Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump SCREWED by Trial Witness, Judges and Prosecutors FED UP

Episode Date: November 23, 2023

Michael Popok & Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back with a new almost all Appeals Court episode of the midweek edition of the Legal AF pod. On this episode, they debate: whether a New York appeals court will re-gag Trump and his lawyers in the NY Civil Fraud case and the power of Judge Engoron’s own affidavit about the attacks on his court personnel and him; whether Trump’s former insider financial officer just blew the case for Trump by admitting under cross examination that Trump (and Eric) approved of all of the fraudulent financial statements at the heart of the case; whether a DC appeals court will re-gag Trump in the DC Election interference case from continuing to use violent rhetoric to attack witnesses and other participants in the criminal justice system; whether the Fulton County Criminal Court judge just drew a line in the sand for Trump regarding a future gag order against his attacking Georgia co-defendants and witnesses, and whether the Colorado Supreme Court will declare that we cannot have insurrectionist Presidents and that the 14th Amendment Section 3’s disqualification clause applies to Trump to keep him off the ballot next November, and more from the intersection of law, politics and justice. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSOR! Aura Frames: Visit AuraFrames.com/LEGALAF and get AURA $40 off their best-selling Carver Mat frame with the code LEGALAF Highland Titles: Go to https://HighlandTitles.com and use the discount code LEGALAF to receive a generous 50% savings. Geologie: Head to https://geolog.ie/LEGALAF70 or scan the QR code on the screen and use code LEGALAF70 and they will give you an exclusive 70% off of their award-winning skincare trial set. On top of that you can SAVE BIG on the add-ons products of your choice when you add it to your trial. Thank you Geologie for sponsoring this video! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop NEW LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Things are heating up for the New York Attorney General Civil fraud case against Trump and his companies. Just as they're winding down to an early December close, Trump's side now has the case after 25 witnesses and 30 for 100 exhibits by the New York Attorney General. And the best they can come up with is Don Jr.'s irrelevant guided bus tour through Trump Landia, followed by a series of experts who quickly became irrelevant and useless because they were not given any of the facts by Trump underlying the key issues the case is about.

The fraudulent statement of financial conditions that Trump used to cook the books and inflate his assets by hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. And culminating in the former Trump insider, the controller reporting to the jail chief financial officer, Mr. Spreadsheet and Han Ritt notes himself, Jeff Boohoo Makani, who threw tears, broke down in the court, went examined by his own lawyer, and not even on cross examination. And while the trial is full steam ahead toward judge and Goron's ultimate ruling in December

on the six remaining fraud claims and what happens to Trump's money, property and businesses, there is a side show going on in the New York Appellate Court about the judge's two gag orders against Trump and his attorneys as the New York attorney general fires back today and tells the full panel on appeal that it was wrong to block the gag orders while on appeal. And they should be reinstated immediately against Trump and his lawyers to protect the safety of the court and the sanctity and dignity of the administration of justice process. Speaking of gag orders, a DC federal court panel heard oral argument as to whether Judge Shutkins gag on Trump to stop his violent

rhetoric from attacking by name other participants in the criminal justice system against him, reached a fevered pitch. It wasn't just a hot bench against Trump's new appellate lawyer, John Sorrow. It was a scorcher with all three judges, Obama appointed, Obama appointed, and Biden appointed, walking him into a trap after trap of his own making. Will they use their surgical precision to balance the competing interests of a criminal defendant who was also running for office and the justice system that needs protection from him and allow Trump to be gagged. And speaking of a scorcher, Fulton County DA Fawni Willis herself conducted the recent hearing to revoke the bond for black voices for Trump's criminal defendant, Willie Floyd, and sent him to jail for using

his social media postings to attack her and witnesses and co-defendants. While Judge McAfee didn't revoke his bond, he did issue an entirely new set of bond conditions to limit Floyd's social media posts in the future under the threat of going to jail, thus setting a template as to how the judge will handle future defendants who violate their conditions of release. And yes, I'm looking at you, Trump. Finally, on an almost all-appellate edition of Legal AF Midweek, we examined what went wrong with the Colorado trial judge's decision in which she said that, yes, Trump engaged

an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, which usually is a bad thing. But then in the same breath, found that section three of the 14th Amendment didn't apply to the presidential office, resulting in the absurd consequence that a president could incite rebellion against the United States, but only those federal office holders below him that followed him would be barred from future office. That can't be what the people that invented the 14th Amendment intended. We discussed the new appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court, which is on the sole issue

of whether the 14th Amendment Section 3 disqualification language applies to an insurrectionist president. All this and so much more on the midweek edition of Legal AF with your anchors Michael Popock and Karen Friedman, Agnifalo Karen. In a cab today that I was in, I had a driver from Senegal who was listening to some political information about his home country. And we got to talking about our country, the United States and democracy. And he said quite eloquently, and I totally agree with him, that if Trump were to get reelected, it would do permanent damage to our democracy, which begs the question for us here

and for you. Is our judicial system, state and federal, criminal and civil, and prosecutors and judges robust enough and brave enough to keep Trump in check and be the last firewall to avoid him burning down our justice system and thus our democracy or aren't they? That's a great, very eloquent, incredible question. It's existential. And I think so much of the next election is going to determine who we are as a country and whether or not we care about democracy and freedom and the rule of law as opposed to authoritarianism, which is sort of what's happening. I mean, between Donald Trump and the Republicans looking to stack the courts, all the courts, including

the Supreme Court, so that things will get ruled in their favor in a whole other branch. The fact that there is a project 2025 going on where the Federalist Society, along with other extreme right-magga Republicans, are basically getting ready for when a Trump presidency, to them, it's when there's a Trump presidency, and they're going to make sure that every single person they install in a position of power, whether it's an attorney general or a secretary of state, and everyone on down the list is somebody who's going to do Trump's bidding, and somebody who's going to continue to go on lawless, essentially, so that he can rule by fiat and not as a democratic leader. So it's a

little scary what's going on here, and this is really an existential decision-making time for us at the next election. So we'll see what the American people choose. I mean, the choice is clear. Trump has made it very clear what he will do. And, you know, I vote for democracy and freedom, but, you know, that's what it means to live in a democracy. Others may vote differently. I like the way you put that. It's not just a vote for Joe Biden. It's a vote for democracy and a constitutional republic of law, not men, versus a vote for totalitarianism and dictatorship. And you can just remove the individuals who happen to be their party standard bearer

from the equation and just vote on morals and values and a love for our constitution and our country. And if you do that, I don't know how you vote red. I don't know how you vote are in that equate, at least not with the current standard bear. I might be having a different conversation with you, Karen, or I will be in 2028 or the lead up to 2028 when both of this old guard generation for both parties is removed, but one is dangerous and one is just really seasoned and veteran and I'll take that over Donald Trump any day. But let's dive in now from that, Karen, into how the judges, prosecutors, attorney generals around the country and appellate courts

are trying to be that firewall, which is what they were baked into, it were built for by our founding fathers and how they're handling an out of control Donald Trump. So let's start with bringing everybody up to speed about the New York Attorney General Civil Broadcasts. That's now just finished week seven, moving into week eight. I'll give a couple of the highlights and then I'll let you dive into some of the

the testimony so far. We did in the first five and a half weeks, it was the New York Attorney General's case, meaning they had approved their case in chief. Using their evidence, their witnesses, including hostile witnesses. They pulled from the other side from the Trump organization. So we've heard a lot of these witnesses before. The New York Attorney General put on Don Jr. Eric Ivanka, Trump himself, Makani, the controller who reported to the CFO Weisselberg. All these people testified, the outside auditors who quit the job, quit the client because

of fraud at measures. We heard all these people. In the case in chief for the attorney general, last week or so, it was time for Donald Trump to put on his defense. For those that are following this, not as closely as you and I are, other people in our audience, you might think that the defense is the law clerk is biased against Donald Trump. That seems to be the all that they talk about. Must be that the law clerk has done something so egregious that they're going, that they have a right to an appeal and reverse whatever decision the judge and go on. It makes in the case, and we all know that's, that is Boulder Dash.

