Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Shows WEAKNESS before Supreme Court as JUDGMENT DAY Nears

Episode Date: December 21, 2023

On this midweek addition of Legal AF, Karen Friedman Agnifilo is joined by co-host Ben Meiselas filling in for Michael Popok who is in trial. Agnifilo and Meiselas report on the Colorado Supreme Court disqualification order, Trump’s response to the Supreme Court on the issue of absolute presidential immunity, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals holding in the Mark Meadows matter, and Justice Engoron’s scorching ruling in the Trump civil fraud case. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! BEAM: Get up to 40% off for a limited time when you go to https://shopbeam.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF at checkout! EIGHTSLEEP: Go to https://eightsleep.com/legalaf and save $150 on the Pod Cover RHONE: Head to https://rhone.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF to save 20% off your entire order! 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

Jingle all the way to real Canadian Superstore for more legendary ways to save for the holidays. Get club size, trip, point, stake or roast at 5.99 a pound. Plus get a thousand PC optimum points on select farmers' market pies at only $6 each. Till December 27th, see fly for details. Metrolinx and CrossLinks are reminding everyone to be careful. As Eglington Cross Town LRT train testing is in progress. Please be alert, as trains can pass at any time on the tracks. Remember to follow all traffic signals.

Be careful along our tracks, and only make left turns where it's safe to do so. Be alert, be aware, and stay safe. It's the midweek legal AF. Ben Mycel is filling in for Michael Popack of course Karen Friedman Agnifalo is here. And although this is only the midweek legal AF Karen, it's felt like bombshell after bombshell. Can you believe we're not even halfway through the weekend?

I mean, let's talk about what's went down already. And we're only gonna cover four of the main topics, but I could probably have expanded this list to eight or 12 other stories. But first and foremost, the Colorado Supreme Court ruling that Donald Trump is disqualified from the 2024 ballot in that state. You and I did a hot take as soon as that ruling came down.

It was a four to three decision. The decision is now temporarily stayed while it is going to go to the Supreme Court. We could only assume Donald Trump said he's going to be bringing this to the Supreme Court. What will happen next? We will break that down for you. Now that we're beginning to see some of the takes that are happening since that ruling will break that down as well.

Also Donald Trump filed his position on the issue of Sershi theory before the United States Supreme Court after federal judge Tanya Chutkin in the Washington DC federal criminal case denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss on absolute presidential immunity grounds. You'll recall special counsel Jack Smith requested a direct appeal citing that this is an extraordinary case involving law and order and our democracy that this Supreme Court needs to hear right now. Early on when the indictment was unsealed, many, many, many months ago, Donald Trump and his lawyers said that they had a slam dunk argument on the issue of absolute presidential immunity in criminal cases. Yet, surprise, surprise,

Donald Trump and his lawyers are arguing that the United States Supreme Court should not hear the issue of absolute presidential immunity for now that it should go through the DC Circuit Court of appeals first In other words, they want more delay delay it seems Karen that if you had a slam dunk Case that you thought you were gonna win and you appointed three of the justices who comprised the Supreme Court And there are three other right wing Supreme Court justices. So there's a six to three pretty far right wing Supreme Court composition right now. You'd expect you'd probably want them to vindicate your rights. If you think you are going to win, not Donald Trump, we will break down what Donald Trump

filed on Wednesday. Also earlier in the week, Donald Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, suffered a major defeat before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, rejecting his claim for federal officer removal. Remember in the Fulton County District Attorney Rico case, Mark Meadows tried to remove that case to federal court. The federal judge found that Mark Meadows was not acting within the color of his official duties as an officer, but the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is actually known for being a pretty right wing super court, although there were two Democratic appoint judges on this panel. One George W. Bush appointed panel, but a pretty far right-wing guy, Judge Prior, on this panel, and they all collectively

found all three judges that as a former officer, you don't get to remove a case to federal court. It was also a very scathing order as it relates to Mark Meadows as well, saying that his conduct violated the Hatch Act, and he was not acting within the scope of his authority in the executive branch, when he was getting involved in election activity and campaign activity and trying to overturn the results of the election. And Karen, I'll get your take on this. It seems like the 11th Circuit was also trying to send a message there to the Supreme Court and to their sister court, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, that this type of conduct that Meadows was involved and that Trump was involved in is not what is expected of Article 2 executive authority. And then to put the icing on the cake justice Arthur and Goron in the New

York Attorney General civil fraud case rejected Donald Trump's motions for directed verdict all five of the motions for directed verdict usually only bring one of those but Trump kept on bringing him in that case, and it was a scathing order saying that, Donald, there's Harry Littman right there on the photo, what's up Harry? And there, the judge and Goran said that Trump's experts had no credibility

and that Trump and his lawyers fundamentally don't even understand what this case is about. Judge and Goran says, look, valuations can be determined by various different subjective measures, but if your inputs into these subjective measures are lies, a lie is a lie, and that is called fraud. So when you claim that your building is occupied, and it's not occupied when you claim a property is a residential property when it's a commercial property. When you claim a triple X is three times the size of what it actually is. That's no longer using different subjective valuation miles. You're just

committing fraud. In other words, we have a lot to discuss on this midweek edition of words, we have a lot to discuss on this midweek edition of legal a f Karen. How are you doing? I'm good. I'm good. It's good to see you on a Wednesday. It's great to be here on a Wednesday. I always have big shoes to fill when it comes to filling in for Popeyes midweek. But look, it's between me and you. You're the real star of the show, Karen Friedman and Phil Oth, don't tell Popeye. I said that. So let's get right into it, Karen. So we're talking about the disqualification order for three decision by the Colorado Supreme Court.

When you and I did our last hot take, soon as it broke yesterday, we as fast as we could read that 133 page decision, we read the descents as well. I know we wanted to spend a little time reflecting on it as well. We read it very quickly, of course, and I think we gave a pretty thorough analysis. But what do you make of it the day after? What do you think about the fallout?

