temperature at night can have one of the greatest impacts on your sleep quality? If you wake up too hot or too cold, I highly recommend that you check out Miracle Made's bed sheets. Inspired by silver infused fabrics made by NASA,

Miracle Made makes temperature regulating bedding so you can sleep at the perfect temperature all night long. Using silver infused fabrics originally developed by NASA, Miracle-Made Sheets are thermo-regulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long so you get a better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with natural silver that prevent 99.9% of bacterial growth, leaving them to stay cleaner and fresh three times longer than other sheets. No more gross odors. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands. Stop

sleeping on bacteria, clean sheets means less bacteria to clog your pores and fewer breakouts and other skin problems. Go to trymeracle.com slash legal af to try it today. And we've got a special deal for our listeners. Save over 40% off and be sure to use our promo code legal a f at checkout to save even more and get three free towels. And miracle is so confident in their product. It's back with a 30 day money back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with MiracleMade. Go to trymeracle.com slash legal a f and use the code legal a f to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's try miracle.com slash legal a f to treat yourself.

Our next partner is AG1 by Athletic Greens. Now I take AG1 by Athletic Greens literally every day. I give AG1 a try because I want a better gut health, boosted energy, immune system support, and I hate to take pills and vitamins and want it to supplement it actually tastes great. I take AG1 in the morning before working out and it makes me feel incredible and just ready to take on my day. When I take AG1, I know I'm doing something good for my body, like giving my body the nutrition that it craves and covering my nutritional basis. I've tried a ton of different supplements out there, but this is different and the ingredients are super high quality.

I got started with AG1 because I used to take all these different pills and gummies and frankly what I was taking was expensive and I didn't even know if it was good for me. But with AG1 biopletic greens, I know that what I'm consuming has the best ingredients and also taste delicious. AG1 makes it easier for you to take the highest quality supplements, period. When I started my AG1 journey very quickly I noticed that it helps me with, you know, improved overall digestion, my energy levels were up and just overalls feeling great. It's just one scoop of powder mixed with water once a day and it's a seamless and easy daily

habit to maintain. The Midas might ask me all the time, Jordy, how do you have so much energy to do these adreads? Well, if I could only pick one thing, it's H.E. one by Athletic Reigns. Just one daily serving covers my day's nutritional basis, and supports my long-term gut health with 75 high-quality vitamins, minerals, and whole-food source ingredients. I can't think of another daily routine that pays off as well as H.E. one, which is why I trust the product so much. If you're looking for a simpler, cost-effective supplement routine, Athletic Greens is giving you a free one-year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase.

Just go to Athletic Greens.com slash legal AF. That's Athletic Greens.com slash legal AF. Check it out. And now back to the video. Let's be honest, Jordy could sell ice and winter and cold a new castle. That's what I like to say. Let's move on to our last segment, something that is very important that we continue to monitor and watch for all legal developments. And we've

got our first filing by women as plaintiffs, hard to believe, since the Dobs decision, which found that the six-week ban on abortions with no exception, except for some nebulous medical reason that nobody can figure out from the, even the legislators can't figure out what it means, and all the Texas doctors, all their sphinters of clothes, and they won't even bother giving a medically necessary abortion. And so five women who have high risk pregnancies have decided to take it to court and say that they have the right to, as with their doctors, to make a decision about their pregnancies. And these women have, you know, and it's all and this is all self reported in the filing

and the press interviews that they've given. They're, what they're carrying have various stages of problems from no skull potentially to completely not viable, or other words would not survive outside the womb and things like that. And they're gonna take it right to the Texas Supreme Court about whether they have the right and to define what it means to have this kind of medical necessity.

Let's start with that case before we turn to Florida, which is trying to match in this low road, this low road, the slippery slope down Texas with its new bill that's floating around at six weeks as well. And then Walgreens, but let's start, Karen. What do you think about the lawsuit? What do you think about the women have come forward? We want to hear your perspective. Yeah, look, it's, this is a, I can't believe how many things that are to talk about regarding

abortion and access to abortion today Given that it's 2023 but the parade of horribles that everyone said was going to happen after dogs and was was Was decided and rovers's way was was overturned is clearly starting to happen right in June of 2022 Rovers' Swade was ended. 14 states have since put severe restrictions on abortion and in Texas, which is among the most aggressive in the country, this lawsuit by the five women says that this abortion ban puts their health at risk. There's, it's created an uncertainty

around what is a medical emergency. And Texas has what they call a medical emergency exemption. But because there's uncertainty about what, and when there is an emergency that would put someone's life or health or fertility in danger, which is the standard that the women are asking that the court to rule should be the definition. What they're doing is very interesting. They're not trying to block the law. They're asking the court to clarify the law and say that abortions can be

performed when a physician makes a good faith judgment that the pregnant person has a physical, emergent medical condition that poses a risk of either death or a risk to their health, including their fertility. Now, Texas's law has a civil enforcement ban that allows private civil lawsuits against anyone accused of facilitating an abortion once there's a heartbeat, which is around six weeks. And most women don't even know their pregnant at that point.

