Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump PANICS and RUNS AWAY at Trial, HE’S SO SCREWED

Episode Date: October 26, 2023

Michael Popok & Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back with a new episode of the midweek edition of the Legal AF pod. On this episode, they discuss: Trump being fined for violating a gag order (again) and found to have lied to the judge presiding over the NY fraud trial, as they continue to attack the judge’s law clerk in open court; the ramifications of the “Trump law firm of” Ken Chesebro, Sidney Powell, and Jena Ellis pleading guilty in the Georgia Election interference case against Trump, and now joined by Mark Meadows having testified against Trump in Jack Smith’s Election Interference federal DC case; a rough oral argument hearing for Trump’s lawyers trying to argue why they didn’t waive a “presidential immunity” defense in the E Jean Carroll defamation and rape case even though they waited 3 years to raise the defense; four new motions filed by Trump to dismiss his DC election interference criminal case, by raising spurious “first amendment” free speech grounds, and more from the intersection of law, politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSOR! Green Chef: Head to https://GreenChef.com/60LegalAF and use code 60LegalAF to get 60% off and Free Shipping! 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. Rocket Money: Cancel unwanted subscriptions – and manage your expenses the easy way – by going to https://RocketMoney.com/legalaf SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://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 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 Uncovered: https://pod.link/1690214260 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Another day of Donald Trump attending the Michael Cohen testimony in the New York Attorney General fraud trial and another day of Donald Trump violating the court's gag order and not only being fined by the judge, but the judge put Trump under oath to testify about his comments and found that Trump is not credible as a witness. The story today should have been about Cohen's testimony, but Trump and his lawyers who don't understand how New York State Supreme Court practice works made it about the clerk that works for the judge and Trump. And now you have a judge who finds Trump to be not credible, even before he goes on the stand to defend against the fraud case. And that same judge just denied a motion to rule in favor of Trump based on Cohen's testimony.

Three lawyers for Trump have all pled to various fraud crimes in Georgia, including felonies and are cooperating fully with the Fulton County DA. In addition, Mark Meadows, who is indicted in Georgia but hasn't yet pled, is reported as we suspected on legal AF back in August. To be cooperating with Jack Smith, or at least waived his Fifth Amendment privilege and was given immunity to testify to the grand jury against Donald Trump over the summer about his election and fraud lies among other things. Taking taken together, what does this mean for the remaining 15

co-defendants in Georgia? Who is most likely to be trying with Trump in which to plead out in advance of trial? And what is the impact of these plea deals on Jack Smith's DC federal election case? The second E. Jean Carroll case on damages related to her being not only civilly raped or raped by Donald Trump in addressing room in New York, but also being defamed, including punitive damages, the judge already ruling in her favor on liability regarding defamation

is set to start in January. In the meantime, the second circuit court of appeals in New York heard Trump's appeal that he can't be sued for defaming her while he was president because he enjoyed presidential immunity. A defense he failed to raise while Alina Haba represented him for almost three years. To say that his lawyers faced a skeptical three-judge panel this week at the second circuit court of appeals, in oral argument, on whether he waived that defense would be putting it mildly. Finally, Trump filed four different motions in the DC election interference case, seeking

the dismissal of his indictment, all basically centered on his First Amendment right to say the election was rigged, while ignoring all of the conduct that is at the core of the criminal indictment. The DOJ isn't seeking to put him in prison for what he said. They're seeking to do it for what he did to attempt to overthrow democracy and constitutional order. The motions also show, as they were filed by Trump, that the lawyers for Trump don't understand fundamental concepts like double jeopardy or the purpose of a Senate impeachment trial. All this and whatever happens while we're on the air,

only on the midweek edition of legal AF with Michael Popok and Karen Friedman at Nipfalo. Karen, it's moments like this. Are you still wishing you were a prosecutor? Yeah, there are times I sort of miss it. It's intense. We were in the firing line for a long time and you're really at the Manhattan D.A.'s office in particular. You were in the firing line for a long time and you're really at the Manhattan D.A.'s office in particular, you're in the big leagues and it takes a toll, these threats and this type of just constant criticism and constant limelight, etc. It's incredible, it's great, but it takes a toll. Sometimes I miss it a little bit, sometimes I'm thinking it's, I'm very happy to be in a little more of a calm environment.

A calm environment for sure. And you're in private practice. I'm in private practice. Ben's in private practice. And we have interesting clients. You joined a firm recently where Michael Cohen is one of their clients, right? Yeah. Donia Perry, who has been a guest a couple of times

I've had her on our show and she's a frequent commentator. She's a friend, she's a former federal prosecutor. She just started her own law firm and I'm affiliated with it. So I still have my own firm. I still do my own thing, but I'm also affiliated with her firm, I'm counsel to her firm. And yeah, she represents Michael Cohen. So you're not on that, but you're not on that. No, I'm counsel to her firm. And yeah, she represents Michael Cohen.

So you're not on that, but you're not on that. No, I'm not on the case, but I still think it's good that we disclose. Sure. So I'm glad you brought it up. Absolutely. So this week leading into Mike, I mean, it's all been about Michael Cohen since he took to the stand yesterday, but leading into it just to remind people that may not be following that civil fraud trial by the Office of attorney general as closely as the leaders of legal AFR.

Up till now, we've had a parade of witnesses brought in by the New York Attorney General in her case in chief, which what it's called when you have the burden of proof as the plaintiff or in this case, the New York Attorney General against another party. It's your case in chief and you get to put on your witnesses and you get to put on your evidence and the like. So we heard from already leading into Michael Cohen what I call the triple A witnesses, the accountants, the auditors and the appraisers who used to work for Donald Trump, fired Donald

Trump and know where all the bodies are buried, and all of them on that same thematic, that same narrative, that Donald Trump, along with his key executives, but at his direction, inflated his assets artificially in order to do a number of things to take out bigger loans, to ensure his properties for a bigger amount of money to go up the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest people ego agreed and avarice if we're looking for the sins that were committed and we also then had a wave of former employees like Alan Weiselberg the disgraced like Alan Weisselberg, the disgraced felon of a CFO, chief financial officer, who testified the controller for the company responsible for financial controls that reported to Alan Weisselberg,

who's on his way out, and then current employees who are current as of the recording. They'll be exited soon from the Trump organization, but like the assistant vice president who reported to Alan Weisselberg, the assistant controller who reported to Jeff McCawney, the controller. And they went on and basically continued with the evidence under, you know, reasonable examination by the, you know, they were cooperating in their own way because they were telling the truth about the manipulation and the cooking of books, as we like to call it, related to Donald Trump in the operation of his business. Remember, the key to this case is for the attorney general

to prove persistent fraud. That's what the statute says in the operation of Donald Trump's business affairs. And if he's a persistent fraud company, they get shut down by it by the New York Attorney General. That's how that works. So we've already had that and they pointed the fingers at Alan Weisselberg and Donald Trump

and even Eric Trump, a very nervous Eric Trump, who I don't think has a fingernail left on his hands at the rate the testimony is coming out against him. But it was all, you know, being brought to a head with Michael Cohen, who was supposed to testify last week, God ill testified week, and Donald Trump sat there trying to intimidate Michael Cohen, cross-examined by Alina Habba. We had all of that. Then there was the side show. The side show is this, this, this, it must be a decision because it doesn't just happen. A strategic decision that I can't figure out for the Trump side to continue to attack the principal law clerk who we're not going to name again,

even though she's out in the press, the principal law clerk for the judge. Let me just do one bit of explaining them and I'll turn it over to Karen. I practice regularly in this courtroom. I practice regularly in this courthouse. I practice regularly under these rules and the Chamber rules. I understand the CPLR, which is our guiding rules of the road for New York practice.

That's me. Lena Hava, not so much. She practices in New Jersey. She's a carpet bagger. She came in. She doesn't really understand the procedures or the rules. She doesn't understand what a law clerk does in the state court system in the Supreme Court for New York. She doesn't really understand the procedures or the rules. She doesn't understand what a law clerk does in the state court system in the Supreme Court for New York She doesn't because we know who practice here that that position a principal law clerk is basically a junior judge

You get more FaceTime and more decisions made by that person than you do your judge for most of your case I once had as I said on a hot take recently I once had an opposing lawyer cut off a hot take recently, I once had an opposing lawyer cut off the law clerk and trying to make an argument. And the law clerk said, because they're imbued with this power, don't you cut me off. You treat me the way you would treat a judge, my judge in the courtroom. And you know what? That law clerk was right. A lot of them become judges, by the way. That is a path to judge in New York State Supreme Court system. You start as a principal law clerk, you end up getting appointed

or running for judge. It's a common thing to do. If you're from the out, if you're an outsider, like Chris Keiss from Florida, or Alina Haba from New Jersey, you don't really know that. And so you decide you're going to attack this person personally. So this morning, and then I'm going to let you take the gag order, what happened in the violation of the gag order today with the judge found. We had Alina Haba making a calculated decision that the first thing she needed to do, it was probably written at the top of her yellow pad was to attack the lock clerk to start the morning before she continued with the crossing examination of Michael Cohen. And so she said, point of order, your honor.

We need to talk about something. Your law clerk is making faces and she's rolling her eyes and she's disrespecting me. And I was a law clerk, by the way, she was a law clerk in Jersey and it's like apples and bowling balls compared to what she's talking about. And the judge is like, okay.

