Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump REEKS OF FEAR at Criminal Trial

Episode Date: April 21, 2024

Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok are back with a new episode of the weekend edition of the top rated Legal AF podcast. On this episode, they debate/discuss week 1 of the NY Trump criminal election interference trial; the upcoming hearing where the NY judge will either accept or reject Trump’s posted bond for $175mm to stay collection of the $465mm l; the reasons Judge Cannon in Mar a Lago denied Trump’s co conspirators’ attempts to avoid trial and have their indictment dismissed, the Supreme Court’s oral argument on a main criminal charge against Jan6 defendants and whether they should be dismissed and their sentences reversed, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Join the Legal AF Patreon: Patreon.com/LegalAF Thanks to our sponsors! Neurohacker: Go to https://neurohacker.com/Truth for up to 50% off and use code TRUTH at checkout for an additional 15% off. Moink: Keep American farming going by signing up at https://MoinkBox.com/LEGALAF and get FREE BACON for a YEAR! Reel: Head to https://reelpaper.com/LEGALAF and sign up for a subscription using code LEGALAF at checkout to get 30% off your first order and FREE SHIPPING! Henson Shaving: Visit https://HensonShaving.com/LEGALAF to pick the razor for you and use code LEGALAF for two years worth of free blades! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/coalition-of-the-sane/id1741663279 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Week one is in the books in the first Trump criminal trial in Manhattan. This criminal case is for Donald Trump's falsification of business records to interfere with the 2016 election. We have all 12 jurors and six alternates who were selected and sworn in some hiccups along the way during jury selection. And by hiccups, I mean Donald Trump threatening and intimidating at least one of the jurors and making her leave after being sworn in.

We'll break down everything that went down in the courtroom, but it was eventful, but it moved rather expeditiously. And so opening statements will be taking place on Monday. On Friday, Donald Trump tried yet again to go to the appellate division to try to stop this trial. It's like, look, man, the jury's been selected. Everyone's been sworn in.

What are you doing? Seems that Donald Trump is really suffering just sitting there. He's unable to sit there. His legal team had to make him a picture book filled with purported flattering headlines. And then Donald Trump sits there with a Sharpie and then he redacts portions from articles

from right-wing media to make them more flattering to him. He's actually got someone by the name of Natalie Harp, who he's paid over $105,000 to follow him around with a portable printer to print out these articles that he likes to read. And then he goes out to the media afterwards and says, you see these headlines?

You see these headlines? Look at what these headlines are saying. Also, you know, some other news that we broke here on the Midas Touch Network about what was going down in the courtroom, we may touch upon that. But there was other big news this week as well. The New York Attorney general's office, they filed a brief with Justice Ingoran in the civil fraud case, calling out Donald Trump's surety bond

by Knight Specialty Insurance Company as being not compliant with New York law. It's a nice way of saying unlawful, that they don't have the necessary cash reserves in order to even function as a surety, and that there are other major red flags here that should disqualify Knight Specialty Insurance Company as a surety here. A hearing will take place on Monday.

If you heard that right, and there will be a hearing in a criminal case against Donald Trump for falsification of business records. That will take place Monday now that the jury has been sworn in. And then at right around the same time, there's going to be a oral argument and hearing on whether Donald Trump's bond in a civil fraud

case where he was found liable for $464 million, whether the $175 million bond was a lawful or unlawful bond. We should talk as well about a big Supreme court oral argument this week. The case was Fisher versus United States and it deals with some of the main charges that insurrectionists were charged with by the Department of Justice, 18 USC, Section 512 sub C for obstruction

of an official proceeding. Michael Popok and I will break down what went down in that oral argument. And then finally, let's touch upon the fact that Judge Eileen Cannon in the Southern District of Florida, she denied Donald Trump's co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira's motion to dismiss the indictment in the Mar-a-Lago document case

where Donald Trump stole national defense information, including nuclear secrets and war plans, and then claims because he put them in boxes and sent them to Mar-a-Lago, they're now his personal property. In other words, a pretty eventful week. I'm Ben Myselis joined by Michael Popak. Popak, jury has been selected, sworn in, opening statement on

Monday. I think you owe Karen Friedman Agnifilo some lunch because you thought it was gonna go a little bit into this week, but what'd you think about the process, how fast it's moving? Of course Donald Trump's been complaining. He's, he said that he's being railroaded by the speed that this thing is taking place. What do you make of it all? Thanks Ben. The speed, the velocity at which it's operating is about normal. Karen and I had a debate about whether it was going to get through week one with jury selection or is going to roll over to Monday with opening statements on Tuesday, hence the lunch bet.

But the velocity at which it's moving is consistent with constitutional principles of fairness and due process. Donald Trump is represented by Able counsel in the room and Susan Necklis and Todd Blanch. They have participated to their vigorous abilities during the attempt to take what started as a panel of almost 500 and got it down to the 12 now sworn in seats 1 through 12 and the six alternates who are the Donald Trump jury moving forward. They vigorously argued for four cause challenges to get rid of people without having to use their peremptory challenges. They use their 10 peremptory challenges as did the Manhattan district attorney's office.

They vigorously vetted all of the potential jurors, some sometimes so vigorously that it led to jurors who were not were impaneled but not yet sworn being dismissed because they feared intimidation and couldn't be fair and impartial. But they they have willingly and vigorously participated in a jury selection process on the Trump side. They found social media posts for people that they didn't think made for an impartial or fair juror. They brought that to the judge's attention. There was voir dire. There was subsequent interviews led by the judge to try to get to the bottom of it. This was done, you know, as Karen had

said, the first day or two was slow. We lost a couple of jurors even after we thought we had selected them. But then once, and this always happens, once you lose your peremptory challenges or you exhaust them, you don't have a lot of moves left as a person selecting a jury. I've selected about 20 different juries in my career, and I've been consultants for my colleagues in picking other juries. So I kind of get the process. And it's an elaborate game of Tetris or whatever you want to call it, because you know who's coming behind, but you want to get a particular juror in the box for you. So you have to judiciously use your, and then figure out if the other side is going to use their challenge to try to get the

person that you may want in the box. And the result is just what we thought it would be. I won't go into the details of each person, but it is, as a New Yorker, I will tell you, it is a well-balanced jury that has now been sworn to be fair and impartially said they would be. There is a smattering of Republicans that are on that jury and that's fine. There are a lot of Democrats, liberal and or independents on there. I just know from their background and their neighborhoods that it's more likely than not that they fit that particular bill, but there are Republicans on there. We've got two guys in financial services. We've got two lawyers, one corporate, one litigator. We've got seven men. We've got five women. It's about as

balanced as Donald Trump or anybody can expect. And his claim in the recent filing is now 11th attempt, 12th attempt, and fourth time in a week and a half that he'll be rejected, running over to the appellate division, which are the appellate court in Manhattan, and asking for an emergency stay because he can't get a fair jury picked because they're all biased against Donald Trump. Well, the entire four-day process completely belies that argument. He picked a fair to partial jury. The lawyers accepted that jury. That jury has been sworn in and this new filing is both a day late and lots of legal arguments short of being successful. There will be opening statement on Monday. I will also hear from the judge on his ruling about which of the six or seven uncharged bad acts and crimes of Donald Trump will be used against them, allowed

to be used against him in cross-examination if he takes the stand, because the judge handled it in what we call a Sandoval hearing on Friday and told the parties, he'll tell them on Monday before opening statement which of the topics will be able to be put in. It won't impact anybody's opening statement because that's not an opening statement item. On the who's going to be the first witness, it's anybody's guess. And the other side has forfeited the right Trump side to know who the first witness is going to be for the prosecution because the judge said, no, you're busy attacking witnesses in social media postings and other bad things. I'm not

going to force the prosecutors to tell you which of their many witnesses they're going to put on first. You and I can kibitz here about which one we think it is, which ones we think it isn't. But bad news for Trump, they're just gonna have to prepare, you know, pick out their top four that they think it is, and that will be witness number one, because there will be a witness. Likely, in terms of what happens Monday morning in terms of procedural posture, in procedural logistics that have to happen. But if they get the oral argument, a couple hours a piece, I mean, opening statement, a couple hours a piece,

there should be the start of a witness on Monday. Maybe it rolls till Tuesday. What do you think, Ben? Yeah, I think possibly in the afternoon on Monday we'll have our first witness. My thought is that the first witness is not going to, I could be wrong. I don't think it's going to be a totally explosive first witness in the same way kind of E. Jean Carroll's case. You put on

E. Jean Carroll first. Because this is a document case, I think you find somebody who can kind of go through all of the checks, all of the accounts, and you establish right away kind of your prima facie case of here are the checks, here are the payments that were made to Stormy Daniels, here's how it came up on the ledger, here's why it's false, and then I think you start moving into some of your more explosive witnesses,

your Michael Coens, your Stormy Daniels, your David Pecker from AMI. Popak, also next week there's going to be, in addition to opening statements, and we'll talk in the next segment about the New York Attorney General civil fraud hearing on the suretor, the surety bond that seems to be invalid and we think Justice and Goran is going to reject that. Next week, Michael Popak, we also have a contempt hearing against Donald Trump for his threats and witness intimidations and violations of the gag order in this criminal case that's currently pending.