It's just the only talking point that they have because they're losing in the courtroom. But now they got to put on evidence. Enough of this side show of attacking the judge and his staff, which has got them gagged twice, and we'll talk about that next. Let's talk about what is the evidence they have? We have on one side, 25 witnesses for the state and 3,500 pieces of evidence or more. What do you got? Well, lead off with Don Jr.

Okay, well, Don Jr. already disqualified himself. You hear New York getting ready for the holidays out in front of my office. You have Don Jr., who already disqualified himself when he testified the first time around for the state. He said, I don't know anything about the personal financial statements, which are at the core of the case, were they fraudulent, were they cooked or not? And did Donald Trump use them to his benefit to obtain loans he shouldn't have gotten, insurances he shouldn't have gotten, permits he shouldn't have gotten, approvals he shouldn't have gotten, and the like. Yes or no, that's it. That's the binary

issue that's involved in the case. You wouldn't know it from how the Trump people are putting on their lawyers or putting on their case, but that is the issue. Donald Trump, Don Jr. said, I don't know a thing about the statements of financial condition. I'm not an accountant, I really don't know how those things work. Ask somebody else.

So you're like, well, how did they then use him as the first witness? The big, here it is, the big roadmap witness to turn the ship around in favor of Trump. And all he did was give a bus tour of all the gleaming properties and talk about things outside the scope of the case. So he's irrelevant, and the judge already noted that.

Then they put on a series of experts, who none of which had the expertise or the ability to testify about the key issue left in the case, which is did Donald Trump intend to commit various counts of fraud or not? They don't know what was in the hearts of minds of Donald Trump, worse, the Trump people purposely didn't give the experts any of the underlying

facts, data, or exhibits for them to review that go to the issues in the case. So they just got up there like I'm here to tell you about how insurance works, judge. And just like what do you have? What do you say about these issues? Right? And I'll give you one example, Karen, you might have caught. I did a hot take on it. They put up an insurance expert. Everybody leans forward, oh, this will be good. What is he going to say? And he said that in not in his experience,

do underwriters who make the ultimate decision about whether to give insurance or not for an insurance company like Zurich, they don't rely on what's in the media. So that Donald Trump tried to get himself in the Forbes 400 list or in USA today, you know, they don't look at that. And then in his own report, they said, but on page 32 of your report, you said it's very commonplace for companies like Zurich to rely on Forbes and USA today, the exact opposite of what he just testified to, which the judge then slapped his forehead and said, I don't even know what to say about that testimony. So these experts are going terribly. And then it all came and I'll turn it over to you on

Makani. Makani, who has always been one of my favorite witnesses for many, many reasons, having nothing to do with the strength of his testimony. One, he's gigantic. I don't know if you've seen photos of him standing next to regular-sized people, but he's gigantic. I mean, he must have played football college. He also looks, he has a disturbing resemblance

to Captain Kangaroo when you and I were kids. So that's two. Three, he already testified against the Trump Organization in tax evasion because they gave the the year-old office, the Manhattan DA, gave him immunity and he had a testify and that led to a 17-count felony conviction for the Trump Organization for tax evasion last year. So I and I love his name. I think anybody that has con in your name is great. Jeff McConney gets on the stand again the second time.

The thing that we didn't know that we learned during testimony is that McConney used to notate and put in the margins, we call it marginalia, all sorts of notes about the financial statements that get questions answered by Donald Trump. Hey, boss, we haven't closed that deal yet. Should we list it on our assets? No, if you haven't bought it, you don't list it on your assets. Donald Trump was like, yes, do that. All these blue handwritten notes,

the Donald Trump claimed in a debt position. He had no idea where those notes came from. They came from Jeff McConney, and they didn't get those documents, New York Attorney General from the Trump Organization. They got them from the accountant, which also shows they destroyed evidence. So McConney is cross-examined about his notations that say this financial statement fraudulent has to be approved by Donald Trump, or when Donald Trump left and to go to the White House by Eric Trump Which completely counters their earlier testimony and then the water works happen. Why don't you take it from there?

Yeah, it's funny. I didn't realize he was this gigantic person very tall because all the press reporting was talking about how Apparently he was crying through out his his testimony, you know, so now I have this visual of this oversized man crying on the stand. But anyway, Mr. McConee, who was the controller, testified that he worked there for 35 years. He was one of their top executives. And this was like working for a family, and it was super cool. It wasn't just any other accounting job. I loved working here because I got to do things like representing a casino or reality TV show.

And numbers alone didn't fully represent what Trump's assets were. And he liked the wheeling and dealing with the various celebrity types that seemed through his testimony. But according to the reporting, he on his direct testimony, he talked about how he did the same thing that the kids were doing, right? That Don Jr. and Eric and also Donald Trump was doing, which is pointing to lasers there,

long-term accounting firm, and saying, look, they did the numbers. They're the accountants. We relied on them. And, you know, that's all. So they're basically the passing the book to their accountants who no longer work for them, who fired them, and he issued a statement saying years ago, issued a statement saying, you cannot rely on any of the numbers that we put out. So that was his direct testimony, but on cross examination, he talked, and he also talked about why he left, by the way, he said the stress of all these cases were too much

for him, and he wanted to relax and stop being accused of misrepresenting assets for the company that I love working for so much. I mean, that was kind of what he said, you know, gag me as what I, how I wanted to respond. But anyway, what happened next was on cross examination was as close to a Perry Mason moment that we had in this trial, in my opinion, so far, right? The Gachu that you see on TV, he's in a true, this and that doesn't happen in real life,

especially in a white collar paper case but Here what happened was there was a a government exhibit that That as you said had his notes scribbled on it and it was Trump's Statement a financial condition from I think it was 2014 and it says in it couldn't be clear in blue handwriting, DJT, Donald J. Trump to get final review and he admitted that that was his handwriting, he admitted that those were his notes and it absolutely goes against what Trump said, which is right, he denied any involvement. And he basically then went on to say that Trump would get the final review of all his statements

of financial condition, and that there were notes on there that showed edits, right, that he would put things on there and then make suggestions, and it would come back. And some of the suggestions were not made or were made. It was very clear that that was reviewed above. And he testified that Eric approved them while Trump was in the White House, but that Donald Trump absolutely was the one who approved these

and was involved in them. But you know, look, he contradicted himself, right? He contradicted his own testimony where he said that he's the one who reviewed the drafts with Weiselberg who would then approve it. But this document that he was able to be cross-examined with, you know, maybe they didn't know he had, they had this document, right? But because otherwise he would have been prepped and would not have said that. So I think he was caught with his pants down. And it also shows in addition to the fact

that Donald J. Trump to have the final review, it really shows that the statements of financial condition were something that went back and forth between Trump or his son and the CFO, McConney, Weiselberg, and Measers, because there were drafts and there were things that were crossed out or put back and that sort of thing. So I think it really definitively proves that Trump was involved. I think this was fairly, fairly powerful, in my opinion, as a witness in this case. And I think the judge is going to rely on this

when he finds Trump libel, right? And he finds Trump and others, you know, libel that they can't just say, look, this is, this is, you know, mazers, you know, especially in the ones that were there was the counts that are left in addition to the damages, because don't forget, right? There was, I think what, seven or eight counts that he is being charged with here civilly, and the judge already found the first count that he committed persistent fraud throughout his financial dealings in overvaluing his properties. But there's still counts, I think, two through six

or two through seven left. And those require added elements of, they have to be intentional, and it had to be material, meaning the banks or the insurance companies that either loaned the money or gave them insurance policies relied on these false statements, thought they were true,

and it was material to their decision-making in order to determine whether they were going to do that or not. And so it's still to be determined whether or not those elements are met. But I do think this goes towards intent. And I think it's fairly powerful evidence. And look, I don't know why he was crying, maybe, because he didn't want to have to throw his old bus and his family group under the bus, but they lied.

