Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump OBLITERATES his OWN Defense and Jack is LISTENING

Episode Date: June 22, 2023

The top-rated legal and political podcast Legal AF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this midweek’s edition, Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo, discuss: 1. Updates in the Mar a Lago Trump criminal trial, with the Court setting a very fast jury trial date in August, other expected motions by Trump’s side, and Trump helping the prosecution with public confessions including on Fox; 2. Updates in the other criminal prosecution of Trump in New York, including the Manhattan DA firing back against Trump’s efforts to disqualify Merchan; 3. the Hunter Biden plea deal, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! ROCKET MONEY: Cancel unwanted subscriptions – and manage your expenses the easy way – by going to https://RocketMoney.com/legalaf MIRACLE MADE: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGLAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. 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 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The new and improved judge, Canon 2.0, has laid down a marker and without consulting either prosecution or defense, has set a very speedy trial date of this August 14th, about 70 days to start the Mar-a-Lago Trump Criminal trial. By contrast, Bannon's trial was set more than 12 months from his indictment. This is exactly what Jack Smith wanted, a fast trial, he and his team have prepared for, and before the March 2024 New York trial, but deafening silence from the Trump camp, who I thought wanted to clear his name quickly, when not if Trump will file the motions to delay it, claiming he needs more time to file his motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss the indictment. And listen, moving to Trump's second, whoa,

this is live TV, everybody. You like that at the beginning? Here we go, moving to Trump's second indictment in as many months, there are developments in the Manhattan DA's business record fraud criminal trial scheduled for March 2024. And with the Manhattan DA pulling no punches as it fires back at Trump's efforts to recuse Judge Mershan as the

state court judge presiding over the jury trial. And we also learn that Judge Mershan has more ethics in his little finger than many Supreme Court justices. And I'm looking at you, Judge Alito, have in their whole bodies. Finally, the control demolition of the Hunter Biden investigation by the Delaware U.S. Attorney led office of the U.S. Attorney in Delaware and not the Biden DOJ as Trump likes to squeal is in place with the office finally agreeing to resolve their criminal investigation of the president's son with a simultaneous indictment and plea to two misdemeanor failure to pay taxes counts and a separate deferred prosecution agreement

and diversion program for a gun charge and a requirement that hunter never own a firearm again and stay clean for 24 months. That should put an end to the criminal investigations or does it? We'll discuss the US attorney, David Weiss' phrasing in his press release that despite the plea deal, the investigation is ongoing with our former prosecutor, Karen Friedman-Nicfalo, all this and so much more, including I'll probably drop something else during the show, on the midweek edition of Legal AF Only on the Midas Touch Network with your anchors, Michael Popak and Karen Friedman

Agnifala. Wow, we are two weeks from Trump's second indictment and six weeks from what will likely be his third with two criminal trials already scheduled four months apart. I sound giddy because I am. We have a lot to talk about and I'm thrilled to do it each midweek with you, Karen. Karen, are you? I'm good. I'm good. How are you, Popeye?

I see you've shaved. You don't have your beard and your mustache that I'm normally used to seeing. I don't know if Saturday, I only listened to the Saturday. I didn't watch it. So I don't know if this was, if this is just new to me, or if this is new to all the legal aeifers. Well, the gods have paid me back

because they made me fumble my opening because I shaved my beard. Secondly, Ben gave me a lot of flak not to bore everybody with the details to these like dude you have to like warn people and give the the audience three days to prepare I said so sorry what do you yeah it was odd because on one of my hot takes or or maybe it was with Ben there was a clean shave in Popoq, and then an ad came up where I was wearing the same outfit and glasses, but it was the day before with her suit Popoq.

Who cares? Let's move on to things that people don't care about our glasses and my shaving techniques. Maybe they do, but in any event, we've got a lot to talk about. Let's start with what the heck is going on with the new and improved judge, Ken. And she's like, you know, there was Terminator and then there's Terminator 2. Ken and two, man, she's loaded for bear.

She knows the world is watching her. More importantly, she knows her bosses at the 11th Circuit are watching her. And she's like, you know what? I'm not even going to hold what's normal in this world is you hold a hearing. We were all waiting for the hearing tape where the parties would come in with their lawyers and we'd discuss a trial. Nope. She just cranked out a uniform order like she yelled out to her clerk, you know, order number six and they just pick a date that's 70 days away and let them fight over it. So she just just throwing all these monkeys in a barrel and by monkeys in a barrel

I mean Donald Trump and his lawyers and letting them fight their way out You know what if somebody wants to be heard that they think that trial dates too early I'll hear from them. You know in a way it solves a lot of problems for her She can't be accused of bending over backwards to solve Donald Trump's problems Although some people have speculated there's a conspiracy because it's timed around the summer when Fawney Willis believed me under Ockham's razor, trust me, this is not what's going on. This doesn't help him, this doesn't avoid another indictment. She'll indict Fawney Willis in Fulton County in the end of July, beginning of August, whether there's a trial or not, indictments and trials

don't cancel each other out. You can still entite people as they're being tried in other places for other matters. So that's out. This is just her saying, you know what? I thought Donald Trump wanted to clear his name. What does he want that overhang, that shadow over his candidacy while he's running for office? You know, that's her thinking, I would imagine imagine and let him tell me why he needs more time. In the meantime, Jack Smith, who spent the last seven months getting prepared for

this trial, he is ready. The reason he dropped the dime and dropped the indictment is he's ready to try the case. He's got all his witnesses. He's got all of his evidence. There's no more to be done for the Mara Lago investigation. So when she says, okay, August 14th, the US is going to say, ready. And because I've been the courtroom for that. And the vet's like, not ready. Need more time and just say, all right, well, how much time do you need? You know, we're going to do this relatively quickly. So I like the fact I want to hear from your perspective, you know, you're actually, you're

actually in or near a Florida federal district, just not the Southern District of Florida, keeping your trial skills really, really razor sharp, sharp the way we like them here on the show. And so I'll just give one more bit of detail that I'm gonna turn it over to you. So you've got the protective order in place by a very seasoned magistrate, magistrate, the show loves, judge Reinhart,

magistrate Reinhart, who's the one that issued the search warrant back in August that was executed on Mar-a-Lago. So she has been coupled with the same seasoned magistrate, and magistrates in the world of federal criminal practice do a lot. They don't do a little. Magistrate judges, which work with the Article III trial judge,

are given all of the discovery responsibility, most of the motion practice, although things like suppressing evidence and moving to dismiss the indictment, I think would still go to Canon as the judge, but it may come up through the magistrate on a report and recommendation. And she's already coloring inside the line. She's giving the magistrate the things the magistrate supposed to do. She's setting the trial without asking. And here we go. Now the protective order, which was entered on really on consent,

both parties agreed to it, was so masterful and such genius because Donald Trump, you know, the dividends were paid like the next day or the same day as the protective order was put in place. The protective order says that Donald Trump can't comment on evidence, on discovery, material that he is provided by the government indirectly or directly social media public or otherwise. Doesn't say he can't comment on the indictment on the things that are alleged in the indictment. And it doesn't say he's got a general gag order.

And so what did Donald Trump do later that same evening the day the protective order was issued? He went on Fox News and Brett Baer. And while he was there in order to try to, I guess, it's hard to follow him. but in order to try to defend himself against one crime, he admitted to another in order to defend against him, him, having materials or declassifying or not, a classifying, he said, well, I sort of made up that document that I wasn't really showing anybody anything, even though it's recorded on an audio recording.