Earlier in the week, the Manhattan district attorney right away rolled out this contempt motion. The motion itself was very ominously worded for Donald Trump about, you know, you can be arrested, you can be put in jail for this. And then as the week progressed, as Donald Trump made some additional statements saying that there were like liberal activists trying to be on the jury, that's a violation of subsection C of the gag order. Donald Trump reposted other statements about Michael Cohen,

I believe Stormy Daniels as well. So now there's a total of seven violations of the gag order that will be subject to, that will be the subject of this contempt hearing. And there was that final moment, and I want to get your take on it, Popak, about how you think Justice Mershon, the presiding judge, has been handling these matters

where Donald Trump got up to leave thinking the day was going to be over after the jury had left. And then Justice Mershon said, sir, sit down right now, I have not excused you, you understand? And Donald Trump like put his hands up sheepishly and was like, I get it, I get it, I get it,

I'll sit down. And Justice Mly and was like, I get it, I get it, I get it. I'll sit down. And Justice Mershon was like, thank you. In any event, counsel, and then went on with his kind of usual business. It's actually been great to see Justice Mershon control the courtroom the way he is. I had always heard about Justice Mershon's reputation, that he was no nonsense. So it's good to see that. And then Justice Mershon said, I'll see you next week at the contempt hearing. So what do you make of that? I think he's going to be found in contempt. Oh, yeah.

I think it will be a first tier violation. I do think though, and I truly think this, it's not just like, oh, justice, you're gonna spread that popokian opium, you smoke that popokian opium. I really think that Mershon will throw Trump in jail if he does it after getting, like he'll get sanctioned at this hearing. And I think Mershon's the kind of judge who will throw Trump in jail.

There's a cell, as Karen Friedman-Inifilo described it, like kind of right down the hallway. And I think that Trump will be placed in that holding cell if he violates it after the first monetary sanction he's going to get. What do you think, Popeye? Well, a couple of things. As to the first witness, I'm not sure that they bore the jury on the prosecution with the Czech person. I think if I were trying this case, I wouldn't put in Michael Cohen. You don't lead with Michael Cohen. But you may want to lead with somebody with a little more substance to be a little bit

more of a roadmap witness. I don't know if that's David Pecker or if that's somebody else. It's not Hope Hicks. I just think it's not going to be the records custodian type, which will lead to glassy-eyed after what will be explosive opening statements to then numb the jury to death with the first witness. But we'll see. Prosecutors are conservative cats and I'm more of a swing-for-the-fences type trial lawyer anyway. So we'll see what happens on that. You're right about a busy trial week and hearing week for Donald Trump. 22nd, he's got that hearing, New York Attorney General bond case where I agree with you when we get to the segment,

I think his bond is in jeopardy. Meaning collection efforts against him can start, contempt on the 23rd. 24th, Judge Mata down in the District of Columbia has ordered the lawyers, because he's letting their civil, the civil fraud case brought by the Metropolitan Capital Police to move forward they have to make a major filing in that case and on the 25th we've got oral argument for the Supreme Court this is must watch podcasting and YouTubeing on the Midas Dutch Network our network may explode next week based on everything that we have to everything. As to the Judge Mershon being in charge, we've been consistently predicting that it was going to be an entire new world and universe for

Donald Trump and that everything that he had tried to get away with in civil court when there's been no jury was not going to work for him. What we meant by that is that he would be in jeopardy of criminal contempt, being sanctioned, admonished frequently by the judge. And you and I, and I certainly reported in hot takes in the past, the Manhattan DA went into the room and watched Donald Trump in action during the second E. Jean Carroll case. The Manhattan DA went into the room in the back of the room and watched Donald Trump in action during the civil fraud 13-week trial, including when Donald Trump tried to testify and all of that. So when they wrote about some of this stuff, some of it's from experience. The reason they did that is they wanted to learn and to be ready for Donald Trump in

the criminal case because they didn't think, and neither do you and I, Ben, did we think that Donald Trump was going to suddenly grow a brain and grow decorum and grow restraint and he was going to act differently in the criminal cases than he had acted in the civil cases. They believed, rightly so, that he was going to act out the same way and they wanted to be ready and prepared for it. And Mershon, too, is no dummy. He's been sitting in New York reading the paper in the media. He knows what happened. He knows how many times Judge Kaplan in the E. Jean Carroll case had to admonish Donald Trump. The arguments that he got into with Donald Trump in ways that we were almost aghast that that was happening in the civil cases. We know how

disrespectful and how much acting out he did for 13 weeks in the Judge Angoron presided over civil fraud case with no jury, just the bench attacking the law clerk, attacking Judge Angoron, attacking his wife, attacking, attacking, attacking. And that was without a jury. And we always said, wait till he gets, if he thinks this is the playbook for Trump that's going to work in with Judge Murchon, he is in for a rude awakening. Some of the reporting out there is that, because as much as I criticize some of his lawyers, like Todd Blanch, Todd Blanch had had, operative word, a good reputation when he was a prosecutor for 13 years in the US Attorney's Office where he was the head of the criminal division at one point. It's

now in tatters as far as I'm concerned, by the way, he's operating currently. But Blanch, according to people that know him, is aghast that Donald Trump is already running afoul of Judge Mershon, that he is using ridiculous facial expressions and acting out in front of what was then the jury to be selected or in front of the jury. And all of these things, as I said, as I joked with Karen during midweek, when that video of Trump with Blanche next to him behind the bike rack when he gives that press conference is priceless because Blanche looks like, you know, he's you could saw you could amputate his leg without anesthesia. I mean, that's he just is he's just not present.

And Susan Necklis is like seven rows back the other lawyer and he's just not present and Susan Necklace is like seven rows back the other lawyer and she's just holding her clipboard acting like I'm not the lawyer for Donald Trump so they've got a big problem with Donald Trump. Mershon has to do exactly what he has said he's already invited the Manhattan DA to file a motion for sanctions for bad faith filing in this case. You and I reported on it last week. It was buried in one of Rashaan's orders, which was, you didn't ask me for this now, but there is bad faith filing in this case, and you are welcome to seek a remedy related to it. That has to do with the filings that have been made in the case. Then you had the gag order

violation, and enough is enough. And I think that Judge Rashain was very smart and canny to push it off to the 23rd, not necessarily because he needed full briefing. I think he's giving Donald Trump another entire weekend weekend to violate. You said it's seven. I think it'll be up to 12 or more. There's a whole weekend to go before they get to the 23rd. And nothing stops Donald Trump, not facing a jury on Monday morning, not opening statements, not the chance of him being convicted of a Class E felony, not up to 20 years in prison, nothing changes his approach

that he's gonna pressure and pressurize all of our institutions, including the New York criminal justice system. So, Mershon telling him to sit the F down, my paraphrase, which is not the first time he's told him to do that, letting him know that there is only two, yes, the criminal defendant has rights. Two most important participants in the criminal justice system, as far as I'm concerned, is the jury for whom you stand. There's a reason you stand for them out of

respect and the judge who sits on high on a bench. Criminal defendant, yes, presumed innocent and all of that, and does have a fair and impartial jury. But they are not the most important people in that room, and certainly not the Trump versus the judge. The least important person is Donald Trump. And if he didn't do that, then like you said in the past, you give Donald Trump a finger, he takes your life or whatever you say. You have to start laying down bright lines and draw lines in the sand, or Donald Trump will take full advantage of it. I believe, I agree with you.