And that's how they started. Then we cut to the first break and Donald Trump going in to the hallway to talk to the reporters as he usually does and Karen, you take it from there about what happened. So Donald Trump goes out into the hallway and goes to talk to lawyers, I mean, sorry reporters. And he goes on and on and on

and he then starts disparaging the law clerk again. It's so clear what he was talking about and who he was talking about. He said he goes in and he says that the person sitting next to the judge, that was the phrase he was using when he was disparaging her. And his lawyer later tried to say that this was geared towards Michael Cohen, that when he said he was sitting alongside, looks listen to the clip. This was a draw. She never been run, but if we had a jury, it would have been fair at least. Even if we were to have somewhat negative jury, because no negative jury would have brought against me. But this judge, well, it's just judges, Mary partisan judge, with a person who's very partisan sitting around fattening, perhaps even much more partisan than he is. So we are doing very well the facts, speaking very loud But he's a totally discredited witness and you haven't seen anything yet Great so as you can hear in the clip

He says that he's talking about the person sitting alongside the judge and criticizing that person and Chris Kai says no, he was talking about Michael Cohen, who's also sitting near the judge, right? Because he was on the witness stand. And the judge was like, that doesn't make any sense based on what you just said. You said this person's a, a Democrat, you know, based on their political views, etc. That's not what you talk about when you talk about Michael Cohen, you call him a liar. And he says, so I don't believe you. So you know what, Donald Trump, I want you on the stand. And he put Donald Trump on the stand just right there, Suis Bandai. He made him raise his right hand, swear to tell the truth.

And he made him say on the record that he was referring to Michael Cohen when he said that. And this is kind of a big deal, right? This is a, the way it works in most trials is your lawyer is your spokesperson. Your lawyer is the person who goes and speaks on your behalf and says certain things like that. But in the middle of a trial, in the middle of what's going on,

in totally unscheduled, in the middle of witness testimony, to throw the defendant on the stand and make them say under oath something is a very, very big deal. And so what happens next is the judge said, I don't find you credible. I don't credit what you just said, Donald Trump, basically saying, you're a liar. You did not mean, Michael Cohen, when you said it, you're a liar. You did not mean Michael Cohen when you said it. You meant my clerk. And that's a direct violation, second violation, by the way, of this limited

gag order. You can say all you want about me, but you're not supposed to say anything about my clerk. I told you that. And so he find him $10,000. But more importantly than the $10,000, he literally called Donald Trump a liar. That's a really, really big deal. Right after that, they posted, there was another post on social media that said, the Democratic judge, under the control of radical Latisha James, continues to harass President Trump,

doing all possible to infringe on his first amendment right to free speech and to interfere in the 2024 presidential election. These corrupt efforts directed by Crooked Joe Biden will fail. This is from a going to throw it in your face that I can criticize you, and I'm going to keep criticizing you. And apparently, according to the reporting, in the middle of all this, the judge, there was a directed verdict that Trump's lawyers asked for, and after the judge denied the directed verdict, he just stood up, muttered to himself that this is unbelievable and stormed out of the courtroom. Let's go back though, explain what emotion for directed verdict is. Yeah, so emotion for directed verdict is basically saying, you know, judge, you have enough

information right now, you have enough evidence right now. I want you to, because it's in front of a judge, I want you to rule in my favor. You know, we don't need to do anything else anymore, just rule in my favor. And the judge denied that. And so Trump didn't like it, he stood up and he stormed out. That was part of the act, because they had already calculated

that after Michael Cohen was cross examined and after Michael Cohen had to admit what she has to, we knew this going in. The Michael Cohen had to admit that he had lied before, he had lied, even admitted that he lied to a federal judge, Judge Paley, while he was being sentenced. Michael, these are facts that come along with Michael Cohen. It's the good and the bad. And as trial lawyer, as we can all speak now, because I don't represent Michael Cohen, but you have to evaluate who Michael Cohen is, the total package of who Michael Cohen is, all the good stuff,

the stuff that he observed with his five senses, and all the not-so-great things, because he went to jail and admitted today that he lied on a number of occasions, including under oath to affect they observe with his five senses and all the not so great things because he went to jail and admitted today that he he lied on a number of occasions, including under oath to a federal judge in a in a in a related matter. And you know, that whole line of attack is totally appropriate in a courtroom. I'm not criticizing Alina Habba for going there. I would certainly go there if I was opposed to Michael Cohen in trying to cross examine him. But that is not the entire case that the attorney general has against Donald Trump and the Trumpers.

I just described three weeks of testimony having nothing to do and documents having nothing to do with Donald Trump. But let's see if you can comment on this. We know from reporting that at least one of your former colleagues in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office who also has Michael Cohen as a witness in the Stormy Daniels hush money, business records fraud, cover-up case.

That's a mouthful. It doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. That case was going to trial in March with Judge Mershon, but it's been bumped by willingly by Judge Chuckkin, who in the DC Circuit Court case, we'll talk about in our next segment is handling the bigger election fraud case and interference case by Donald Trump. So you're, I don't think I can set you up this way. I was going to say, comment on what you would do. All right, look, they're evaluating, oh, let's just do it neutrally. They're evaluating him, watching him in action,

being cross-examined by, you know, she's not that skilled of a cross-examiner, but she got the basics out in terms of bias, and credibility, and truth telling, and then evaluating that for like, you know, as I said, one of my internal texts, Alvin, do we have a problem? I don't know, Alvin Bragg being the prosecutor about him, but you know, this, Michael Cohen

plays in so many different dimensions and not just in the courtroom he's in right now to help get the fraud case. Obviously knowing everything about him and his background in the baggage, Latisha James made a decision to put him on the stand and I think she was right to do that. Now Alvin has to make another decision about whether based on his performance here, the good and the bad, whether he'll be used in the story of the Daniels case or not. So we have that. What else did you observe about the testimony of Michael Cohen that you think is helpful to the judge in making the decision about whether there's been persistent fraud in the

remaining six counts of the petition? Yeah, so just following up on what you were saying this. So Susan Hofinger, who's the Chief of the Investigation Division at the Manhattan DA's office, she's an executive. She's also the prosecutor who tried the Alan Weisselberg Trump Organization case and got a conviction. And she's the lead prosecutor supervising and doing the other case against the case against Trump, the Stormy Daniels election interference case.

So it makes sense that she would go watch and see how Michael Cohen did. He is her witness in that case. And so I would have done that as well. And I have done that many times as a prosecutor. I would go and see how, if I had a co-operator who was testifying in another case, or witness testifying in another case, just to see how they do see how they hold up, how they, whether they're credible, whether they answer questions, maybe she learned a lot, right? She learned that Michael Cohen can't help but be a lawyer, and he'll say things like, asked and answered,

but he's a witness, right? He's not,'s that's what the lawyer that's what the attorney general's supposed to do, you know would say objection asked and answered right? That's not what the witness is supposed to do, but he couldn't help himself and that was good information to learn for her And did you see if he comes across as credible? Etc. So so she was there in the in it was reported that she was there in the courtroom. And look, if you credit Michael Cohen, if you credit the other witnesses who are testifying, it seems very clear that there's lots and lots and lots of evidence of persistent fraud.

This, there's no other way to look at this. I mean, there's been testimony that Donald Trump would come up with numbers that he'd want. And then he would ask people to reverse engineer the numbers in order to get to the ultimate number that he wanted as opposed to the other way around the way it's supposed to work. And that it was just very, very interesting to see how every witness, no matter how they feel about him,

no matter whether it's someone who's still on his side or not, you can't get around those basic facts that continue to appear, whether it's in emails, whether it's in live testimony, etc. It's very interesting. Yeah, I like to know. I think at the end of the day, Michael Cohen, there's an advantage here that perhaps Susan Hoffinscher doesn't have in the jury trial case that she'll be trying with Stormy Daniels in that this is a bench trial with a judge who has shown even today that he knows how to evaluate the credibility of a witness and distinguish and not throw, I hate that phrase of the baby and the bathwater, so I'm not going to use it.

But he can distinguish between, you know, both evaluating the credibility of a witness and deciding whether his, the person's past fraud or crimes are lying is impacting in any way the information that's being transmitted and received by the court in real time during testimony. A jury would have a harder time. I mean, a lot of the shenanigans today with the holding up the books and mentioning the podcast, although we were disappointed that they didn't mention political beat down

or might as touched by name, or legal a half that would have been nice. But holding up the books and revenge and this and that, you made a lot of money. That theatrics is effective as a trial lawyer and I am one as you are in front of a jury. You know, you walk around with a book, Revenge under your R, you lean in, you put your shoulders, put your arm on there. There it is. But you know, you go over to the jury box. If you're allowed to get that close, you sort of put

your elbow on it while you show them, books like Revenge and Betrayal and all of that, and then you tear the witness a new one based on bias and credibility. That's very effective in front of a jury. I've had juries roll their eyes and close their notebook on a witness about halfway through my tearing apart the witness on credibility. That's a good thing. That's what you want to know is happening. With a judge, a judge who already believes now

that Donald Trump is a liar based on my, this should have been a good day for Donald Trump. If he could, if he was disciplined, he could control himself because they would have had like the cross examination of Michael Cohen and the bias issue and him saying he lied to a federal judge and then they move for directed verdict, but it's all about him attacking the Law Clerk again because he is undisciplined

and he can't help himself and or his own. So what's the end game of attacking the Law Clerk? I just don't understand. I mean, if you can control yourself, what's the point? I don't get. I said at the top, I don't for the life of me know what the strategy is here of attacking the lock clerk. I guess it's interesting on the campaign trail. It lets you say in one breath, he's all over the map anyway. He's like, I respect the judge. And the next

minute, it's like Biden, all right. Let's stop. For those that watch for around the country, let me explain something about the state court system. Leticia James, leticia James has her job because she ran for office and the people of the state of New York, which is generally a democratic place, blue place voted for her. Nothing to do with Joe Biden. Joe Biden didn't campaign for her. She didn't campaign for Joe Biden. She run into, there was a whole group of people that ran against her. You and I know a couple of them. of people that ran against her, you and I know a couple of them. You know, that I know a couple of them. And she won.

Yay. That's how that works. Judges. Same thing. You either get appointed or you get elected. If you get appointed, you have to run for office at a certain point. And the voters of Manhattan voted for judge and go on it. Nothing.