And I talk about, look at this, look at that. And you can hear him rustling papers. I wasn't really talking about anything. I was just talking about a giant pile of Iranian documents that I happen to have. No particular document, just a giant pile of Iranian documents. And every time our audience hears giant pile of Iranian documents, just translate that into national defense information that is illegal to retain under the Espionage Act. So he admits to the Espion Act crime, and then of course does himself complete the service

and his lawyers, I'm sure, slapping themselves on their foreheads because he is out of control, which is great for the prosecution. I don't think we've ever seen in our lifetime somebody who is congenitally from a DNA level incapable of having a defense made for him because he'll go on television and press conferences and rallies and he will undercut every aspect of every element of a possible defense. That's a lot, let me turn it over to my prosecutor, colleague, former prosecutor colleague,

and start with, why don't we start with the date? What'd you think about her setting the date, and then moving towards Trump on television? Yeah, so you and Ben both are by nature, I think, really positive, glasses half full kind of people. And so I love that you, your interpretation of Eileen Cannon's trial order and that she's coming out and she's letting them fight over it and you know, trying to set the stage here. And that was your judgment.

That was your reaction to her order. I had the opposite reaction to her order. I thought, oh my God, she really is incompetent. And she has no experience whatsoever. Because there is no way this trial could begin on August 14th in anybody's version of the world. She also says that in her order this could be the trial could be in Fort Pierce, but that could change. It's like she said an order about nothing. It's like she dusted out an order for some other case.

One point she puts it, because it's got like 25 different, and then you do this, and then you do that. And if somebody needs an interpreter, let me know. Well, come on, she knows nobody needs an interpreter. I mean, it's like she put no thought whatsoever into this omnibus order that, again, this is like the kitchen sink order that could pertain to any case in the district, but certainly not this particular case.

And so she says, this case is here by set for a criminal jury trial during the two week period, commencing August 14th, or soon thereafter, as the case may be called. A calendar call will be held at 145 PM on August day of 2023. All hearings will be held at 1.45 p.m. on August 8, 2023. All hearings will be held at the Altoli Adams Senior United States Court House located in Fort Pierce, Florida, with modifications to be made as necessary as this matter proceeds.

It's like she's saying nothing. So there's no information in there other than the parties need to meet and confer. Anyone wants to file a boardidier question, submit them. I may or may not accept them. You want some proposed jury instructions? Sure, go ahead. I may or may not accept those. The proposed verdict form, the witness list.

I want tabbed binders with exhibits. I mean, again, this was not a motion written for this case. And the reason, I would say that, is because the number one thing this needs to happen in this case is a classified information procedures act SEPA hearing that is going to, in and of itself, take time. So let's just unpack what's going on here.

Walt Nata still doesn't have a lawyer, okay? So he has to have a lawyer at some point that is admitted in Florida. Then all of the lawyers have to apply for top secret security clearance, which when I got top secret security clearance, it took more than a year. Now if you speed it up, I'm sure they can do it in a matter of months, but they certainly can't do it in a matter of weeks. And so by the time they get security clearance, then the defense attorneys will be able to receive classified information to start to prepare for the trial. Again, that will take time, because they will have to have this hearing under the classified

information procedures act that requires motion practice and hearing where because they will have to have this hearing under the Classified Information Procedures Act that requires motion practice and a hearing where the judge will have to decide which information will be used in court and how. And you know, these steps take a lot of time. The DOJ hasn't even filed their motion declaring that this case involves classified documents to initiate these seep or proceeding. So the mid-August date is not a real date. I don't know why she would put it there. There's some kind of a placeholder or what, but it makes no sense. And a couple other things about SEAPA. So the hearing, the SEAPA hearing happens behind closed doors when it happens.

I'm sure the motions will be filed under seal again because they're going to be talking about classified information. And if the government doesn't agree with any of Judge Cannon's rulings on the classified information, in other words, which documents have to be turned over, which ones don't, which can be used, which ones cannot be used, whether they cannot be shown to the jury, et cetera. There's all these procedures the judge puts in place where they balance the defendant's due process rights and the national security rights.

But if the government doesn't agree with Judge Cannon's rulings, the trial gets paused while the government can appeal to the 11th Circuit and try to get a different ruling. An appeal judge can in ruling here, which they've done in the past, and she was overruled. The defense can't do that. They would have to wait until after a conviction to appeal any evidentiary issues under SEPA. But again, that would take time. So, you know, it's very interesting to me that she wouldn't put more thought into this pretrial order. That was more narrowly tailored to this case. But I guess that's

not how she does things. I was reading that the New York Times reviewed the four other criminal trials that she's had, and she always sets a quick trial date, but always pushes it back. So, I guess that's how she does things, but to me, it just looks like somebody who's not very experienced. I think when you're a judge, you need to really command the courtroom and give information that's real, because by setting an August 14 trial date, it's just confusing to people who aren't lawyers and who don't practice this way.

Think about all the other motions that surely will occur, right? You know that there will be other pre-trial motions that she says should all be done by July 24th and submitted. But again, that doesn't even have a lawyer yet, but assuming he gets a lawyer and they can get their motions in by July 24th,

you know, they're going to say, I'm sure Donald Trump will say things, you know, we've talked about this before in other legal AFs, you know, they're going to say things like, you know, this is selective prosecution. Why weren't other people prosecuted for this? Like Hillary or, you know, they're going to say things like, you know, this is selective prosecution. Why wasn't other, why weren't other people prosecuted for this? Like Hillary or, you know, they're going to, they're going to seek to suppress Evan

Quarkren and all of his notes and recordings given he's going to assert that they were attorney client privileged, you know, and we know that that was pierced with the crime fraud exception. Well, she, she can rule on that a new. So there's going to be lots of motions that will be made in this matter. So there's no way this case is going August 14th. So again, I just, that's not how I'm used to judges, especially federal judges acting. You know, I'm more used to them behaving like Judge Mershon in the Alvin Bragg Stormy Daniels case where he gave a more realistic trial date, right? It was about almost a year away from the time of the Arrayment because that's how much time it takes

to file motions and to give over discovery. And that case doesn't even involve classified documents. That case is much more streamlined and simple. And that case takes a more streamlined and simple, and that case takes a year to go forward. So that's my take on this fake August trial date. It's not happening. Well, that was more of a critique of how she issues orders that unambentamized optimism.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that the order I like the order. I'm saying that by laying down the marker She now she now forces The other side and the defense to explain why that's not a good date Ben and I don't believe I I'll speak for myself. I don't believe this is going to trial in August I don't believe it's even going to trial in Fort Pierce at all I think it'll ultimately be transferred to Miami. I think she'll be doing hearings in Fort Pierce. I think some of them will be by Zoom and some of them will be live. But I

do like the fact whether it's because she is incompetent or amateurish or immature or her clerks are. She decided to use a form order, which as you know that she usually uses, as the starting point for a conversation. Moshan had a hearing. Moshan asked both sides to comment about what would work on calendars. He gave a broad outline. You know, let's talk about spring or second quarter 2024 and then narrowed it down to

February, March and then said choose between February, March. But that was a collaborative process in a courtroom with a hearing. She hasn't held a hearing yet. We thought the first move out of the box that she was going to do that we were waiting for on the docket, but she was going to call status conference. And at that status conference, she's, well, it's here from the side. Well, it's here from you, the prosecution. Well, what do you think it should be? And when do you think it should be? And then what's the motion practice that you think you're going to bring? And let's talk about the location for the trial. She didn't do that.