I think it's gonna be progressive discipline. I think he's going, he's already told, this is the second warning. He's already told, Mershon's already told Trump about two weeks ago, reminding him that if you violate the gag order, let me remind you of my two inherent authorities. One is criminal contempt and the other is fines in jail. And they are on the table. He told them that in writing two weeks ago. He will remind him of that when he issues his

order in which he finds him and or threatens him with jail again. I think it starts with, I think he can go up to 5,000. I think the Manhattan DA has asked for a thousand a day. I think he'll go higher than the thousand a day that's been requested and I think he will tell him if you violate this again depending upon the nature of the violation and the impact on this case because that's all I'm concerned about is providing an appropriate criminal justice process. I will find you in criminal contempt and you will go to jail.

I don't know if it's the temporary holding cell in the back of the courthouse, or it's like take him to Rikers, which is gonna be apoplectic and apocalyptic if it happens because you got the security detail, the secret service, the candidate for president, the this and the that. I mean, I almost don't wanna send him to prison to be honest with you because it'll just make him more of a martyr than he already is.

But I also want justice done. So I'm sort of on the fence related to whether you should actually put him in Rikers Island. Yeah. You know, I think you throw them in prison. I think that the whole martyr thing becomes its own kind of narrative that should be met with the strong arm of law and order to say, you're not a martyr, you're a criminal, you're a crook, you're a fraud, you're a loser. And the same way Justice Murchon is controlling that courtroom, I think that

we as a country that values law and order, and of course the Republican Party, we've been so comfortable and we've been so weak to and allowed Donald Trump, this petulant, whiny loser, to go out there and just whine, oh, they're coming after me, they're coming after me. You know, we're the United States of America and it's time to stand up to these bullies, to these losers, to these wannabe fascists, to these criminals and let them know what law and order is really about. I want to talk a little bit more about the trial and then I want to talk about what's going on with this bond issue where Donald Trump was given a break by the appellate division.

This goes to my point. And then Donald Trump takes the break that he was given. And as I said, you give him an inch, he takes your life and he will screw you every single time. We'll talk about that and more. Let's take our first quick break of the show. Well, have you heard about NAD plus? It's one of the most important molecules

in the human body to age well. NAD plus helps promote cellular energy, maintain healthy DNA, detect nutrients efficiently, supports detoxification and supports your cellular health. Simply put, keeping your NAD plus levels high is vital to helping the body feel youthful. But did you know NAD plus levels plummet with age? So by age 50, most people's NAD plus levels are only half of what they were at age 20.

Luckily, science has discovered a way to boost your NAD plus levels up to 50 percent, and it's called Qualia NAD Plus, a groundbreaking supplement from Neurohacker Collective. The reason so many health experts are partnering with Neurohacker Collective. The reason so many health experts are partnering with Neurohacker, and the reason I'm proud to have them sponsor this podcast, is you're simply not going to find more carefully researched life-changing nutritional formulas, especially for aging well.

Qualia NAD Plus is a supplement that includes ingredients called NAD Plus precursors that your body can convert into NAD plus to boost your NAD plus levels up to 50%. And Qualia NAD plus has many other holistic ingredients that support all other major aspects of NAD plus production in your body. Look, I want to feel 30 when I'm 58. That's why I'm staying at the cutting edge of aging research and boosting my NAD plus levels. And Qualia NAD plus is a huge part of how well I age and putting it in my control.

After just a month on Qualia NAD plus, I'm feeling energy support and vitality return that I haven't felt in years. This stuff's amazing. I feel like I did 15 years ago. To boost your NAD plus levels up to 50%, go to neurohacker.com slash truth, T-R-U-T-H, for up to 50% off and use code TRUTH at checkout

for an additional 15% off. That's neurohacker.com slash truth for an extra 15% off your purchase. Thanks to Neurohacker for sponsoring today's episode. What if you could support small family farmers and reduce your environmental imprint all while enjoying the highest quality meat on earth? When you join the monk movement, you can.

Moink delivers grass-fed and grass-finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and sustainable wild-caught salmon straight to your door. Moink farmers farm like our grandparents did. And as a result, Moink meat tastes like it should. Because the family farm does it better and the Moink difference is a difference you can taste. Unlike the supermarket, Moink gives you total control over the quality and source of your

food. You choose the meat delivered in every box, like rib-eyes, to chicken breasts, to pork chops, to salmon filets, and much more. Plus, you can cancel any time. Moink is helping save rural America. I love it. And you will too. Join the Moink movement today. Shark Tank host Kevin O'Leary called Moink's bacon the best bacon he's ever tasted. And Ring Doorbell founder Jamie Siminoff, he jumped at the chance to invest in Moink.

Plus, they guarantee you'll say, oink, oink, I'm just so happy I got Moinked. I know I do, and you will too. Keep American farming going by signing up at moinkbox.com slash Legal AF right now, and listeners of this show get free bacon for a year. That's one year of the best bacon you'll ever taste, but for a limited time.

Spelled M-O-I-N-K, box.com slash Legal AF. That's moinkbox.com slash LegalAF. I want to give a special thanks to those pro democracy sponsors right there. The discount codes are in the description below. And I want to thank everybody as well for making the Midas Touch Network and LegalAF the most watched destination on digital

for all Trump trial coverage. I think we have some of the best sources here. Everybody from Michael Popak, who practices in that courtroom. You have Karen Friedman Agniflo, who was the previous acting district attorney in Manhattan and the number two at the district attorney's office. She has more than close to 30 years experience at the Manhattan district attorney's office. You don't get much more experience covering a prosecution by that office than with Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Michael Popak.

Oh wait, you do. We also have Michael Cohen as a correspondent who is actually a witness in this case. So in terms of the lineup, in terms of getting firsthand information or as close to the information as you can get, I would put Legal AF and the Midas Touch Network up there. And it's important for us to make sure that we don't speculate, that we do work our sources. And so I don't wanna belabor the point here because I didn't intend for that video, Popak, that I did where I was talking about

how a source in the courtroom or sources had said that Donald Trump was passing gas in the courtroom and it was vile and it was disgusting to his lawyers. I didn't think that that was, it was actually buried on eight minutes or at the end of a video that I, you know, that I do a lot of hot takes in a day. It's not like I was like,

I'm gonna do the fart hot take today. It was something that I heard amongst thousands of other data points that I got. And, you know, Aysen, who works for us, thought that that clip was an interesting, you know, was an interesting clip and a data point. And he posted it, but he posts a lot of other clips. There's numerous other interviews that I did that day, you know, and it's interesting that that one went viral the way it did. And, you know, as I said on the video, you can take what you want. I mean, we know people who are there. And as I said, people could be

saying that because they know Oh, Midas Touch, you know, would be interested in that type of data. I don't know. But, you know, it's from credible people. And I said, take it for what it's worth. And you know, there's definitely been a lot of discussion about it and I'll just leave it at that. We've been making these handy scorecards every single day. I don't wanna spend so much time on it, but I wanna put them up here very quickly. So if you wanted to take screenshots to remind yourself of just what happened every day,

every day we do a scorecard like this. So Trump trial day one, Trump did a motion to recuse the judge that was denied. Evidence of the Trump catch and kill scheme where he tried to pay off people first by using AMI and then misclassifying them or falsifying business records as legal fees. All that information's coming in.

The Trump subpoena backfires to the DOJ, and there was some text message and emails that were bad from Donald Trump that actually turned up in that batch of discovery, the Manhattan district attorney filed the contempt motion. The judge set the contempt motion hearing. Trump was falling asleep. Trump did not submit his exhibit books on time, so the judge ordered that it be turned over in 24 hours. The jurors arrived.