And you can't, you know, lying under oath would be its own thing. It could be perjury, and that would be a crime. And so I guess that was a bridge too far for Mr. McConey. And when confronted with the evidence and with the facts and his own handwriting, he had to tell the truth. And, you know, look, that's where trials are so powerful, right? And that's because you get to what's swearing to tell the truth

under oath. And having that, that, you know, the fact that you could be prosecuted for perjury, that's a big deal. And it tends to be one of the great equalizers, I think. I take a lot for someone to lie under oath in my opinion. Yeah, his testimony is gonna be the missing link, I think, and it's gonna be featured prominently in judge and Gora on's written opinion, which we should get at the end of December if not in early January,

in which what he needs to cite a piece of evidence to judge, that is the connective tissue between Trump, Eric Trump, Don Jr. the fraud that is at the heart of the case, it'll be Jeff McCodney's testimony because it completely refutes things that Donald, when Donald Trump was shown a statement of financial condition, he says, I barely looked at it, really rely on, they want to dump on mazers, rely on outside people. Eric Trump's same thing. Eric Trump had to get, had to walk it back because they showed him documents in which they said, McConney wrote him an email saying, Hey, take a look at the statement of individual

condition. Well, I didn't realize that that would be the personal statement of financial condition for my dad, you know, I just poor concrete or whatever the crap Eric said. And now you've got They set them up the New York Attorney General McConee because they walked them into explain the process For the statement of financial condition the personal financial statements for Donald Trump and he said oh well I would prepare without and then I show him down on Weiselberg Then we show him we given the measures

Mazers, you know the That's what we really relied on. And then they would print the final. And then they had to, they had to show him in his own handwritten notes all over the personal financial statement while they were in draft year after year after year. He was Mr. spreadsheet, Mr. Note taker. They had to say to him,

wasn't there one more step in your process that you've left out? What one more step in your process that you've left out? What about the step in the middle before it went to Mazeers where Donald Trump was asked by you to approve and review the statement of financial condition that is showing two or three hundred million dollars of inflated assets. What about that one? And then Eric Trump went to the White House. What about that?

Yeah, and he I agree with you that it was a buildup over years of Makani, I mean, the testify against a quote-unquote place that he loved but it came out the crying came out because Suarez The lawyer doing the direct exam for the Trump organization, I forget it. We works for, I don't know if he works for Lena Hobb is firm or he works for Cliff Floyd's firm, but he said to him, do you work at the Trump organization any longer? Or why don't you work there any longer? I love that place and I can't thank it. All the investigations having to defend the accounting records and the testimonies and

the trials and then he started spouting out all of the Investigations that are against Donald Trump as if that was helpful that inventory including one We're not sure we even knew about he said there's a Southern District of New York Federal subpoena that I had a respond to we all went wait, huh? Are you talking about the Michael Cohen one? Or are you talking about the Michael Cohen one? Or are you talking about something else like the feds are now looking at Donald Trump criminally

for a business practice, maybe insurance or maybe IRS fraud, tax fraud? What are you talking about there, Mr. McConney? I guess we'll have to find out next week. So that's where he collapsed, but you're right. The, but let you're right the But let me give some some confidence back to our audience. Yeah, we're here trying to prove six more counts of fraud It's it's seven in total one was already proven by the New York Attorney General and the judge on summary judgment without trial Found for that the persistent fraud happened the judge based on just the count that he already found persistent fraud under, the stand-alone

persistent fraud count under 63-12 could take away Donald Trump's businesses, his money, his buildings, and the like. I can't think of a remedy that the New York Attorney General is asking for that requires these other six counts in order to accomplish it. Even the judge just to remind everybody, I think I mentioned it once before, before the trial even started,

turned to the lawyers in the New York Attorney General and said, do we really need to do the other six counts? Why don't we just, why don't you dismiss those? Pardon me, now that I've ruled in your favor, and we'll get down to remedy. And they said, the New York Attorney General said, no, we still want to, we want to do all six. So you can hear all of the evidence. They were all geeked up because they had, you know, 4,000 pages, 4,000 exhibits and 25 witnesses. And they wanted to put it all on.

But I think they did it also to preserve the record. I mean, look, they know this is going to be appealed and it's going to be highly, highly analyzed. And so I think they want a record. They want to put their case on. So that count one is proven even if that, for some reason, they say that judge and Goron, you know, aired in ruling in their favor, hopefully, at least in the trial, you know, hopefully he'll rule again. Now they've even proved it, you know, again, or still, or whatever, just so just to kind of say it's harmless because it's clearly there in the record. I don't blame them from doing that, actually. No, no, I'm not. I wasn't raising it to blame them. I was raising

it to say to our audience, even if somehow with this ridiculous presentation of their defense, it's that we've outlined for the last 20 minutes here, somehow, main engoran, find that one or two or all six of the remaining counts were improving because of that intent and materiality standpoint, he is going to whack Donald Trump in the organization for hundreds of millions of dollars and Dude major Maybe existential damage to their businesses, but let's turn to the Let me just let me get my timing straight in my head. I do want to talk next about the filings just made today About the gag order two of them that Judge and Goron used against Donald Trump and his lawyers

to stop him from bashing staff and then go on to talk about the DC Court of Appeals, also handling a gag order or a argument this week, Colorado, and what we saw from Fawli Willis strutting her stuff in Georgia, in putting on her case against Floyd against Willie Floyd, but we've reached that point in the show. That's one of my favorites. One of my three favorite points in the show. This one is the sponsors. Here's a word from our sponsors. Finding the perfect gift can be really hard sometimes. That's why I like aura frames. Name the number one best digital frame by wire cutter. They're an easy thoughtful gift to get your loved ones. Every year I always have trouble shopping for my family, for my mom, my wife, her family

abroad. It can be hard to find them the right holiday presents. Or a frame is perfect for them because it's amazingly versatile and allows them to display all of their favorite photos and memories. The Or a frame is super high quality and it's amazing to see all of these photos cycled throughout the day. Instead of spending hours at the store, I'm now spending hours picking out photos to share.

You can upload as many pictures as you want before and after it shipped out from anywhere, and you don't have to agonize over choosing the one perfect photo. There's unlimited storage and grandpa or mom or whoever can swipe the top of the frame to see everything and pick their favorites as well. Make holiday shopping easier than ever this year and give a thoughtful gift to the love. From now through Black Friday and Cyber Monday, Aura is having their best deal of the year. So listeners can save $40 on their best-selling Carver Matt Frame by visiting auraframes.com slash legal AF. That's a-u-r-a frames.com slash legal AF.

Use promo code legal AF to get $40 off their best-selling frames. to of 1979. Lawmakers in Scotland legally defined a souvenir plot of land. This is a plot of land so small, most often one square foot, that its value is solely commemorative or sentimental. So you can buy a square foot of Scotland for just 30 bucks. Why do people do that? Well, Scottish landowners were traditionally given the courtesy title of Laird. The English translation is Lord, and the female equivalent title is Lady. Buying a plot of land from HighlandTitles.com will enable you to legitimately style yourself as a Lord or Lady of the Glen. You get a legal right to a plot of land you can visit anytime, and a luxury gift pack too. The gift is so good they made it legal. Check it

out at HighlandTitles.com and use the discount code legal AF to receive a generous 50% savings. This discount code can be used from today until the end of Black Friday. That's HighlandTitles.com promo code legal a f okay so why don't we switch gears Karen and why don't we talk about the oral argument or sorry the motion practice that's going on right now at the appellate division first department which is the intermediary appellate court that sits over judging Gora on for all Manhattan Supreme courts we had just to remind people from last week's episode, one judge, one, a kind of an emergency duty judge, not the one on the merits, took a look, held a hearing and said, I don't know gag order or presidents, run people running for president.