Now, right wrong or indifferent. At least she didn't issue an order that said a year and a half from now or after the election or after the primary season. And then I'd be going, oh, the fix is in. Here we go, the Eileen Cannon. But she's like, all right, Jack Smith won speedy trial. The other side, as I said, boo, I'm going to go speedy trial.

I'm going to go 70 days and so may tell me why I'm wrong. So the next thing that's going to be interesting is not this order, which I agree with you as a placeholder order. The next thing is going to be interesting is when they're all in court for a hearing. Now, now, it has to get a lawyer by the 20, a local lawyer by the 27th of June for his arrangement. I presume he'll find somebody in southern district of Florida that will agree to, you know, he's his attorney's fees are being paid by save America pack, Donald Trump's pack, which seems to have a lot of money. So he'll find

a lawyer. So he'll get a rain by whoever the duty magistrate is that day. I think in Miami, it won't be probably good, nonetheless, it happens to be a Tuesday, and he'll get a rain. And then that'll be it. And now here we go. Let's talk about all these things. I've seen reporting, actually. I don't know why it took you a year, but I've seen reporting that it'll be about

30 to 45 days for them to get their security clearance or it should, assuming there's no major hiccups. And so you're right, that does eat into the 70 days that this trial or so, this trial has been set, which is another indicator that it ain't happening in August. My prediction is, I don't know if it's a year away, which is what Bannon got with Judge Nichols,

if we're gonna use any kind of comparable, and that was just a simple two counts of contemptive Congress. But it's going to be some period of time, you know, greater than 70 days and probably less than a year somewhere between that bread basket is going to be the trial for this thing. And then everybody's going to have to like that, like the air traffic controller in the sky, all the other cases, civil and criminal and criminal state and federal are gonna have to kind of slot around that You know in general we've got one marker down which if it holds and we'll talk about that in the next segment is the March

2024 date for your old offices Prosecution of Donald Trump the trial of Donald Trump related to the 34 counts there for the Stormy Daniels cover up and Hushbudding affair. That one could move, not because of Judge Mershon, although Alvin Bragg should get some credit for being first to file, first to indict, first on the docket. But we still have to play this wait and see game a little bit for the end of June waiting to see if Judge Hellerstein and federal court grants the motion to remove the case and drag it across the street to the federal court.

Same prosecutor state, same laws state, but new courthouse federal. What's taking Judge Hellerstein so long? He's briefing it and he said he would decide, well, it's fully brief, but he said, he might hold a hearing I don't know I think the longer he's waiting the more he's signaling. Yeah, I don't think so if he really thought there was I think if he thought There was removal grounds on the papers, which is usually where you see grounds for removal I mean, I've always been involved with civil removal, which is this is very rare Which is really on the papers the clerk looks looks and like, oh, you have it.

There's no hearing. Here he's, you know, he's better than over backwards. So I don't know what second of so long, but we're not going to know until the end of June with a ruling thereafter. So end of June will know, I think, I know you in the past have said, you think it's going the federal court. I think it stays with Judge Mershon. But that's, that, that will play out that sort of, you know, you versus me on that issue.

I don't think I said it was for sure. If I said, I think it's going, I said, I think there's a possibility. I think that's a real issue. I didn't say for sure. I think a lot of people were saying, oh, it'll never happen. You know, this is frivolous. This is not federal. And I said, I don't know.

I think there's something there, which is why federal. And I said, I don't know. I think there's something there, which is why it's interesting to me that it's taking so long, because he's really thinking about it. Because I don't think it's a no-brainer that it stays in the states the way everybody else, or not everybody, but many people have said, I can see it staying, but I don't know that it's such a no brainer that he doesn't really consider it partly because I've seen it happen before. It happened to us, you know, so I advanced with Donald Trump's tax returns in a grand jury

subpoena. You know, they made a removal motion and it got removed. So, you know, it's very similar. But I don't want to leave people with the impression that he's like thinking about it until June 27th. They're still briefing. He just stretched out the briefing and target at that as the, I think the last reply brief is do that.

And that he'll decide whether he needs a hearing or an evidentiary hearing or not. In the meantime, as we've said before, he's just, he's told judge Rashad, you got this, you be you, keep running the case. Because unless it until you're the judge, which is the right thing for him to do there. Comment though before we leave this segment because I don't think you had a chance to comment on, you put on your prosecutor hat.

It's such a weird phrase, by the way, put on that hat, I don't know where that came from. You didn't wear a hat when you were a prosecutor. Put on your prosecutor hat. You're the white hat. I was a prosecutor. But on your white hat. That's right. And tell the audience what you made of what it does the Donald Trump's case to have him be interrogated by Brett Baer. We just say this one thing. This went so poorly for him that former lawyers like Tim Parletori have gone on network television and have said, I mean, what are you

gonna do? You get like cross-examined Brett bearer. There's the headline. He said, that will all be admissible. That will all come in. And then you're not going to get like, well, what did you think the president meant? Do you think he was confused about your question on the National Archive? I mean, it's all recorded roll tape. So talk about it from a prosecutor's standpoint, when you have the gift, the gift of Donald Trump continuing to generate new evidence on a daily basis. This is not a static case. This is not in the can. Every day, Donald Trump creates a new piece of evidence for the prosecution in all of these

cases. What did you make of his interview? Where do you think the prosecutors do with it? Well, first of all, this interview was astonishing. I mean, absolutely astonishing. And every once in a while, and this was one of those times, when Donald Trump either speaks or is doing something, I have to watch it twice or listen to it twice because he'll say something, and it's the opposite of what I know the truth to be. And so I always think, wait, what did he just say that can't possibly be it, but it always

is. Just like he's been saying all over the news today that that was a perfect interview, right? It was a great interview. It went fantastically. And I'm thinking, how could he think he did a great job in this interview? But he does. And that's the kind of thing why I have to go back and re-read or listen, because I'm like, what? I mean, he literally just says the opposite of what things are. And this interview by Brett Baer, I mean, I give him a lot of,

I give Brett Baer a lot of credit. This was on Fox. And he cross-examined Trump. And he held his feet to the fire and didn't necessarily let him get away with saying things that aren't true. But Trump gave the prosecutors a lot of, a lot of things that they could use in their trial. As you just said, these

are statements that can be used against him at trial. In the interview, he talked about the boxes. He talked about the documents and the boxes of things that he possessed at Mar-a-Lago. He said, I had the boxes. I wanted to go through them and get my personal things out of them. But as you know, I was very busy. Before I send the boxes over, I have to take my things out. He says everything was declassified. These boxes were interspersed with my personal things. And then he goes on to say like golf shirts, socks, shoes, and I'm like, is underwear, I

don't know if he said underwear, but in my my head I'm like, ew, it's disgusting. He has his dirty clothes in with classified top secret information, but even so, okay, is your dirty socks more important than having sensitive classified information, strewn all over your bathroom and on the shelf, on the stage at Mar-a-Lago so that it's so important for you to keep it, that we can risk our national security by having this stuff, just where anyone can reach it, not give it back. It just made no sense to me that that was something he could sit, that he thinks has any appeal, whether it's jury appeal or public appeal, that anyone would think that that's okay.

And so he went on and on. So because he said that, he's now stuck with that as a defense, right? That's what he's going to, he's going to have to say, or if he tries to say something else, they're going to say, no, you said, this is why you kept the stuff, because you still wanted to go through it, but you admitted to keeping it. You admitted to having it. So that's a confession right there. It's confession by interview.