Where do we go from here? So this is one that it makes me just go ug. Because it plays right into Trump's hand that the election was stolen from him. I really just want him to lose the real way. But then, of course, he would lie about that and say it was stolen from him anyway. But it's just,, this is just,

you know, there's all these articles today in the paper talking about how this is actually just emboldened him and his base and it's going to fuel his base to come out in droves because this is, you know, not putting him on the ballot is definitely tricky. But it's one of those things that you read the opinion and it's a correct opinion. But it's just one of these, I just hope it's the law of unintended consequences. I just hate reading about what people's and the experts take on this is, again,

this is not a legal analysis. This is just more my, how I feel about it. But essentially, you know, this decision, I thought, was extremely, extremely well-reasoned. I mean, they go on and really talk about both what happened below and what happened in the Colorado Supreme Court, because if you recall, there was a Colorado lower court judge, Judge Wallace,

who held a five-day trial actually in November and heard testimony from the petitioners, and the petitioners here were registered, Republicans are registered independent, so people who are going to be able to vote for a Republican in the primary, and they brought this action against the Secretary of State, if Colorado is saying, you know, it's your job, Secretary of State of Colorado to certify and look at the qualifications of somebody and see if they are qualified to be put on the ballot. And we argue because of the fact that he, because of the 14th Amendment, Donald Trump cannot is not qualified because he engaged in an insurrection. So that's what the,

that's what the suit essentially was about. And what this, what this, the Supreme Court, the Colorado Supreme Court held, was that the election code, the Colorado code that governs elections, allows electors to challenge Trump's status. So they said that was okay. They also held that Congress does not need to pass implementing legislation for article

or section three of the 14th Amendment's disqualification provision to attach. It is a self-executing issue. Number three, they held the, and they upheld the lower courts, that judicial review of Trump's eligibility is not precluded by the political question doctrine. But then they get to number four, and this is where they reverse the lower court, because again, Judge Wallace held that he engaged in an insurrection but that the president, the office of the president does not count, it does not apply. And so the lower court judge did not disqualify him from the ballot. So they said, look, section, this is where they held that section three applies to the president as someone who has taken an oath. And this is where the district court committed reversible error.

Because Judge Wallace found that the president of the United States is not an office under the United States, in quote, nor is the president. She also found that the president of the United States is not an officer of the United States who have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution. So that's where they reversed the lower court and previously taken an oath to support the Constitution. That's where they reversed the lower court and say he's disqualified from the ballot. They go on to hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of the January 6 report and did not err in concluding that January 6 was an insurrection

and they did not err in concluding that Trump engaged in insurrection and that his speech is not protected by the First Amendment. They say some pretty powerful language. We don't reach these conclusions lightly. We're mindful of the magnitude and weight of these questions without being swayed by public reaction to these decisions. You know, we're going to reach it based on the law. In practically speaking, they stayed it until January 4th

because January 5th is the deadline before which the secretary of state needs to certify the contents of the presidential ballot. However, they put a caveat in there that if Trump goes to this Supreme Court before the state expires on January 5th, then the state shall remain in place, and the secretary will continue to be required

to include them on the ballot. So of course, Trump is gonna file with the Supreme Court, and so Trump will be on this ballot. So in some senses, it's for not both parties appealed, the lower court decision, and this is where they rule. So if Trump goes to the Supreme Court, I'm sure this will be stayed and he'll be on the ballot. You know, the very interesting question

that this case posed hypothetically to me is at the end of the day, it kind of all, but you know, they really, it was a very long opinion that talks about every section that I just talked about in detail, but really the only part that I think is worth repeating, I'm really to kind of look at, is this issue about whether or not he's qualified, right? And they talk about how, you know, the Secretary of State will look, a person has to certify that they're qualified.

And they have to say things like, I'm a natural born citizen, I'm over 35 years of age, I've lived in the United States for over 14 years. Those are the three major things that would disqualify you from running for president. And those are the types of things that the Secretary of State looks at. The dissent, however, and there was a three dissents, there were three different judges who dissented, basically said, look, those are very subjective things that you can, that you can kind of look at, right? Those are either you're 35 or not.

You're either born here or not. But whether or not someone engaged in insurrection and whether or not, you know, that this whole issue of whether he's qualified based on these factors here, they think that it's a bridge too far. It's not within the scope, it's not within the scope, and it's not that straightforward, and that that's not appropriate, that the Colorado law that allows

you to do this does not apply here. So it was very interesting, you know, the bottom line is the Supreme Court will hear this, and you know, this is the kind of thing though, if this hypothetically, if the Supreme Court will hear this. This is the kind of thing though, if this hypothetically, if the Supreme Court were to uphold this, I would apply to all 50 states, right? Because you're either qualified or you're not. It's not just qualified under Colorado law. You're either qualified or not. So if they uphold this, I think this would apply to all 50 states.

I think they're not going to uphold it though. So, but I give them a lot of credit for trying. What do you think? What about you, Ben? What is your day after thoughts? Law and order means law and order. I am sick and tired of Donald Trump shredding apart our Constitution and our laws, getting every benefit of the debt, we'll

talk in a little bit about this absolute presidential immunity claim, saying that former presidents can assert that if they commit crimes and try to have coups and overthrow democracy that they're entitled to King-like immunity. And we, the people, are supposed to just sit back and be like, lots of argument that he can make. But when a Colorado Supreme Court looks at the plain language of the Constitution. Remember these Republican state rights, strict textualists, when you then apply those concepts in the most obvious way. These are actually not complicated issues. I know courts want to overcomplicate them. If you look at what the 14th Amendment section 3 says

and you just believe that words have import and we apply common sense about what happened on January 6th. This is actually not a difficult decision to reach. I know from the standpoint of the fact that you have someone like Donald Trump who's trying to destroy our democracy and he runs this mega movement. That's this fascist thing. And he talks about immigrants poisoning the blood and all, you know, and, and that this is a Hitler-like candidate that we're supposed to what? Go, ah, how could we help this guy?

How could we help this guy? That's why Karen, all of those expert takes that I knew they would happen, the deluge of them, right? They would rush to say, why is this good for Donald Trump? Yet if there is a booming stock market and wages are up and President Biden gets inflation under control and the other economic metrics are doing good like unemployment is down and the good job numbers every month

and 40,000 infrastructure projects across the country, how is that bad for President Biden? And frankly, that's why people I think are leaving legacy media and are just saying enough, these people are idiots, these people aren't experts at all. And they're coming to places like this to say, can you just not do that? And can you Ben, Karen, Michael, Popo and the team, do you just read us what the 14th Amendment section three says? Because we could read, we know what words mean.

Don't treat us like babies, treat us like adults. We know what law and order means. So when you read the 14th Amendment section three, disqualification clause, it's very clear. It says, no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress or a electorate president and vice president or hold any office civil or military Under the United States or under any state who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States or as a member of any state legislature Or as an executive or judicial officer of any state to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof against the same, meaning engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution. And when Donald Trump makes arguments like, oh, I never took the oath to support the Constitution and when Donald Trump makes arguments like, oh, I never took the oath

to support the Constitution or that the conduct on January 6th is not an insurrection. I mean, the American people and you're actually seeing, you know, when I don't want to, you know, cite polls, this or polls that, but, you know, I think the, where the American people are at, I like, no, you know what? The Colorado Supreme Court made the right decision. And I think where the American people are at, like, no, you know what? The Colorado Supreme Court made the right decision, and I think the American people are not looking at these kind of weak armchair experts who want to say, wow, I think what they want to look at is law and order people who go, that's what you get. This isn't a bad precedent. Don't run freaking insurrections against our country. And this is not going to happen to you.