Trump was falling asleep again. 50 of the initial batch of 96 jurors said they couldn't be fair. The voir dire continued. Then we have Trump trial day two. Trump trial day two. Trump blamed his accountant and lawyers for the fraud he committed when he walked in. Trump waves his right to participate at the sidebar, which he was previously making, just trying to make everyone's life more difficult because he had a right to be at sidebars with the judge. And then everybody waves it. And then so

he realized, wait a minute, I'm going to have to stand up. I don't want to stand up. So he waved that. The voir dire removes. Trump fell asleep again. Trump scowled at a juror and then Justice Marchand said, stop that. If you do that again, there's going to be big issues. The judge admonished Trump. The first six jurors were sworn in with more voir dire. Wednesday, the court went dark. There was no trial. Then we went to day three on Thursday. The jurors arrived. Juror number two who was sworn in was excused because she felt intimidated after her identity may have been leaked and Fox did a whole segment

on juror number two before that. There were seven new Trump, or there was additional violations added to the contempt motion for a total of seven. Juror number four was excused, the previously sworn in juror four was excused for not disclosing an arrest. Then there was voir dire to 96 new jurors.

The jurors reflected that they could be fair and impartial, but were not fans of Donald Trump, his policies or his behavior. Many of them did, some of them said they didn't have an opinion one way or another. 12 jurors were selected with one alternate. Then that brought us to Trump trial day four. And then in Trump trial day four,

the jury was selected and sworn in. Trump was sleeping, possibly farting. There was a sand of all hearing. Trump's lawyers complained that they don't know the DA witnesses. The DA was not gonna disclose the witnesses, which they don't legally have to do, but they normally do. They're not gonna do it because of Trump's behavior.

Justice Murchon lays down the law and takes control of the courtroom and lets Donald Trump know his behavior is unacceptable and to sit down. Opening statements are on Monday. And then there was the appellate division rejecting one of Donald Trump's stay attempts on Friday. And then Donald Trump filed another application

to try to get trial denied as well. So if you just wanna take screenshots of all of that, what would be interesting, Popeye, we were hearing earlier today as well that Trump's team has been in talks with Michael Avenatti to try to have Avenatti testify against his client, Stormy Daniels, and testify at the trial, we'll see, but I think there's gonna be a lot of

shenanigans we'll say that will be happening. So I wanted to flag that, because that was news from earlier in the day. Popak, before we talk about the issues with the bond, anything else you just wanted to mention to our viewers about the Manhattan case or should we go on to the bond? I'll just spend a minute. The Manhattan DA feels so confidently about their case that one of their lead witnesses they don't even need.

They've told Allen Weisselberg, who under normal circumstances would be an important link in the chain of the conspiracy because of his interaction with Michael Cohen, with the campaign with Donald Trump as the main money man in the Trump Organization, which is the heart of this business record fraud election interference case and the path and the money flow following the money from the Trump Organization, Michael Cohen first to Stormy Daniels, Stormy and then the reimbursement to Michael Cohen through the Trump Organization and the books and records entries all as part of the election interference to tamp down these other sexual misconduct stories at a time when Donald Trump's side was up in arms about and worried about the impact on his electoral chances because of the Access

Hollywood tape, which is going to be discussed with the jury, especially in opening, but not played for them. But they're so confident after cutting the deal in a plea bargain for the second criminal conviction of Allen Weisselberg, that they were like, no, you're good. Stay in Rikers Island. We don't need you. That shows for me a lot of bravado and the strength of the case. They don't even think they need them. So they cut a deal, the plea deal that they wouldn't call Allen Weisselberg. And setting aside Michael Cohen for a minute, which everybody's all, because Trump has focused our attention on Michael Cohen. I don't even see Michael Cohen as the lead witness in this particular case. They have so much other evidence, including other people within the Trump organization

that we will come to know and love during the course of this next six weeks of trial, some of which Donald Trump may not even remember the name of because he's had trouble with lower level executives, even with vice president titles in his organization, he has trouble remembering who they are. We've seen that in deposition testimony. And so they'll come up and just talk about it from what they were instructed to do, what they entered on the books and records, how Michael Cohen was paid, the legal services that he didn't provide, well before Michael Cohen even takes the stand. There's audio recordings that Michael Cohen surreptitiously took of Donald Trump that'll be coming into evidence that will prove the conspiracy involving and led by Donald Trump. There's Hope Hicks who's coming in that was his campaign director and a friend of Donald Trump.

She testified at the Jan 6 committee she's going to talk about because she's forced to under oath, the campaign's reaction to the access Hollywood tape and her involvement with the payoff of Stormy Daniels. There's so much of that that this other side shows circus stuff like we're going to bring Michael Avenatti out of prison where he is serving a sentence while he's he's been convicted twice in two different courthouses, two different systems for different crimes, you know, to bring in this felon who's lied and got convicted of things like fraud and forgery against Stormy Daniels to undermine Stormy Daniels.

I mean, that, I don't think that actually happens, although it's making for interesting talking points right now on this podcast. But putting that all of aside, some people might be thinking, well, how Ben just described whatever and Popeye just described the future, how is this going to be six or eight weeks? Because these, some of these witnesses are going to take an extensive period of time to put on, even though the event was relatively concise and discreet that Donald Trump is being charged with. It's not that complicated. This is not like some master criminal class on how to commit a crime. This isn't Ocean's Eleven, all right? This is, I don't know what this is, but this is really simple, but there are going to

be a couple of dozen witnesses that are gonna have to take the stand. And I feel going in, if I were picking a side, and I've been on the defense side my whole career in this kind of context, I'd want to be on the prosecution side, not the defense side, even with the jury that's been selected and all of that. Just by what I know and you know from the evidence that's out there that is going to be brought into that courtroom, we can kibitz about it all we want on hot takes and on podcasts and whatever. But when it, it's different when a jury is sworn in the box, those, those wooden doors swing open and witnesses start being sworn in to

wrapped attention by a jury that is everyday bonding and becoming a collective for their decision-making. It is different than all of this other social media stuff. Life sometimes intrudes. We had a horrific event out in front of the courthouse yesterday with somebody setting them, killing themselves by setting themselves on fire. He was obviously mentally deranged. It had. It wasn't connected directly to the trial, but for a moment it casts the pall over the court and it shows you that life and all the planning, something else can intervene. I'll leave it on this. You've had this experience, I'm sure too.

I've had witnesses that I thought were going to be amazing and they were going to be the highlight of the trial who crapped out, who like, you know, you know what the bed continuing our theme today on the others that I thought they're going to be white knuckle events. Oh, boy, this is the witness I've dreaded for the entire time I've had this case. And they turned out fine, or they did great. They did much better than I thought they were going to do. And the jury love them.

And that is the fog of war or trial that happens. Doesn't matter, all the best planning can't account for what happens in that courtroom. You know, some hit home runs, some hit singles, some strike out in front of a jury. We'll have to see. But that's why hopefully people are here on Legal AF and following what you you Karen and I are doing. You know, I can't help but point out the irony would be one word for it where Donald Trump in the New York Attorney General's civil fraud case would say, if I had a jury, I was gonna win. I don't get a jury, it's unfair. Then you and I had the debates whether was it really that Alina Jaba failed to check a box? Is that specific civil claim a non-jury injunctive equitable relief claim, not

entitled Trump to a jury, but Trump would always argue this is unfair. I don't have a jury. Now Donald Trump has a jury and says, this jury is unfair. I'm being steamrolled right now. I need, I don't want this jury. The jury hates me. They're liberal activists. And so I thought, wait, wait, on your point, you've raised it before. I thought he was so beloved in Manhattan, he could pull out a gun on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and get away with it. What happened to that Donald Trump?

Well, that's the Donald Trump that the media loves to further those narratives versus look at the reality. It was one day during trial this week where Donald Trump said, I'm going to a bodega. I'm going to go to a bodega. And then the media followed him there. The media didn't question that the people who were lined up in that group were astroturfed from the New York Young Republicans Club, Saddam Hussein style, and in unison the New York Young Republicans.