This is hard. I'm going to stay the gag order. You know, I'm not sure. But there's going to be a full five person panel of the appellate division that now needs full briefing on this issue. And so briefing has started. And so we have the attorney general's brief in opposition

to the motion to stay. And at affidavit, a declaration from Judge Engor on himself, quite unusual. But if you're gonna sue a judge, because to remind our audience, they sued the judge under Article 78, rid of man-damage proceeding in New York, which is highly unusual,

you don't generally sue your judge. You wanna move to disqualify or accuse the judge, that's one thing. Sue the judge? That's a horse of a different color. So the judge gets, if you're gonna sue him, then you gotta sit back and take it when he fires back and files declarations

in affidavits about how much abuse has been heaped on him and his law staff, including the principal law clerk, before the gag order was put in, and since the gag order has been lifted to show the real world consequences of not gagging Donald Trump as a trial participant and curtailing his quote unquote first amendment rights when he's a when he's a participant in a trial setting where the administration of justice has some equal importance to all of this. So they filed their brief.

Karen, did you get a chance to take a look at it? Yes. Sorry, I had to unmute. Did you get a chance to take a look at it? I did, I did. I saw a great deal. Why don't you walk our audience through what Leticia James' team and Angoran

and his own half a day that is telling the appellate court about the need and an emergency basis to reinstall that gag order before the case even ends at the rate they're going. This case is going to conclude in the first or second week of December. But they don't want to let Donald Trump off the hook and have the gag order just stay blocked all that period of time for many, many good reasons. Once you walk our audience through it.

Yeah. So it was filed by a senior assistant solicitor general in the attorney general's office, which, you know, just for the people in the audience who don't know what a solicitor general is, those are the really, really smart lawyers who are the appellate lawyers who either argue for the Supreme Court or argue in the appellate world. And so this was a senior assistant solicitor general. And this was the, and I think it was an opposition to the motion for a stay, something like that.

It was, it was really interesting just to look at it procedurally. And basically they just went through in great detail, talking about first procedural history, and that there are four orders that were challenged, and they were all designed to both protect court staff, and also to ensure the orderly progression of the trial proceedings. And equally, he talked about how both are incredibly important, right? And these were issued, these orders, the gag orders, were issued in response to what they called

an extraordinary and dangerous personal attacks made against the court staff by Trump and counsel during the trial, and that this was repeated. It wasn't a one off, et cetera. And, you know, he basically talked about how these were baseless, highly inappropriate, personal, that they personally identified her. There were pictures and these attacks were ongoing,

despite many, many warnings from the court. So he did a good job putting the record on the record and talked about how Trump refused to stop repeating these attacks. And he said that they refused to stop repeating unprofessional and vixacious arguments about how she advises the court, i.e. does her job because as you've put many, many times, Popoq, in New York, the principal law secretary, the law secretaries are very much standard practice.

I just assume it's so standard. There's actually a seat on the bench there for the person. They're usually always there or in and out of court. They help write the decisions, they advise the court, and it's so standard, I just assumed it was like that all over the country, but you informed us and educated us that that's not the case. But anyway, so they sort of talked about that. And that the orders were there to protect your safety and the orderly administration of

the trial, which is obviously very, very important. There's also something that I thought was really interesting that they kept saying over and over again, which was that a single justice granted this interim stay. So clearly that was, that's an important, they think that's an important fact, but what they're sort of, when you read between the lines, what they're saying is, Judge David Friedman is one of the judges, one of the appellate judges at the Appellate Division First Department who's hearing this, and he, on his own,

while they are briefing this, and before they go to a full panel of appellate judges, he alone decided to put a stay, meaning a pause on the gag orders while this litigation is going on, given the important First Amendment concerns. And I think that really rubbed them the wrong way, the solicitor general, because they

were kept saying over and over how this was just a single justice who did this. And I think that basically trying to show that he's out of bounds and then that they should look at this as a full panel because look, you know, they have court court, they have they have lost secretaries too, right? They have court staff too. And and they also pointed out that, you know, look, since these orders, since these orders have been stayed, Trump has engaged once again in personal attacks on the clerk, right? In social media, he said, quote, she's politically biased and out of control.

She's a Trump-hating clerk who's sinking him and his court to new levels of low and is a disgrace than two days later in an article suggesting that she engaged in drug use, that Trump lambasted also the crooked and highly partisan clerk saying she should be sanctioned and prosecuted over her miscarriage of justice and he also said horrendous seating with anger law clerk with her illegal campaign contributions and you

know I kind of when I was reading these I thought to myself why aren't they why isn't she suing for defamation right Right? I mean, she probably doesn't want to make herself more of an issue here, but I, I think it's kind of outrageous. I think she should consider going on the offensive because I can't believe that she, that he is allowed to say these things unfettered. But then as you said, judge and go on through, through a lawyer for the courts. Actually, somebody I know very well, it's unusual to see something like this. It's mostly exhibits, but interestingly, the thing I thought was most interesting in this affirmation from the judge was they really wanted to emphasize what these comments about the law secretary is doing.

They really want to emphasize that this has real world consequences on a public servant, right? This isn't about Judge Engoron who says, you can attack me all you want. I'm a judge, I can take it. But these are just employees of the court. That's who the law secretary is. She's just a lawyer who works for the court. And some of the messages, the voicemail messages

that were left on Judge and goreons chambers, and I'm going to read a couple because they're just horrific. Here's one. You know I'm not going to call you too many times today. I mean, it's clear, you're a little fruitcake. You like to abuse children, I'm sure, and your shirtless picture is very inappropriate. I mean, you're so inappropriate, but you're clearly an asshole dork, massive quant. I mean, everything about you screams little dork.

So again, I hope they, and then it's like bleeped out, barrier ugly bleeped out, you and that fat bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep, planet of the apes bleep star, latisha of the bleep. I mean, you know, Jews and filthy little Jews, and that's you, and I hate that word, and I hate putting people under this group, but you're filthy little Jews. I mean, this is horrendous, right? Then it says, goes on to say, you should be assassinated, you should be killed, you should be executed for your crimes, you sick, bleep, pig, and, you know, this is all one call by the way then another one. Yes Arthur You are a corrupt Nazi and one of the ugliest people to ever walk the face of the earth and your clerk who's also a corrupt Nazi is fat

Who blew Chuck Schumer and everybody knows it? You're such a low life No one would ever want to sleep with you. You look like bleep, you're corrupt, you're going to get overturned. And I hope you get gonorrhea from Leticia James, the fat, grimace-looking blank. I mean, there's more, but you get the gist. They're pretty vile and horrific.

And they're, oh my god, I'm just looking at them. They're talking about very, very offensive horrendous abuse that the court and the court clerk has had to endure. So I just think that it really is a powerful motion. And I don't think anyone should have to endure this type of abuse. And it's so clear that it's coming from what Donald Trump is doing and saying about these individuals.

And you know, look, they have a right to the fair and orderly administration of justice too and of the court, right, to make sure that the trial goes smoothly. And this is not, this has nothing to do with free speech. This has everything to do with harassment and abuse and conduct. So go ahead. Yeah, no, I was just going to say that when the full panel gets all of this evidence on full briefing,

I would be surprised that the gag order weren't reinstated. We'll discuss in the next topic that limits of the First Amendment. You can't just take the cloak of the First Amendment like it's some sort of super power cap and it therefore allows the wearer of it, in this case Donald Trump to say into, whatever he wants as a participant or a criminal defendant in the justice system, there are just limits as to what lawyers and participants as opposed to what he wants to characterize himself at as over and over again, which is just,

I'm just a heckler, just a heckler's veto, just yelling out stuff about things I like that I don't like that I see. I'm just, you know, all those things that you read out loud by the way, all those people have the first amendment, right? Not necessarily to call chambers and leave that message. Have the first amendment right to do it. I got one this week and I don't normally get one.

I got one from some crackpot and it was very similar to some of the things that you read out loud. But this is the price that we pay for being in the public eye. And for, but we're not administrating the justice system. We're commentating on the justice system. And that's different. And so the good news is the same judge, Justice Friedman, he also stayed the trial of the case before the trial even started for about a week and that got vacated and reversed by the full appellate court. So it's not like his track record is, whatever Friedman does is usually appellate.

