Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump VERDICT IMMINENT as Jury DELIBERATES

Episode Date: May 30, 2024

Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back for the Midweek edition of the top-rated Legal AF podcast. On this episode, the anchors discuss and debate: (1) the quality of the Closing Argument/Summations by both sides in the Trump NY criminal trial; (2) the Trump NY criminal trial jury deliberation process including “notes” sent out to the judge by the jury already and what they may mean for either side as to what the jury is focused on; (3) the Alito flags controversy and Alito’s refusal to step down from cases involving Trump by blaming his wife for flying flags of insurrection at his homes; and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/LegalAF Thanks to our sponsors: Laundry Sauce: For 15% off your order head to https://LaundrySauce.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF Smileactives: Visit https://smileactives.com/legalaf to get this exclusive offer! Mack Weldon: Go to http://mackweldon.com/?utm_source=streaming&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=podcastlaunch&utm_content=LEGALAFutm_term=LEGALAF and get 20% off your first order with promo code LEGALAF Miracle Made: Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made! Go to https://TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/coalition-of-the-sane/id1741663279 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's time for the midweek edition of Legal AF, Trump on Trial edition. We're going to talk about Trump on Trial two ways, closing and summation, closing arguments and summation, and jury instructions that were given to the jury. The first day of jury deliberation, including we've got our first buzzer, a couple of buzzers of notes coming out from the jury leading to the reassembly of the prosecution team and the defense team for the judge. We'll talk about what happened there, what they asked for, what we think it may mean. And then of course, we got Donald Trump who's decided to appeal his gag order, case is already over, effectively, appeal his gag order

because he wants to get away like he did over Memorial Day weekend calling people human scum and defaming again people like E. Jean Carroll going after prosecutors and judges. And he wants to do that without any type of restrictions. And so he's taken an appeal that he's filed to the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York. Then we're going to go down to Mar-a-Lago, talk about upside down world. We've got Judge Cannon, who was seems to be

totally fine with Donald Trump claiming in emails and fundraising, missives and social media that he was the target of an attempted assassination by Joe Biden. An attempted assassination attempt by Joe Biden when they executed the search warrant two years ago at Mar-a-Lago. It is false and wrong for so many reasons, yet Judge Cannon, sort of like the hobgoblin of these judicial minds, decided that what she was

really offended by was not that. Not the claim that the FBI was trying to assassinate the Secret Service and Mar-a-Lago personnel and the family of Trump and Trump. That didn't seem to bother her. What seemed to bother her is there wasn't a sufficient conversation between the prosecution team and the defense team, a meet and confer under the local rules. And since she didn't feel that the prosecution had gone far enough in their conversation, she threatened to sanction the prosecution and set up a whole new system of required meet and confer. It's like, okay, great.

Can we get back to the doxing of the FBI agents? Can we get back to putting a cross hairs on the back of the FBI by Donald Trump and lying to the American people that he was the victim of an attempted assassination? Not for that judge. So we'll talk about what she did related to the motion filed by the prosecutors to gag Donald Trump, speaking of gagging Donald Trump.

And then continuing our theme in the second half of the show of the upside down world, we've got the continued basically hole digging by Justice Alito, who in response to the press finally outing the fact that he has been flying insurrectionist flags at at least two of his homes, including just after Jan 6th and then after the Trump election, he first blamed his wife and then when the Senate leadership led by Dick Durbin and by Sheldon Whitehouse tried to call Chief Justice Roberts onto the carpet to have him answer for what is happening here and have him require Alito to recuse himself. Instead, Alito wrote a letter back to Durbin and to Sheldon Whitehouse and the Senate Democrats,

created an entirely new standard that's not part of the code of conduct, and then said he didn't violate the code of conduct and he's gonna make his own decision on recusal, as most judges do, and they can go stick it, that's my words. He's not going to recuse himself and blame the wife again. And then we had to learn intimate details

of a dysfunctional marriage between Sam Alito and Martha Ann Alito about who controls the purse over there and who has, who owns the house and who owns the flagpole and things I shouldn't even have to talk about, where he blames her First Amendment expression for his giving the appearance of impropriety and making the public feel like they can't get a fair shake before the Supreme Court. We're going to cover all of that, I promise you, in a bite-sized portion, a full-length portion of the Legal AF podcast. And on Wednesdays, it's with me and Karen Friedman, Agnifilo. You never know where we are at any given moment. I'm at home, Karen's on the road, but we are dedicated to this network and we do all things we can to make

sure that we appear. We've got a couple of fun things to talk about. Up front, I want Karen you to talk about a really cool new podcast that you're going to be doing. You're not leaving Legal AF, but you're you're going to be doing a whole new podcast that I want you to talk about. And then we can talk about other ways to support the network. We just want you to tell everybody about what you're doing. Yeah.