Joe Biden was like, I'm not even sure he was vice president at the time that Angkoran became a judge. He probably was still in the Senate. That's how long ago it was. So Joe Biden is not, not only is he not controlling Jack Smith, he's not coming close to doing anything. If you think that, you don't understand New York about who's making, who's making decisions in New York. So I think Michael Cohen is a compelling witness whose testimony reinforces that of Jeff McConney, the controller Alan Weissselberg

under duress because he didn't really want to throw Donald Trump under the bus of of Mr. Bernie who was an assistant vice president for the last eight years in the Trump organization. And for I can't remember her name But the woman that works as a assistant controller under McConney All of those witnesses I just described the two people the last one Donald Trump said he didn't even know who they were But he was deposed they asked them because they knew they were gonna use them as witnesses. What do you think about Patrick Bernie? Who is that? Somebody that works in your organization for last 12 years.

You know who he is? I really don't. How about this person, the assistant controller? I really don't know her either. Yet, because they know everything. Because every day they're working in this persistent fraud environment, you know, stacking up the wood, and that's the nature of the testimony.

So he didn't say anything that was inconsistent with what Bernie said. Bernie, Patrick Bernie already said last week, we have hot takes on it, legal apps already on it. He said that he was directed by Alan Weisselberg and Michael Cohen in Alan Weisselberg's office on behalf of Donald Trump to cook the books and inflate his personal net worth.

And Michael Cohen said the exact same thing today. See, that's the thing they miss. When Michael Cohen's testimony is corroborated by other people, that means, yes, he may have lied about something in the past, but he's not lying now because others that don't have his credibility issues have reasonably supported his testimony. I think the thing he has to worry about the most in front of a

jury or the thing that Susan Hoffinger would have worried about the most is he has a conviction for lying right to lying to Congress and he's right exactly and that's by that's that's a good cross examination of that is you know isn't it true that you raised your right hand, you swore to tell the truth, you know, much in a courtroom much like this and you, you know, whatever, and you basically show in front of a jury that he lied under oath in a courtroom in front of a judge, in front of Congress, in front of others before. How do you know he's telling the truth now? He's somebody who will lie under oath. So that's a very, that's something that if I, Susan Hopper and

Drums, sure wanted to kind of see how he was going to answer that. It's the classic, are you lying now? Are you lying then? Which is it? You can't be telling the truth both times. So and like you said, with a jury, which is we don't have a jury here for, for good reason, but, but with a jury, that can be a very compelling line of cross examination and look. If I've gone down and watched trials involving related parties, because I want to see how

certain overlapping witnesses are going to do, it's a very good trial practice. You'd be a fool not to take advantage of it. That's one of the reasons she's in the room. It's the same reason Donald Trump sends his lawyers in to like the Garcia hearing about ethical conflicts down in Florida and Todd Blanche is standing in the back of the room. It's the same reason Donald Trump sends his lawyers in to like the Garcia hearing about ethical conflicts down in Florida and Todd Blanche is standing in the back of the room to make sure that Walt Nauta does the right thing and keeps his Trump bought and paid for lawyer instead of firing the lawyer and hiring somebody independent and probably telling the truth. He stands in the back for intimidation purposes also.

Totally, totally. And also just a little trick trial or trick to tell our viewers who love to hear this kind of stuff What you would do as a prosecutor is you would ward here, you know when you're talking to the jury You you talk about hey you're gonna hear that there's a witness who has a conviction for lying and is that could can you can you credit That person's testimony if you believe them and there's other evidence could you say that yes that person someone who lied before is someone who I could listen to and find credible and if they say no I could never do that right that's a way of kicking them off the jury if they say they can it almost doesn't matter you're taking the sting out of it

then you'd open on it then you you know so by the time they hear about it it's old news they don't care they know you've prepped them for that information it doesn't come out like a surprise you know you've conditioned them because even if that person gets dismissed the other jurors who eventually become the jurors in the box hear it. And you're right, you deflate the issue because you take on as I tell my trial team, as I'm training them, what are the worst set of facts that we have in our case? And they'll tell me, okay, those are your new best friends.

You're to love them and kiss them and hug them and put them under your pillow at night because you got to find a way to make those terrible facts. Your best friends work for you. And so they're like, yeah, it takes a lot of pressure off them. It's like, oh crap, we hate that fact. Don't hate that fact. Embrace that fact.

Love that fact. And then when you're doing your, because you go first, so when you do your direct examination of the person, you bring out first that the person you lied, didn't you? Yes. And you lied to judge Paley, didn't you? Yes.

And you lied to Congress at some point, didn't you? Yes. And you went to jail related to tax evasion and whatever the cross, whatever it is. Yes. Yes. And yes. But putting that aside, why should the jury believe you and let him talk? And I'll say because whatever he's going to turn to new leaf and I whatever he's going to say and then by the time they do their cross two days later

of the same questions that Jerry's like I heard this already. Is this like a repeat? I heard this. I already made my decision on this issue. So you're right. It's it's fascinating and and we love the law. We love talking about the intersection of law and politics and we love sponsors That support the show and now one of our favorite parts of the show is where people that like the show actually do product placement on the show So here's a word from our sponsors eating well doesn't have to be boring feel your best this fall and satisfy your cravings with adventurous eats made nutritious from green chef. Discover exciting new flavors with recipes that feature certified organic fruits and vegetables, sustainably sourced seafood, and unique farm fresh ingredients like tart cherries, truffle

zest, and rainbow carrots. Green Chef is the number one meal kit for eating clean with dinners that work for you, not the other way around. My experience with Grinchchef has been game changing. Their meals genuinely taste amazing and I don't know how I'd get through the work week without them. Plus it's super fun cooking with my family because of how easy Grinchchef makes it. Grinchchef is also the only meal kit that is both carbon

and plastic offset. Green chef offsets 100% of their delivery emissions, as well as 100% of the plastic in every box, plus nearly all packaging materials are curbside recyclable than most areas in the US. Green chef delivers everything you need to eat clean the easy way this September. Feel your best with nutritionist-approved recipes packed with clean ingredients that support your healthy lifestyle and taste. Great to go to greenchef.com slash 60 legal AF that's six zero legal AF and use the code 60 Legal AF. That's 60, L-E-G-A-L-A-F to get 60% off plus free shipping. Once again, that's greenchef.com, g-r-e-n-c-h-e-f.com slash 60, L-E-G-A-L-A-F,

and use code 60 legal to get 60% off plus free shipping green chef the number one meal kit for eating well. 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 you check out miracle maids bedsheets inspired by NASA. Miracle made uses silver infused fabrics andacle Mades bed sheets. Inspired by NASA, Miracle Mades uses silver infused fabrics and makes temperature regulating bedding so you can sleep at the perfect temperature

all night long. Using silver infused fabrics inspired by NASA, Miracle Mades 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 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, and feel as nice if not nicer than sheets used by some 5 star hotels. Miracle sheets are the perfect gift for your spouse, friends or family who doesn't want

better sleep and luxurious feeling bed sheets. And since these come with 3 free towels, you get 2 gifts in one just in time for the holidays. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Bacteria can clog your pores, causing breakouts and acne. Sleep clean with miracle. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF. To try it today or gift it to someone special this holiday season. And we've got a special deal for our listeners. Save over 40%. And if you use our promo legal AF a checkout, you'll get three free towels and save an extra 20%. Miracle is so confident in their product, it's back to the 30-day money back guarantee.

So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle made. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal AF f and use the code legal a f to claim your free three piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash legal a f to treat yourself a friend or loved one this holiday season. You know what's a miracle that there's anybody left in Georgia to try that hasn't already pled given how strong Fawni Willis' cases. As I said a long time ago that this was going to be like Sunday morning at International House of Pancakes, flip, flip, flip, flip, flip,

and it started with a bail bondsman and a little about coffee county and a break in of election equipment. Now we've got not one, not two, but three, Trump lawyers at risk of losing their law licenses for a long, long time who have now told the judge that they are taking a plea deal to confess and to plead guilty to crimes, ranging from misdemeanors all the way to felonies, take five and six years of probation. Some people got up and gave tearful saliliquies about other co-conspirators like Rudy Giuliani and Ray Smith.

Others just sat stone-faced, but all have one thing in common. They are fully cooperating with Fannie Willis in her Fulton County District Attorney case. That includes Ken Chesbro, the architect of the fake collector scheme, Sydney Powell, the release the Kraken Co-Captain of Team Crazy, and one of the lawyers on the front lines of the lawsuits brought by Donald Trump around the country. And Jenna Ellis, who's the strangest of all of them, because he went from a Trump hating person in 2016, who said he was a criminal, a low life, a narcissist, and a dirt bag to eventually representing that person in, along with Rudy Giuliani, in pressuring state

elected officials and in courtrooms around America, around America to try to steal the election. And now it's come full circle because she's had a plea guilty to a felony in order to get her deal. In addition, Mark Meadows, as we suspected on legal AF, when we saw the indictment for Jack Smith and the DC election interference case, that only had one defendant for conspiracy counts and six unnamed co-conspirators, none of which appeared to be Mark Meadows that Mark Meadows must have been cooperating when he went into the grand jury in June two months earlier. And now we have confirmation from multiple news outlets that Mark Meadows indeed threw up the court process through the judge

supervising the grand juries, which would have been Jeb Bozberg at the time in TC Circuit Court. He obtained immunity in order to testify without asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege to the DC grand jury, which led to the indictment of Donald Trump. But the fact that he's even cooperating with Jack Smith where he's to remind people,

or just to tell them for the first time, they don't know it, Mark Meadows is an indicted co-conspirator in Georgia. He is not yet indicted in the Fed case with Jack Smith. And the question is, because he is a conduit to so much information being the right-hand gatekeeper for Donald Trump as his chief of staff. Each one of these people can dump on, not only Donald Trump, of course, but half a dozen other people that were in their orbit. Rudy Giuliani, the stakes just went up incredibly. I mean, Jenna Ellis, when she pled guilty and did a tearful speech, basically dumped

all over Rudy Giuliani and race met the other lawyer that she was affiliated with. And each one of them has somebody else, two or three, that they can testify against. So I want to talk about two things with you, Karen. One, I want to talk about what happens to the remaining 15 co-conspirators now, that'll give you my speculation. And then what happens in the Jack Smith cases,

because he knows that Powell, Chesbro, and Jenna Ellis are willing to take a deal or will take a deal. And now, of course, I'm sure he's been phoning them about his cases and Mark Meadows, where Farnie Willis still has him by the short hairs, but he's at least a limited cooperation with Jack Smith and what it means for the calculation of Donald Trump

because he wasn't able to control any of these people. He wasn't paying their freight for instance, Generalist had a GoFundMe page. He wasn't paying their freight for attorneys. He can't control their individual decision-making about taking a plea deal. And now, I'll leave my part of the segment on this. If I'm the other, there's at least 13 others that should immediately take a plea deal and get the heck out of the way of this moving freight train before they're squashed by it.