So far, whatever Friedman does in the case is usually not appellate by the full appellate panel, whether he holds an oral argument and a full hearing or not. So what I would say is, as we seek a segue into the next gag order topic, is that I would be shocked after full briefing and an oral argument on an expedited basis, whether the first department, because of the precedent that you've talked about, the need to draw the line in the sand, not just for Donald Trump, but for other Donald Trumps, or Donald Trump himself in the future. They have to set precedent that can now be probably now be cited. So let's move on and hit quickly the pellet argument that was just held by the three judge panel randomly

selected DC federal court of appeals about the gag order that was entered by Judge Chutkin. What's the common theme here? Donald Trump is out of control attacking participants in the criminal justice system or the justice system against him from judges to prosecutors to attorney generals and witnesses and their families and The judges are struggling to try to come up with ways to stop it without crossing over into improper prior restraint or violation Of a first amendment rights of somebody who just also happens to be running for the highest office of the land And that's where that's the needle they have to thread. Whereas Judge Malette said during the oral argument,

we've got to come up as an appellate court with a surgical way to both protect the fair administration of justice and the Sixth Amendment rights to go with it to a fair and impartial jury, if you will, and the First Amendment rights of this person who's also a participant in the criminal justice system, all of these, as they kept reminding the mainly the lawyer for Donald Trump arguing, there are competing interests that have to be weighed.

Donald Trump's doesn't want to weigh a darn thing. He wants to throw away the scale and says, I'm cloaked with the First amendment. I am super Trump. I get to say and do whatever I please because I'm running for office and people like to listen to me. That is not how the first amendment nor the interest that what courts have to do to balance the competing interest, these interests compete. And that's what judges get paid to do. And that was where John Sorrow, not to be confused with John

Laro, who is the day-to-day criminal lawyer for Donald Trump, John Sorrow, who is a maga, right wing lawyer who constantly appears in front of Congress, claiming the Biden administration is conspiring against all other people through their social media feeds. I mean, he's not e too. But he got up there and right away, his little car went into a ditch as you and I and Ben expected. I said the first question out of the box, which apparently Mr. Sorrow doesn't follow our show because he would have been better prepared. I said the first question out of the box from the panel

was going to be, let's understand the limits of your argument. You agree with me that he can't say everything in anything, right, your guy? Yes. And you agree with me, and this was Judge Polard, and you agree with me that your client is subject to not violate law, right? He's subject to laws.

Yes, but he has the first amendment, right? But your guy is not above the law. You would agree with me, right? Right. Okay. And so you also agree with me, there are criminal statutes on the books that stop certain things like witness tampering and other misconduct by participants in the trial setting, right? Yes. So is your position that the only thing that a judge in a trial setting can do to gag are things that are already crimes on the books? In other words, nothing short of a crime can be the subject matter of a gag order. Well, and then he couldn't answer it. And she said, well, no, wait, wait, you're here arguing a position. This is the natural extension of that position.

Where do you draw the line? We need to balance. You don't seem to be balancing at all. You think the First Amendment vetoes all other rights and administration of justice and that's not what the case law said. And then Judge Garcia, who's a Biden appointee, no less, he jumped in and said, all the case law that you're relying on

actually goes the opposite direction. And which means you're not being credible as an advocate in front of a palette panel, which is a dangerous terrible place to be. Then when we saw the lawyer for the Department of Justice get up there, I mean, they gave it to him too. I mean, I've been on hot benches where they give it to both sides, you know, sort of to

be equal and balanced and fair and balanced. But they are concerned. You can tell, and I think that it's going to be probably, my guess is Millett is going to, or Malay is going to write the order, but she is concerned. She used that phrase, we have to come up with a surgical way to balance these competing interests. But they're already, this is my prediction, I'm going to turn it over to you. I think the four things are going to come out of this.

They're going to find that the judges, judge-chutkins, findings of fact that Donald Trump did these things, that bad things happen and consequences happen when Donald Trump s acts this way, that violent rhetoric has real world impact and they're going to accept that as true, that she did not abuse her discretion in making those findings. They're going to find that a judge because they're worried about precedent. A trial judge short of crimes can also gag or restrain other conduct of trial participants, lawyers, and defendants. They're going to find that. Three, they're going to find the First Amendment doesn't override all other aspects of the fair administration of justice, especially for a trial participant.

And lastly, they're going to put another gag order in place. It may not go just as far as some of the language that's in Chuck Ninsor order. They may send it back to her to tighten up some of that language, but I think that the essence of their order that's going to come out the next week or so is going to be judges can gag below crimes being committed for prophylactic purposes to avoid bad real world consequences of trial participants, lawyers, and judges, even if lawyers and clients, even if they're running for the presidency, and here's the parameters they need to follow in order to thread that needle. That's my view.

You had a chance to lay. It was a two hours. It was supposed to be a 40-minute oral argument, 20 minutes aside. It went on for two hours. Based on the read of that, I know you've done some appellate work too. What do you think? What's your good faith prediction about? What they're struggling with and where they're going to land? So I actually listen to the full two hours of this week. I listen to the full two hours of this. I listened to the full four hours of the Scott McAfee Floyd, Willie Floyd, Bond Hearing.

I mean, it was just a lot to listen to this week, but I'll tell you, the thing that struck me number one about this was they released the video, I mean, the audio. So we got to hear this. And it was in federal court and the world didn't end. And so I really, really hope that Judge Chutkin will take from this and at least allow the audio from the March trial

to come out because the more we get to hear these things ourselves and see these things ourselves and there's sunshine and daylight that will actually tell people what is happening, I think the better. And there was no circus, there was no problem. So whatever problem they have, the federal courts have with whether it's cameras in the courtroom, at least audio, Supreme Court allows audio sometimes, at least they did during the pandemic. And I think it makes all the difference in the world.

And frankly, people like you and I can actually have access to this information, and we can listen to it for ourselves, and we can interpret it for people that's truthful, right, as opposed to relying on Trump or his lawyers, or even, frankly, the government or anyone on the other side, they're lawyers. Like, I want to make my own decision. I want to hear it for myself, and I want

to be able to tell people what I think from from my own listening to it. And, and you know, look, it's much better than having to go down to go down there. That's just something she can under the federal law and federal precedent. But I like, I like that appellate courts post their audio, for sure. Yeah. Well, look, the judicial conference makes the rules, right? And the judicial conference is the one who decides, but I don't see any. And they've studied this before, by the way. So this is not a new issue for them. And I, and I really think that, uh, maybe she can call upon them or, or somebody

can, can get them to, to do it anyway. But back to, back to where we were, um, this, this was a hot bench, as they say, right? This was despite being Biden and Obama appointees. I thought they were equally tough on both sides and equally fair on both sides. Like they really were listening and they went much longer than the time allotted, which shows me they're really interested in what people had to say, what the lawyers had to say. And they were really kind of pushing them to try to get them to, especially the defense, right? The Trump's lawyers, he really took a hard line, right? It was this absolute hard line, and there was no reasonableness in his position. He was very much the one who said, look,

this is core political speech, right? This was a term that he used, a term of art. This is core political speech, which in his view made it much more than just speech, right? It's like this super special protected speech even more than than the First Amendment and as a result there's nothing that you can do to limit it, period, full stop. And you know, I don't think that sat well with the court. I think they said, look, you know, we're asking you for guidance. You know, we're here to, we're here to set some kind of, you know, put a make there be a line between what you can do and you can't do.

And we have to balance interest, right? There's competing values here and competing interest between protecting free speech and the interest in protecting the right to a fair trial that belongs to both the public, the government and the defendant, and in protecting people like witnesses from government, and the defendant, and in protecting people, like witnesses, from abuse, harassment, and et cetera, or other things. And really what he was saying,

what the defensorator was saying is, look, if anyone were to threaten somebody or intimidate someone or harass somebody, that's actually a crime. And so if they actually, if Trump actually crosses that line of threatening, intimidating, and harassing, that's covered by a crime, you know, right? Everything else is speech and is fair game. It's free speech and fair game. And that there's, there's nothing in between, right? There's no kind of ability to have, uh, protect the court proceedings, and that's kind of what he was saying.