Very simple. If you don't want a ruling like this, don't commit insurrections. Don't do what Donald Trump did on January 6. Don't pal around with terrorist organizations like the proud boys and the oath keepers. It is a very simple solution. If you don't want this to happen to you. Karen, to your point, what is the United States Supreme Court going to do? It is, as I said in the intro, it is a six to three, it's nine justice court, six pretty far right wing people, Robert's right wing, traditional right wing, but a pretty far right wing guy, but compared to Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett, you know, and and and and Thomas and you know and and that crew Six of them and then you've got three democratic

appointees Katanji Brown Jackson you got justice so to my orin Kagan. So what do you think they're gonna do? On this type of issue where I think it will be different than what they will do on absolute presidential immunity Unfortunately, if I have to be a predictor of what the United States Supreme Court's gonna do I think they will do the wrong thing and they will either stay this ruling kind of indefinitely, you know, or they will overt. I just don't have great confidence that the Supreme Court will affirm this ruling like

you just because I don't put a great deal of weight into it on an issue like this that I don't believe is novel, but that they will construe as novel. But I think they'll take a different approach on the issue of absolute presidential immunity, which they have, I guess, a more Ultimately, the supremacy clause of the Constitution states that the United States Supreme court on the issue of the application of federal law, you know, our Constitution, the 14th Amendment Section 3, that is where if there is a federal understanding or federal interpretation that differs from the interpretation of a federal statute from a state court, that is where the United States Supreme Court can intervene. The United States Supreme Court can't pick apart like state statutes or that aspect of

the case, even though the Supreme Court in the past sometimes has tried to couch state rights as federal rights as a way to get around that. But the issue that they are going to analyze is not whether Colorado had the right, not whether it's justishable, but I think they'll go to what 14th Amendment Section three means. And the applicability and self-enforcing nature of it it's justishable, but I think they'll go to what 14th Amendment Section 3 means and the applicability and self-enforcing nature of it based on the timing of this relative to when the election is coming up. So that's kind of my overall analysis, but Karen, the same way we had you on

when everybody was talking smack about Jack Smith. Remember that moment all the experts came on when Jack Smith was appointed special counsel and what do they do? They trashed him. Remember? And then trashed him. This is the worst. He's horrible. You could also about Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg. Remember interviewed him oh my gosh were those comments the most hateful and you know on our own Channel I was like I was horrified at some of this comments if I'm being totally honest at the time but the but but we have to Push back with common sense as part of this community and say I know that's what these armchair experts But let's talk about law and order. Yeah. No, I agree with you 100% and you're right and you're right to remind us of that over and over and over and over again because that is what we have to all continue to do.

We can't, you know, the gaslighting of the constant, you know, whether it's the right wing or mainstream people, they gaslight the rest of us into thinking that these things are normal, that these things are okay, that it's okay for Donald Trump to do the things that he has done and not call it out for what it is. So, and I always appreciate the reminder, because like I said, sometimes I find myself getting a little bit just, oh God, what's going to happen what Supreme Court's going to do

etc. So and you know the other funny thing I just want to I want to mention is you said something about about how Trump talks about the that horrible Hitler comment about poisoning the you know the immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country and I think it's important just to remind ourselves every time we hear that, that four out of five of Trump's children are from immigrant women. And so immigrants make up the lifeblood of this country, and he is just vile and vicious to even say things like that. So I just wanted to remind everyone of that fact as well.

A lot of discussion on this episode of the Supreme Court, because also you now have the issue of absolute presidential immunity, and whether or not the Supreme Court is going to grant Sertier-Royer, which is just a fancier way of saying oral argument before the Supreme Court, a full hearing on the issue of absolute presidential immunity, which Donald Trump is asserting in the Washington, D.C. criminal case against him. Donald Trump has just filed his response to special counsel, Jack Smith's request at the Supreme Court here this on a direct appeal Karen and I are going to break that down for you after our first quick break of the show

What's more important than sleep? It's the foundation of our mental and physical health and when you're sleeping well You can perform at your best in every way Proper sleep can also increase focus boost your your energy, and improve your mood, introducing Beams Dream Powder. It's a science-backed, healthy hot cocoa for sleep. If you know me, you know that dream has been a game changer for my sleep. Sometimes I find myself up at night in bed with thoughts on easiness, going on my phone.

Well that was the case until I started drinking Beams dream powder prior to this dream powder, the poor sleep in late nights staying up, effective my mood and effective my energy, but not anymore. And today, our listeners get a special discount on Beams dream powder. Their science-backed healthy hot cocoa for sleep with no added sugar. It's now available in many different delicious flavors. It's really good. Like chocolate peanut butter, cinnamon, cocoa, and sea salt caramel with only 15 calories

and 0 grams of sugar. Better sleep is never tasted, better, and other sleep aids can sometimes make you feel groggy the next day. Take it for me. I have tried them and they do, but dream it contains a powerful all-natural blend of Raci, magnesium, L-thienine, and melatonin and nano-CBD to help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed. The numbers don't lie, in clinical study, 93% of participants reported that dream helped them get better sleep. Beam dream is easy to add to your nighttime routine,

just mix it in hot water or milk froth and enjoy before bed. Find out why forbs in New York Times are all talking about beam and why it's trusted by the world's top athletes and business professionals. If you want to try beams, best selling dream powder. Get up to 40% off for limited time when you go to shopbeam.com slash legal AF and use legal AF as a code at checkout. That's shopbam.com slash legal AF and use legal AF the code when you check out for up to 40% off. With my active recording schedule and law practice, I can't function without a great night's sleep.

And the bed's temperature in my old bed always seemed wrong. It was either too hot or too cold, but never just right, making for a terrible night's sleep. But I'm so excited to say that this episode is brought to you by 8th sleep. There's nothing worse than tossing, turning, or sweating in the night because you're uncomfortably hot or cold. The pot cover by 8th sleep will you cool all night all the way down to 55 degrees if you want to or make you feel warmer for the fall and winter months. So you wake up fully refreshed. The pot cover by 8 sleep fits on any bed like a fitted sheet.