All of the remaining fake electors, Ray Smith, the lawyer, who's not got anything to gain by continuing to fight this thing. Trevion QT, who is the stylist for Kanye West, the white reverend who pressured Ruby Freeman to try to get her to say there was election fraud in Fulton County when there wasn't the guy that's Willie Floyd III who's the head of black voices for Trump, all of them, you know, Misty Hampton and Kathy late them from coffee county, they should all take a deal and get probation. And that would leave the true believers. Trump, Clark, Giuliani, and maybe Eastman. I think Meadows eventually gets a deal.

And I think on your point, and I think you said it earlier, you said it on a hot take that I watched. If you got four left, if I'm Fony Willis, I'd love to try the case in one table of Trump, Eastman Clark and Giuliani, right? And get rid of the rest and at the rate they're going, we're doing three a week now. There's by the time we, and if she goes to the judge next week, which I think she will, and start talking about scheduling the remaining trials. Now that five months of trial time has come off the docket because of all of these resolutions. The judge now has an open docket in 2024. She says it's time to try the remaining people you're going to hear more flipping.

What do you think about who's next in the group? What does this mean for Donald Trump about all these people testifying ultimately against him and then what is Jack Smith do with this this gift that Fannie Willis has given him? So it's interesting I surprised to read that there's a former federal prosecutor I think it was Andrew McCarthy who said that he thought that the fact that all these people are pleading means Fannie Willis has a weak case and that her case is flimsy, that this would never have happened in federal court, et cetera, and I was surprised because I view it very differently. To me, this shows that Fannie Willis is planned and this is just I think the diversity of state prosecutor and a federal prosecutor. Her, as a state prosecutor, her plan is unfolding.

I would say perfectly. And she strategically wanted certain people to testify as witnesses against her. She doesn't need them, but she'd like it. And they were guilty. They were culpable. Yes, they're not as culpable or guilty as Donald Trump, right? He's definitely the most. But you charge them with Rico because they were part of this giant conspiracy group of individuals trying to steal an election through various means. And then you flip

them and you make them cooperators. And this is just what state court prosecutors do all the time. And federal prosecutors do too. But I think the issue that McCarthy might be taking an issue with is in federal court when you plead, when you cooperate, you have to plead to the whole indictment, you plead to the charge, you admit everything. And Fannie Willis is allowing them to not plead guilty

to the Rico, but instead to certain charges, right? To certain limited charges. And I think there's several federal prosecutors who are scratching their head, doesn't that allow a certain cross examination of those cooperators saying, oh, you're lying, you're only saying this to get a sweetheart deal, et cetera. But I guess I disagree.

I think this is entirely appropriate. And what Fannie Willis has done in each of these, please. And it's great because we get to see it in real time on television because everything is unlike federal court and other courts, everything is televised in Georgia. She makes sure that the defendants have to allocate to the facts that they're going to testify to in general. So, and I thought Jenna Ellis' in particular was so powerful, right? She made when they when they allocated her and in addition to saying,

you know, you're guilty because you're pleading guilty because you're in fact guilty, and no one's forcing and threatening you, et cetera, et cetera. They specifically said, and isn't it true that you were lying when you said that 96,000 mail-in ballots were not counted? We're not counted. Yes, that is, I admit that I lied about that. And isn't it true that you were lying when you said, there was no evidence that you were lying when you said 2,506 felons voted illegally

and that 66,248 underaged people voted illegally. And they just went through lie by lie by lie. And those are all things that set her up for a great testimony against, it sounds like Rudy Giuliani in particular in John Eastman and because she was saying, look, I relied on others. I relied on people more experienced than me. And you know, she kind of is a little bit not taking responsibility and trying to blame others, but she's very much going to testify as an insider in the room about the lies and why and who told her

to lie and what was going through everybody's mind. And that's very powerful. And I think that's exactly what Fanny Willis you want to do. You know, it gives, it gives us insider access, right? And it also very much, because the lawyers are the ones who are flipping, it defuses the advice of council defense, right? It makes it so that when Donald Trump says,

oh, but I was relying on my lawyers, if you've got the lawyers, Chesbro in particular, and Powell, who are going to say, look, you know, advice of council requires making full disclosures of all material facts to the attorney, and you have to rely on it and good faith, et cetera. I think these witnesses are gonna say, no, this is like, this is a conspiracy.

This wasn't good faith, you know, this is what we think the law is. This is we're trying to get something done and let's bend to the law in ways that doesn't even pass the smell test to try to get what we want. And I think that's going to get to Trump, the proof that Trump knew what he was doing was wrong. And I think all of this is building up towards that. So I think it's going to be very, very, very powerful. I think, you know, just as a rule of thumb that we always talk about, you as a prosecutor, you flip up, not down,

meaning you flip the lower level people to get the upper level people. Like you wouldn't flip Donald Trump, for example, to get genitalists, right? That's not the case. And the people who say yes, but these were all bad guys and everybody was bad. I view that slightly differently. I, unlike other crimes where, let's say you have a big conspiracy to rob a jewelry store. Everybody is in on it together, even if there's a mastermind. Everyone's in on it together and they're all going to benefit together. It's greed. It's they're all doing it for their own benefit and everyone's going to get a lot of money.

This case is very different to me. This is more like a cult with a cult leader. Because in cult cases, you know, the people who go and follow the cult, blindly follow the cult leader. Yes, of course there is some responsibility. But for that cult leader, these people would never have done these things,

right? Although Giuliani, I put in a different category. Giuliani, I think, although he was respected, he was America's mayor, he was Southern District United States attorney, who used Rico cases to bring down mob bosses and Wall Street and all that kind of stuff, there was always a side to him that was a narcissistic and ego driven. And you saw aspects of it in all sorts of areas, including allegations by his first ex-wife and the way he'd get these things with his kids. I mean, there was a clear, weird,

just narcissist ego power trip that he had that I think he kept in check, you know, and now he just unleashed it. Like he's just he's being the person that he always was. So to me, I see the two of them different, and I would never flip either of them, and the two of them should absolutely, yeah, go on. No, no, finish it up. No, and even Jeff Clark is another one who I think is kind of also deserves it. Johnny Eastman, if Johnny Eastman flips, I wouldn't give him a sweet, sweet, hard deal the way the others got. But if Johnny Eastman flips, Johnny Eastman completely, completely can diffuse this advice of council

defense. And that's his main defense. So I would almost say it's worth it for him, but I wouldn't flip those, at least those three, if not, as you said, those are the worst ones. But yeah, go ahead. The final four for me is Eastman, Trump, Clark, and Giuliani, all at a table together, being tried together.

The rest of the people should just get the F out of the way and take the plea deals that are being offered. There's reporting again every time, every week we hear the report that the prosecutors are doing their job and offering appropriate plea deals. They've got a willing participant in Scott McAfee, the judge who's running an incredibly well-run and disciplined court room, he accepts the recommendations of the prosecutors. All of these people are going to get so far are going to get first time offender treatment, which under Georgia law, if they're good boys and girls and they color within the lines and they don't violate the terms of their probation and they cooperate, they could have their felonies or misdemeanors expunged

from their record, which is another thing that's being dangled in terms of a brass ring in front of them to do the right thing And then then jacks to pick up with you said I I agree with you and I totally disagree with other Legal commentators to say this shows there's a week case I totally disagree with that and the or I heard the lawyer for Donald Trump say see She doesn't even believe in her rico racketeering case because she's letting them plead to something less than Rico. Right. In order to get something in return, she's taking felony pleas, doesn't have to be at the very, very top of the chain, which the judge would probably be like, oh, wait a minute, there are a conspirator in the rico case,

and you're giving them five years of probation as a recommendation on my buy in that one. They have to find something that sort of fits with their talk about reverse engineering. They want to give them probation. They got to come up with the lowest crime possible that the judge will pass the straight face test in front of the judge,

because they don't want the judge to go like, I'm not giving them five years of probation. They got to go to jail for that one. So that's part of what we're watching. Jack Smith, if he hasn't already reached out to these people, of course the ones that have already pled are just sitting there as sitting ducks for the federal prosecutors,

they can have to plead to a deal there and testify there. There are, it's the same, it's the overlapping set of facts. And so you've got that going on. Mark Meadows, I think, needs to cut a deal, a bigger deal to avoid prosecution. Maybe it'll be in Georgia, it'll, should be in Georgia first, because that's where he's still, he's been indicted and not in the other places. And I think the rest of the people from this dehampton to to Kathy lay them to voices for black voices for Trump to the stylist for Kanye, they need to clear out and cut their deal and get out of the way and let the case be against

the four here as as you said Karen flipping flipping down, flipping up, if you will, and get them to testify and give all their knowledge and all their facts and all their documents and get the F out of the way. But I think it's the opposite. It shows a very strong case and the fact that she's using it. As she has before, she tried a 30 person

Rico fraud case against the school board in Atlanta by times she went to trial, two thirds had taken deals. And then she only tried it against, and got a conviction against a very small subset of them. So, and again, one last comment from me, I don't care what commentary is out there. It's a terrible set of facts and reality for Donald Trump that his former lawyers and these people

in particular have pled guilty and Rudy Giuliani. If he doesn't come in and plead, he's going to go down like you said, you should go down with Donald Trump. I think she'll take a deal if Rudy, if she got the big Kahuna, Rudy Giuliani to testify against Donald Trump, she's got to take that deal. I think she's got to take that deal. I don't know. to take that deal. I don't know.