It was just interesting that Bear fact checked him in real time. And Jack Smith, he's just going to show this clip by clip. I just criminal trial. And, you know, I think this is why one of the reasons that Jack Smith didn't even ask for a gag order, you know, and prosecutors don't really ask for gag orders, A, because it's tricky during an election, you know, to have him not be able to speak, but B, as a prosecutor, it's the gift that keeps on giving. Let him talk.

Let him keep talking. Let him, you know, hang himself with his own news. And you know, Trump basically then, you know, during this interview, started going after Bill Barr, calling him a coward, you know, saying he didn't do what he was supposed to do. And, you know, I fired. That's why I fired him, you know, he just starts to go on and on about just all of that kind of stuff and that he had the right to keep the boxes. And you know, this is all the Presidential Records Act, it's not criminal.

Again, I don't really know what that means. But then he said, you know, other presidents when they leave, they also take papers, you know. And he says, you know, Biden has far more yet 1,800 boxes, the Chinatown boxes. And that's always his little racist trope that he loves to talk about the China virus or the Chinatown boxes.

That's why he, I think, throws that in all the time. But then Brettbert talks to him about the recording, right? Where Trump was a bedminster talking to those writers, the people who were the ghost writing, the Mark Meadows biography. And he asked him about it, and Trump said, oh, you know that, there was no document, there was no paper, There was no paper. Those were just newspaper clippings and magazine clippings, you know. And it's just interesting that, you know, he clearly views that as the most serious charge

and the most significant thing in the indictment because he's now he's walking away from, he's not even saying yes, there was a document, but I declassified it, or he's not saying, you know, there was a document, I was allowed to possess it. He's actually saying there was no document at all. It was just newspaper and magazine clipping. So, you know, it was just, so he's sort of locking himself in, and I'm sure Jack Smith, in addition to having the recordings,

talked to the witnesses who were in the room. If if he didn't talk to the witnesses in the room He would never have put that in the indictment so so firmly so Almost certain those witnesses will say no those weren't magazine and newspaper clipping those were top secret classified documents that he showed me and I saw So it'll just be very interesting. Brett Barer then went on to ask him, why didn't you just turn over the documents when they subpoenaed you?

And then Trump says, oh, there's a court decision that says, that strongly says you can keep the documents. We were having these discussions with the National Archives and then they raided my house, but know, but they could be stuffing it. You know, I don't know what they took, you know, they've never treated a president like this. So what is he now saying? They planted stuff on him, you know, but he just kind of gets really like interrupts

him and gets very defensive and then he, you know, talks in these non-sequiturs that aren't really responsive to the question. Then he goes on, of course, to trash every single person under the sun, including Biden and Pence, and everybody else. And he says he has zero worries under the law. But he goes after Bill Clinton. That's just what he does. It was a classic Donald Trump, but he gave so many great nuggets to Jack Smith.

One of them I thought that was great was when he said, I had the boxes, I wanted to get my things out and I was very busy. That's a confession right there to possessing the documents. That's it. He said in addition to magazine clippings, he said a pile of Iranian documents, which is the reason I talked about it as NDI. His other problem is, and he's picking a fight where he's going to lose. If he's going to pick a battle, he's going to die on this hill.

There were two people that recorded that conversation. Margot Martin, one of them, the Melania lookalike, who is his assistant, who records all the conversations. The another person recorded the conversation, and Mark Meadows was in the room, who's already cooperating with the government. So all these people are going to tell the truth about what happened, and the document that he's obviously pointing to, look at this, look, look, look at this, isn't this amazing? Look at this, isn't this amazing? Look at this, look at this. You can't use that grammar,

which is third second grade literacy and have anyone on the jury conclude hearing that document, hearing that recording, and hearing the testimony from people that were in the room that he was just talking about an unsegregated, uncoolated pile of Iranian documents, magazines and clippings. There's just no way.

The stuff that works barely, barely in rallies, interviews, and press conferences and social media does not and will not work in a court of law with a judge and a jury and prosecutors cross examining him using his own words, video tapes, and clips guaranteed. This will not work. You can imagine what and Donald Trump has has tried hard to avoid things like deposition. He's never been on the stand for a trial, certainly not a criminal trial, certainly not one where he will face a fuselage of his own comments and statements and recordings and video against him.

Okay, including this ever changing story about why he didn't give the documents to the National Archive, why he didn't give them to the FBI. He still didn't answer. I mean, for all of Brett Bares, hard-hitting questions, he didn't say to him, why did you lie to Evan Corcoran? Why did you have Walt Nowda move the documents out of the storage room in the week between the time that Evan Corcoran told you he was going to do the review and the time that he showed up? Why did you do that? Why did you make him go into a room knowing that you would take in dozens and dozens of boxes out?

That's a cross examination that John Trump has not had to go through. He gets one chance at that sitting in a chair and he is almost, if not completely, uncoachable. If I was his attorney, getting him ready for the testimony of his life, I'd be crap and bricks because there's no way he will listen to anybody. There's too many things that he has said that are inconsistent. He'll have to explain it on the stand. He looks terrible. He was sweatin' his way through Brett Barr.

Can you imagine what's gonna happen when they call him in? Well, he actually will be sitting there as a criminal defendant for the whole trial. In any of these trials. So this is just, I said this with Ben on Saturday. This is weekend at Bernice. This is, he's dead. They're just putting makeup on him and sunglasses and traipsing him around because the longer, you know, he stays in this, the more he can grift, the more he can stay as a viable candidate and maybe somehow he wins the presidency again and pardons himself. That's, that's all he's hoping for because he can't win in the courtroom

and he should, he'll never do this because of the ego narcissist, but he should stay out of going on television. He should just hunker down somewhere, not be seen until the primaries are what he really has to. But the good news is that's not going to happen. And to the point about Joe Biden, just I'll leave it on this, then we'll talk about the next segment. The federal government, the prosecutors in the indictment estimate that over 150,000 people traips their way through Mar-a-Lago, which is a semi-public club for various events

in the time in which he retained illegally those documents. 150,000 people basically had access to all of the documents, including a convicted Chinese spy. A woman who went to Mar-a-Lago to spy was convicted for doing so when they cornered in her hotel with multiple burner phones and passports. He had the documents still there at that time. So I don't know what he's talking about. Joe Biden's library with the University of Delaware and Obama's library in Chicago and the documents through the National

Archive that are probably catalogued and stored there. I mean, it's just nonsense. And we're going to talk about, you know, not forget twice indicted, twice arrested in two months, including in the Manhattan DA by the Manhattan DA's office in their criminal prosecution. We're going to talk about that. Karen Friedman, Ick Nifolose, old office, and some really great updates related to that because that one's going to try hopefully in March. We'll talk about that next after a word from our sponsors.

We've all heard the famous lie. Try it for 30 days. Yeah. Well, that's just enough time to try it. And then completely forget about it. In fact, over 80% of people have subscriptions they forgot about. You could be wasting money and not even realizing it. Rocket money helps you find those forgotten subscriptions so you can stop paying for the ones you don't use. Do you know how much your subscriptions really cost? Most Americans think they spend around $80 a month on subscriptions, but the actual total is closer

to $200. If you don't know exactly how much you're spending every month, you need rocket money. Rocket money is a personal finance app that finds and cancels your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps you lower your bills all in one place. Over 80% of people have subscriptions they forgot about, and chances are you're one of them, like that star zap just to watch one show, or that free gaming trial you never actually use. Rocket money will quickly and easily find your subscriptions for you, and for any you don't want to pay for anymore, just hit cancel. And Rocket money will cancel it for you. It's that easy.