But even if you do, sometimes some of these issues don't come to bear in time to be able to make that decision. And so one plaintiff said that she was forced to wait until she was septic to get an abortion. So she, they knew that the fetus was not going to survive, but the doctor refused to abort the fetus until it got to the point where her life was actually in danger. And so she went into septic shock and ended up losing a fallopian tube.

Another plaintiff who was pregnant with twins, one was deformed and what happens often is a woman is forced to choose to have a, they call it a selective abortion and she did it for two reasons. One because that child would likely not survive, but also to save the health and life of the remaining child because having a child or a fetus who had the issues that this one had could put the other twins' life in danger. So the doctor refused to do it. And so she had to travel out of the state to have the abortion, which she had to travel out of state to have this abortion which she did Another plaintiff had to go to Seattle at 18 weeks

When her fetus had a condition that that said there was zero chance of survival Rather than having to carry that longer. She went to Seattle to have that abortion and another plaintiff said at 19 and a half weeks So that's halfway through 20 weeks is the halfway mark her water broke But it was too early and she was told the fetus would not survive So but the doctors refused an abortion because there was still a heartbeat And then the fifth plaintiff went to Colorado for a selective abortion procedure, much like the other one with twins. So, you know, that's what they're trying to do is get the court to clarify what it means to have a health risk or a life safety risk, et cetera. So because it's unclear.

And the doctors, there's a chilling effect. The doctors are too afraid to perform these abortions. And there's real life consequences to these women. So I give them a lot of credit for doing it this way, because I think that the courts will take this as an opportunity hopefully to clarify the law and really give some guidance so that at least in these states like Texas where access to abortion is getting less and less at all,

at least these types of scenarios will allow doctors and pregnant people to make their own medical choice about their body and about the fetuses they might be carrying. Yeah, this is a strategy by the Center for Reproductive Rights. This is the first case, the test case, that they're going to bring. And what reporting, I think New York Times, that are nice reporting on this is that using these types of plaintiffs who have these heartbreaking but real-life medical emergency

pregnancy emergency issues is how When done in in seriatim in done in multiple filings around the country It was the tactics that in strategy that was used in places like Ireland, which is primarily heavy Roman Catholic to get abortion on the books in Ireland. It was because they made it personal and they made people face and look in the mirror and listen to women and talk about their pregnancies and why they needed abortions for medical and high-risk reasons. And we're going to see more of this.

This is a, this hopefully will be a very effective strategy. They're going right into the heart of Texas and starting at the top with, you know, the most other than an outright ban, the most restrictive place on earth with bounty laws as you carry an outline five-year prison sentences and all. But they saw the Center for Reproductive Rights and its lawyers saw that there was this loophole about the definition of medical need and medical necessity, and they are driving it right through that loophole. So we're going to follow that. Florida, not to be outdone by Texas, has decided to lower, you know, before dobs, they were at 24 weeks, after dobs, they went to 15 weeks, and now they want to go to six to match Texas.

And they have no exception except for rape and incest. So you wouldn't be able to use necessarily this tactic in that's being used in Texas in Florida because it doesn't have similar language. But you know, look, the progressive groups and the democratic groups are coming at this from various vantage points to try to end up in the same place, which is to give a woman a right to choose. They're using in some states where they don't have this option. They're going after the state constitution and seeing if there is a right to choose, a privacy right to choose that's in the state constitution, even if it's been ripped away

from the federal constitution. That's one way to do it. Then there's these lawsuits that are going after elements of built books, uh, uh, bills on the books law on the books and trying to challenge aspects of them, um, to get, uh, again, to get a, as, as, as a broad, a right to a woman to control the autonomy for her own body as possible in every state that they're in. Understanding as Karen laid out, as you laid out, 13 states is basically an outright ban. Talk about the civil war.