That's the group that Donald Trump spoke at and said that the most courageous thing he did in his life was call sexually assaulting women locker room talk. Yeah, that group of people went to Harlem and they stood there and started chanting Donald Trump's name and then the media wrote about it like this is Saddam Hussein stuff. This is Kim Jong Un stuff. This is Gaddafi stuff. And it's like just media. Look at the photo of the New York young Republicans. Then look at that crowd and you go, oh, wait a minute. Maybe it's that people who are doing maybe it's those people who are doing it. He did that two weeks ago at Chick-fil-A also. It was like, look, African American women must love Donald Trump because Trump went to a Chick-fil-A,

and one African American woman hugged him. And it's like, she's a Republican consultant. Go look, she works for Charlie Kirk, who says that black people shouldn't be pilots, and that MLK Day should be eliminated, Popeye. Well, the khakis and polo shirts should have been the tip off of the bodega in Spanish Harlem that he went to, uh, for the young Republicans. That's one. Secondly, he, he went there for a reason and he was supposed to meet the guy who worked in the bodega that pulled out a gun, a self protection and killed somebody that was trying to rob him. That guy wasn't even there. That guy was in Puerto Rico on holiday. And the other cynical side of

this, I know you always accuse me of Hopium. I don't know how I got that reputation. People that know me are like, how does Ben even call you that? Is that, do they know you? But I like the cheery optimism sometimes. The thing that Karen pointed out with me on the midweek was the other reason that Harlem was chosen wasn't just for him to be law and order that day is because he's figured out that a lot of the jury pool was coming from Upper Manhattan, which is what we call Harlem. In fact, one of the jurors is from Harlem. There's a few from the Upper East Side.

For those who know New York, I feel like I'm doing the New Yorker magazine cover. Murray Hill, where my office is, yay, this is represented. But they were pulling from the day that he went up there, it was the day that a woman from Harlem was chosen to put on the jury. And I'm sure he went, oh, this is a good twofer. And then while he was there, he bashed Alvin Bragg, which is back to your point, that he's committing some sort of campaign violation

by bashing Alvin Bragg as part of his campaign to get a write-off while he's up there at a bodega. It's all disgusting and on full display for week one of trial. You know, and talking about the New York Attorney General's civil fraud case where Trump was whining that he wanted a jury, it's a good transition to talk briefly about this bond issue.

I say briefly because there's gonna be a hearing on Monday and then we will see how Justice and Goran ultimately rules. But to remind everybody, a civil judgment was entered against Donald Trump a few months back by Justice and Goran in the amount of $464 million for Donald Trump's systemic and persistent fraud and inflation inflating his valuations of various properties fraudulently. It was a 90 plus page order. properties fraudulently.

It was a 90 plus page order. Donald Trump had a certain amount of days. If he wanted to file an appeal and stay the enforcement of the, and stay the enforcement of the judgment pending the appeal, he would have to post a bond. That's not unique to Donald Trump. It's not a criminal case. That's a civil case, meaning Donald Trump lost a monetary judgment and if he wants to avail himself of the privilege of staying the enforcement where the prevailing party, in this case the New York Attorney General's

office can get their money now because they're the winning side, if you want to stop that or pause that justice from being served while you appeal, the law for everybody is you have to post that bond that's pretty much equal to the judgment amount. Well, Trump waits into the last minute, files an emergency appeal with the appellate division in New York and the appellate division in New York, they don't reduce the judgment amount. Trump still owes a $464 million

judgment that has compounding interest, but they reduce the bond obligation. So it's not equal to 464. They basically picked an arbitrary number of $175 million and they gave Donald Trump 10 extra days. So they gave Donald Trump a discount on the bond, and he's supposed to be this billionaire, but he claimed basically like he's indigent, or he claimed he couldn't sell the assets. They gave him a break and then they gave him 10 days. And this is what I say, you give him an inch,

he screws you every time. He's a perennial con artist. So what does he do? He doesn't go to a normal surety bond company. Look, to his credit in the E. Jean Carroll case, he went to Chubb Insurance, which does business under a surety bond as federal insurance company. They're a real company. They have real assets. They do this. This is what they do and like it or don't like it That's the business one of the business lines that they're in So there was nothing wrong with that surety bond and that's where you know, you and I popak we could be critical about

Whether they should or shouldn't have been a surety, but we we reported it We're calling balls and strikes night specialty insurance company, I had never even heard of it before. You look up on their website, it doesn't even seem they have the assets to be a surety. It doesn't seem like they've ever even done this before. And sure enough, they don't have the assets. And it turns out, and the New York Attorney General's office called them out,

and then they issued a response earlier in the week, Knight Specialty Insurance Company, and then the AG issued a response earlier in the week, night specialty insurance company, and then the AG issued a response on Friday saying you only have 135 million in surplus funds to be a surety. You claim you have 500 million in assets, but those aren't liquid. You're only $135 million liquid. The bond is 175. Your liquidity is underneath the bond.

And then you want to take a look at what they're claiming that they're holding as collateral. And the collateral that's held by the surety doesn't actually provide them control over Donald Trump's assets. Trump still has control over this Schwab account. Trump under the surety arrangement has two days where he could basically move his money out

from this money market account that has cash or cash equivalents. He could move the money out if he wants to. And so the AG says, this is not a surety. I don't even know what this, this is like a phony arrangement. This is not okay. And so there's a big hearing now on Monday about the

validity of this surety bond and the New York attorney general is telling Justice and Goran, stop it. Do not allow this to happen. And Justice and Goran, I think, is going to say, yeah, I'm not for this. I don't know what the appellate division was thinking. I think Justice and Goran is not okay with this. Pope, I want to get your take on all of this. And I want to first though, remind all of our Legal AFers about the Patreon community. Popak is absolutely popping. It's patreon.com slash Legal AF.

We have close to 2,100 students already. 2,100 students., 2,100 students. We've been doing this for what? Under 30 days already. And if you ever wanted to be in a law class taught by Professor Popak or Professor Mycelis, and you wanna get into the weeds on some of these issues, let's try to get to at least 2,200 today.

Let's try to grow this. I think we can hit 2,500, maybe even 3,000. A class of 3,000 would be pretty cool. That'd be bigger, double the size of my high school. And so if you want to take some, get really in the weeds with Professor Popok and Professor Mycelis, I hate referring to myself in the third person or me go to patreon.com slash legal AF P a t r e o n.com slash legal AF I told you Popeye I was a little worried at first that we were going to get so geeky on there that people are going to be like all right guys this is a little bit too geeky for me but the geeky seems to be the attraction of it patreon.com slash legal AF

By the way one thing on that we're doing that we're doing the tutorials, the teachable moments, we're doing the what I call the TED talk meets a law school class. But we're also doing depending upon the level, their levels here, depending upon the level, you also get early access to hot takes before they even go up on the network. And so that's also I think been driving some people to check us out for free, but then end up in one of our three tiered memberships.

Popak, when we get back, it's a lightning round. I want to get your take on the surety bond issue, what you think Justice and Goran's going to do. I want to talk about the Supreme Court oral argument in the Fisher case. And then finally, we'll touch briefly upon Judge Eileen Cannon delivering some bad news for Donald Trump's co-defendants for a change. We'll be right back after our last quick break. Oh, we've talked about sustainable products here before and I've been making a concerted effort to try.

With a newborn on the way, I only use products that are toxin-free, all-natural and better for the environment. Generally, I would say that it's most important to make these swaps in the kitchen. That's where so many of the products that we use can be wrapped in plastics. And it's especially important to use all natural products

when we're cleaning around our food. That's why I've been so excited to make the switch to Reel's new bamboo paper towel. Just like all of Reel's products, the paper towels are free of inks. Dyes and BPAs are 100% tree free and all packaging is plastic free, even down to the tape on the box.

For too long, the sustainable options for paper towels were a poor substitute. They were usually flimsy, unabsorbent and felt like the cheap paper towels you might find in a public restroom. Real's new bamboo paper towels are the first truly premium sustainable paper towels and are up to 50% thicker and more absorbent than the leading sustainable brand. The sheets are two ply for extra absorbency and thanks to the strength of bamboo, they

can hold up to the toughest messes. And while the other conventional tree-based options are wrapped in plastic in the grocery aisle, RealPaper's packaging is plastic-free, compostable, and offers free shipping on all orders. When I use Real, it doesn't feel like I'm sacrificing something to help the earth. In fact, it feels like an upgrade from the paper towels I traditionally use.

RealPaper is available in in easy hassle-free subscriptions or for one-time purchases on their website. All orders are conveniently delivered to your door with free shipping in 100% recyclable, plastic-free packaging. If you head to realpaper.com slash Legal AF and sign up for a subscription using my code Legal AF at checkout, you'll automatically get 30% off your first order and free shipping.