The pot cover will improve your sleep by automatically adjusting the temperature on each side of the bed based on your and your partner's individual needs. It can cool down and warm up, and adjust, based on the phases of your sleep and the environment that you are in. I love 8-Sleep. Look, we spent almost half our lives in bed, so improving our sleep routine habits and overall sleep quality should be a priority for everyone. I love the temperature control, and that both my wife and I can set our side to each of

our likings. I also love the gentle vibrating alarm option for each morning. I wake up feeling refreshed after a great night's sleep, allowing me to start the day off right. Eight sleeps technology is incredible, while temperature is the biggest game changer, the pod cover has other amazing features. For example, thanks to the pod's sleep and health tracking, you can wake up to a personalized sleep report for each morning that offers insights on how certain behaviors like late night exercise or that cup of caffeinated tea or coffee can impact

your sleep in overall health. The pod cover by 8 sleep truly provides the ultimate sleep experience. I've never experienced sleep like this and the pod's cooling and heating technology has been a lifesaver. Invest in the rest you deserve with 8 sleep pod. Go to 8sleep.com slash legal a AF and save $150 on the pod cover. That's the best offer you'll find, but you must visit 8sleep.com slash legal AF for the 150 off. Stay cool with 8sleep.

Now shipping within the US, Canada, the UK, select countries in the EU, and Australia. Welcome back to legal AF, where we last left off, we were talking about what Donald Trump just filed with the United States Supreme Court, why did he file it on December 20th? That was the deadline by 4 p.m. Eastern time in response to special counsel Jack Smith's direct petition to the United States Supreme Court that the court, the highest court of our land, hear this issue of absolute presidential immunity on a direct appeal this after the federal judge presiding over the criminal indictment of Donald Trump for trying to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. Judge Tanya Chutkin denied Donald Trump's motion to dismiss

the indictment against him on the grounds of absolute presidential immunity. Judge Tanya Chutkin previously held that the text, the structure, the history of the Constitution is such that it makes no sense that former presidents can claim absolute presidential immunity for criminal conduct while they were in office. Similarly, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in a civil context, not criminal context, a civil context, monetary damages, ruled in a case that was filed by DC police officers and members of Congress in a lawsuit against Trump for the insurrection that in that case Donald Trump was not entitled to absolute presidential immunity because his conduct involved campaigning and election activity in that

false outside the outer perimeter of Article 2 executive authority, notably Donald Trump, lawyer Alina Habos, been running around on stages on right wing influencer events like this turning point events and she's been I guess given speeches and all the right wing echo chamber media on Fox and elsewhere saying we want the Supreme Court to intervene, we want the Supreme Court to hear this also. You had Donald Trump's lawyers at the very outset when this indictment was unsealed. They gave all these media interviews. What were they saying? We're going to immediately bring an absolute presidential immunity motion, which

they didn't. They waited many, many, many months before doing that as a intentional delay tactic to wait to the last possible time to do that. But these people have said, Trump's lawyers, we're going to be vindicated by the United States Supreme Court. Well, when they have the opportunity to go to the Supreme Court, because special counsel Jackson said, this is an extraordinary case, Supreme Court. You wanna hear this right now, because this affects our democracy.

When the response date came for Donald Trump, December 20th, his lawyers filed a opposition to Special Counsel Jackson's petition, and they said, nope, let's just go through the normal process, let's not rush this to the Supreme Court. They even said, haste makes waste and that we should not be doing this too fast. Karen, talked to us about this filing by Donald Trump's lawyers today before the Supreme Court. I mean, it's such a cop-out after all of the things that they were saying. And just even from your perspective

as the number two at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, you don't shy away from the relief that you want if you believe you're going to win. It's fairly basic concept, huh? Well, you know, his whole plan is to delay. That's what he wants. He doesn't want a ruling on the merits. He wants to do, he doesn't want the trial to ever happen. And so I think that that's partly what he's trying to do here. And he, that's why he just wants us to go slow because by not having a trial in some ways, that's the win. Because if the American people actually see the evidence that Jack Smith has and sees the evidence against him, that's crushing for him and frankly, fatal to his attempt to become president again.

So he does not want that coming out. He does not want people coming in and swearing under oath and being cross-examined and to see what a just absolute liar and thief and insurrectionist he is. So it's almost like it's almost like winning by losing, right? And so he needs them to just slow this down so that the trial doesn't happen. They get close to the election. The American people don't get to see the evidence

and they don't get to have the information about whether they are voting for a convicted felon or not. And so his entire request to the Supreme Court here is all about delay and why it should delay and not get to the merits. And, you know, the most interesting thing to me was how different the question presented is between what Jack Smith says, the question presented before the Supreme Court is and what Trump says. And that's something lawyers do is they always, especially in the Supreme Court, they have to say, what is the question before you? And they frame it in a way to say, this is what you're

answering to the court. And both sides kind of gave their own version. And I loved the way Jack Smith framed it, which is, this case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy. Whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office, or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he's been impeached, but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin. So he, I think his question is perfectly and succinctly put. But then you get to Trump's question presented, and he claims that Jack Smith mistated the legal issue before the court,

and that Jack Smith was framing it as to whether absolute presidential immunity extends to crimes committed while in office. Instead, Trump says the question should be whether the doctrine of absolute presidential immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for president's official acts. those performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility and whether the impeachment judgment clause, Article 1, Section 3, Class 7, and principles of double jeopardy for close the criminal prosecution of a President who's been impeached and acquitted by the United States Senate for the same or closely-related conduct.

So it's all about slowing it down, right? So what they could have done and what they could have briefed and frankly should have briefed if they wanted to really just slow this down is brief the issue of whether this should be expedited or not because that's what's before the court, right? Is what Jack Smith has put before the court is,

you know, this should go fast, and this is extraordinary, and we wanna skip over the DC circuit and do a cert before judgment, and we know this is extraordinary, but what Trump is doing is he's not only saying slow it down, he's also briefing the issues, which I thought was interesting,

and it gives a little bit of a window into what he was saying. So what he basically said was, go slow, not at, quote, break next speed. He says in 234 years of American history, no president has ever faced prosecution for official acts. Until 19 days ago, no court had ever addressed whether immunity from such prosecution

exists. And to this day, no appellate court has addressed. It's what he's saying is, leapfroged the DC circuit, so no appellate court has ever ruled on it. And 19 days ago, that's when Tonya Chetkin, the federal judge overseeing the case, that's when she ruled on presidential immunity. And so this is so complex and so intricate and so momentous that the court should take its time,

do ordinary procedures, wind its way through the appellate courts, don't rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon, haste makes waste. I mean, I felt like I was reading a romance novel, you know, just the phraseology here, you know, reckless abandon. It's just this breathless hysteria that, you know, that he presents to the Supreme Court. But essentially, his arguments were the government lacks standing. And the reason I think it's important that we go through some of these arguments, Ben,

because really the question here, again, if you're looking at the law, there's no way no way Trump wins ever. And I also think practically speaking, if you're looking at the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, there's no way he wins also. There's no way they can rule that a president has absolute immunity, has absolute immunity here, and then have the Supreme Court still have legitimacy. I mean, there's just no way, for example, if you take it to its extreme that the president could shoot someone while in office and not be prosecuted criminally for it, or that you have to be impeached and