He's too crazy. He is, by, you know. I think he's not credible. I mean, I think he's fatally not credible and I think he, I don't know who knows, who knows. You have to make the proffer first of what he would say and then based on that proffer. But what were you gonna say that we'll move on

to Eugene Carroll? Yeah, Meadows. I mean, I want to just comment on the meadows situation and what does this mean for meadows in Georgia, the fact that now we know he has immunity federally, right? How does that work in Georgia? And people might be wondering, is there a double jeopardy issue?

Is there a reason that the immunity would cover the Georgia case as well? And it's interesting because the Mark Meadows case, we always were saying, as you said, it never made sense that he wasn't an unindicted co-conspirator, but now it does make sense. It's clear he was given immunity and he testified in the grand jury and he's cooperating, but the reason I still wasn't sure about that and that it made sense is because why wouldn't he have also negotiated that immunity with Fanny Willis?

Why would you leave yourself open to being vulnerable and to be prosecuted down there. And it just, I couldn't figure it out. And I'm still trying to figure out what he has up his sleeve, what his lawyer has up his sleeve because he's got good lawyers. And I'm saying that, but he's lost everything so far that he's tried. I know Terwilliger is a good lawyer, but they lost the removal issue. I think they thought they were going to get a removal issue. I don't think Fawni was offering him less than a felony conviction.

And he got a limited immunity for just the testimony that he gave. I want to distinguish that. He's not sitting, he gave three interviews in a grand jury testimony against Donald Trump. The reporting is he said, Meadows, that he told Donald Trump that he lost the election, that the fraud that you're talking about is in very small amounts and is not outcome-determinative. And he was also offended and told Trump that he was, that Trump declared that he won the election

on the night of the election. And that he's been lying to the American people. He's got a lot of other stuff. Tomorrow, a logo, and the records keeping, and all the other things, and his involvement with the fake electors. I mean, I think it was narrow because the judge approved the waiver and the immunity.

It was narrow to a certain set of subsets, but he's not just overtly cooperating with Jack Smith and therefore I don't know if he thought on him to do that with Faudiose. He's not doing it with Jack Smith. Yeah, maybe. You might be right. I wonder whether the issue could also be... There's just... I'm putting a pin in an issue that I want you to think about and we'll see if it comes up. But when all of her north, if you remember back in the day, was being prosecuted and was granted immunity. There was an issue at the time with having to determine that the subsequent prosecution

was not tainted by immunized testimony or immunized facts. And they had to have a castigar hearing. And I just wonder if that is going to come up here. If there's going to be a potential issue, a potential castigarh issue in Georgia based on the Mark Meadows immunized facts, the immunized information. And maybe it's not an issue, but it just, I'm just wonder why he's allowed himself to be vulnerable here. I like that argument.

I like the argument. Remember, for the Mark Meadows is being, the, the acts that he's being prosecuted under in Georgia is the participation in the phone call to Brad Rathman's burger about the 11,780 votes, him going to coffee counting and trying to interfere with the vote count that was being conducted by these Secretary of State's auditors and then offering to use campaign dollars his role in the fake electors and and getting them collected and brought in brought forward There's a lot of things that don't necessarily have to do with the immunized estimate But I like it. I think we need to follow it closer and and we may not get this stuff revealed

But there is a disconnect the mismatch I agree with you between what's going on in Georgia and what's going on here Why is he indicted in Georgia and why is he limit at least limitately cooperating with Jack Smith and how do those two things and listen? We'll try to we'll try to put it together You know explode it and put it together with you as we get more details and the next thing And then of course and of course, just really quick, Donald Trump does on his truth social. He goes after Mark Metta's again, and he, you know, he talks about, you know, he's just,

he's literally these gag orders, even though there's a stay in the gag order right now, that Judge Chukkin ordered while they appeal it. You know, he just wants to flout and just show that I can still do it. I can call Jack Smith the range, right? I can, you know, it's just crazy. It's just crazy. He just wants to like keep doing it, keep doing it, keep doing it. He wants to remind people the rules don't apply to him. Yeah, we're going to talk about, we're going to talk about Jack Smith and the four different motions that have dismissed or motions that were filed by Donald Trump the gag order and the temporary administrative stay subject to full briefing which is going on today

We're expecting a filing today by the Department of Justice against the stay while Donald Trump violates What would have been the gag order continuing to attack Jack Smith as a thug, the exact thing he can't do when the gag order was in place. And E. Jean Carroll, the case that's going to trial again in January for more damages and more punitive damages, and an appeal related to whether Donald Trump had presidential immunity when he defamed her,

and whether or whether that was waived by Alina Haba and others not bringing that defense forward in time. We'll talk about all of that, but we've got one more set of sponsors that want to participate in our show. And here they are. Did you know over 80% of people have subscriptions they've forgotten about? It's too easy to subscribe to a free trial of something and then completely forget about it once you stop using it, right as the monthly charges start rolling in. That's why I'm such a big fan of 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 in one place. With Rocket Money, you can easily cancel the ones you don't want with just the press of a button.

No more long hold times or annoying emails with customer service. Rocket Money does all the work for you. Rocket Money can even negotiate to lower your bills for you by up to 20%. All you have to do is take a picture of your bill and rocket money takes care of the rest. Take it from me, I'm a huge fan of rocket money, and they've saved me money on numeric occasions. Rocket money also lets you monitor all your expenses in one place. Recommends custom budgets based on your past spending, and they'll even send you notifications when you've reached your spending limits.

With over 5 million users and counting, RocketMoney has helped save customers and average of $720 a year and 1 billion in total savings so far. Stop wasting money on things you don't use. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions and manage your money the easy way by going to rocketmoney.com slash legal AF. That's rocketmoney.com slash legal AF, rocketmoney.com slash legal AF. One thing about doing ads, I thought I knew how to pronounce the word subscription until I had to do it in an ad.

And suddenly I had peanut butter mouth for many, many takes. A little inside baseball about us doing our ads. But we're thrilled to have our sponsors with us. For those that wonder, it keeps the big blue ball, the big blue marble rolling because we are a grassroots enterprise, we don't take outside investor money, our sponsors, Patreons and people who just donate money during the chat. Keep this thing rolling along. And speaking of rolling along, Eugene Carroll, who was a rape by Donald Trump, according to a jury

in May in a Berkburg-Dorf Goodman department store in spring of 1996. She was awarded by that jury $5 million, including punitive damages and compensatory damages. But she had a second defamation case, was always called, that one was called E. Jean-Carre-1. E. Jean-Carre-1 was brought based on statements that Donald Trump about her not being his type. And she's ugly

and it didn't happen and she's a grifter and all of that while he was president. They've argued late, I would argue, that Donald Trump is allowed to comment on things that are important to the electorate, including whether he's a rapist or not. And that's what he was doing. And on the other side, led by Robbie Kaplan, friend of of the pod who's been on the podcast with Karen and me, has argued, no, there are outer boundaries to what you're allowed to say, even while president, and you're not allowed to be a to famer in chief.

Those aren't my words. Those are the words of Donald Trump's own lawyer, Joe Takapina, who was the one that crossed examined E. Jean Carroll in the losing trial, but before he was Donald Trump's lawyer, when he was interviewed by Newsweek magazine, he referred to Donald Trump as a de-famer in chief. I agree, Joe. I don't know how you were hired, but that's how that worked.

Now, there's the second trial. Fortunately for us and for E. Jean Carol, particularly, it doesn't have to go through the stress of another trial, the judge on summary judgment has already ruled that she has won her trial related to defamation and she has found the presidential immunity that they're trying to argue now. You can't sue me while I was president for things that I did because it was within my presidential

powers and immunity, that that doesn't fly because it was either A, outside the outer boundaries of whatever that immunity is and we're always struggling here on the show and in law but trying to figure out where what the outer boundaries are. It's not well defined. And or b, even if there is an immunity, you waved it because you waited almost three years to raise it in the trial. They didn't raise it for instance when the case was filed at the filed at the initial time when they could have filed a motion to dismiss. They didn't file, they didn't raise the issue of the presidential immunity a year

later when they finally got around to filing their answer. And they didn't raise it at all until December of 2022, almost three years into the case. So they took an appeal, the Trump side, and they said, presidential immunity, because the judge just ruled, I don't have it, or I waived it, and he's wrong, and I want the second circuit court of appeals to decide the issue. And that is the court that sits over a federal judge, in this case, Judge Kaplan and the Southern District of New York. It's his bosses, if you will. And it's made up of a random three-judge panel

that's pulled together randomly as the name suggests. And assigned to the case and they're called the Meritz panel because they deal with the merits of the case, not any kind of administrative issues leading into the appeal. And so who were the three-judge panel that was picked? I think that's interesting. Jose Cabránis, which I forgot he was still on the bench. I loved him as a judge. A Clinton appointee, it happens at the age of 80s. Danny Chinn, who I can't believe it just shows you how old I'm getting. I can't believe he's seen your status, meaning he's pushing 70, because I was there for the, I was in front of him in the, one of the first cases he had when he was first appointed to the bench 30 years ago.

And now he's seeing your status. It's crazy. He's an Obama appointee. And then it's Maria Arucho Khan, who is a Biden appointee. She was on the Connecticut Supreme Court, state court system, but Biden put her on the bench. That's the three judge panel. And they heard oral argument, which is available online, will probably post it on MidasTouch.com in which it used to be Alina Haba arguing

everything. But she's tied up as we as we went over in the first segment today, doing battle with the Locklark in the courtroom while Michael Cohen was busy testifying against her client. So she wasn't available to argue at the second circuit court of appeals, even though it's kind of right next door nearby or alongside, if you will, to use a phrase of the day, the court asked of the state court, and she had her partner, Michael Medio, going in argue, and he hit a buzz saw because the three judge panel quickly, including mainly judge Chen and judge Con, basically said, why didn't your guy file? Why did it take him three years to file?