Rocket money also helps you manage all your finances in one place and automatically categorize your expenses so you can easily track your budget in real time and also get alerted if anything looks off. Over 3 million people have used rocket money, saving the average person up to $720 a year. Stop throwing your money away, cancel unwanted subscriptions, and manage your expenses the easy way by going to rocketmoney.com slash legal af. That's rocketmoney.com slash legal af. This podcast is sponsored by Miracle Mate Cheats.

Whether you want to get more fit, be a better parent, or get more done at work, there is one thing that will help, and that's better sleep. With Miracle Mate Sheets, you can tap into the power of self cooling temperature regulation, which has been shown to improve deep sleep quality by over 20%. Using silver infused fabrics originally inspired by NASA,

Miracle Mate Sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long. So you get better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with silver that prevent up to 99.7% of bacterial growth, leaving them cleaner and fresher three times longer than other sheets. No more gross odors. Miracle sheets are luxuriously comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands, and feel as nice if not nicer than bed sheets used by some five-star hotels.

Stop sleeping on bacteria. Clean sheets mean less bacteria to clog your pores and fewer breakouts and other skin problems. miracle.com slash legal AF to try Miracle Mate sheets today. And with mothers and fathers day right around the corner, this is the perfect way to give someone you love the gift of better and more luxurious sleep. Save over 40% and be sure to use our promo code legal AF at checkout to save even more and get three free towels. Miracle is so confident in their product, they backed it 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 trymiracle.com slash legal AF and use the code legal AF to claim

your free three piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash legal AF to treat yourself. Thanks again to MiracleMade for sponsoring this episode. Back to the show with a clean shave and Michael Popuck. For those who wanted to know what it looked like before, that you just saw the ads. All right, let's move on to your old office, Manhattan DA. Who better to start

talking about this than you? Let me frame it. Matt Kalangelo, who used to work in the Department of Justice and used to work for Letitia James in the New York Attorney General and went after Donald Trump for things related to civil fraud in the past, hired by a special, as a special prosecutor by Alvin Bragg after he took office, this was in the wake of Carrie Dunn and Mark Pomeranze very noisily leaving as special prosecutors. He brought in a senior prosecutor and kind of replaced them with Matt Glangelo taking a lead role here in the prosecution of Donald Trump. And what was up for grabs up at bat this last week was a motion filed at the end of May beginning

of June by the Trump camp. At the same time, they tried around the same time. They tried to move the case across the street, the federal court taking Alvin Bragg and the state claims with it. They also said, well, long as we're here, let's go after Judge Morshan. And they basically argued that he should be recused. I like that picture of him because that's more accurate. That's what he looks like today.

And there was really three or four grounds to attempt to disqualify him all without merit. I'll just say that up front. One was that he donated a total of $35. That's a real number. $35 to democratic causes, including 15 dollars to the Biden campaign. And that should disqualify him because he is also an active person in politics by donating 35 dollars. That's one. Second one was his daughter is a adult daughter. He's a grown man. He has a grown daughter. One degree of separated right, grown daughter works as a political consultant

and she works for a political consultancy that really works only for democratic causes. They exist just like there's Republican firms that really just work with Republican candidates or MAGA candidates. There's Democratic ones. Her firm represents in terms of their constituents or their client base represents Joe Biden, had represented Kamala Harris, Hakeem Jeffries, and they were asked at one time before the indictment, and not her particularly, but her firm to work on Alvin Bragg's campaign to get elected, because the prosecutors in most states are elected positions, and they're elected certainly here in Manhattan. When Alvin Bragg ran against a whole group of eight or nine people, some of which Karen

and I knew knew well, some of which Karen worked with when she was in the office. He, you know, it's a campaign. You got to get like campaign people to work for you. So his campaign strategy just reached out to that consulting firm and maybe they were made up. They made it to the short list, but they weren't hired. And his daughter certainly wasn't hired, but you got that. And then the third major thing that they argued in their moving papers was about another

case, not even this case. Donald Trump has never liked, and he's made it publicly known. How Alan Weisselberg, his elderly, he's about the same age as Donald Trump, his elderly 50-year CFO who was his father, he got him from his father. That's how long this guy's been with a Trump organization and knows where all the bodies are buried. And he didn't like the way the prosecutors in Karen, your office, handled him and forced him to testify and gave him five and a half months and didn't give him a free pass, mainly because he wouldn't agree to completely cooperate. He thinks the judge, in that case, where the Trump Organization entities got convicted of 17

counts of tax evasion, 17 counts convicted, and Alan Weisselberg got convicted of 15 counts of tax evasion himself. He thought that the judge played a little too-breast knuckles, a little too hardball with poor Mr. Weisselberg and got involved with all of that. And so he should disqualify himself in this case, having nothing to do. Well, I mean, Alan Weisselberg will be a witness. I almost had nothing to do with that on Weisselberg from this case. So that's really the, I was sort of there three big problems. What we did in though, until recently, is that how ethical judge Mershon really is, because

he did something that we would, that we wish and pray that our Supreme Court justices, US Supreme Court justices, would do, which is to seek ethical guidance for their conduct and behavior when they're in doubt or their own counsel is not good enough. So Mershahn, as lawyers and judges often do, reached out to the Ethics Advisory Opinion Board Committee and wrote a letter, apparently. We don't know the letter. We didn't see the letter, but we have the opinion, which hopefully we can throw up on the

screen. In the letter, he described the $35 that he donated his daughter's role in the political consulting firm and some other things. There was actually an issued opinion, which is written so that it can guide other judges and other lawyers' future conduct. And so it doesn't mention the judges name, doesn't mention Trump by name, but it does list the $35 donation

and a family member working for a firm that represents the political party of the other side of a defendant before that particular judge. And the ethics committee concluded back in May, we just didn't know it until recently, or those that saw it, maybe this judge was shown, but now we know it was, in which they said, yes, the appearance of impropriety is really an impartiality, is really important. A judge should be impartiality is really important. A judge should be impartial. And you shouldn't take a case or preside over a case where that has been properly attacked, not improperly attacked.

Because then if it's improperly attacked, then you're then every time somebody just calls you a bad name because they don't like you and they want to get to another judge, judge shopping, you recuse. So a judge has to be very, very careful, both in exercising the disqualification power to take himself or her out or self out of a case. And to say, no, this is improper grounds. You're just, you just don't like me because you think I'm going to rule against you. And that's not good enough. And I'm not going to let you go search for another judge. So it's that, that tension. And they said, yeah, that's important. But let's look at the things you're telling us. 35 dollars is such a low amount of money, but there's

no way that what you could do in a courtroom could ever affect that. And we think you can be impartial and you are impartial despite your 35 dollars of donations. As to your daughter, they went through an analysis and they said, all right, it's your daughter. I get it. She's an adult grown person on her own. But, you know, she wasn't, she wasn't hired, she wasn't hired by the firm. She didn't work directly on the campaign for Alvin Brack. Her firm didn't work on the campaign for Alvin Brack. So again, I don't see how that comes into the courtroom

and interferes with anybody. The last point is the, which really the Manhattan D.A.'s office had a take on, and I want you to comment on Karen, is how Alan Weisselberg was handled in the plea discussions and the involvement of the judge in that and why that does an impact impartiality as identified by Matt Kalangelo in his very elegant opposition paper that he filed. You want to take that one? So yeah, one of the arguments that Trump was making to try to get Judge Mershawn off the case,

in addition to the ones you just outlined, was that he was saying that Judge Mershawn urged Ellen Weiselberg to become a government witness. And that was what he said that in the, because don't forget that Judge Masham was the same judge who presided over the Trump Organization trial that resulted in the 17-count conviction against the Trump Organization.