convicted by the Senate before you can be criminally prosecuted, which is what Trump is looking for. But that has nothing to do with it, right? The impeachment clause of the Constitution is all about removal from office. It's not about criminal punishment, but he's trying to say because the Constitution says that in order to remove a president for office and then thereafter prosecute him, he has to be impeached and convicted. And because if you recall, he was impeached here, but not convicted because there's a partisan Senate, right? So he was not convicted by the Senate

because there's a partisan senate, right? So he was not convicted by the senate at the time that he, it doesn't say that's the only way to prosecute, right? It's just provides the remedy. So he's kind of taking two concepts and trying to mush them together. But he essentially gives the Supreme Court I think arguments if they want to do his bidding,

because I agree with you, they can't rule that he has absolute presidential immunity. But if they want to do his bidding, they can slow it down. They don't have to go fast and they can rule on it later. And so that way, the case gets paused, it doesn't get ruled on. And then we've talked about the parade of horribles that can fall from that if he is then elected. President, he can pardon himself, he can dismiss the case, have his own attorney general dismiss the case.

I mean, there's so much mischief and havoc he can wreak if that were to happen. So if they want to do his bidding, that's what I predict they will do. Hopefully, they won't. Hopefully, they'll say, no, this has to go. And because this is, that's how important this is and how monumental this is. And I'm hoping they see the gravity of it. But all they need is to buy one of his arguments, right?

And so one of the things he says is, the government lacks standing to appeal from this judgment, go straight to the Supreme Court, because you have to be injured in order to appeal. You have to get a ruling not in your favor and Chetkin ruled for Jack Smith. So if they, so he wasn't injured, you know, the the special counsel's office wasn't injured. They're not an injured party and therefore, there's, therefore, the prevailing party is not allowed to appeal, right, from without, there's no jurisdiction for this court. And he said the

only delay, or the only injury, I should say, would be a trial delay, but that wasn't caused by Chadkins' decision either. So he, so that's the one issue that I think they're going, that they really work hard to develop, to say that that that that Jack Smith doesn't have the ability to go straight to the Supreme Court. And so again if they wanted to do Trump's bidding they could say that and say oh you know let this wind its way through the appellate courts it'll get to us. We'll rule on it eventually but we don't have to go fast because you know it's too quick and this is so complex And that that's another thing Trump was saying that this is so complex. And there's no reason to rush, you know, as you said, haste makes

waste. So I think that's going to be one one potential area to look out for that I don't think they're going to rule. However, now on the fact that this was purely official acts. I don't think that's something that they will say and then say therefore he has immunity. I just don't, but that argument I think has almost no merit. And I also don't think that they are going to say that the clause in the Constitution that says the essentially argues double jeopardy

and also saying that you have to be convicted by the Senate in order to be prosecuted criminally. I also think he's going to lose there. So we'll see how it goes, but he's making the nothing to see here. We don't have to go fast. You know, this requires deliberation. And this requires time. And he makes ways, as you say. So I think that's his argument.

And hopefully the Supreme Court won't buy it because hopefully they will see that by delaying here, you're essentially handing him a win. You know, I want to be objective here in the analysis. That's one of the things people like about this show. So the strongest argument that Trump makes, but he oversells the argument with this ace makes waste garbage and that this is some very complicated issue.

If he was a little more surgical about it, the best argument is look. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has already set a very expedited review. So there's oral argument before the DC Circuit now on January 9th. All of the paperwork is due by January 2nd, so Supreme Court, we could get a ruling as soon as January 15th or January 20th. So Supreme Court, you asked us to respond on December 20th. We may hear from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals by January 20th. And then, search year-ore is worth a discussion then, but why skip the DC circuit when they are expediting it at this pace? That, to me, is the only argument,

frankly, that they should have made. And it's a practical argument. I think they lose credibility when they start haste makes waste. And this is so complicated and that these are official acts. It's just so obvious what they are doing here and what their strategy is. And I think it makes their lawyers frankly look foolish. By the way, I think that's a theme that Donald Trump always does in court. And I think that the lawyers are trying to appease him. And also you kind of get the lawyers

you deserve. Like when we talk in a little bit, for example, about the experts in the New York Attorney General's Civil Fraud case, one of the things that Justice Arthur and Gauron said is like, these guys that Trump called in have zero credibility. Like, they would have had some credibility with me if Trump's experts acknowledged that there was some fraud that took place because some of the stuff that's so obvious. But when an expert looks at fraud and says, oh, that's just a mistake, and then calls all the fraud mistakes and says, it can't be fraud

if it exists in paperwork because fraud is always concealed. Like, you're just demeaning all of our intelligence and you're going way too far and you revealing your true intentions. Like, that's what Trump, to me, the misfire that was made in his opposition to what special counsel Jack Smith is requesting. And then, no, I just want to go back to the point that again. If this was a slam dunk argument for Donald Trump, you know, if any, MAGA trolls are watching this or listening to this, or if there are people who are on the fence and the issue who

are not trolls, who just are wondering like, I don't know how I should feel about this issue. Why would Donald Trump not want this issue to be resolved by the Supreme Court if he feels that it's a slam dunk, where he's appointed three of the justices to the court, and three more justices are right-wing justices for a six to three right wing majority that exists on this, why wouldn't you want that? That should be a gift. And also if Trump lawyers were saying that's what they wanted from day one,

and now they have the opportunity to get that, and now they're arguing against that, to me we could over complicate this, but that tells you to me everything that you need to me everything that you need to know about what's up here. And then I do want to remind you, though, regardless of what the Supreme Court does here, as I stated, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, in the meantime, they've expedited all this

briefing. Trump's appeal is due December 23rd. Jack Smith's is due December 23rd, Jack Smith's due December 30th, the reply papers from Trump or due January 2nd, and then on January 9th is oral argument before that panel. And then I think you'll have a situation where Sershi Rari could potentially take place after that or the Supreme Court may just say this isn't really a Supreme, like this isn't that difficult of an Supreme, like this isn't that difficult to have an issue. Like, no, the reason this hasn't been addressed before is because it's kind of a very simple

answer. No, you don't get to be a criminal when you're in office and then claim that you have absolute immunity for it. It just makes no sense on its face. So I think, you know, the more complicated issue, Karen, is not in the criminal context, even though I don't think it's complicated at all. Like, if you wanted to say the blasting game decision, maybe has some layers of complication because it involves civil lawsuits where this doctrine of absolute presidential immunity was recognized, and you want to make some hay about it even though I think the DC's certain court of opinion was