So of course, I would never leave Legal AF. Are you kidding? It's Legal AF all the time. Yeah, just new little Midas Touch side hustle. We're creating a new podcast. It's called Mistrial, a little play on words there because it's three women. It's me and my two colleagues that I work with in my law firm, Danya Perry and Kathleen Rice. And they're just incredible women.

And I'd love for people to come and join our new podcast. Kathleen Rice is just fascinating. She was the elected district attorney for one of the counties out in Long Island here in New York. It's called NASA County. She is the first elected female DA and she left to become a member of Congress. And she was there during the Trump administration

and was there on Jan 6. So just what an incredible woman. Now she practices law with me and Danya. And Danya is also a former federal prosecutor among many other things that she has done. And now she started this law firm, it's called Perry Law that Kathleen and I both work. We are of counsel there.

And we represent some pretty interesting clients. One of them is Michael Cohen. And Danya talks about her representation of Michael Cohen. And so our maiden episode is going to air tonight right after Legal AF. So we hope everybody will join us, hear a little bit about what we're doing and watch our show. So we're going to give as much as we can. We're somewhat busy.

It's not always going to be the three of us. Sometimes it'll be one of us, sometimes it'll be two of us, but we want to give our perspective as former prosecutors, women, and all things that are related to all the things we love to talk about, law, politics, trials, all that kind of stuff. That's fantastic. I'm so glad that we're the lead in for that new show. Certainly, it's going to be the top of my watching list, and I wish the three of you a lot of luck on that.

You don't need it, but it's going to be fun. It's going to be fun for me to watch. I know two out of the three of you. And the other one I'm going to learn more about as that podcast continues. And then the other way to support the show is we talked about it. If you want to get to the law of law and politics, you want to know what it's like to be in a law class, but not as a law student, not as a lawyer, although we have a fair amount of lawyers who are involved in the Midas Touch Network and on Legal AF, then join our Patreon, Legal AF, patreon.com slash Legal AF. There's me doing a plug for it.

It's a lot of me and Ben doing professor breakdowns. I like to joke that if a TED talk and a law school class had a baby, this would be the result. And that's patreon.com slash legal AF enough of our self promotion. Let's get to what people come here and pay us and don't pay us for it. Just to talk about the three big topics. Let's start with the Trump trial. You and Ben have been doing some great work opening up and closing each day of the trial. We're now 20 witnesses passed. We're closing all the evidence is closed. We've gotten to closing argument or

what's called summation in New York. I want to talk to you, Karen, about how you felt the defense did, how you felt the prosecution did. And now we're into the world of deliberations and jury instructions just before that. And I want to get your view about jury instructions and all. So why don't we launch in closing arguments summation. You want to start with, well, you all take one, you take the other. Which one do you want to take? You want to take Todd Blanch or you want to take Stein glass from your old office? I want to take Todd Blanch, you want to take Stein glass from your old office? Um, I want to take Todd Blanch. The defense. Roll. Um, look, I think that there was a summation that could have made me extremely nervous in this case.