It isn't that a waiver. And more importantly, since the standard of review on the decision by Judge Kaplan, the trial judge, because appellate courts aren't courts of first impression, or in other words, they're not taking an evidence. The record is stale and developed and static when it gets to them developed by the trial judge below. And there's different standards that they use to overturn a judge's decision or not.

And the lowest, I guess, the most deference is the better way to put it. That's given to the trial judge's decision is what we call an abuse of discretion standard. If you hear abuse of discretion standard, you know it's very difficult to overturn the trial judge's decision because that trial judge is being given the most

deference that an appellate court can give, right? It takes a lot to show there's been an abuse of discretion because right there baked into the concept is the word discretion. The judge has tremendous discretion and it's not to be overturned. They're not supposed to retry the case. They're supposed to figure out whether there was on an abusive discretion standard, whether there was a misapplication of the law or the facts in some way that has to be reversed and sent back down to the judge for further consideration. So Judge Chen said to Mondayo on an abusive discretion

standard, how can we overcome, why should we overturn Judge Kaplan's decision that waiting almost three years to assert your immunity defense is improper? How do you get above that? He never, but Tio never really answered the question. And I think that's going to be bad for him, especially if Judge Channon's up writing the opinion. What is your view of the application of presidential immunity here? And what do you think we like predicting things here? What do you think the second circuit's going to do with this case?

Schedule for trial in January? Oh, well, that's easy. Clearly, it's going to trial. It's only for damages anyway, right? This is the judge already gave it directed, verdict, and ruled that, look, the facts are essentially the same. The jury already found you guilty and your statements are largely the same.

So we're just going to go to the damages phase. I think that's absolutely going to be what happens. But I have a question for you, Popok. So this is E. Jean Carol one, right? E. Jean Carol two went first. Yes. And the reason E. Jean Carroll 2 went first and E. Jean Carroll 1 was on pause is because there was this whole Westfall act issue. And

I guess in my mind, I always thought that was the presidential immunity issue. Like I thought this is what's been litigated the entire time. So I was taken aback when the the judge the court said that this is untimely and and I thought that was the whole what this all was Can you educate us please on a different? I think I can Westfall immunity is if you're a federal employee and you in your suit for civil damages while you're employed You enjoy ultimate immunity because the United States government comes in and replaces you as the defendant and they have, see, they have sovereign immunity, not presidential immunity. The government has sovereign immunity, which is extended to you as a federal employee, gives you a cover.

You actually come out of the case. It would be a motion to substitute USA as defended. It would be E. Jean Carroll versus USA. And then the USA would put up its sovereign immunity to say, you can't sue us for this. And that's out. This is different. This is presidential immunity, which comes from the position that he held. He should have raised that when he first got into the case, along with the other immunity.

He raised the other immunity. And the Department of Justice sat around for a long time waiting to see what would happen in the first trial about whether they were going to try to replace Donald Trump and argue that Westfall immunity named after a case involving a person named Westfall was gonna be applicable. In the meantime, it got delayed for a long period of time.

The reason the judge said, why don't we need to wait around to see what a pellet courts are going to do with whether Donald Trump defamed you about having raped you when he was president, because we have a live case right now about him defaming you after he was president on social media. So let's go to trial on that one. In fact, I don't know if you remember, Karen, but the lawyers had come up with like a convoluted way to solve the problem of trying one of the cases and the judge said, no, even the Robbie Kaplan, who I'm sure he respects, even though he's not related to her, he said,

no, we're not doing that. No, we're not going to wait for this and they're wait for that until we're going to trial in a month in the case about Donald Trump defaming her, allegedly defaming her after he was president, while a issue about whether the West fall immunity and sovereign immunity gets resolved between the second circuit federal court of appeals. And the DC, not the DC federal court of appeals, the territory of DC has its own like a state, has its own appellate court. And that appellate court was given the task by the federal appellate court to decide the

issue of whether a Donald Trump was a federal employee or not, as that term is used under the Westfall Act and b, whether him making comments about E. Jean Carol while he was president of the way he made them, like she's not my type and I'll look at her and she's a grifter whether that was within or outside of his scope of duties as a federal employee. And finally, after like six months, while we were waiting around to see what would happen, the court in DC who really didn't want to make

this decision said, okay, one, he's a federal employee. He has badge number one as the president of the United States. Okay, but on the second thing, scope in, scope out, that's for you guys at the trial level. We can't figure that out as a matter of law. Go down to the trial level, go back to Judge Kaplan and that's, it went back to Judge Kaplan. But they were already trying the case of being defamed after. So the issue of whether she got defamed before while he was president was kind of put on

ice. It got thought out as soon as the jury ruled in May that he defamed her and raped her because they had to make both findings in the E.G. Carol two case. Now E.G. Carol one is thought out. And so now the only issue is that West Fall immunity, but presidential immunity. And where is presidential immunity come from? Where is that statutory is that Kisla? What is the limit of that? It's like constitutional case law. It's case law. It's like Nixon and it's usually Nixon. It's a bunch of cases that got developed around what are the powers of the presidency and why the president shouldn't be

bothered with within the boundaries of is there is presidential immunity. You can't generally sue a president. If he he did something even if an injured or hurt you, even if it damaged you, even if it can, if a normal person, a non-president did it, it would be what we call a tort or even a breach of contract. If it's within the course in scope or the outer boundaries, as we like to say, another concept developed in case law, of his immunity, meaning the coarseness scope of his responsibilities. I'll use an example, Judge Mehta,

who's presiding over the civil constitutional violation cases, including under the KKK Act, brought against Donald Trump for his causing the JAN's sixth insurrection riot and the death ultimately of Officer Brian Siknik, the Capitol Police Officer died in the light of duty the next day, having been sprayed with their spray and suffered a heart attack and a stroke

at the age of like 40, his estate and a bunch of other Metro police and House of Representative members are suing Donald Trump for civil damages, civil damages under these various statutes and constitutional violations. Donald Trump has argued presidential immunity, but he raised it early, not late, not three years into the case, he or he raised it early. And the judge made a made a decision that whatever the outer boundaries of presidential immunity are, this is beyond that.

And therefore, he can be sued for being, you know, for the charges that are being made. So that is up, that issue of presidential immunity and its application to that civil suit. That is properly up before the DC Court of Appeals, three judge panel there because that's the bosses for a DC federal judge like Judge Mata and that hasn't been ruled on. And so that whole issue, at least at the DC Court of Appeals, is got to be resolved. But here, the issue is he didn't raise presidential immunity or what is in or outside of his

immunity as president for a civil case. And that's what this case is for Eugene Carroll. the issue is he didn't raise presidential immunity or what is in or outside of his immunity as president for a civil case. And that's what this case is for Eugene Carroll. He didn't raise it for three years. I think he loses on abusive discretion, a standard that they're going to affirm judge Kaplan that he did not abuse his discretion to find as a matter of law on the undisputed record that Donald Trump was both beyond the outer boundaries of his presidential immunity and or waived it.

And therefore, carry on with your trial in January. If he doesn't like that, he can try to take it to the US Supreme Court. That's the next stop, but they gotta take that case. And I don't think they take that case on an emergency application to stop the trial on damages in January. And so just to wrap this up or round this out, the presidential

immunity vis-a-vis criminal. Talk about that. How does that apply to in the criminal context? I mean, it's similar. There are the courts are always struggling with outer boundaries, what they call the outer boundaries because they it's a nebulous concept that's developed in case law and almost on a case by case ad hoc basis. You have to look at all the cases in precedent about what has been

found to be inside and outside. There are certain things even Nixon did of course that were like that's beyond the pale. That is outside the boundaries of what presidents are supposed to be doing and he doesn't get to enjoy the immunity of being president. And then there's other things that are like close calls that we've seen it in a rise. So there's some things you'd be like, that's obviously outside presidential immunity. And then you'll see a judge, a court go,

well, it's such a close call because he is the commander in chief or he is responsible for that. Or he is, they'll find some duty or responsibility that the president has that this somehow is tied to. That's what they're doing in each and Carol. They're saying he's allowed to defend himself and he's the commander in chief and, you know, he's allowed for the electorate, you know, that's almost like campaigner in chief, not, not, not that. But I, you know, I stand on my, my analysis that she's going to trial in January and the jury's

going to award her a lot of money in punitive damages, especially when they hear the evidence for punitive damages that like right after the ruling in the first week in May, while all of us were on vacation, and we did legal AF for remote. He went on the town hall on CNN and bashed her mercilessly once again. And that's the factors that go into punitive damages, which are a punishing category of damages. And that also has to do with his net worth, which we're trying to figure out what that is in the in the fraud case, but, but that is, you know, kudos and congratulations to a victim who stood up for her own rights in a truthful, authentic way has been put through the meet grinder by Donald Trump,

but has come out the other side with dignity and money in her pocket. Thank God, although it's been stayed just so just around that out, the $5 million judgment that she got back in May, Donald Trump had to pay cash, because that's what he chose to do, into the court registry, where it's sitting and interest has to be collected on top of it.

And if he wins, if he wins the appeal, he gets the money back. He's not gonna win the appeal. If he loses the appeal, the appeal on the first case, which is still eight months away from being ruled upon, if he loses that, the money goes right over to E. Jean Carroll at a very high interest rate of post judgment interest. Even before it goes to the Supreme Court? Yeah, they'd have to get another stay. You have to get it. I mean, right now there's

a stay of the judgment because he posted a super CD is bombed. He'd have to, he'd have to get another stay. They'd have to get, I mean, right now there's a stay of the judgment because he posted a super CD is bombed. He'd have to post like another super CD is bombed, but which is a bond of an appellate bond, but only if the appellate court elects to take it. It's not a guarantee they're gonna, maybe, maybe they take it. He's got, he needs four votes at the Supreme Court to take a case into caucus and to talk about it. He's probably got four because he's got, you know, he's got six, you know, right wing

maga over there that are trying to help him out, at least in these kind of decisions. But let's talk quickly about what's going on in Judge Chutkin's case. Speaking of presidential immunity. Yeah, speaking of presidential immunity, we got Judge Chutkin's case? Speaking of presidential immunity. Speaking of presidential immunity, we got Judge Chutkin, who's presiding over the V case that is going to trial, come hell or high water as Judge Engoron likes to say. In March of 2024, she's made that clear. At least four times, including a week or so ago, that she is not delaying the case that the electoral calendar

and when he's debating or not debating or when he's primary, if no concern to her, the case is going to trial to relatively straightforward case going to trial, one defendant, Donald Trump, four conspiracy counts, that's it. We're going to trial in March. And so Donald Trump then fired back with, well, let me file four different motions addressed to the indictment. He only did it to get around the page limit. I was just going to ask because, right, because each one was like 35 pages or something.