Before the trial started, Alan Weisselberg was a defendant in the case, and he was going to be going to trial at the same time as the Trump Organization, but he ultimately ended up entering into a plea deal, essentially, where he agreed to testify truthfully, and it wasn't a cooperation agreement, it was a plea deal. And Trump was alleging that the judge urged Weiselberg to become a government witness. Now, I think what he was referring to is what a judge often does is, you know, when you allocate someone, you know, or you talk to them about, to them about trial or a plea or what's going on,

judges will often give information like what's your exposure if you're convicted and what could you get, and et cetera. And just because a judge is informing a defendant of what their exposure is and what they could get, not what they will get, but just what the risks are of going to trial. That's very routine and common for a judge to do.

And I think Trump must have been interpreting that in some way as that he was urging Weiselberg to become a government witness. Now, Judge Mershon, just like any judge, has no opinion whatsoever about whether a person should become a government. There should become a witness or plead guilty or that's a decision that every defendant makes on their own and that's why judges like Mershahn will

allocate a person and ask them a lot of questions. And I've been before Judge Mershahn many times when he was allocating people and he asks lots of questions, have you taken any medication today? Is there anything impairing your ability to understand what's going on here? Do you speak English? They ask all sorts of questions. Is anyone forcing you, threatening you, coursing you? Are you making this decision of your own free will or volition? There's these standard questions every judge does their own version of that. But by also telling somebody what they're facing, that's not in any way urging them to become a government witness.

As I said, most judges don't have opinions about defendants and judge Mershon. That's not who he is. That's not his reputation. He's a very down the middle judge who doesn't ever show you how he feels one way or another. He's not emotional, he's not loud, he doesn't get angry. He's very, he's a judge. He just kind of calls balls and strikes and he doesn't give too much information.

He gives just enough information, but he doesn't ever show his hand. You wouldn't know much about him by being in his courtroom, and which is why I think a lot of people were surprised that he did donate $35. Even though that's such a small amount of money, he's never donated money before. It's, he's forbidden from donating money

to any political cause or, or campaign. And so the one time in his whole life as a judge, knowing that he's not supposed to, he chooses to do it, you know, to not get Trump elected, you know, that, even though it's such a small amount, it does show his hand. It shows his viewpoint, which I think he can still be fair, because he is a fair person.

But I do think it was an unforced error and is something that he should not have done. And potentially, because he's the kind of judge who you would have no reason to ask for his recusal, for anything he would do. He is that down the middle. And so that's why many of us were surprised that he would do that and tip his hand in any way like that.

But Matthew Kalangelo, who's the assistant DA that you just talked about, he basically did a really good job fighting back and saying how Trump has a prolific history of basically accusing state and federal judges around the country of bias. And he was always trying to judge shop and he's done it with Ruth Bader Ginsburg

and Sonya Sotomayor and Amy Berman Jackson and Arthur Engoron. And he always goes after the judges in the judicial system. And at a certain point, you cry wolf so many times. Not everyone is biased against you, right? And so I think people are starting to recognize what his playbook is. And I agree with you. I think people are starting to recognize what his playbook is.

And I agree with you. I think it was great of Judge Mershahn to get an advisory opinion. That's exactly what he would do. Because he always wants to do the right thing. That's just his way. He's a very thoughtful, very smart judge. smart judge. So, you know, it's just, I think this is, you know, I think this is another one of his baseless, another one of his, another one of his baseless claims. Yeah. And let me read from the, the advisory opinion on the, on the $35, because here's what they said, we seldom required disqualification or even disclosure for a contribution made more than two years ago in the past. Indeed, we recently adopted a bright line two-year rule in an area where we had previously required disclosure indefinitely. So they've moved away from, you got to tell us whatever you've ever done in your life, and they're like, you know what, if it's two years, two

years ago, forgetting even the amount, that's far enough away for them to say that you're not biased. And they went on to say, on the facts before us, it is sufficient to say that these modest political contributions, 35 bucks, made more than two years ago, cannot reasonably create an impression of bias or favoritism in the case before the judge. Accordingly, we conclude that judges impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned, and that's the test. On the basis, on that basis, and the judge is not ethically required to disclose them, even disclose them, like at all. So look, here's how it works. The judge, as all judges do, makes Judge Moshal

will make his own decision as to whether he should be disqualified or recused. Matt Kalangelo has put him in the right spot in his briefing. He said, judge, your power here, and you not recusing yourself because there's not reasonable grounds. It's just as important as you disqualifying yourself because we got to avoid judge shopping and we know that's what he's doing here. And then I do love the fact that he listed all the times as you said,

Karen, he's attacked and he was mad was being kind because he because Donald, if you go really deeply, Donald Trump has not just attacked Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Amy, Amy Barron, Amy Jackson, and Angoran. He's attacked Middlebrook's down in Florida. He's attacked Barrel Howell, who was then the chief judge of the circuit court over all things grand jury. He attacked another judge based on his Mexican, perceived Mexican ancestry. There's not a judge that hasn't ruled against him that he hasn't attacked publicly and the prosecutors and their family and the jury and their family and of jury for people and their family.

And so if that is the measure of when a judge should be recused, this is Kalangelo's point, on behalf of the Manhattan DA, Where do you draw the line? Screaming and squawking gets a judge removed, then we'll just do that all the time. And so I think you're right, Karen. I think at the end, the $35, the perfect handling of Alan Weiselberg telling him, you're gonna make your decision.

And you're gonna make your decision as I'm picking a jury on Monday. So I don't care what you do is what he told them that was the reporting. You can either cooperate fully and you can get a pass or you can do whatever you're doing and you can get, there'll be a sentencing recommendation, which I will consider. But you're going to testify on Monday one way or the other.

Everybody's totally fine with that, except for the lawyers that were not, except, you know, interesting, just to catch myself. Susan Neckless was the lawyer, the defense lawyer, who lost the 17 Cal Criminal Conviction. She is the co-counsel with Todd Blanche here. She knows what happened in that room.

There she is on the far right for those that are watching at home with the curly hair. She knows what happened in that room. And she, you know, what you didn't hear from is the lawyer for Alan Weiselberg at the time who's now to part, who's now left the case. I was at the part of this if he's no longer here. So that is a, that is a loser argument in one that I'm surprised that Susan Eccles actually made or allowed to be made in her name. And I think at the end, you're going to see Judge Mershant saying, I've heard both sides, I don't see any evidence that supports it. I've got my ethics opinion.