There are holes in this case, and this is not a slam dunk. And I was shocked that Todd Blanch, who by all accounts is a great lawyer, did not, that he took the tactic that he took in his summation. nation. Many people are surmising that some of this came from Trump himself, that he wanted certain things argued, which would make more sense because that's how strange some of the decisions that were made on the defense team were. And look, it started with their decision to put a very, very, what I would say, backfired defense witness on the stand, Bob Costello, who represented Michael Cohen, and I say represented in air quotes, for five minutes. He tried to represent Michael Cohen, but Michael Cohen didn't trust him and didn't want to share anything with him. He thought that he was essentially a plant for Donald Trump to keep him in line. And so he didn't tell him anything. He talked to him, but he swore up and down that

he didn't have anything on Trump, that he wasn't going to flip on Trump, partly because he didn't trust him. And that's what he testified to. And he never actually hired Bob Costello despite having several conversations with him, there's no retainer agreement. And he testified, it sounds like he was chomping at the bit to testify and he went in there and thinking that he had this smoking gun evidence that Michael Cohen was lying, and it totally backfired, apparently. I wasn't there, but it essentially was, he was almost like an exhibit,

not a testimonial witness to kind of show the world and show the jury more importantly, see, this is why Michael Cohen didn't trust him, because it's clear he was a shill for Trump. And so that completely backfired, I think. And also another head scratcher from the Trump team was when how they cross-examined Stormy Daniels. And I say these two things because it ties into their summation and their tactic and summation and how they cross-examined Stormy Daniels was also very, very strange in my opinion.

I would, if I think one thing he could have done, one thing Susan Necklis, who's a very experienced cross-examiner and a great lawyer with a great reputation in New York, if I were her, I think I would have at least strongly considered not asking Stormy Daniels any questions. I mean, what's the point?

The prosecution didn't have to prove that whether or not they had a sexual rendezvous. It doesn't matter. And there's no doubt hush money was paid to her, right? So why even go down that road? Why even take that on? And frankly, I think the Trump crew, the team, the defense lost a lot of credibility among the jurors, because no one in the world, not any juror would believe that Trump, Donald Trump is going to pay double or triple 130,000 first of all, they're not going to pay $130,000 to someone, and then triple it to make it $420,000

just because there's a photo of them taken at a golf course. I mean, that's ridiculous. Nobody's gonna think that. And so why take that on? Why make that argument and lose all credibility in front of the jury? So I thought that was strange

and the summation was similarly head scratching. Why would they do what they did in summation? And this is where I'm gonna get to the defense summation. Todd Blanch, his summation was very much taking on things he didn't need to take on. He talked about the fact that there was no affair, that there was no relationship, that there was no conspiracy, that this was not about

the election. Of course it was about the election. I mean, Hope Hicks was just absolutely crushing, I think, as a witness to show this was about the election. They also took on, and this was, I think, their biggest mistake, they said there was no crime. It was completely a crime, and I think everybody believes there was a crime. These are false business records and it was done with a criminal intent and the intent was to violate election laws and falsify other business records and tax fraud and those are the three theories that the prosecution laid out methodically and in great detail. But the defense should have been, yeah there was crime, but it wasn't committed by Donald Trump. There is no, Donald Trump had nothing to do with it.

Michael Cohen committed a crime, Allen Weisselberg committed a crime, and maybe even David Pecker committed a crime as part of this conspiracy, but Trump had nothing to do with it. Trump was busy, Trump was the president, he was campaigning. If he had to pay people to get rid of him,

like he did the fake doorman story, he just needed to swap these things down to get rid of them, like he did the fake doorman story, he just needed to swap these things down, get rid of them, but he had nothing to do with the scheme. And paying hush money is not illegal. And this was just lying Michael Cohen that we know is a liar for all the reasons that everybody knows. And he went rogue and yeah, Trump paid him back,

but he wasn't paying attention to any of that stuff. He was learning how to be president. And I think that, you know, and the only thing that ties Donald Trump to it is Michael Cohen and he's not only a liar, but his memory of his conversations with Trump at a minimum aren't good because there was that one moment during cross-examination where he thought that he testified that the October 24th telephone call was was

about Stormy Daniels but text messages reveal that it was actually about a prankster a 14 year old prankster that he'd either forgotten about or he was lying about and so that should just show at a minimum his memory can't be trusted. And so him saying that this is Donald Trump connected to the crime, that's just a bridge too far. That's not beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the definition of reasonable doubt.

And therefore, yes, a crime occurred, it's unfortunate, but you can't convict Donald Trump of this crime. There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the defense that has scared me from the beginning. I think it's a viable defense. And I think they could have really hit it out of the park if they had given that summation, but they didn't. They gave a summation where they had, you know,

great these monikers that everybody's talking about, the gloat, you know, the greatest liar of all time, MVP liar, these catchy phrases that all the news media and everybody's picking up on, great, they're doing that. It's like the modern day version of, if the glove don't fit, you must acquit kind of thing. And good for him to come up with a slogan. I think that's a good thing.