That's R-E-E-L-P-A-P-E-R.com slash LegalAF or enter promo code LegalAF to get 30% off your first order plus free shipping. So let's give Reel's tree free paper a try. Reel is paper for the planet. Here's something we all know. Cheap razors are annoying. They cut you. They irritate you.

And heck, they frustrate you. And don't get me started with subscription razor services. Can you say, bleh? That's why you gotta meet Henson Shaving. Henson Shaving is a family owned aerospace parts manufacturer that has made parts for the International Space Station and Mars Rover. And now they're bringing precision engineering

to your shaving experience. If you're like 88% of men who experience irritation from shaving like me around my beard, you might be expecting the worst with each shave. Yet Henson users like me have seen dramatic improvements, including the disappearance of ingrown hairs and razor bumps. Henson Shaving's innovation comes from an interesting analogy. Think of razor blades as diving boards. The longer the board, the more it wobbles. The micro wobbles are what lead to more nicks and cuts. Henson solves this by minimizing

blade extension, addressing the root cause of bad shaves, not the blade itself, but the extension. Henson's aerospace background has enabled the creation of razors with unmatched precision. Using aerospace grade CNC machines, they achieve a blade extension of just 0.0013 inches, less than a human hair's thickness. This incredibly precise control over the blade's position ensures a vibration-free and incredibly close shave.

The Henson Razor works with standard dual-edged blades to give you that old-school shave with the benefits of new-school tech. Once you own a Henson Razor, it's only about $3 to $5 per year to replace the blades. My first shave to clean up around my beard with a Henson Raz razor was incredibly refreshing. The design is sleek and the durability

is exactly what you want. And the affordability factor, you simply can't beat it. It's time to say no to subscriptions and yes to a razor that'll last you a lifetime. Visit hensonshaving.com slash Legal AF to pick the razor for you and use code Legal AF and you'll get two years worth of blades free with your razor.

Just make sure to add them to your cart. That's 100 free blades when you head to H-E-N-S-O-N-S-H-A-V-I-N-G.com slash LegalAF and use code LegalAF. Michael Popok, those ad reads that you do, I already have the products and I want to buy them again. I mean, you're so good with them. The discount codes are in the descriptions below.

Really, thank you to our pro democracy sponsors because, you know, we don't have outside investors at the network or on the show. So you and I try to find fun and interesting ways to grow this network. We bring on more editors, we bring on more people. You see the stories that we're breaking on the editorial side. And you know, we've had a brick by brick approach

to our growth. We have not taken an outside investor money allows us to stay independent. And one of the ways we build that is through patreon.com slash legal AF. Another way we build that is through those pro democracy sponsors. Another way is through the memberships here on the YouTube. And I know that you all love the new Justice Mershon emoji.

And so I don't really think if you were to ask other networks is funding your network with Justice and Marshawn Emoji the smartest business plan? I'm not sure they would tell you yes, but that's the power of the community right here. Popak, where we last left off, you were talking about the bond. Let me get your take on Trump's putting forward this seemingly invalid surety bond, the hearing on Monday. What do you think goes down?

Yeah, I think you covered it. I think you covered it really well. We will cover the Monday hearing. We all have our own versions of connections in there. I just emailed one of mine who dutifully went to almost every day of the 13 week civil fraud trial itself. And I'm trying to figure out whether she's gonna be able to get into the bond hearing and give us some really good

reporting on that. Either way we will report on it on our best knowledge. I think Judge Angoran has had enough of breaks that Donald Trump has taken for himself when they weren't he wasn't entitled to. He basically lied to the appellate. Let's call it for what it is. We don't blow smoke or sunshine. He lied to the appellate division, his lawyers did, when he said that he couldn't find, he looked everywhere, and he couldn't find the $465 million bonding company.

It was a lie. Because Don Henke, who can't keep his mouth shut, I've never seen, I know more about this surety, and I've been doing this a long time, than I ever thought I would or that I need to know about Don Hanke, his companies, you know, the king of the subprime auto loan, who also has decided that he loves his 15 minutes of fame, maybe more than Donald Trump, and keeps talking. And so we learned a lot about him. And we also learned that he was willing to give the $465 million bond on his own, say so,

to Donald Trump. Donald Trump had to go to like a family office bonding company, not like a legitimate publicly traded bonding company like Chubb that has actual investors and actual due diligence at a board of directors. He had to go to like a guy, like a guy who shoots pool with or whatever it is, an eight million dollar donor to the Trump campaign in Don Hanke. But the problem is, I don't know if he's never posted a bond of this. So that's a lie. To my point. And the appellate division said, oh, we can't find a bond. Okay, we'll lower it to 175 million. That's enough. And even 175 million where he allegedly has cash in order to do this, we know he's to 175 million, that's enough. And even 175 million where he allegedly has cash in order to do this, we know he's got that Schwab account.

He could have just posted or pledged the undertaking of the Schwab account without even having a bonding company in the middle and paying some sort of lower fee. A fee that Don Henke said he didn't charge Donald Trump enough because of all the aggravation he's now going through having to defend this bond in the court on Monday. You know, these are these are friends that you that you need in your life like Don Hanke. So the having gone to the appellate division and got a tremendous

haircut on the amount of the undertaking that had to be posted. He then played with fire again, like he plays with the one hand has glycerin, nitroglycerin and the other one has like gunpowder. And this is Donald Trump every day. We're running around. Think of that image. And he's like, well, let's, let's F with the bond. Why not?

Even though I got a break that no other person would get, I'm going to F with it. I'm going to go to a bonding company that either doesn't know what they're doing is in, is borderline insolvent when it comes to this size of a bond, doesn't regularly post bonds in New York. Let's see what happens. What could go wrong? And so you and I methodically went through the paperwork. First, it wasn't filed. They failed to properly upload the fundamental thing that a majority has to give is their financials. And now we know why they left it out. And then the clerk was like, rejected. You need to upload your financials, you know, go check, go check our statute book. Then they uploaded the financials

and we were like, Oh, now we know why they didn't want to post them. The subsidiary that's posting the bond, Knight Specialty Insurance Company, a subsidiary of another company owned by Don Henke, it doesn't have enough money for this bond. It has to be some sort of relationship between it and its parent company that would give it enough money for this bond. It has to be some sort of relationship between it and its parent company that would give it enough money. That's where, oh, we've got half a billion dollars and another couple of billion dollars. Yeah, that's like Don Henke's different piggy banks, but they're not, at least on paper, they're not the money that is in the control of this actual excess insurer that's the bonding company. All right, that's what we got that problem.

Then they said, well, don't worry, we've got a Schwab account or whatever it was for a hundred and for the amount of the bond or more. And then we looked at the paperwork related to that and it was, well, you don't really have it. And yes, but like you said, but he has two days to do monkey business. So that doesn't give,

remember we're trying to give the judgment creditor. We keep forgetting. There's a judgment creditor here. The people of the state of New York by Letitia James who has a $465 million judgment. They're entitled to security or they're allowed to collect. Now, Angoran having heard all of this

and all the new briefing that you just said that the attorney general had sent in, and we know Angoran's already a judge Donald Trump to be a liar under oath in court that can't be trusted and a serial gag order violator and a serial misogynist on top of it attacking his wife and his principal law clerk. That judge, Engoran, the one that already sat through 13 weeks and found that he and a judged him to be along with his company and his kids and a serial persistent fraudster in the state of New York for over the last 10 years. That guy is now looking at whether there is fraud or at least misstatements in the financial condition of the

bonding company that Donald Trump found. All right, here's what's going to happen. He's going to reject this bond. He's going to say the bond is not valid. Whether he gives him additional time, I don't know, but he's going to reject the bond, which means at that moment, until the appellate court said something else, Letitia James would be able to go out to enforce her judgment. But we got the appellate court, which is the same appellate division you and I have talked about at length that sits over civil and criminal courts in New York. We've got them who issued the original stay as long as two things happened. One, a proper bond was posted. And two, the appellate record was properly submitted by Trump in June, which he still has time

and the clock left for that. So if Angoron blasts the bond out of existence, then Donald Trump will take an immediate emergency appeal to the appellate division. He'll walk in, we have a hot take up right now. I mean, New York is very easy to take emergency applications to the appellate court. We used to rip it off of a form book. We used to call them Bloomberg forms. We'd rip them off and it'd be like a pink, a yellow, and a white.