It's a civil war for women because there's a North and a South. And when we talk about the 21 attorney generals stating their state's public policy that decided to scare the crap out of Walgreens with a two page letter and force them to stop selling FDA approved abortion pills from their pharmacy counters and Walgreens. I mean, I mean, let me just roll, roll through the states, Missouri, Alaska, Florida, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Kansas, Kentucky, Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, Oklahoma. If I missed one, I apologize.

That's the group. And they wrote a letter, a sign on, you know, one letter signed with all their signature blocks. And Walgreens said, okay, we give up, you know, as opposed to like doing the right thing from corporate social responsibility, you know, the Santas likes to talk about these woke corporations, you know what a woke corporation would do. Go higher lawyers and lobbyists and go file a lawsuit to allow it to sell abortion pills in these states instead of pulling out and abandoning their women customers

in each of these states because they got a nasty letter. Oh, go file a lawsuit, challenge it if you don't think it's right. And so other states led by progressives, by Democrats, by humane people like California and Gavin Newsome said, you know what? Go look on our books. How much business are we giving Walgreens for clinics and for distribution of COVID medication, COVID vaccines and other things that in public-private partnerships often happen where the government joins forces

and gets into business with private businesses like Walgreens in order to help things like public health. And so right away today, Gavin Newsom having tweeted earlier, we're gonna get out of the business of Walgreens, announced he's killing a $54 million contract. There it is up on the board with Walgreens because they're not doing the right thing here in cowtowing to these attorney generals. I mean, at least try to do something, you know, the real world impact on women and families

based on their decision. This is Calis decision to pull up stakes and stop selling pills because they got an nasty letter. Try harder. Try harder. File a lawsuit. Go for a declaratory judgment somewhere that you're allowed to do this. This is not the same as an abortion, you know, the way that the law is written, you know, especially laws like the fetal heartbeat law in Texas. There's no, there's no fetal heartbeat when these abortion pills are used primarily. So, you know, but it's too hard for them to do that. So they don't bother and who's impact, who's the victim again, the woman who's trying to exercise her bodily autonomy and her right to choose, disgusting, Florida, disgusting. I can only hope that Ron DeSantis,

because he lives inside this goldfish bowl of his own making, where he has a captive legislature who is who's scared of him. And every time anything they put in front of anything that he proposes, they pass. I don't think they've ever pushed back on anything. But this doesn't work. Karen, do you think around the country with independence in women when he takes this show on the road and tries to win a primary? Well, look, as you said, there was a civil war of different states in this country. You have the states where women's rights matter and a lot of states where they're trying to take away the rights

of women to control their bodies. And I'm surprised at how many women in those states agree with these rights being taken away. It just surprises me that that is the case. And so I don't understand, I can't pretend to understand how we've gotten to where we are. Our Donald Trump is a front runner for President and Ron DeSantis is neck and neck with him and that this speaks to people. But whether or not this will be the thing that puts people over the edge, I think it's, we'll see. We will see if this is the thing.

But what's happening in this country with abortion, that we have three or four different things to talk about today, whether it's the law in Texas, whether it's the law, the law suit in Texas, I should say, or the law in Florida, or this Walgreens issue with the abortion pill. And the issue that is happening with the abortion pill is that there's only a couple of manufacturers in this country that make the two pills that are required for abortion. And one of them is the one that the Republicans

are complaining about. And basically trying to block, it's called MIFIP-PRISTONE. They're trying to block it nationwide. And so they're suing in Texas to try to challenge the FDA approval of this drug. This was approved 23 years ago, this drug. But they filed a lawsuit we've talked about this before

in LegalAEP, in a one-judge locale in Texas, Judge Matthew Kismark, and his court, and he's probably going to rule against abortion nationwide. But the supplying of these abortion pills or this one particular is what the Walgreens issue is about, because when the pandemic happened, the FDA said that, you know what, you can start now, it used to be that you'd have to go into the doctor and be prescribed these medications by a doctor. And when the pandemic happened, the FDA,

what they did was they loosened the, or changed the restriction, said, you know what, as long as you're seen by a doctor through telemedicine, so on Zoom or however, that's okay. And then you can have it be prescribed and then you can go and get it at your local pharmacy. Well, Walgreens and CVS and RIDA and all of those pharmacies, they weren't licensed to be able to prescribe or to be able to dispense this particular drug. So the FDA created a certification