But they didn't. The summation was, I think, close to three hours. And until hour three, they didn't even get to Michael Cohen is a liar. And I thought that part of the summation was was was effective. But to not get there for the first two hours and spend the first two hours arguing about things that they don't have to take on, I just thought was totally strange.

I didn't understand it. I thought it was not a great defense tactic. That being said, jurors have a way of getting to, sifting through evidence. And so we'll see what they do. But that's my assessment of the defense summation. Either it was because Trump wanted these things done or because they're fighting this in the court of public opinion, But they certainly weren't putting their best foot forward in terms of fighting this in the court of

law, in my opinion. This whole show is about our opinion. So that we got that going for us. Yeah, I just want to say one other thing. Being a trial lawyer is really hard. And sitting here and commenting on other people's work and being a Monday morning quarterback is not hard. It's easy. And so I would hate someone to be doing this to me. But I hear a lot of very good things about Todd Blanch. He's not, you know, he's not nothing like the Alina Habas of the world. He's actually a really decent guy,

a legitimate person and a legitimate lawyer with also a good reputation. But being a trial lawyer is really, really hard. You're nicer than I am. I'm not happy with Todd Blanch and his performance. I think he's been unethical at times. I don't like the screaming and acting out as an officer of the court. I don't like him facilitating or being basically a facilitator for Donald Trump's bad behavior, physically standing next to him while he lashes out at his enemies. And whatever Todd Blanch was, sort of like Chris Keiss, I's he stopped being that when he left his law firm and opened up a shop of a captive law firm and became Donald Trump's puppet and Donald Trump's

proxy. And I thought what I commented on one of my hot takes is and I've been up against people who haven't been in a courtroom doing a trial in a long, long time. And it is a skill and it is hard. And you can get rusty really quick if you haven't been in a courtroom. I've tried two cases this year. I'm about as razor sharp as I can be. I mean, I'm trying cases, you know, at the supermarket when I'm picking out the fruit. I mean, I'm on it. And I'm always worried about losing my fastball and not being in the mix. I got itchy, I got itchy fingered during the COVID when we couldn't be in courtrooms, especially somebody like you and I that practice for a living.

And what I saw with Todd Blanch, who was a US attorney and head of the criminal division, I think he was the head of the same criminal division that your partner, Daniel, was ahead of. I don't know who came first, but he hasn't tried a case in a long time and it showed. It showed during the cross-examination of Michael Cohen when I thought he blew it from the very beginning the way he took a day and a half to get to the meat of the

cross-examination and started with you don't like me very much let's go all over all the ways on social media you've attacked me, Todd Blanch, that's not an effective way to do it. And I saw the same type of thing in his closing argument or summation, even going so far as to breaching the cardinal rule and the golden rule of mentioning prison during a criminal trial, which you are not allowed to do. You're not allowed to tell the jury what they're only there for thumbs up and thumbs down on did the person commit a crime or they didn't. They did or they didn't. Not what their future sentence would be. You can't talk about the death penalty if that would be in play in a case. Can't

talk about jail or prison. And at the end he said, don't send my client to prison. Boom, wrong. Which led to not only him getting excoriated again by Merchant, not the first time, and which he said for the second time to Todd Blanch, you know better. You have been a federal prosecutor for 13 years, you know your way around a courtroom. He's rusty, I'm telling you, this is like Tin Man oil can at this point. And now I have to give a curative instruction to the jury, which he had to start the jury with after they came back from lunch and said, I've got to, I now have to give you curative instruction to the jury, which he had to start the jury with after they came back from lunch and said, I've now have to give you an instruction. The thing that Mr. Blanche said at the end of his closing

about prison and jail and his requesting that you don't send his client there was inappropriate and you are disregarded. That's how they came back from lunch to listen to the members of one of your office, or your office, Josh Steinglass. I thought Josh Steinglass, although it went long, they went till almost 8 p.m. Eastern time. It was a very long, we knew it was going to be, because the prosecution has, who has the burden, as you as you always remind us, the only burden,