spot on election and campaigning activities outside article two. At least you, you know, you want to slice a dice, Nixon v Fitzgerald, and Clinton v. Jones and play around that. You can't be a criminal in office trying to overthrow democracy and then claim absolute presidential immunity. Put it this way for the the self-interest of the Supreme Court, if they embraced a concept of absolute presidential immunity, they would put themselves out of business. Because that means technically, if you take it to the extreme, a president can declare themselves dictator,

arrest all of the members of the Supreme Court, and then claim absolute immunity for it. So like, huh, that wouldn't make sense at all. It goes against Marbury V. Madison. It goes against the very central tenants of the judiciary. So the timing is the key here. We're going to keep an eye on that and we'll keep focusing on that. I want to talk about, relatedly, this decision that was reached

by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is known for being the more right wing Court of Appeals kind of culturally, as it's looked at in this Mark Meadows decision, because Mark Meadows thought he was going to have a favorable audience there, scathing decision. I mean, we could talk about which ones more scathing, the 11th circuit with Mark Meadows or Judge Arthur and Gorons and the New York Attorney General Civil fraud.

But some scathing rulings, one against Meadows, one against Trump. Karen, let's talk about both of those after we come back from our last quick break of the day. This is Michael Popok from Legal AF. If you like me, you understand the pains of choosing what to wear. Let's face it, most clothes are uncomfortable or too tight or are never actually the size you really are. Not to mention the annoyance of trying to put a good outfit together. And when you do have a good fit, you can only wear it for a few hours before you have an important meeting or dinner.

And then you got to change all over again. Everyone wants to dress the best and look good at all times because, frankly, it's a confidence booster. So here's the deal. Men's closets were due for a radical reinvention and Ron stepped up to the challenge. Ron's commuter collection is the most comfortable, breathable, and flexible set of products known to man. And here's why.

Ron helps you get ready for any occasion with the commuter collection, which offers the world's most comfortable pants, dress shirts, one-quarter zips and polos. You never have to worry about what to wear when you have the Rone commuter collection. Rone's comfortable for-a-way stretch fabric provides breathability and flexibility that leaves you free to enjoy whatever light throws your way from your commute to work to your 18 holes of golf It's time to feel confident without the hassle with drones rakele release technology Rakeles disappear as you stretch and wear the products. It's that easy and with its gold fusion anti-odor technology You'll be smelling fresh and clean all day long and on top of that

Rone is 100% machine washable so you can ditch the dry cleaner altogether. I absolutely love Ron. As you can see, this has truly become my go-to commuter fit and on the legal AF podcast recordings. We're on the move a lot, whether it's jumping for a meeting to meeting or catching a flight or an important dinner, the Ron commuter collection has never let me down. The versatility and comfort of the collection is undefeated.

Even after I wear it all day, I still feel super fresh because of that gold fusion anti-order technology. The commuter collection you can get you through any workday and straight into whatever comes next. Head to rohn.com slash legal a f and use promo code legal a f to save 20% on your entire order. That's 20% on your entire order when you head to our H O N E slash legal a f promo code legal a f. Find your corner office. Welcome back to legal a f. Then my cell is Karen Friedman and Nifola. Let's talk about this mark meadows decision that was reached by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming what the Federal District Court judge ruled that Mark Meadows did not have the ability for what's called

Federal Officer Immunity. Federal Officer Immunity is this concept where if you are being prosecuted, there's a civil version of this, but for purposes of here, if you're being criminally prosecuted in a state case, the way Mark Meadows was, if you are a federal officer, you can remove the case to federal court and saying that this should be federal jurisdiction, not state jurisdiction. So, Fulton County District Attorney Prosecution of Mark Meadows, he's indicted there. He says, look, I'm a federal officer.

I'm a former chief of staff. That's an officer. And I was acting under color of my official responsibilities. So I'm removing it to federal court. The way removal works is it's you do it automatically. So you just basically file a form and then it gets removed from state court to the federal system. So then you're before a federal judge. And then a process is called, there's a remand process to challenge the removal and remand it back to state court. So then the Fulton County District attorney said,

no, you improperly remove this to federal court, will concede that you are an officer is what the Fulton County District Attorney said. We'll concede you're an officer, but then in terms of remanding it, you are not acting under color of your official responsibilities because you were engaged in hatch-active violations.

You were trying to interfere with free and fair elections. That's not what a chief of staff is supposed to do. So you were not acting as your article to executive functions of a chief of staff. You were acting as like some like campaign official or a criminal trying to overthrow the results of the election. Mark Meadows took the stand that an evidentiary hearing and basically tried to argue that as the chief of staff, he should be involved in elections and campaign and he basically admitted to crimes during this testimony.

It was a shocking thing. We covered it here on legal AF that the lawyer would allow him to testify to these things. And he's like, nope, as the chief of staff, I can do this that in the other. So cavalierly, it's like he stepped at, he thought that right wing echo chamber of like bright barred and newsmax and Fox was the courtroom. And everyone's like, no, that's, that's a crime. So the federal judge issued a scathing ruling and saying, no, no federal jurisdiction, not under, yes, you're an officer, but not under color of authority. So we're sending it back to state court.

Meadows appeals to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the 11th Circuit actually on that first Prague officer care, and the 11th Circuit said, actually, you're not an officer. You're a former officer, former officers don't get to remove under the Federal Officer removal. So they said, one independent ground removal doesn't apply to former Federal officers. So that was something that wasn't even analyzed in the district court and then they said yeah and you're not acting under color of your authority, campaigning elections, whatever you

are doing, that's Hatch Act violations. There's supposed to be a separation from article two, a power of the executive and campaigns and elections and and they really kind of you know Inescaping way basically said you know you you're violating all of these laws and you admitted to it in your testimony So for these two independent reasons were affirming what the district court did So very skating but I also thought Karen, the 11th Circuit was sending a message to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and maybe even the Supreme Court,

by saying, we see what you did DC Circuit. We're the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. We see what you did DC Circuit in the blasting game case on that issue of absolute presidential immunity and here in the context of federal officer removal, while it involves acting under the color of authority of your official officer position, that's different than absolute presidential immunity, whether the conducts in the outer perimeter of presidential authority, but they're kind of similar concepts

to the extent that both meadows and Trump were acting outside the outer perimeters of their roles, and that's how there is this harmony, I think, between these rulings of Article 2 is not campaigning in election activity, and that's what you both were doing. So I thought it had this profoundly deeper impact than just slapping Mark Meadows down. Karen, what do you think about this decision? I think you put the hit the nail on the head

when you compare this to presidential immunity. It is so similar because of the issues surrounding where you in civil in civil immunity with if you have presidential immunity. Are you acting? Are you acting within your job description or outside your job description? Are you acting in the outer perimeter? And and this has a very similar analysis because in order to remove, as you said, you had to have been acting, you had to be an officer, yes, but you also had to be acting under the color of your office, which is basically means you're doing your job. You're acting within that outer perimeter, and you also have to have a federal defense

that you will ledge. And the beauty of this decision is it's a it's applicability to this whole situation, the January six case and the presidential immunity issue because of the similarity of that. And this was Judge Pryor who wrote the decision who not only is the 11th Circuit considered more conservative, he's a bush appointee. And so that again kind of sends a message, they picked him to do it.