Yeah, and here they are. And so that everybody knows when you file a motion in federal court, there's a page limit. Unless you get it by the rules, unless you get an enlargement from the judge. So rather than do that and make one big motion, they decided to do four motions. So they get four motions and four reply briefs and whatever. They're all ridiculous. When you start with the motion to dismiss the indictment based on statutory grounds and a memorandum in support and you look at it, it's just 40 pages of repeating the argument

that Donald Trump is being prosecuted and indicted for his speech. And he has the right under the first amendment to say that the election was false or fraudulent or stolen from him. But that's not with the, and nowhere in there. there like if you and I really believe this argument if you and I like if you decided to practice law with me Instead of Daniel Okay, all right, well, I'll we'll talk offline We put up We put up a we'd make a chart

We make a chart of all of the over-nax and other acts of the conspiracy. And then we would match it up with first amendment speech. We say, this is nothing more than speech. This is speech, and this is speech, and this is speech. The reason they don't do that is because the indictment has nothing to do with speech. It's not his belief system. It's not thought police. It's not things that he says. It's things that he does. It's the conspiracy to overthrow democracy and stop the peaceful transfer of power and the acts and steps that were taken by him and a dozen other people at his behest to accomplish that. That you're not allowed to do. You want

to get up like a crazy person and stand in a subway platform and yell out Donald Trump won the election, you're allowed to do that. No, if you, you know, no one's going to take you away for that or criminalize that. But you, you, in the face, the only reason we talk about whether he believed or didn't believe that he won or lost the election is it goes to mental state. And we need to prove as a prosecutor, or the prosecutors need to prove mental state, criminal mind, men's raya intent, willfulness, corruptly, whatever the actual standard is for the particular crime that's been charged. And the way you do that is the show there is nobody who objectively, reasonably, that's

the standard under the information outflow that was coming at Donald Trump from credible sources. No one could have reasonably believed that he won the election. No one. I'll give you an example. In his brief, this other one, which is very, very similar, called motion to dismiss the indictment based on constitutional grounds. This is my favorite part. There are so many favorite parts,

but we only have a limited amount of time. He says in here that, listen to this, Terry. He says that this is all about viewpoint discrimination and criminalizing speech. And they go on to say, this is especially true because claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged or tainted by fraud and irregularity is does not involve easily verifiable facts way to's better. Such claims require the assessment of mountains of information from which each person will draw competing inferences based on facts as well as their personal, deep-seated political

views and pre-suppositions. They are not readily verifiable or falsifiable, they relate to politically charged issues and people's assessment of them is linked to their political predisposition and their trust in institutions, including governmental institutions. Okay, let's stop right there. The facts that the 2020 election had no fraud that was outcome determinative is a verifiable fact. And don't take my word for it. Take Chris Krebs, the head of the Cybersecurity for Election Integrity Department, that Donald

Trump fired, Attorney General Barr, White House Council Pat Sepaloni, deputy White House counsel Eric Hirschman, acting, acting attorney general Jeff Rosen and outside forensic auditors hired by Donald Trump, who reported directly to him after he paid them a million dollars, that there was no outcome determinative fraud in the election. To say that this gobbledygook, that facts are subject to interpretation and you could still hold the belief that there was a fraud case, and then point to polling, which is all been skewed by Donald Trump continuing

to say it over and over again, and say, see 60% of the people think there was fraud in the election. Who cares about polling that you ginned up with your own, with your own position? But this is their entire point that, that this, that he is not lying. He just has a difference of opinion about whether there was fraud in the election. Okay. Two things.

One, that's bullshit. There was either fraud in the election or there wasn't. At every reliable reasonable source, all ignored on purpose by Donald Trump, told him in real time that none of his false theories held any water. There weren't dead people voting. There weren't absentee voter fraud

with signatures that were missing. There's always, let me just say this, there's always fraud in the election. There's always somebody who votes their dead mother-in-law's ballot. There's always somebody that votes in the wrong precinct, either intentionally or not intentionally.

There's always somebody who votes twice. They did a mail-in ballot and they feel like going on election day or twice. They did a mail-in ballot and they feel like going on election day or they forgot They did a mail-in ballot. It happens 0.002% is what it happens That's the statistics because we know it because we're now three years later Okay, and so that does not overturn seven million votes or votes in each battleground state that determined the election. And so for Donald Trump to say two things over and over again with no proof and no evidence,

three things. Joe Biden is out to get me, and there's proof of that without providing any proof of that too. There is no facts that support that there was that there was no fraud in the election. That's a lie. And that's a, we know that. And three, I'm being prosecuted for first amendment speech, not conduct. The reason they never talk about conduct, right? Is because they know that they die on that hill, right? This is my favorite intro here, Karen. This is on page one, page two, attempting to explain this obvious contradiction. The prosecution argues that there was no outcome

determinative fraud in the election. Whatever that means, I mean, stop right there. What do you mean, whatever that means? It means there was no outcome determinative fraud. There was fraud. There's fraud in every election, it doesn't change the results. And that President Trump supposedly knew this because some government officials notified him. Some random government officials, Bill Barr, Pat Sipolloni, the head of the Department of Homeland Security,

the head of cybersecurity for of Homeland Security, the head of cybersecurity for integrity in the elections. Jeff Rosen, Eric Hirschman, just to name a few. The fact that he decided to gin this up and rely on indicted and now convicted lawyers who told him what he wanted to hear that there was fraud in the election doesn't mean that the prosecutors are out to get them or selectively prosecuting him or vindictively prosecuting him, prosecuting him, prosecuting him, prosecuting him. And his main up to word prosecuting him or that he's being, he's being put in jail ultimately for his first amendment speech.

All of these are going to, I want you to talk about the ones you want to talk about. All these are going to be rejected after full briefing by Judge, by Judge Chutkin. It'll go to the, it'll go to the DC Court of Appeals. That'll get rejected. It's not going to delay the March trial. I assure you. And that's it. I'm done.

I'm out of here. I'm going to storm out like Donald Trump. I'm gone. So I'm going to storm out like Donald Trump. I'm going. So I'm going to confess. Okay. I'm going to confess something. When I was prosecutor and I was a trial lawyer, um, used to try cases in state court, in New York state court, for summations, it's not in like federal court where the prosecutor

goes first and then the defense attorney goes and then the prosecutor gets to rebut what the defense attorney says. In state court, the defense attorney just goes first for the summation and then you get to go after as the prosecutor, you get the final word. You go first and you get the first and the last word, you go first for the opening statement, and then they go second, and then it's the other way. Every single case, no matter how strong it was, no matter how much my witnesses did great, I evidence went in as I wanted it to, after every defense summation,

I would need to go to the bathroom and cry, because it felt like, oh my God, how am I ever gonna overcome what they just said? Like, I can't, you know, they just point it because they just pointed out all the problems and all they need is confession. I've thrown up before trials. It's not going with it.

I've never done that, but, you know, but I literally would have to just like go in, take a deep breath because, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt is, you just need a little bit, you know, and you need to convince one person and then you don't get a conviction. And I'd have to remind myself of what the facts were and what the evidence was. And then you got to get yourself together and you go out there and you deliver it. And, but it was that feeling, that punch in the gut, that sick feeling. And I will say there was one argument in these motions that gave me the same feeling.

And it made me kind of sick. But again, this is before Jack Smith has responded. And I can't wait to read the response and see what he says, because I'm sure he'll make me feel better, just like the summation. And the reason this one argument concerns me is because the ultimate audience is the Maga Supreme Court. And this feels like something that the Maga Supreme Court ultimately, if it gets to that point,

it might perk their interest. And it's the double jeopardy claim that was made in this series of one motion split into several to avoid the page limits. And in the double jeopardy motion portion, Donald Trump argues that the text of the Constitution says that only a party convicted by the Senate may be then later charged by indictment trial, judgment, and punishment, not a party acquitted. And the Senate acquitted the president when he was impeached. And therefore, he cannot be retried in court. Then they go on to cite the

Federalist papers and Nixon v. Fitzgerald. And I just... The acquitted language isn't in there. They make the position, the acquitted language. It's not in the text. They convict it is in the text. Right, exactly. They say therefore, because he's not convicted. It goes to, you know, whatever.

That's the one thing that I worry that the Supreme Court, the rest of it I agree with you, it's conduct, it's clear conduct, it's not protected speech, but the fact that he was impeached by the House and then acquitted by the Senate worries me a little bit that the Supreme Court could potentially view it like this.

But I want to hear what Jack Smith has to say. Well, I have an opinion. I'm not Jack Smith, but I have an opinion. But I also, I have a very similar thing, but not on the summation. Whenever I get a brief, you know, from a good counsel on the other side, I start reading it. My first reaction is, maybe I do have the facts in the law wrong here.

You know, it could be very persuasive and then you take a deep breath and you go through it and you're like, wait a minute. This fact is wrong. This is not what things are going to do. Exactly. That's not what the case says. You know, the whole analysis is wrong.

I was not as concerned as you are by double jeopardy because that's not how I read that. The way I read that is that the Senate and the impeachment process has a role and that role is and the only thing that's relevant here that he was tried on in the Senate without witnesses of people remember the Democrats who were the House managers, who were the prosecutors, how to make a decision because we were already in like February of like 2022. He was already out of office for a while. They had to make a decision to in order to get McConnell to move the trial, to get the trial called to dispense with witnesses.