the burden, as you as you always remind us, the only burden beyond a reasonable doubt, to hit all 12 of these jurors and they have to go 12-0 and defense only has to go one for 12. And that's the way it is. And so I get the amount of time that was invested in this and the necessity for it. And shout out to the jury, a very hard-working industri jury, who said, No, we're good. We keep going. We want this to finish and conclude and the people in the room that watched it, who reported back to us or that we saw the reports of made comments like they seem very refreshed after lunch. And they're on the edge of their seat for most, if not all of what Josh Stineglass was doing. But at times, not every one of them,

but at times seems to every one of them, but at times, their energy seemed to flag around Todd Blanch. Todd Blanch's energy seemed to flag around Todd Blanch's own closing. There were times where he got lost, as you said, why are we an hour and a half into his three hour thing and now you're talking about Michael Cohen? I thought the whole thing was going to be, as you't, this is a trial, go look on the door. This is a trial of the people versus Donald Trump. And that is all that matters. And yet they have ignored and they have not told you that the person, if there was a crime committed, it was by Allen Weisselberg. Where is he? He's not here. The money man. He is a part

of the conspiracy allegedly and do a whole half an hour on Allen Weisenberg. That didn't happen. And then Michael Cohen. Instead they fell in love with, like you said, all their little catchphrases, which I think are easily, if I'm a smart jury, and this is a very smart jury, you can see by where their backgrounds are, their educational backgrounds, and this is a very good cross-section of New Yorkers, of what you would expect in New Yorkers, including those two lawyers. And if I'm them, I'm like, yeah, gloat, G-L-O-A-T, the greatest liar of all time, that's cute. You know who's gloating half the time?

It's Donald Trump. Well, when he's not sleeping, he's gloating about something. So I thought you gotta be careful, as you pointed out in the OJ Simpson trial, with like catchphrases in your in your closing. I get that they wanted to undermine Michael Cohen and as I said at a prior hot take I thought and I still believe that the your old office did a masterful job at inoculating and immunizing this jury from the eventual

attack on Michael Cohen when it came, whether through cross or now through summation. And that by the time the jury got there, Josh Steinglass could then do in his closing, which is what he did, is point to all the areas of agreement between what Michael Cohen testified to but all the other people not named Michael Cohen, including Pecker, including the inside people of the Trump Organization, including Jeff McConnay. Josh Stein glass did a very amazing slide of hand. He was almost a magician. They didn't have Allen Weisselberg. They had Jeff McConney, but they were able to slide in and use as a closing exhibit the what was really

Allen Weisselberg's notes about the payment structure and the payoff back to Michael Cohen for Stormy Daniels But he slid it in because it came into evidence. It came into evidence to another witness So Weisselberg was there represented by what could what the jury could see as a smoking gun About Donald Trump's involvement through Alan Weisselberg in this conspiracy and all of the checks that we said that that Todd Blanch had written during his opening, which he never was able to convince, I don't think convince the jury of with the evidence in his summation, came back to haunt him. And he got lost in his own, as you said, he got kind of lost in his own roadmap. He said there are 10 reasonable doubt elements here, any one of which should, you know, should be able to defeat this conviction.

And so then he got lost in the middle of it. And then he got to number 4 and had 3 subparts. I mean, that is bad lawyering. I mean, I've had, huh? No, go ahead, go ahead. I've had, I've had trial teams that I've coached, and I said, run your, run your closing or opening by me. OK, this is a story in 10 parts. I'm like, stop. There, you're never gonna get a jury to follow you. You're not even gonna be able to deliver a 10 part closing. By contrast, Stineglass in his four and a half

or five hours, I thought had a very coherent, stringing together, internally consistent argument of all of the evidence from Pecker, who started this case six weeks ago, hard to believe, all the way down to Michael Cohen and everything in between, flashing appropriately the key pieces of evidence, the audio tapes, the this, the that, that sort of brought all this together. And what he said to the jury was something that I thought, forget gloating, forget MVP, would resonate

with this jury, which is this was a criminal conspiracy to basically ensure that Donald Trump became president and steal the presidency and it worked. And here's the elements of it and this is what you heard. And pardon me. And now from, so from there, I'll kick it back to you on the stained glass commentary from your old office and how you thought he did. And then we can talk about after the break, we can talk about, um, the, the, the charging of the jury. And I want to finally land the plane on misdemeanor versus felony. And if there's any off ramp for the jury and answer that question right here,

and then the beginning of the jury deliberation. So why don't you do Stein glass, your view, and then break, and then we'll pick up with the last two items next. Yeah, so really quick, one other thing before I get to Stein glass that really I thought also was a terrible argument and backfired for Todd Blanch was this argument, this why didn't they call Weisselberg? Where was he?