It sends a message that this is how they are interpreting it. And essentially sent the case back down to State Court and Mark Meadows will be tried by Fani Willis in Georgia State Court. This particular move of Mark Meadows to put all his eggs in the removal basket and to testify even if it meant admitting to crimes or Hatchack violations on the stand. This was a Hail Mary move for Mark Meadows because he is dead in the water.

He is going to be found guilty and in the water. He is going to be found guilty and there's just no way out of it. Unless, of course, he decides to cooperate, which I don't see how he does at this point. But his Hail Mary move was to try to get it removed to federal court, because it's kind of a he was looking for a one-two punch, because if he got it removed to federal court, the only way to get there is to show that he was acting under color of office. So he was doing his job. He was not campaigning or working for candidate Trump. He was working as chief of staff. Then he would argue the supremacy clause, right? The federal, the constitutional, this is called the supremacy clause

in the United States Constitution, which says federal laws, trump state laws. He would then argue that the supremacy clause will make it so that he cannot be prosecuted by Fannie Willis. And so what would happen is the case would get dismissed. So this was all an effort to, not just, he was using removal to get it dismissed, it was

all an effort to get it dismissed and it was a Hail Mary because it's all or nothing. So he had to get on the stand, he had to say those things to try to make these arguments and it was just resoundingly rejected by the Chief Judge, Judge Pryor. And the judge said that this is the first time in 190 years that an appellate court has interpreted the federal removal statute under 1442A1. It was been used for almost 200 years. It's the first time they've talked about whether it applies to former or prior officers.

And they said it only applies to current officers, not former officers. The text is clear. Congress spoke clearly. If you're a federal officer at the time of the indictment is served, it's removed. If you're a former, it doesn't. And talks about, they talk about a decision called

Pate, which was another decision that they were looking at for guidance. But this is the law of the land since they're the only circuit now to rule on this issue. But they also did something really smart. They said, even if we're wrong about whether this applies to current or former officers, even if he was a current officer, we still would not remove because he was not doing his job. He was outside the outer perimeter. He was electioneering and campaigning and in violation of the Hatch Act. So I thought that was, I thought this was a great decision here.

Federal removal does not allow a former federal officer to go to federal court. It impacts everyone now in the case below in Fannie Willis's case who might want to seek removal. And so I think this is a big decision for Fannie Willis. I think this squarely makes sure that she prosecutes her case and nobody gets removed. So that's my feeling about Mark Meadows. Now we'll see if he tries to cooperate, right? That's the only thing he has left, because other than that, he's going to go to prison.

I mean, some of the most brilliant legal work here by the Fulton County District Attorney's Office, and of course, not easy stepping outside and you could probably speak to this within the state court system, though. You know, the rules are different in federal. And that's not to say that, you know, I'm terrified of federal court. And you're the top prosecutor at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. And when you kind of, you know, you know, you know, the rules there, you know, you have familiarity with that court.

And federal court briefing is a lot more kind of writing. There's all of these kind of nuances within the federal rules and how procedure is handled and just how the judges even operate their courtroom. And so for her to just go in there and kind of mark meadows with this cockiness and confidence of, I'm going to show her, you know, right away. And anybody who's tried to challenge Fony Willis like that so far, she's put down right away and smacked them down with the law. It's been incredible to see. So now, my question to you, though, is what was a more scathing ruling, though, Karen? As we segue to the ruling by Justice Arthur and Goron denying the five motions for directed

verdict that Donald Trump filed, saying that Trump's experts had zero credibility saying a lie is a lie and Judge and Goran saying look not he didn't say it like this but he basically said look I'm not a moron I understand the way valuations work I understand that valuations are open to kind of different models. There's different subjective valuation models. That's not what this case is about for the one millionth time, Donald Trump. The issue is the or are the inputs into these subjective valuation models. When you fundamentally lie about the inputs, it's not a matter of which model you use,

a lie is a lie. So when you say a building is fully occupied, and then you use the highest price per square foot on a fully occupied building, but it turns out it's not fully occupied, and it's rent controlled. That's a lie when you say your triplex is three times the size of what it is to increase the valuation by upwards of $150 million.

That's a lie. There isn't a subjective valuation. You're just coming up with false numbers there. When you say Mar-a-Lago is a residential property to value it at several hundred million dollars when you've previously reported as a commercial property and you've said the valuation is under 30 million dollars to pay less property tax, that's not a subjective valuation metric, that is a lie and so on and so forth. And so that's one of the kind of key things

in Justice and Goran's really, what do you think was more scathing, though? I kind of have to say, Goran, he just really took him down. I mean, it was three beautiful pages of just taking him down, right? In every way, like, he would say things by saying he would say things by saying,

he would just kind of point out and took digs at him by saying things like at least five times during the recently concluded 10 and a half week trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict. First, at the close of the plaintiffs case, which is common and normal. And then again, thereafter, the court took under advisement and denied who on the spot.

And, but just they have to say, at least five times, right? And then he says, but I gave him permission to do it again, denied, and I deny all the rest. And he'll say things like, rather than martial the evidence and detail it yet again, it's by saying little things like that,

by saying, I've done it so many times. He's so frustrated. Or he'll say things like the most glaring flaw in the Trump's argument is X, Y, and Z. I mean, the ruling is just such a great ruling and he just really takes down every single argument that he makes. He called his expert a paid, basically, it shows you what anyone would do for a million dollars, right? He totally rips apart the expert and renders him completely not credible and even cites a prior case where another judge found the exact same thing

that he's a gun for hire. And this isn't an NYU professor. He should have some sort of respectability. He can never testify as an expert again because he has now been found to be absolutely not credible and a gun for hire. And so the cross examination of him will be destroyed. But I guess if you make a million dollars on one case, I guess you don't really need to be an expert anymore in any other trials. It's a lot of money. And we've all hired experts, et cetera. That's a lot of money for an expert in this case. And he said things that just strained credibility and credulity and the judge called him out on that too. And so it's just, you could tell how good this decision was by Trump's reaction to it. Because, of course, Trump does a two-screen on his truth social going on and on about each

part of it and going after the judge again and calling the whole thing a sham and lying that the judge valued Mar-a-Lago at $18 million when the judge has said over and over and over again. He never valued it at $18 million. That was a valuation that Trump himself gave Mar-a-Lago when he didn't want to pay market rate taxes on Mar-a-Lago, because if it really is worth 100 times that, like he claims, he would have to pay 100 times the amount of taxes he pays, and so he doesn't want to do that, but he lies.