And I don't think the court really bought that, right? They basically said, look, this is not at free speech. Is not absolute, which we know. And you want to accommodate as much as you can and not obliterate Trump's right to free speech as a candidate, but at the same time you can't allow him to attack people and put lives in danger, right? And so his refusal to give a line of where that line is, I think really made it so that the courts can have to draw that line themselves or just adopt what the prosecution said.

And, you know, look, one of the things they were talking about was, will attacking the prosecution influence the jury, right? Because a lot of this is gonna come, a lot of this really falls into, it's about protecting the fair administration of the trial, right, making sure that nobody's influenced by outside information or outside pressure, you want witnesses to come in and testify truthfully, and that's what one of the major concerns and that's one of the things that the court has an obligation to do, right, to ensure

that the fair and orderly administration of justice. And so, you know, one of the questions they were asking was, well, how will the attack, how will attacking the prosecutor influence the jury or the witnesses? You know, Jack Smith has thick skin. And why shouldn't Trump have the right to fight back when others are bringing up his transgressions and these trials during the campaign, right? They go on the debate stage and everybody's attacking him So he has a right to fight back and call this a political prosecution

He has a right back, you know to fight back and and say the things that he's going to say So I do think they're gonna give him some leeway obviously To do it, but but you know at the same time they're gonna have to figure out how to Protect witnesses so that they don't have to deal with the consequences. One of the things they focused on in this oral argument was a word that Judge Chetkin used in her order, which is to target. He's not allowed to target certain people. And I think that's a word that's a little too vague and not very precise. And they argued a lot over what does it mean to target? And so I wonder whether that's going to be what they clarify, right?

What does target mean? Or are they going to send it back down to Chutkin to ask her to clarify. But I think that's going to be one of the areas where I get the impression that they were a little hung up on what does that word mean. And the other thing that was front and center in the arguments was the defense tried to argue, Trump tried to argue that any threats or anything that happened was a long time ago. It was in 2020 and nothing's happened recently.

But they said, wait a minute, what about the, if you're coming after me or coming after you right after the indictment. The response was the woman who came forward and was arrested by the FBI because she was going, you know, made death threats against Tanya Chukkin and the defense attorney is like, oh no, no, she's just an unstable, lives at home, alcoholic. You know, this is not a Trump person, this is just an unstable person. You know, they really tried to move away from that. And really kind of said, look, this is not a, this is, you can't restrain someone's speech

because you're worried about what a third party might do. But that's not something you're allowed to do. And so there was a big, there was a a big discussion about that, right? If Trump says something like, you know, Judge Schutkins unfair at an animal, and that's it. But then other people go and threaten or harass or even act on those words How is he responsible for that and that was that was a lot? I think a lot was spent talking about that and look you know It's true to a sense you can't be held responsible for what other people do

But look you know he said on on CNN right during that town hall with Caitlin Collins He said my followers listen to me like no one else But look, he said on CNN during that town hall with Caitlin Collins, he said, my followers listen to me like no one else. He knows what they do. And we have enough evidence in the record of him saying things in the next day, you know, they're being actions by others. So I think they're going to put some line in the sand. I think they're going to clarify what target means.

And there will be a gag order, but then it goes straight to the Supreme Court and God only knows what they'll do. Yeah, I agree with you. I think they're going to issue some sort of gag order. It'll be narrower than the one Chuck Gintid because it's important. And what we're seeing again, the common theme here on this sort of a pellet addition, appeal addition of the midweek of legal AF is courts struggling to apply law and precedent on the books to an unprecedented former guy who's lashing out, acting out and testing all of the guardrails that we put around our justice system. So the justice system is supposed to be the guardrail and he continues to challenge it.

We're going to pick up next with a quick overview of what happened. And it could be a template in a blueprint for what could happen at Donald Trump when Willie Floyd and black voices for Trump decided to act out himself on social media and attack co-defendants like Jenna Ellis and witnesses and prosecutors and Witnesses and other witnesses like the Secretary of State of Georgia and whether that violated his conditions Have released so much that he has fought he will as fault county DA argued to go back to jail And then we'll then we'll wrap it up with a a pellet argument that's now been placed in front of the Colorado Supreme Court as to whether insurrectionist presidents are disqualified from ever holding office again under the 14th Amendment Section 3, but first a word from our sponsor.

Theology is a 26th time award-winning skin skin hair and body care company recognized in men's health, high-beast, birdie, a squire, ask men and Oprah-daily grooming awards. Geology creates simple and effective skin care and hair care routines customized just for you, with ingredients that are proven to work. Their products are built around just a handful of powerful proven ingredients that have been trusted by dermatologists for decades. With over 7,000 5 star reviews, it's clear that people truly love the product. My skin looks so much better now that I'm using the geology skin care they sent to me.

My skin is smoother and it's become a wonderful daily routine to make sure my skin stays clear. The moisturizing morning cream and everyday face wash have become my personal favorite. Geology Spell GEOLOGI-E helps fight acne, reduce oiliness, prevent wrinkles and combat darker puffy under eyes. Have smoother hydrated skin and target signs of aging. Right now for a limited time, they're hooking you up with an absolutely insane offer, use my code Legal AF70 or scan the QR code on the screen and they will give you an exclusive 70% off their award-winning skincare trial set. On top of that, you can get 30% on the Adon's products of your choice when you add it to

your trial. This is one of the best offers you'll see. Get it before it's gone. Head to g-e-o-l-o-g.ie slash legalaf70 or scan the QR code on the screen and use code legalaf70 and they will give you an exclusive 70% off of their award-winning skincare trial set. On top of that, you can save big on the add-on products of your choice when you add it to your trial. Thank you geology for partnering with us.

All right, and we're back. Why don't we split the load this way, Karen? You wanna do a good description on what happened with Fawney Willis and Willie Floyd and what Judge McAfee ruled and then I'll wrap it with what happened in Colorado. Perfect. All right. All right. So, look, there's a lot going on in Georgia right now.

First and foremost, there was a bond revocation hearing that just happened in front of Judge McAfee. Also televised, thank God, so that we can watch it and see what happened. And Fannie Willis did it herself. She did the arguments. She was in court. I was like, you go, Fannie. I mean, when I work for Sive Ants, he also liked to do certain things in court on big cases. But Mr. Morgan Tha, who was the DA prior, he didn't do much in court.

It's just very interesting to see her go. And she's good. She's really good in court, really good on the law. And she was fighting hard. And she basically, at this hearing, she asked them to revoke the bond for Mr. Floyd. And she reminded the court that he was indicted on three counts of RICO, a conspiracy count,

and an intimidation of witness's count. And so he is charged with intimidating Ruby Freeman. And so that was really interesting to me. I had forgotten about that. And she said that, look, he's the guy who, when he was arrested, he didn't make bail right away. So he was in for a little while and to get out, like any other defendant who's out, there were conditions of bond, meaning there were certain things he had to abide by. And he agreed to, and he violated.

She said he violated those conditions. and she said, look, you know, the trial, a trial court has the power to do this. She gave lots of case law and she talked about, the state has the burden of preponderance of the evidence to prove that he violated the bond. So it's not a beyond reasonable doubt standard in Georgia for this part of the proceeding. You just have to show that by preponderance of the evidence, which is a lower standard that he violated the bond. And she said, look, he clearly did, because what he essentially did was he would post things

on Twitter, and then he would write, you know, at whoever, at Fannie Willis, at Georgia Secretary of State, at Brad Raffensberger, he would tag people, right? And as a result, by doing that, they were notified of the fact that he tagged them, and it was Jenna Ellis, Brad Rathensberger, you know, and others, and by tagging them it means he had contact with them. And what Fannie Willis said was basically that was that was harassment and it was threatening witnesses in the case. So, you know, he would say things like, you know, we want the truth and then he would tag Georgia Secretaries, state Gabriel Sterling, who's a witness who testified in the grand jury.