And this is what, now we do an electronic version. It's like three lines. Repealing, judge and gaurans's rejection of the bond and the state enforcement collection. And then they'll get a duty judge. They'll get an emergency judge that day. So it could be like we could be doing a lot of reporting on Monday, early Tuesday about this bond as he, if he gets on the wrong side of Angoran, running off to appellate court again for another emergency appeal and application. He should have his own window at the appellate court. Like just say plaintiff, defendant, appellate, Trump, because he's wearing out a path. You know, he's at like 12 appeals on his various cases in two different courtrooms right at the appellate division. So I think to sum it up, rejection of the bond after

full evidentiary hearing, Trump's on the wrong side, emergency application again to the appellate division, and we'll have to see what they do, whether they cut them yet, another break where they just say, no, you had one chance, we told you to post the bond, you can go collect on your 465 million judgment, which means go suck money out of bank accounts, Schwab accounts, million judgment, which means go suck money out of bank accounts, Schwab accounts, start selling property and the rest to collect the 465. It would be interesting to see if Donald Trump goes to the appellate division of New York Attorney General Letitia James, then counters and says that they should reconsider even

the reduction and make it be 464 based on the fact that Donald Trump lied. I mean, potentially open the door to that. And New York attorney general, Letitia James filing, she says that if once the bond is denied, give Trump seven days to post, then there'll be a collection. So she's requesting that happen in seven days from the order from Ngoran for her to go and seize assets. Popak, I want to switch gears though and talk about the Supreme Court oral argument. This is really a critical oral argument, and it's regarding the case Fisher versus United States. Fisher was a violent insurrectionist who was found criminally responsible

for a number of crimes, including 18 USC section 1512C, which had been one of the more potent tools used by the Department of Justice to prosecute insurrectionists and the question as framed by the United States Supreme Court was whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit aired, made a mistake in construing 18 USC section 1512 C, which prohibits obstruction of

congressional inquiries and investigation to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence. When the Supreme Court kind of even frames the question like that, you can tell that I think they're inclined to feel a certain way that the DC Circuit may have aired, even though I don't think that's the case. But two of the charges against Donald Trump, in addition to this being a charge that carries within a 20-year sentence,

many of the insurrectionists have been sentenced based on this. But if you go to the statute, I'm sorry, two of the charges for Donald Trump are under 18 USC section 1512. And here's what it says, whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record document or other object or attempts to do so with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding or to otherwise obstructs,

influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprison not more than 20 years or both." So the Department of Justice is saying, look, take a look at the statute, go to 18 USC section 1512C. And if you look at sub two, otherwise obstructs influences or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, that's a catch-all and clearly the insurrectionist engaged in obstructive conduct to impede an official proceeding which was the counting of the electoral votes. The argument by the insurrectionists is that no, subsection two is connected to subsection one.

And when you look at the language, otherwise obstructs influences, the word otherwise refers to otherwise altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a record so that they're attached and that, unless the underlying conduct involves destruction, mutilation, or concealing of a record, like when the statute was first passed in respond to Enron document shredding, then it doesn't apply. say this and this is kind of where I agree with them, which is even if the Supreme Court finds that 18 USC section 1512 C doesn't apply to a lot of the insurrectionists,

the charge would still seem to me at least to still apply to Donald Trump because his conduct was document-based, evidence-based, submitting fake elector votes. And so to me, the statute still applies to him. What it wouldn't apply to potentially is the insurrectionist who just storms the building, who has nothing to do with the document, but Trump was manipulating documents. Now it still causes delay and there'll be motion practice if the Supreme Court ultimately says that 18

USC 1512 doesn't apply but you were watching the oral argument you've done a hot take on it what do you think the Supreme Court does and how do you think it impacts the insurrectionist cases and the Trump case? Let me start with the Trump case. Even if the four or five right wing, because it looks like Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are definitely not going to vote for having this statute, which came out of the 2002 Enron scandal, apply to the Jan 6th defendants who attacked the Capitol to stop the official proceeding,

in this case the congressional count of the official proceeding, in this case the Congressional Count of the electoral certificates, because they're going to tie the two subsections of the statute together tightly and say that the otherwise impairs and impedes has to be something similar to the destruction of documents or evidence. That's how the statute got on the books originally. Arthur Anderson, they now defunct for good reason, auditing an accounting firm, working with Enron, their client. They were shredding and deleting and destroying and spoliating documents to impede a government investigation as to how the how Enron collapsed, which was sort of the

FTX of its day, sort of FTX and Madoff combined was Enron. And that was the obstruction. But that doesn't mean it only applies in exactly the same types of scenarios. I mean, the racketeering influence and corrupt organization statute, RICO, including the one in Georgia, was supposed to be to combat organized crime primarily in the mafia. We use it for lots of different things now having nothing to do with organized crime. So that's okay. So those guys, Gora Sigalito Thomas, they're not going to vote for that. They're going to vote to overturn the District, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and its decision led by Judge Pan again. It was becoming, quickly becoming, even though she's a new Judge there, quickly becoming

quite a star on the DC Court of Appeals. Roberts was sort of, you could see him like his wheels were turning and the smoke was coming out of his ears about it. I think he finally got right with the Solicitor General's for the United States' position that if you read them together, it's not a dragnet that the catch-all is not a dragnet to catch all bad conduct. It was specifically drafted in a way that there is obviously other things that the Congress was concerned about that they couldn't enumerate particularly but they wanted to criminalize about interference impeding an official proceeding and

rather than try to sit down and cogitate about the list of things that goes a mile long of everything you possibly could do and anticipate it, you just put a catch on it. I think he got right with that. Certainly Kagan, who led the charge for the left side, the Democratic side, the Supreme Court in her questioning, is going to be joined on upholding the statutes application to those Jan 6 defend defendants along with Katanji Brown Jackson and Sotomayor. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were kind of quiet and so I think it's 4-4 and the question is where's Roberts going to be even if they were to strip this charge away from 350 Jan 6 defendants, think about the flood gates there, is that there's been 2,500 or so Jan 6 defendants, 350 of them had this charge against

them, some of which have already been convicted, some of which have already been convicted and served their sentences, it's been so long. So the ones that are going to serve their sentences, they're going to have their sentences vacated and expunged and all of that. Those that are waiting trial will have it stripped away from their indictment. If it's the only part of their indictment, they'll be released. And so that's all of that. And some people are worried, we're worried, because two of the four counts against Donald Trump, who is the sole defendant in the DC election interference case before Judge Chutkin, are for this very same 18 USC 1512. But the credit of course goes to Jack Smith, who already anticipated, he

knows what's up at the court's docket, and he knew when he filed his immunity brief for the oral argument on the 25th of April that he better address that. And he said even if this court were to, for instance, find that 1512 doesn't apply to the Jan 6th defendants in the Fisher case, it doesn't do a darn thing to the two counts against Donald Trump because even if you were to find that it requires some sort of mutilation, destruction, or drowning and strangling of documents, we have that with Donald Trump in the fake elector certificates. And so since he tried to use the fake elector certificates as a substitute for the real

election elector certificates, that is even under any interpretation of 1512, that would fall under 1512 C1 not 2 or 1 not 2 and therefore it nothing should happen. Now having said all of that, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Joe Fisher, this former Pennsylvania cop who put on his social media things like a dead congressperson can't certify, one who's not breathing can't, you know, obviously one intending to interfere with the official proceeding. If they find for Joe Fisher and therefore open up the vaults and let all these people out, then Donald Trump, when that case restarts, assuming immunity goes against Donald Trump, which we think it will, and the Department of Justice is back up and running in the Chutkin case, when she reconvenes the

parties after she gets the mandate from the Supreme Court late May, early June, before they go away on summer vacation. The first thing that you know they're going to do is they're going to say, we're going to file a motion to dismiss the two aspects of the indictment based on the recent Supreme Court ruling. She'll have it briefed. She'll have to make a fast decision. It will go up to the Supreme Court and unless Jack Smith wants to pull the pin, the linchpin, and just cut those two out and just try the case on a conspiracy for election interference, he's gonna have to wait until those two counts wind its way through yet another appellate process and there we go. We

don't have, see I'm not hoping him today, we don't have a DC election interference case before the November 5th election because of this development. So I agree, it ultimately survives, but it'll have to go through a process which will take time that we frankly don't have. Pessimism, Hopi. He went from Hopium, Hopi to, I'm just joking. There's actually, I think a lot to be optimistic about right now with law and order and what

we're watching take place in Manhattan. And again, not because I don't like Donald Trump or this or that, it's that I care about law and order and watching Donald Trump's attacks to our system be neutralized by the system, and have a fair and impartial jury be selected swiftly, opening statements, have the system do what the system's supposed to do. Is it an imperfect system? Yes, but it is one worth preserving and one worth protecting. That finally brings us, and this is only a brief update that we'll have here, federal judge Eileen Cannon denying the

motion to dismiss the indictment and for a bill of particulars that were filed by Donald Trump's co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira in the Mar-a-Lago document case where Donald Trump stole national defense information including nuclear secrets and war plans and claims it's his personal property now just because he says under the Presidential Records Act which is a civil statute not a criminal statute that says the opposite of what Trump says. He claims that he can take it.