that pharmacies could apply for. And Walgreens and CVS are two of the pharmacies and two of the biggest ones nationwide, I think, right age as well, to get the certification from the FDA to dispense both drugs in the states. And what happened was Walgreens, however, said that they aren't, as you said,

going to dispense it in the states, in the 21 states, where abortion is either illegal or restricted in certain ways. And Walgreens said, okay, fine, we'll only dispense it in states where it's clearly legal, not in those 21 states. Right aid and CVS are staying silent on the matter. They haven't said one way or another yet. And I think it'll be interesting to see what they do. And if they decide not to as well, because they don't want to get in the crosshairs of any legal issues, then perhaps

what's going to happen is new some and others going to then also say we're no longer going to do business with those pharmacies as well. And what concerns me about, as much as I agree with what Newsom did and you have to take stands, especially on something that's important, the only thing that concerns me is the people who get impacted when these pharmacies stutter because they can't afford to do business so they don't want to do business or whatever. So it's always people in poor communities or people of color who are impacted by that.

So, I just hope new some, there's no collateral damage to others to what new system is doing. I mean, again, I think it's important to take a stand, but we're just getting more and more polarized here and it's getting worse and worse. So, we'll see, stay tuned. You know, I am concerned about this Texas judge who may ban these pills nationwide. And then there's competing lawsuit in,

I think is it in Seattle, where there's a lawsuit where they are going to try to get another competing federal judge to say the opposite of what they're going to say in Texas. And then that just sets up a fight in the Supreme Court because there will be a difference in the circuits. They'll be complex. And that's one of the reasons you get into the Supreme Court, and we all know where the Supreme Court will rule.

So it's really a sad, a very sad day, because, you know, dobs, what dobs said was, let's leave it up to the States, you know. There's no federal constitutional right to abortion, and of course, I don't agree with that. But what they did say was fine. Leave it up to the states. But what's really happening is by leaving it up to the states, you're going to do things like going to federal court

and get a federal judge to then ban it for everybody. And obviously, they're only banning the medication, not abortion for everybody, but more than half abortions now happen with the pill in the privacy of your own home. And it's more humane, it's less difficult. And it's really giving a lot of people who don't have access to healthcare access to this very important,

very important health related, related, abortion. So I just think that, um, it's a really sad state where we are here and that the fact that we can have this many topics to talk about in one episode is, is concerning. I just think it's going to get worse. Well, we're going to thank you, Karen. We're going to stay on top of all of this important. We don't just give up hope after dogs that we watch how the Democratic and other progressive organizations, like the Center for Reproductive Rights, fight back and customize their fight per jurisdiction based on state constitutions, lawsuits, infirmities inside of the law of

these bills, many of which were passed very hastily. And there's language in there that we can we can try to attack. And which we have to in the, you know, 22 states, let's just use the CVS list, the 22 states where a woman's right to choose is either been extinguished or is under serious, serious assault. We've reached the end of another episode of LegalAF, this one, the midweek, co-anchor by Michael Popock and Karen Friedman, Agnifalo. Here's the way to help people want to know how to help. They like watching, they like listening.

If you're watching on YouTube, subscribe to the Midas Touch channel. You'll get all of these, all the other programming on the Midas Touch channel. You'll get all of these, all the other programming on the Midas Touch network. Hot takes by me and Ben Mysalis on legal issues that happened during the day leading into each show. That's one way. If you listen to us on podcasts, Apple, Spotify, Google, go take a look at us and subscribe for free. These are all free subscriptions over on YouTube and vice versa. Do both.

That really helps. Leave a comment. We do read them. It helps improve the quality of our show and what we're, and what we're doing. Leave a five star review. It helps with the algorithms, which help with the ratings, which help keep this whole thing moving and alive. We've got a might as might as merch.

We've got legal AF merchandise that's available and the might as touch gear on the store.mightesttouch.com. We have a link for that there. And that's it, man. This is the way to support us. Watch us, listen to us, free subscribe to us. Comment about us, review us, buy our shirts and mugs, come and listen to Karen and I on Wednesdays, Ben and me on Saturdays, Karen, you love when

I do this to you. On the set of Law and Order, by the way, I want that lamp. There's a great lamp behind you with an eagle, I want that lamp. On the set of Law and order, the only legal advisor for law and order the original last word. Great to be here. Great to see you. And I'm going to try not to look like Ruth Bader Ginsburg next week. Standing in for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Karen Friedrich, Nifalo, see everybody on Saturday.

See you Karen next Wednesday.