Why didn't they call Schiller? Where was he? But I, and I get that, but the really bad, what he then said was, why didn't they call Don Jr. or Eric, who were sitting in the courtroom at that moment? They were, they signed some of the checks. They could have called them as a witness. If I'm the juror, I the checks. They could have called them as as a witness.

If I'm the juror, I'm thinking you could have called them too and they're your sons. And if they had something to say that was helpful, if you don't think you'd be putting them on the stand, I mean to me that backfires to me the jury holds that against Trump. Same thing with Weisselberg and same thing with Schiller. Those are his people. And he didn't call them. I don't mean to cut you off. I got another backfire for you. Finish your point. I'm sure at least one juror knows that Allen Weisselberg is in jail. Right. And they know that why the prosecution wouldn't call him. But the defense could have called him. And so to even make that argument is just to me, that's a huge backfire. But go ahead. You know, similarly, speaking of backfire, Sydney's going to love this part of the episode.

We'll tell people why later. The Todd Blanch doubling down on the checks signed by Donald Trump and where they were signed. So now. So now their new argument to the jury, which they've never heard before, including a new conspiracy theory that they never heard before. It's one thing to say there was a second shooter and there's evidence of it during the trial. It's another thing to come up with it at the end

in your summation where there's no evidence to support it. And their second shooter was, there was a second conspiracy. Had nothing to do with Donald Trump. It was the National Enquirer people with lawyers for some of these women. That was the conspiracy. Had nothing to do with Donald Trump. It was the National Enquirer people with lawyers for some of these women. That was the conspiracy. Where is the evidence of that? And Josh Steinglass, of course, used part of his closing or summation as a rebuttal because, as we've talked about in

the past, this time defense goes first, prosecution goes last, so they can actually adjust their closing to based on what they just listened to. Sure, some of it's canned, they got it ready to go, but they got every good lawyer, including just, of course, Josh Steinglass knows, trial lawyer, you gotta be ready to like, it's in wet cement, you gotta like modify. I'm there with a pad with loose pieces of paper, and I'm writing down the three or four things

I just heard, maybe more, that I need to insert into my presentation to address. And I might even do it at the beginning since it's fresh in the jury's mind, although there was a lunch break here. But the check issue was a major backfire for me. Todd Blanchet saying, sure, there were nine checks, not like one or two, nine checks with Donald Trump's signature on it made out to Michael Cohen after he was in the White House. Well, that's like he was president. He didn't know what he was signing. Could have been an executive order.

It could have been a declaration to drop a bomb on North Korea or this is my language now or or his checks to Michael Cohen. That is not the Donald Trump that was presented in evidence and testimony at that trial not the guy that picks up pennies and nickels in front of a steam roller not the guy that counts pens pennies and nickels in front of a steamroller. Not the guy that counts pens and pencils and paperclips. That's not the guy that just, in fact, his own assistant testified, and you know, the jury will remember this or if not, the prosecution I think brought it up. She testified that she would send personal checks like through FedEx or a courier down to the White

House and if Donald Trump didn't like it, he'd rip them up or write voyeur on them and send them back. This guy's on, he was on top of everything. But all it did was ring the bell again for the jury that, right, Donald Trump signed nine checks while he was in the White House. Back to Michael Cohen. That is a fingerprint. That is an indicia of his willfulness, his mens rea involvement in the conspiracy. I would not have handled it quite that way.