They were going to put on new witnesses. They said, well, forget the witnesses. We'll submit the transcripts from what happened at the impeachment level in the House of Representatives and we'll just do statements. We'll do opening statements and closing statements, closing arguments. So they got there. So there was a trial, but it was only on whether Donald Trump was responsible for the Gen 6 riot.

Right. And he wasn't charged with that. And he wasn't charged with that, which is back to my incontournal inconsistencies among the four pieces of paper. I know Laura. I wonder, but I wonder if that's why Jack Smith didn't charge him with that. Maybe. And I wrote in my little notes.

That's why Jack Smith didn't charge him with that because you know what? There you go. That's what that's why you're right. You're right. Because Jack Smith used it to say we were we were upset when we read the indictment because we're like, we know he's responsible for the Jan 6. Why didn't he say that? And even the Jan 6 committee said that, right? Because Jack Smith, he said it was used as he they took advantage. Donald Trump took advantage of the chaos of Janans X as part of his, but

not it wasn't laid out the way the Jans X committee. Remember the Jans X committee? I'd like the seven links in the chain. Yeah. And the last one was, you know, when all else failed, when the pressure campaign on Mike Pence failed, when the attempt at the fake electors failed, when the attempt to intimidate state legislatures and elected an election officials failed, but all else failed. They lit the match, pointed the gun at the Congress and sent in their angry mob. That's not how Jack Smith put it in his indictment. And now, maybe it's because he was concerned about the double jeopardy issue.

So I'm not concerned. First of all, the way I read it, it's an impeachment issue, not a crime issue. Even McConnell said, that's what we'll have, well, it's what we'll have criminal courts. It's really a crime. You can go, right, but you're, there's got to be a reason. I think you, you just explained that. It's got to be your reason. The Jack Smith went a little bit off script when it came to describing the Jan 6th itself, insurrection, when he wrote the indictment. And that's the case. Yeah.

I know. Right? But I mean, what a just genius. Talk about a high level anticipating this argument and analyzing the impeachment and not including it. I mean, like he is playing ball on a level that is just, it's just so impressive. I wrote, not nobody can read this, but I wrote not only is it internally and consistent on

the Gen 6 issue, but I wrote when I first read it, right, and that was not included in the prosecution, in the indictment. So, listen, I think that I'm reading something from our producer. I agree. It's a ball team. People will know what I'm agreeing to later. Yeah, look, that is genius. And I don't think anybody else has been talking about it. Not to twist our shoulders out of our sockets, the patterns,

the back, but I love them. Something like that happens right here with us and the show. But look, we're going to have to, some of this stuff is only going to come out in either the way we read between the lines, using our own experience. And some of it, frankly, we're going to have to wait to the memoirs are written by Jack Smith and others. It's just what happens. I learned a lot about Watergate after it happened. I learned a lot about the OJ trial after it happened with every book that was

written in. There's stuff you can do, like what we try to do here on the show, of course, is in real time kind of catch it, look at an examiner and explode it, reassemble it on a show. When sometimes we can't even catch our breath from what's happened during the week or the midweek. I mean, like, sometimes we get off the show, we're like, we missed this or that. I got filed before, Trump said something, and we just got to then catch it on the weekend.

It's just the way the show, and on hot takes. I think the leaders of Legal AF, you, me and Ben, you know, we're doing a great job at keeping the content coming. When we founded the show, we were like, yeah, let's get together once or twice a week and talk about whatever's interesting. And then it's like every half an hour, somebody's got to cover this. Who's available? It's like, okay, I know. We'll get on it. We'll get on it.

And unfortunately, we have mics that are portable. And wherever we are in the world, we try to report because we're so committed to this. But it was really committed to this, the legal A-Fers and the Midas Mighty, who come here every week and on hot takes and support us and give us the energy and the gasoline and the oxygen to do what we do. I had a, I don't know, you saw this, I had a totally bizarre world experience. Did you hear this story?

Okay. So I'm on the west side of New York, and I'm not usually there. I work on the east side. I had a meeting on the West Side. I'm coming away from the meeting and I got a phone call from a colleague on a case. If I hadn't sat down near Times Square to take that phone call, this would not have happened because I had to be at the right moment at the right place. So I take the phone call. I'm now I'm rushing to get to the subway to take, now this is real inside New York, to take the S-Train across town to get to the Green Central. And I'm going down the stairs and I see this man wearing a baseball cap and glasses who

says, hey, and he points at me, like he knows me. And I go, hey, and he goes, oh, and then he realizes that it's, he doesn't know me as a friend, sort of, he knows me from the podcast. He goes, oh, you're, you're on, you're Michael, you're on legal AF, you're on Midas, like, oh, yeah. So now I think this is a fan experience where a fan is going to, like, and I've bumped into a few and it's great, I love it.

I like, yeah, great. And he goes, I love what you do, keep it up. And I'm like, okay, great, I appreciate you. And I head down the stairs, I'm three steps down. And I hear this guy say, it up and I'm like okay great. I appreciate you and I head down the stairs I'm three steps down and I hear this guy say hey, can I get it? What can I get a photo? Okay, so I jog back up the steps and like you know I like meeting people so I put my hand out and I said I'm Michael and he said Christian Slater Christian Slater. Holy cow.

But I was wondering why he was giving me my full name. His full name and I'm like, wait, Christian Slater? Christian Slater? He goes, yeah, I go, what are you doing here? He goes, oh, he says I'm doing a play, right down the street. He says, I love what you guys do. And then we take a photo with his camera and he walks off. And I had the presence of mine to say, hey, Christian, I take a photo with his camera and he walks off and I had the presence of mind to say,

hey, Christian, I need a photo. So he comes back and that's the photo. Okay, how cute is that? That's a very, and he is, and he, he, he, I don't know what he was going to do with it, but the fact that Christian, this whole world is turned upside down. Like an actor and a person who I admire, and I love we don't know. Me too, I love Christian Slater. Love Problem. Whatever that thing where he had a baboon heart, I know we're gonna get it in the chat.

The baboon heart movie, two. I'm giving pump up the volume back. True romance. True romance. True, oh my God, true romance. He was a child easing. If you're a young adult from the 90s, Christian Slater is up there. and he still does amazing things.

Mr. Robot. Amazing. And the fact that he is... What was the one something with the Rose? Oh, yeah, if some people know it. You're right. Somebody just said, right. So, look, why am I telling this story?

One, I get goosebumps telling the story and the fact that we've crossed over out of the metaverse into meeting live people like this who want our photo, which I thought was so strange. And I'm like, okay, sure, son, what's your name? He's like, Christian Slater. I was like, you're Christian Slater. And the fact that he's such a big supporter of legal AF, the Midas Mighty and the Network and the whole thing was also, because you don't know, a lot of these factors are on the wrong side of the aisles if you know what I mean. So that was sort of fun. That's awesome. I love that story. That's a great story. I love that picture. But we've reached the end of Michael Popak telling stories about who he's met on the street

and legal AF with Karen Friedman, Nick Nifalo and Michael Popak, the midweek edition. There's a lot of ways to support the show and the network. And I'm just going to reel them off. And you can choose any one of these to do, but please do one of them. You can free subscribe to the Midas Touch Network on YouTube, help them get to 2 million subscribers. When we started the show, it was like a thousand people. So the 2 million bigger that network gets, the network gets, the more your voice is heard. That's one.

Two, there's a Patreon.com thing that Ben talks a lot about, about how to raise money. That's a Patreon thing. Whatever it is. Whatever it is. He'll do a better job of selling it on Saturday. But there's a way to contribute money to keep the newsroom alive and the, and the mightesttouch.com website going where Karen is a frequent contributor to

and writing and all of that. You can also please when you're watching us here obviously go over to the audio version and download it just listen click the audio version and kind of go back and forth and it's also another way to keep the algorithm and keep us at the top of the charts.

We're already in the top 50 for all new shows globally and this is one of the ways to actually do that. We do now clips called Legal AF After Dark which we take three or four of the segments from a show like this. I know which ones are going to go up now and we put them on as little mini podlets, little clips. That's, yes, if you watch it, you wanna see us do it again, that's great. But it's for a whole group of other audience that are supporters and followers of Legal AF

and maybe our other podcast, our other brothers and sister podcasts, you know, like the Midas Brothers podcast or Lights On or political beat down or the five minute news or whatever it is. And they just say, I don't know about legal AF. There are people that actually don't know about legal AF. Take that clip and forward it to your friends.

It's easier to tell them to go listen to 10 minutes and if they like it, do the whole podcast, then make the commitment to the whole podcast right off the bat. So that's the reason we do that. Oh, as you can tell in New York, okay, so stays in the pot. And then there's merchandise. If you want a really show flyer flag, there is legal AF merchandise,

including some that Karen Friedman Knifleau had designed by a famous sports designer, sports logo designer, and you can get it at store.mitustouch.com. Support our sponsors. There's a reason we have a code that you use. It's because we get credit, if you will, for people supporting our sponsors and buying their products. And it helps.

It makes them come back to the show, and it makes the show stay on the era in its own way. I know sometimes it's frustrating. All you want to do is here, you know, three hours uninterrupted of Ben Karen and me, pick your person you like, you know, the other person you tolerate. But you, that's not how it works. It's not how it works on cable or TV or radio or anywhere else. We hope to do it in a way that where we pick our sponsors that we know support democracy and that's why they're on this station. That's why we're not just, you know, my pillow adds every two minutes. Thank God.

Thank God. And so that's important. So that, anyway, those are the ways that you want to be part of this community that you can contribute to the community and most of them are completely and absolutely free. So we have a Saturday edition. We've got hot takes up until now to wet your appetite. So until the next episode of Legal AF Midweek with Karen Friedman, Diffalo and Michael

Popak and the Saturday edition with Ben Micellis, shout out to the MidasMuddy and the Legal AFers and see you next week.