He just comes out and lies and says these things about Judge Angoran, and it just was really, his reaction was so strong, that's how you know that this was such a scathing ruling. But Judge Angora and I thought did an excellent job, again, at showing how the disclaimer, the worthless clause does not show what he says it does. The other thing about the ruling is,

it's a window into what his decision's gonna be, what his verdict is going to be, because he really takes down point-by-point all of Trump's issues. And I think that he really spelled out with the evidences that he's already ruled that there was fraud, that he doesn't credit the testimony of Trump's experts that he doesn't, he just gave a window into how he's

going to rule. So I think it's very, very clear that he even talked about materiality. He even in this decision, he even said that it's also, it is also material. So I should say not material. And so he also talked about each and every element of the crimes that he's supposed to decide except one. And that was the insurance fraud one. He doesn't mention that. And so I've always thought that that Judge Ang Goron was going to throw Trump a bone and rule against him for one particular one one particular account. And the reason I think judge and Goron's going to do it is because this entire argument by Trump this entire trial is that judge and Goron's not fair that he's not listening that he's already made up his mind. And And so that's what the appellate courts are going to be looking for, right? And Judge Engoron, I think, is a colorful figure.

And he, don't forget, he issued a gag order saying that Trump couldn't go after his law secretary and his staff, also very unusual, but it was appelled. And so the Trump's gonna go after him in that way. And if he doesn't rule on one count, it's neither here nor there for damages or for the attorney general, because they've already won. It's just a matter of how much they're going to get

and what the actual sentence or remedy is going to be that they're going to get. And so it's really, but you don't want to get it overturned. I mean, they have to protect the record. And then Goran has to protect his record. So I could see him finding that one count, that alleges that there was fraud, insurance fraud. I could see them potentially saying not finding for Trump there,

because he didn't mention it in this decision. He really mentioned everything else and really took down Trump and Trump's arguments. And so I think it's clear he's going to find for the Attorney General, he's going to find against Trump for most, if not all, of the charges. And he's going to discredit, because he did, the experts. And it's just a matter of how much they're going to

discourage what the discouragement profits will be. And what the other remedies will be. Will he be prevented from doing business in New York again? So I thought this was a great scathing ruling. You make a great point about the expert Eli Bartov, this NYU professor and some of the other experts there. Judge and Goran in this ruling put them out of business. There's no court that those individuals will be able to testify in ever again for the rest of their life.

So they sold out the rest of their professional career for Eli Bartov, around $900,000, the other experts, I think it all added up to about $2.5 million from the political action committee, where Donald Trump has the kind of Donald Trump has the kind of mega-ranking file pay for a purported billionaire's legal fees on things unrelated to his political campaign. But that's it for them. I mean, who's going to hire them when the first thing a jury's going to hear is that a judge found that they had zero credibility? And that's one of the things that we've always talked about,

you know, all these professionals and experts and people who Trump surrounds themselves with, you know, all of their credibility is always shot. And that's like the best situation. And it's not because there's unfair and everybody's against Trump. No, it's because y'all are acting like people with zero credibility.

You're not being honest brokers of information and it's just so obvious. I'll leave everybody with this thought as we head into the new year. Closing arguments will be taking place in the early part of January in the New York Attorney General's Civil Broadcast. Mid- case mid January the E. Jean Carroll defamation case against Donald Trump where he's already been found liable for a damp, he's already been found liable for defamation. The case is just about damages and punitive damages. Dr. Humphreys the same reputational damages expert who testified in the Ruby Freeman shame moss case where Giuliani was hit with $148 million dollars verdict.

An actual credible professional expert will also be testifying in the E. Jean Carroll case, the second defamation case against Donald Trump. So between the E. Jean Carroll verdict and the judge and Goron verdict, which will probably hit right around the same time, going right into kind of February 1st, as we'll really start to get some more clarity of when these Trump criminal trials are going to be taking place. Trump's going to have about 500 million to a billion dollars in judgments against him. And for him to appeal those judgments, he's going to have to post a bond, a super-cedious bond that is most likely has to be equal to the amount of the judgments, and otherwise

collection activities, you know, can take place. I mean, he can argue that a judgment be stayed in all of these things, but normally in the circumstances, he got to post a bond after a judgment is entered the same way he posted a bond for $5 million in the first EG in Carole Case while he appeals that to stay enforcement effort. So there's a lot of things happening right now throughout the country. I mean, this is, if you want to talk about the intersection of law and politics, hard to fathom a time in American history, where that intersection is more important

to foundationally our democracy and who we are as a country than right now. So it's an honor, Karen Friedman-Agnifalo and Michael Popak, who's not here myself to spend this time with all of you. Everyone is a part of this community during this historical moment. We're in this together and it is important, so important to Karen, myself, to Popak, to the rest of the staff here at Midas Touch. We just provide you the facts. We have opinions, sure, but we want to give you the facts.

We want to cut through the crap, deliver you the facts. You don't have to agree with us. You don't, it's fine, but let's be rooted in the reality of what the Constitution actually says, what the people have said before are the people acting consistent with their past statements. If they are not, why not? Why wouldn't people who want to have their rights vindicated actually try to have the trial of fact vindicate those rights. We should talk about that in a very kind of common sense way. And that's what we do here on legal AF. So, Karen, thank you for letting me

fill in for Michael Popak. I always have a great time doing the duets with you. And thank you so much. And thank you all to the legal AFers out there. We'll see you on the weekend edition. Make sure you take a look at all the other hot takes on the MidasTouch podcast and the MidasTouch YouTube channel. Make sure you're subscribed to the YouTube. Make sure you're subscribed to Legal AF Audio. That really helps this show and it's super easy to do. Just go and search Legal AF wherever you get your audio's super easy to do. Just go and search, Legal AF, wherever you get your audio podcast, it's free.

Just hit that. It really promotes the show in a big way. And happy holidays to everybody from our Legal AF family to yours. No matter what holiday you're celebrating, I'll tell you we're celebrating being a part of this community that you all created. So thank you all so much, Midas, Midi and Legal AFers. See you next time, Karen Friedman, Nafloat, Ben, Mycelis, Michael

Popak, your team at Legal AF saying happy holidays, happy new year, and happy Legal AF. Thanks to Salt Salty and the team as well. We got to thank our amazing team. So I always have to do a shout out to Salty, the best. Shout out to Salty and shout out to the Midas Mighty. Have a great day everybody.