And he cuts with several others. He called them pieces of SHIT. He said, you know, fraud, fulton, it's over. And people are about to go through some stuff. And then tag Brad Raffinsberger, and he accused Jenna Ellis of lying. And with Ruby Freeman, you know, he said a lot of racist things about her, you know, he wouldn't talk to anyone white and things like that. And look, you know, and he and and he posted her image and tagged her. And so he did this in about 20 different posts with tagging witnesses in the case. And the comments apparently were horrific. Looks very this bitch under the jail, or Ruby Freeman should be in prison,

Ruby the racist, and the pig emoji. Those are comments to his post. But again, because they were tagged, they would see all of this. And so she called several witnesses, she called an investigator, she called somebody from the Georgia, the sterling from the Secretary of State, and she also called someone who's a lawyer for Ruby Freeman to talk about what happened, you know, that Ruby Freeman needed a bodyguard, and you know, that there was an increase in in in threat activity to her as a result of this, you know, but the comments were horrible.

One of them said Ruby Freeman is going needs a bodyguard or she's going to be Epstein, you know, which, which, you know, if you remember Jeffrey Epstein was hanging from a jail cell. So, in many of these had over half million views or million views. So, Fannie Willis was protecting her witnesses and she said, look, she put on a case and she told the judge that this is outrageous and that this caused intimidation, it caused harassment and it violated the bond conditions, because they're not allowed to contact and we have communications with witnesses about this case. That's what the particular bond condition says.

And the defense got up and said, first of all, this is not threatening, there's no intimidation, there's no violation, and he didn't have any communication with these witnesses about the case, and he didn't contact them, right? He said, essentially, the bond order doesn't say he can't contact them, he just says you can't communicate with them, right? And you not only can you not communicate them with them, but about this case. So when he's saying, I didn't make direct contact, right? That's not what happened. And so this argument about whether tagging someone on Twitter,

clearly the judge was like, look, clearly, this is very close to the line, but is this over the line? And Judge McAfee has ruled, and he's ruled that, first of all, he decided, he said, look, I am not going to revoke the bond, not every revocation, not every violation requires revocation. You're not allowed to do this. Don't do it again. However, I'm going to modify the bond order for defended Harris and Floyd. And he modified it by saying, look, the court finds that the defendant is in violation of

the conditions of the bond previously set by the court and grants in part the state's motion and orders that bond in this matter is modified as follows. So the amount of the bond shall remain the same, which was $100,000. The defendant shall not violate the laws of the state. He goes on and on and said, the defendant shall have no contact with any co-defendant witness or any person specifically named in the indictment,

shall not perform any act to intimidate any codependent in this case or any witness in this case or any person named in the indictment. And he also goes on to say, shall make no public statement of any kind concerning a witness or a co-defendant in this case. She'll also, the statements shall be limited. So it goes on and on basically to clarify that this applies to exactly the situation here in issue so that he's on notice that tagging someone is in violation. So it says very clearly number 14 in his bond modification. The defendant shall make no social media post of any kind on any platform, whether public or private

concerning any co-defendant or witness in this case or concerning any person specifically named in the indictment. This shall include but is not limited to mentioning. So EG at username, referencing, tagging, direct messaging, following or subscribing to liking posts. So you get the picture you talk about. X, true social, TikTok, all the various ones.

So because Judge McAfee says, look, it's not clear. It definitely walks up to the line. It's not clear if this violates it. I think it's not clear. It definitely walks up to the line. It's not clear if this violates it. I think it's pretty clear. But he said, I don't know that he was unnoticed. And so for notice reasons, I'm not going to revoke the bond, but I am modifying it for these indirect communications. Now, let's turn to Colorado and a trial judge there looking at the issue of whether the 14th

Amendment Section 3, the disqualification clause for people like Donald Trump who engaged an insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution, applied to Donald Trump. Two other courts have answered the question in the negative, Michigan and Minnesota, both said, looks like political questions to us. Sounds like a job for Congress. Now, Judge Wallace started out fine. She said, nope, it's a job for the courts. You know, one of our recurring themes on this episode,

as with most episodes of LegalAF, is the role of the courts in our democracy. And she said interpreting constitutional language, that sounds like a job for judges, not for the political branch of Congress and the issues that she had to grapple with, having already found as a, in her fact finding role, right? The judge has two roles when she's handling a trial as a bench trial without a jury. One is the trial of fact. What are the facts that have been established by

whatever the burden of proof is? In this case, I'm sure there was some sort of preponderance of the evidence in terms of did Donald Trump thumbs up or thumbs down engage in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution? Yes or no. So she did all of her fact finding. She listened to experts talk about, including experts on stochastic terrorism, testify that Donald Trump has a strong call and response relationship with his followers. You know, we talked about in the last segment, can you gag somebody just because other people

take up his call, the Metal Simpriest analogy, again, you know, and then gag his first amendment rights. The answer, generally, is yes. I mean, you can't incite riots. And in this case, you can't participate in insurrection or rebellion that way. So she found, as after listening to the evidence, including relying in large part on the Jan 6 committee findings, there we go again with the Jan 6th committee.

Thank God they did their job. She found that it was more likely than not that Donald Trump was an insurrectionist or engaged in insurrection or rebellion just as that phrase is used the 14th Amendment article three. Next question, this is where we're like, okay, great, that's great, that's the headline. No, she said in her analysis of the legislative history of article, or the 14th Amendment

Section 3, it does not apply to presidents of the United States. It only applies to every federal officer under president, but not to president. And that was a big headscratcher for us, because that made absolutely no sense. First of all, just from a common sense standpoint, as pointed out in the New Appellate brief, just filed by the citizens for responsibility and ethics in Washington, also known as crew, they pointed out in their appellate brief to the Colorado Supreme Court, that makes no sense. The framers of that provision, in that that provision, having come out of historical context of the reconstruction period in America after the Civil War, where Abraham Lincoln and

those that followed him tried to put the union back together again, but wanted to make sure that those that actually led or participated in the rebellion or insurrection, having taken an oath to either support or defend, preserve and protect the Constitution, whatever you want to call it, they then can't just come back to government and run for office. This was the loyalty testing that was going on to put the Union back together again. It's but one example, there were tons of loyalty tests baked into different statutes in order to put the government back together again. You want to come back through the front door. You got to get screened first, right? There's a there's a Democratic

bouncer at the front door. You're in, you're not in, weren't you look just like the guy that took the oath to defend the Constitution or preserve it or to support it. And now you're and then you did the insurrection and rebellion thing. So the judge said, no, my analysis. Firstly, I don't like the fact that nowhere in the 14th Amendment section three is the reference to the president.

Every other office is mentioned by name, but not the president. Well, that's not true. There's an entire section in there that's a catch- all section that covers anyone who held federal office that took an oath to have a certain relationship with the Constitution. It says to support and so that she she answered that question. She says, well, it may be a federal off he may be a federal officer, maybe a federal officer. He may be a federal officer. Maybe a federal officer.

The president is federal officer badge employee number one. Everybody knows that. Every judge has ruled that. Supreme Court has ruled that. The federal removal statute that allows a person to take a case from state to federal court if they're being sued related to their federal duties has already determined the president is the federal officer. He relied on that.

Donald Trump called himself a federal officer, so I don't know where the judge was going. She got sideways there. And then she said, well, even if he's a federal officer, I don't like the fact that the president's oath is different than the oath that the other people take, because the other people take an oath to support the Constitution and his is to defend preserve and protect. Yeah, because he's the commander in chief. He is supposed to be the last firewall to the toppling of our democracy.

That's why if you give those keys over to somebody who's an insider insurrectionist, right? The threat is inside the house. That's a problem. And so she said, well, I don't like the fact that oaths are different. That indicates to me that the framers of the 14th Amendment Section 3 did not want to include the presidency. That completely overturns and turns on its head all of the legislative history of the people that were involved in Congress at the time who said specifically, Jefferson Davis, who had been the president of the Confederacy, could not pass this test because he would be covered by the Section 3.