And Waltine Nauta and De Olivaire were involved in the process of moving these boxes and documents and concealing evidence. They were charged with the obstruction and making false statement charges in the indictment. And look, Judge Eileen Cannon goes out of her way to make it clear that her job as a judge is to simply look at the allegations in the indictment

and not look outside of the indictment. She makes some, you know, somewhat kind of snobby remarks in there to kind of imply, we'll see what the jury does, we'll see what happens at a later stage, but she's unbound by the four corners and the four corners of the indictment says this and that asserts the elements of the crime. And she just doesn't wanna get reversed

by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals at this point. She doesn't really know what she's doing right now because she still hasn't set a trial date, right? We're recording this on April 20th if you're watching this after the live just for reference. And as of, remember March 1, she held that status conference where she was going to set a trial date and special counsel Jack Smith said, look, you didn't set basic deadlines like I told you to, like SEPA section five hearings and other stuff that you would normally

do in a classified information procedures act case. So we think July makes sense. Obviously you can't make the May trial date. Then Donald Trump said, we think never. How is never like we never do the trial or maybe like late 25 20 26. And she said at the March 1st hearing that she thought that Jack Smith July date was too soon. She was more inclined to push this thing out into 2025. But here we are April 20th now. After a March 1st hearing, she hasn't changed the trial date. And so the parties have to proceed as if this May 20th trial date is still the trial date.

And so I'm not sure what she's trying to pull there. It's very odd. It's, you know, she's definitely trying to pull something. We'll just say that. I'm not sure if she's kind of figured it out and thought through it, but the parties are gonna have to submit their pre-trial stuff soon

unless she moves the date and deadline, which she has yet to do. So that's my update on it, Michael Popock, anything you wanted to add there? Yeah, not much more, other than another example of co-conspirators for Donald Trump, definitely going to trial and or jail, while Donald Trump, at least because of Judge Cannon,

we still sit on tender hooks about whether that's gonna happen or not. Peter Navarro's cooling his heels in jail, Allen Weisselberg is in jail for a second time. Walt Nauta and Carlos D, and I get criticisms about how I pronounce his last name, but I don't care. Carlos D. Olvera are going to trial because their indictment dismissal motion papers,

as you outlined, have been rejected. The question is, is Donald Trump gonna be joining them on this trial when it happens? And why these two, the butler and the maintenance worker, are continued to be committed to Donald Trump and are willing to go over the precipice and go over the cliff for Donald Trump is still beyond me. I mean, the but the Butler and or Carl, Carlos and or Walt should have already cut a deal with the government and made this a standalone case against Donald Trump with those two testifying against them. We've already

outlined at least one of them has a MAGA paid for lawyer which would help explain why they're not thinking that clearly. I mean, every time somebody has gotten their own counsel that has independent judgment not being paid for by Donald Trump or his PAC, they seem to make the right decision, like the Yusele Tavares, the IT worker, who could have easily been the third co-defendant with Donald Trump, but thought better of it after he fired his lawyer and hired a, it was a legal defense, I think they gave it to him, I think it was a, he didn't even have a private counsel for that one, I think he used, he used a public defender for a federal public defender and then said no, no, I'm gonna testify against Donald Trump now. So that's how we learned about the

videotapes and the attempt to try to, to drown it and bury it and burn it and do everything else to the videotapes as possible. So that's still I mean, I'm just want to do like a running commentary here at the bottom. I'm still shocked that Walt Nauta has not succumbed to the pressure of like facing a number of years in a federal penitentiary and hasn't already turned on Yes yes I know he still works for the guy, but you know he's got to see the writing on the wall.

If there was another judge there and it was Chutkin or if it was any other judge in the Southern District of Florida I think it would have changed their minds, but because you know the strategy of Trump to, you know it looks like there's, what's the old joke about when it looks like the referees in a sporting event are on the side of one of the teams, there's too many men on the field? I mean, it always looks like there's, whenever she makes a decision, except where she has to, absolutely has to, she makes the decision, and it looks like it benefits Donald Trump. Like, even in the motion to dismiss that she had to grant, she had to deny both, both the motion for bill of particulars for more information about the charges against the Oliveira, including about him lying to the FBI, and to Nauda, the four quarters of the indictment, which have to be accepted as true for the purposes of the motion, clearly met the standard for pleadings. And this is also from two years ago. And, but even there, she, I don't know if you saw it, Ben, I'm sure you did. She started to get, Cannon started to get like wobbly at one point about the

word, listen to this one, the word corrupt and what is its meaning in a criminal federal statute, including the one that we've been talking about at length here. Let me make it easy for our, I'll do a little breakout patreon session right here, okay? I will, I will concede for a moment that when Congress and different Congresses over time make criminal law, they are not consistent with their vocabulary. I'll give you that. And they're not consistent sometimes with terms of art. And they're not, it's not AI doing it, it's human beings. And sometimes they make things that inadvertently create ambiguity because, well, they use knowingly in that statute, but they use

willfully in this statute, but they use corruptly in that statute. Are they the same? Are they the different? And then it's left to lawyers like you and me and the court system, and ultimately the appellate courts to figure out what these words mean. But there's already sort of a compendium, a thesaurus, a dictionary of defined terms, and corruptly anybody that practices criminal law, we know what the word means and we know what the appellate courts and the Supreme Court have said about the word. More importantly, we know what the word means and we know what the appellate courts and the Supreme Court have said about the word. More importantly, we know what the 11th Circuit, which is Aileen Cannon's boss, has said about how do you interpret the word corruptly. So for her to spill ink over, you know, half of her order to say,

he raises a very good point, Mr. Nauda, about the word corruptly and how it's being used in 1512 C, there does seem to be some inconsistencies. And then at the end she says, but then the 11th circuit is defined corruptly. So I have to follow that. So why go off? I was like, oh, here we go. Why go off into the wilderness of her own making about, you know, cogitating about what the word corruptly means when it's one of the most better defined terms in criminal statutory construction. Go look at, go look up Scalia and Gardner on how to interpret words if you don't know how to do it. That's what everybody points to. So again, as you said, even when she's forced to do the right thing, she finds

a way to be canon. Popak, I couldn't agree with you more. Covered a lot of topics today. Remember everybody, now would be the time to sign up. Patreon.com slash Legal AF. Let's get to 3,000 students in under 30 days. P-A-T-R-E-Oreon.com slash legal AF. Thank you to our pro democracy sponsors.

I hope you all enjoy the new Justice Mershon emoji. I hope you've been enjoying our continuing coverage here about the Trump criminal trial every morning and after the trial. Make sure you check in here on the Midas Touch Network to get those updates from Karen Friedman Agnifilo and I, and of course, Popak will be doing hot takes throughout the day as well. Thank you all Legal AFers. We appreciate you so, so much.

We'll be here with you every step of the way in this Trump criminal trial, and we'll be with you every step of the way thereafter. Thanks for watching. Shout out to the Legal AFers. Shout out to the Midas Mighty. Hear ye, hear ye, Legal AF Law Breakdown is now in session. Go beyond the headlines and get a deep dive

into the important legal concepts you need to know and we discuss every day on Legal AF. Exclusive content you won't find anywhere else, all for the price of a couple of cups of coffee. Join us at patreon.com slash Legal AF. That's patreon.com slash Legal AF.