I don't think in partial. I think it's just important that I stay in this case as if I go based on these baseless attacks on me, although I think it'll be very judicious, as you said. He's a very sober guy, jurist. And I think he's going very judicious, as you said. He's a very sober guy, the jurist. And I think he's going to deny this motion and he's going to be the judge again, in this case against Donald Trump, awaiting to see which edge he'll her steam does

at the end of June. Karen, I was going to move on to Hunter Biden, Hunter Biden, the favorite punching bag for Donald Trump, unless you had something else you wanted to comment on about your old office. No, not at all. I thought we were going to also talk about the E. Jean Carol had Trump is seeking. Yeah, we can. So there's two subpoenas, right? One from Melania. Well, finally, we see Melania. Melania, Trump's emails with the executive assistant for Donald Trump are being sought by

by your old office, by the Manhattan D.A.'s office, and talk about EG and Carol. Talk about what they're seeking from who I'm sure they're ready willing and able lawyers for EG and Carol just waiting to help the prosecution. But there's a subpoena in the middle that has to be decided ultimately by Judge Mershaw. Why don't you explain that? Yes. So they're seeking the portions of Trump's video deposition in the E.G. and Carol case because a number of the subject matters, which Trump testified under oath, relate to the facts in the case, you know, the Stormy Daniels case, like the Axis Hollywood tape or the allegations of sexual misconduct by other women.

But I had a question for you. I didn't know that those deposition transcripts made under oath needed to be subpoenaed, that they were something that they can't just be given over. That was just something I was unfamiliar with, and I was hoping you would just explain how that works. Yeah, generally in a civil case, there's a confidentiality order in place.

And the confidentiality order says that the documents from that case are to be in and deposition taken are only to be used for that case and not for other cases. Subject to a future subpoena by another judge who thinks it's relevant or important and can suck it into the other case. But as between those parties, they're not going to use it. Usually you were agreed to destroy transcripts or destroyed documents, or at least documents. I don't know about copies of documents,

not actual documents that you've received in discovery. This was a civil case, so I'm sure it was guided by that. The only parts of that that we've ever seen is 37 pages that were filed with various motion practice that went on in the case. And clips of the video that were used really just by Robbie Cap on the lawyer for E. Jean Carroll, the rest of the two or three hours, whatever it is, no one has ever seen it except for the lawyers that participated in a Donald Trump

E. Jean Carroll and staff, and the judges hasn't seen it. Nobody's really seen it. But it's there, and it's those outtakes, the full transcript, with Lord knows what he said on there, that the prosecutor's want. What's your prediction, and then we've got to move over to Hunter Biden. What's your prediction on Judge Mershon, on thepoenas, quashing them or letting them go forward? Totally letting them go forward because the biggest difference between criminal and civil is you can't destroy anything in a criminal case, right? It's part of the record that

has to remain forever. Because you can always appeal or convictions are always looked at and cases get reversed in the future. Like you don't destroy evidence of anything or interviews, etc. So civil cases absolutely fascinate me how different they are. So since Judge Moshan pretty much is a criminal, just as criminal cases, I bet he's going to say, this is evidence for a criminal case and he's going to allow it to come forward. That's my prediction. I don't know.

What do you think? No, I totally agree with you. I think the Melania Trump emails are coming in and that's going to chap the backside of Donald Trump to know in and I can't wait. And yes, the entire three-hour deposition is coming in from Eugene Carroll. And this also demonstrates to me that they're looking at a broader conspiracy because they want also the Trump organization and another subpoena

to turn over separation and severance agreements between the Trump organization and other women. The guys, I don't think they really care about. It's the other women. They want to get their hands on those. See what was done, non-disclosure agreements, separation agreements, agreements like one of our fellow podcasters, Jessica Denson's sign, and see if there is in this constellation of bad acts in this conspiracy, if there's more they

should be going after, because in this case, they're, and we'll talk about it next, Joe, in the Hunter Biden's plea deal. This isn't ongoing investigation, and we do expect that there will be another indictment coming. So let's talk about the Hunter Biden. I mean, we are so exhausted by Donald, they have nothing else to talk about. They're completely morally and intellectually bankrupt

as a party. So all they can do, they think it's make weight. It's all it is is make weight, counterweight to, you know, we say impeachment, they say laptop. We, we say indictment, they say Hunter Biden. We say another indictment. They say Hunter Biden again, you know, they're running out of things to say. And it's not a, it's not a make weight. You've got like a ton of bricks on one side of the scale of justice, and you have like a feather on the other. And it's just not comparable, and they're being conflated

to confuse their listeners and followers and audience and donors into believing that there is a moral or legal equivalency between these two things. And you know how I know there isn't? Because one guy just got convicted of a total of over 70 counts of crimes, state and federal, and the other one is taking a plea deal to two Mr. Meanor tax failure to pay taxes.

No, I'm sorry, failure to file his taxes. He paid the taxes ultimately, which is a Mr. Meanor. He's also getting under the deal that he struck with the Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office. Let me repeat, this was not main justice, which is in Washington, led by Merrick Garland, you know, ultimately, this was the office in Delaware run by a Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, David Weiss, okay? So it's not the Biden Department of Justice weaponized against the political adversary. It was always hands off by Merrick Garland on purpose. He didn't appoint

a special prosecutor, although he thought about it. He just let it stay in Delaware with the people in Delaware that were leading the case, including the Trump appointed US attorney. And they decided that based on the potential crimes, which are very rarely prosecuted, let's just call it what it is. When somebody pays all their taxes, even if they didn't file their tax returns, they almost never prosecute that. Yes, it's technically a violation of federal criminal tax law about you need to file, you know, you need to file your returns on time. But if money is paid, juries hate that. The Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney's Office, has lose these cases regularly in front of juries.

So they don't even bother with it. Here, they got to miss two Mr. Meeners in a plea deal. And they got a separate diversion program agreement, deferred prosecution agreement about his gun. What was the deal with the gun? He bought a gun and at the time you need to certify the application that you're not a drug user. Well, there's plenty of video we've all seen on right wing maggot television that shows that he was using drugs during the same time that he had the gun. And so that's a violation. By the way, he's not the first person to have a lie on an application to receive a gun. And that's also rarely prosecuted. Even though there's some wrapper codec black that says, oh my God, B2, which if you look at his indictment, it wasn't

me too at all. But putting that aside for a minute, little pop culture in the middle of our presentation, that any any he's agreed, he's agreed as part of the diversion program to stay clean for 24 months and never own a gun to give up a second amendment. Right. Republicans should be all upset about that. I'm surprised. I'm not jumping up and down. Second amendment. He gave up his gun right. I don't hear anybody complaining about that. Everyone's like, oh, this is so lenient. The only way you can come up with that leniency argument is to argue that what he did, the son of a president being investigated for failure to pay taxes on a couple of million dollars

worth of income, and then paying his taxes. And then having a gun that he got where he checked the box that he didn't use drugs, is the equivalent of seditious conspiracy, insurrection, espionage act, obstruction, destruction, witness tampering, false statement, and the rest, and business record fraud up in New York, in election interferes in Georgia. These are not equivalencies. Yes, they are all in criminal codes, but that's the only thing that's equivalent. What did you make of the Hunter Biden plea deal, which will be arraigned at the same time,

arraignment plea deal indictment, all package deal with it looks like the government, at least the US attorney's office for Delaware in front of a Delaware federal judge, in which I think there'll be a sentencing recommendation by the US attorney, you know, to do this on probation. And then this comment, I want you to, because you're the prosecutor, this comment of, there's still an ongoing investigation. Everybody's like, what?

I thought it was resolved. Explain what that ongoing investigation comment you think it means. And what did you make of the whole kind of demolition of the Hunter Biden affair and this kind of, the world doesn't end with a bang in the prosecution ends with a whimper and where we are. Well look I hate that we have to give any air time to this at all because you know who is Hunter Biden other than the you know sad drug addicted you

know Nair do well child of Joe Biden know, he's not an elected official himself, he's not, you know, anyone other than, you know, somebody, I'm sure everybody has, you know, we all have people in our family who struggle, you know, with addiction and, you know, other things. And of course, you know, we don't want to be judged by, you know, the actions of some of our family members, right?