Well, if Jefferson Davis couldn't come back through the door of democracy because he was an insurrectionist or rebellious Engager who once took an oath to, in his case, to do all those things, to preserve, preserve, defend and protect the Constitution, then why would we ever let another insurrectionist president come back to office under, it makes no sense. In fact, my favorite quote from their brief that they just filed today, that's why we're talking a lot about it. My favorite quote is, on page four, appealing to the common sense of the Colorado Supreme Court. As for common sense, quoting page four, there would be no reason to allow presidents

who lead an insurrection to serve again while preventing low-level government workers who act as foot soldiers from doing so. And it would defy logic to prohibit insurrectionists from holding every federal or state office, except for the highest and most powerful in the land. Section 3 does not say that. The framers did not intend that. Trump is disqualified from holding office ever again. This brief, which I hold in my hot little hands, which is about 57 pages.

It was so powerful that even right wing, the Godfather of all federalism, and when I say federalism, the Federalist Society version of federalism, which is the touchstone for all right wing maga judges and law students and lawyers, Michael Ludig, Ludig came out former judge Ludig who many of the Supreme Court currently either have clerks that clerk for him or clerk for him. It has said it is the most elegant and powerful constitutional argument for the

disqualification of Donald Trump from ever serving in the highest office of the land. He has ever read." End quote, okay? You know, when you've lost your, you know, he's on the Mount Rushmore of the Federalist Society. And when he says Trump, 14th Amendment Section 3, they were made for each other. And he should never serve in that office again, you know, you're onto something. So the Colorado Supreme Court is going to have to make a decision whether on the one-inch

line, Judge Wallace fumbled the ball when it came to her analysis, Federalist papers, she didn't properly review legislative history statements by senators dating back to the 1860s and 1870s that clearly said insurrectionist president should never, never hold that office again, whether she was just wrong. And that's the only issue. It's really a very clean discrete issue up at the Colorado Supreme Court. And then it'll probably end up going and jumping over to the federal side, federal side,

to the US Supreme Court, where we're gonna have to see what John Roberts can end up doing here with this particular decision. If he can count to five and get five votes to say that it applies. The other states are sitting back with their folded arms waiting to see what happens about this particular one. So, so kudos and bravo to Judge Wallace for having the, you know, having the gravitas, the steel ones to take on the case, decide

that judges do exactly this when they interpret constitutional provisions in their application to facts and to people, but then kind of got it wrong at the end, which my belief anyway, and ruled that it doesn't apply. So we're going to see what the Colorado Supreme Court does. They don't have a lot of time left. I mean, they've got some time, the ballots don't get printed for the Republican or for the presidential ballot for another, you know, probably 10 months or so. But they got to get a move on here. So I think it's going to be something we're going to see in the first quarter of 2024 with a ruling by them and then maybe an appeal to the US Supreme Court. Karen, we've reached the end

of yet another, I don't know, we're probably on midweek edition 200. Since you and I started this three years ago, it's hard to believe we're our entire body of work. Both on the podcast and on our hot takes individually is now approaching, I don't know, 2500. Since we started it, crazy numbers, crazy, crazy numbers, but necessary, necessary numbers because we sit at that intersection of law, politics and justice so that everybody doesn't have to. We can report it using our collective, the leaders of legal AF have a collective 75 years of experience.

People say, what do you keep talking about your backgrounds and self-angrandism? That's not what we're doing. First of all, we have new viewers and new audience members every day, every week. We know it because we see it in the chat and comments. That's one. Two, we want to distinguish ourselves. Our competitive advantage out there in podcast land. And I don't want to be called legal pods.

We're not legal pod that way. We're unique, I think, in our approach. But I want to distinguish us from the other talking heads out there, including ones on major network shows, not yours, not you care, not when you're on another brand, that we do bring to it a level of sophistication and analysis and good judgment that may be missing. That's maybe the secret element to our shows. And I want to bring it up because a lot of people know us, like us, but sometimes, like, who is that guy? Besides, in fact, he wears different glasses every week. Who is that guy? What's he all about? What's out Karen? I like her. But what's her background? What has Ben do? Spend a lawyer. I love seeing

chats. So that's why we reinforce it. So people understand we're not yet at the point where our heads are so big that we think people just know who and what we are by tuning in We're not there yet. We'll never be there We are as humble you know as we are Increasingly more polished in our presentation. That's how humble we are about the show And if you want to support this show and all the other content, great content on the Midas Touch Network, an independent media platform, grassroots without outside investors that needs your support. I know I see people in the chat, oh, I hate ads.

Click. All right, well, you know, there's got to be something to keep us on the air. That's how, and I write back only with tongue slightly in cheek, send me your business model proposal that doesn't involve ads or money in any way, shape, and form, and maybe we'll take a look at it. And then of course, crickets never hear about them. 90% of the ways to support our show and to keep us on the air hour after hour, week after week are free. At the hats, the beauty of it. You might have to support our sponsors. That's a good

thing, not a bad thing. They support democracy. You should too. But you don't have to buy from them if you don't want to or you don't have the money. Just stay with us on the show. Continue to help us build this movement. Help the Midas Touch Network get to 2 million free subscribers early in 2024. If not before, they're so close. A couple hundred thousand more. We're going to be talking about going to 2 and a half million. The bigger that network gets, the more your voice has heard, the more content we can provide

you. It's simple as all of that. It is existential. And so free subscribe. Literally free subscribe. No money involved. You want to do the extra part. You want to donate some money.

You want to do Patreon. That's great. But you know, the fundamental first, first thing free subscribe, leave us a comment here, participate in the chat. Give us a thumbs up on the in the chat, give us a thumbs up on the content. It helps with the ratings. It helps keep us on the air. You want to do more? Go listen to us on the audio platforms, Google Spotify, Apple, and the like. Go back and forth. Listen to us more than one time. Click there. Click here. All of that helps

the algorithms and keeps the show and the network of float and moving successfully down that road. And then if you want to spend a couple of bucks, we've got merch that has our logo on it. And I can't tell you how many conversations this has started for me when I've walked around. They may not even notice that I'm pop-up from the show, but they point to the logo and go love that I just sent around to our team a Picture of one of my close friends who just went to my wedding Who just stumbled in to his gym and one of the trainers at the gym was already listening to legal

AF and he said I just went to the wedding of that guy and he sent me the picture because the guy wanted me to know that he was a supporter. And it's a conversation starter. Fly the MidasTouch and legal AF flag and go to store.mitustouch.com. Got all that we just flashed it. You got all those great new logos. You can mix and match with hot pink and different size and shapes and contoured shirts and mugs and everything else that we have.

These are the ways that we request that we spend a little bit of time here and a little bit of time during the entire podcast doing the business of what we need to do. But at the end, we don't see it as a business. We're not crass-like like that. We see it as as Karen said to me recently in a text message, that thing's my job. You guys are my family. And I felt exactly the same way. So on Thanksgiving, let's put, we give it Karen back up. Karen, why don't you give our audience a big hug for Thanksgiving the way only you can.

No, I mean like happy Thanksgiving it's the time you say what you are think most thankful for. And one of the things I am most thankful for is this incredible community of the Midas mighty and the legal a-affors who come and support us and listen with us and engage in the chat with us and I love engaging in the chat with people. And who, if anything, in this crazy world that we're in, it can be really depressing, really isolating and really terrifying. And at least we've found a community together that we can all come together, be together, support each other and help give each other all the facts that we need to fight with those other family members across the dinner table

during Thanksgiving. So hopefully we've given you the ammunition you need with those family members. So having to give to everybody and especially to our absolutely wonderful producer Salty who we could not do this without him. He is he's magic actually and I'm just so grateful to have him producing this show. Agreed. And and and those that support Salty and everybody else really really well said. Love doing the show with you and shout out to our legal A-Fers and the Midas Mighty. Happy Thanksgiving, happy holidays,

and we'll see you on Saturday with me and Ben, my Salis. you