But as you said, that's what Donald Trump, what he does is he throws Hunter into, what about Hunter? What about Hunter? Somehow to dirty Joe Biden, but we do have to give it some air time because otherwise we'll be accused of never discussing the things that, you know, applied to Biden. But I do find it, as you just said, this is not equivalent in any way, shape or form. This is clearly a drug addict who went through a very public, but also very terrible period in his life. And he is, you know, coming forward and he is taking responsibility.

And look, you know, as you said, like they were, the Trump people were calling for a special prosecutor to investigate Hunter and this laptop and all the information that was in there. And Marigarra and did one better than a special prosecutor. He left the US attorney in place that Trump appointed. Don't forget, I can't remember how many US attorneys in the country, but however many there are, I think there's like a hundred United States attorneys in the country. And on the day after the new president is elected,

if it, what they all do, the tradition is they hand in their letter of recommendation in mass. And some are accepted and some are not. And most of the time, however, what ends up happening is most of them are replaced by the new president. It's, especially if it's a different party. Most of the time, they give it to somebody else. And that's just the standard that's common.

Well, in this particular instance, rather than accepting the United States attorney, his resignation, Merrick Garland, or I guess Joe Biden, kept him in place, his name is David Weiss, in Delaware, and said, you know what, Trump appointed you rather than getting a special prosecutor the way Trump is calling for, why don't we let you, David Weiss, investigate this. You were appointed by Trump, you have completely way, and we are going to stay out of your way.

And they stayed out of his way. And after I think it was a five year investigation or however long this investigation was since it started, it's finally come to a head after everything that they have looked at. They even brought in some really good AUSA's to work under him. I don't know, I don't know, I don't know them, but I was reading about them when we were preparing for this, and they are very well respected. These two AUSA's, I can't find their names here right now, but they were, but they were working on this as well, and they had a ton of leeway to look everywhere

at everything. He's taxes, barisma, this gun. And this whole gun thing, by the way, this gun thing relates to in 2018 when Hunter was dating his or in a relationship with his late brother, Bo's wife. If you recall, after Bo Biden passed away, his grieving widow and Hunter had a relationship

for a time, and she found in 2018, a 38 caliber cult revolver in Hunter Biden's truck, and threw it away in a trash can behind a Delaware grocery store. She later, I guess, felt guilty and went to go return it or retrieve it. She returned to retrieve it and it was missing. And there was a police report and the Delaware State Police

investigated it out of a concern that there was a missing gun that could be used in a crime. But apparently some guy who was rummaging through the trash found it and then cooperated with witnesses and gave it over. So this isn't like some weapons trafficking case. This was a gun possession case of one gun that he wasn't even possessing.

It was in his car. But Secret Service agents went to the gun store where Hunter actually bought the gun and looked at the records. And as you said, figured out that he lied. to the gun store where Hunter actually bought the gun and looked at the records. And you know, as you said, figured out that he lied on, he answered no to a question on the background check that says, are you an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance?

So you know, five years earlier, he had been discharged from the Navy after testing positive for cocaine. And so that was considered lying on the gun purchase form between that and his other public statements about drug use. But he wasn't prosecuted for lying on the form, he was instead, he's going to instead, he's going to instead be charged with and plead guilty to possession of a firearm while, quote, an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. And that's something that carries a potential prison term of up to 10 years.

And it's interesting because when I read this plea agreement, I had to look that crime up because I've never heard of it before. You know, I've heard of felon infosession, you know, that's what we, you know, what you see all the time. You see the federal government prosecuting people who are convicted of felonies, infosession of a gun. That's like a gun enhancement charge. And you see those all the time.

I've never actually seen it charge that somebody who has a gun and uses drugs, including marijuana, by the way. And marijuana is legal in so many states and so many people eat smoked marijuana. And as you said, there's the second amendment, there's more guns out there than there are people in the United States of America so you know it's really it would be you know it's an interesting charge that that he's going to be pleading guilty to and you know

there what this is is the he's going to be allowed to this is a work a pre-negotiated deal he's in the plea to two misdemeanors the tax case and then he's going to plead to this is a pre-negotiated deal. He's in the plea to two misdemeanors, the tax case, and then he's going to plead to this gun possession. And they're going to hold that charge in advance for two years while he's on probation. And he, it's like a repleter. It's what we call them in the state where, it's like you enter diversion,

and if you don't get in it, and's going to be conditions and we'll see what those are, you don't get in any more trouble, you don't get re-arrested, potentially drug testing, you know, maybe go to programs, whatever it is, it's a way to encourage someone, you know, to stay, you know, to stay clean and to, you know, encourage them to get the help that they need, which sounds like a great thing for him because he clearly needs it. He's somebody who's struggling. So I think it's an excellent,

an excellent negotiated plea. And I don't think there's anything about it that's unfair. And again, given who is making this offer to him, that should take that question off the table, in my opinion. I didn't even answer your question about what. I don't know what the question was. What was the question? One of your questions, you said,

what does it mean to say the investigation is still open? What does it mean to say the investigation is still open? I think it's just keeping your options open. Yeah, listen, I think it wraps up barisma. I know that we're gonna see a criminal investigation by the Delaware U.S. Attorney on barisma or on the laptop or on Biden or on a Biden family crimes, which is what the MAGA in the house are going after.

I think that's done. You're also not going to see Merrick Garland open up a special prosecutor for any of that. And this is just going to be much do about nothing in this Kabuki theater that's going on in the House by MAGA, because they got nothing better to do. They can't pass any laws. There all they can do is defend Donald Trump,

try to run interference for him and open up a new flank for him in the battle that he's fighting because their own political fortunes are tied to it. And so Hunter Biden just got caught in the middle. They say, there's an old adage, I think it's an African adage, or at least it's one that's been ascribed to it, when elephants fight, when two elephants fight,

the only thing that's injured is the grass. No pun intended with Hunter Biden and a smoking problem. But he was caught in the middle of this name wasn't Biden. He would have not been prosecuted for the tax issues because he paid his taxes ultimately, and he probably would not have been prosecuted for the gun charge unless it was related to something else more serious. And we wouldn't even be talking about it. The fact that this even hung around for five years

is the opposite of what the Republican saying. It's because his name is Biden that he got pulled through the process this way. And this is a fair resolution. And we'll see with the judge. We don't know who the judge is yet that's assigned. It's one of four judges. One of them, the chief judge,

I went to law school with, column Connolly, shout out to column, if he's the one that's gonna be a reigning and accepting the plea deal, we'll know more, we'll report it on the midweek edition, or the weekend edition of the show, after it happens. We've reached the end though, of this midweek edition of legal AF,

it's always a pleasure to do it, when you're on the road, Karen, when you're in your office, when I'm in my office, it's my favorite way to spend a midweek is with you here, with the Legal AFers and the Midas Mighty. And we'll do it again on Saturday with a quickly recovering, convalescing Ben Micellis, who is feeling much better in his honest feet

and will have a show on Saturday. Along with all the hot takes, the Karen, Ben, my Celis, who is feeling much better in his honest feet and will have a show on Saturday, along with all the hot takes that Karen, Ben and I do during the week here only on the Midas Touch Network. And we'll see you next week's shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal Aeifers. you