What did you think, Karen? Yeah, I agree. I totally agree with you. I just, again, I thought, you know, I can't believe you tried the case this way, you know? And I guess it's a good thing, right? But you just never know what's gonna happen. And now we're at that point where everyone's waiting

in the nail-biting portion of things, waiting for the verdict. Well, our's waiting in the nail-biting portion of things, waiting for the verdict. Well, our audience is at a nail-biting portion because they know that we're gonna take a sponsor break because we've got some great sponsors that Jordy and myself has put together for us this year that we're really, really excited about. When we come back, we're gonna pick up

with jury instructions, the jury being instructed about it. And we've got a note that came out already about jury instructions. And then and right, but I've exactly there's two notes, but there's keep me on my toes. There is two notes. One of them was about the jury instructions. But we will talk about all of that. And more but first the word from our sponsors, my old laundry detergent used to drive me crazy. It comes in those big plastic jugs.

They make a mess, they drip everywhere. It's hard to pour. And so I just really dislike it very much. And of course I do a lot of laundry. I have a big family and it's so frustrating when you are doing laundry and you have to use use that big plastic jug. And frankly, I don't love the smell and it felt that

it smelled very synthetic to me. So this podcast, I'm loving the sponsor. It's called Laundry Sauce. Laundry Sauce has created the world's best smelling laundry detergent and simple to use high performance pods. Laundry Sauce has transformed the mundane task of doing laundry into a luxurious and exciting experience. So you don't have to dread laundry anymore. And what is the secret behind Laundry Sauce? They partnered with one of the top

fragrance houses in the world, the same team behind many of your favorite designers since, from Australian Sandalwood to Egyptian Rose to Cyber Pine. Laundry Sauce will make it so that laundry day will never smell the same again. Plus they stripped away all the unnecessary ingredients and artificial dyes that now is more science-backed with stain fighters and enzymes that are much better to ensure your favorite clothes come out looking brand new

and not smelling synthetic. And I love it so much. My whole house smells like it now. And it's, it's a great thing. So they have reviews on their site, they should you should check them out. They're funny reviews. They're very authentic. It was started laundry sauce was started in 2021 by a team who were bored by the mundane sense in their detergent aisle. So they decided to make a product that was conscious, relevant and innovative. It's not just the pods, laundry sauce makes scent boosters,

dryer sheets, dryer balls, fabric softeners and even candles too. So if you aren't happy, send back laundry sauce for a full refund, no questions asked. Elevate your laundry with laundry sauce. Now is the time to experience laundry sauce. Head to laundriesauce.com slash legal AF and use promo code legalAF at checkout for 15% off.

That's the best offer you'll find, but you must use code legalAF for 15% off your order. That's laundriesauce.com slash legalAF, promo code legalAF for 15% off. Have you ever wished you had whiter and brighter smile. Well, before you've been visited dentists, you should know that their whitening treatments can be very expensive. And it's not just the price, you also have to book an appointment,

schedule the time away from work or family to sit in a dentist office chair while undergoing a procedure. It's hassle. And fortunately, now you can try smile actives at home or anywhere anytime. Smile actives offers safe and affordable alternatives to those expensive whitening procedures. I have had bad experiences with whitening agents. It's made my teeth feel sensitive. I haven't liked the way it made me feel. I didn't like the taste. But Smile Actives makes a teeth whitening gel that you can simply add to your toothpaste every time you brush your teeth.

So there's no change in your routine, no extra time, no more messy strips, trays or lights and it doesn't taste terrible. Simply add smile actives pro whitening gel to your regular toothpaste. It's been formulated with poly clean technology to boost stain removal and deliver active whitening ingredients into teeth, grooves and crannies and get better whitening. 97% of smile actives users in a clinical trial reported up to six shades whiter on average all within 30

days. Smile actives is for everyone who's ready to invest in the next level of self care. Tap into the personal power that comes from having a bright smile. I care a lot about my smile, I take care of my teeth and I use smile actives. Visit smile actives.com slash legal AF today to receive a special buy one get one free offer with auto delivery plus free shipping and handling. That's smile actives, plural.com slash legal AF terms and conditions apply see site for details.

And we're back see this site details. Let's talk about the jury instructions and then the beginning of deliberation they went till about 430 today Eastern time why don't we answer the question that we posed last midweek about if is there an off-ramp for this jury to find something less than a felony a misdemeanor or are they it's a binary it's either they find the felonies one one up to 34 or they acquit Donald Trump what did what did we find Karen so in New York like most places there are statutes of limitations

which means prosecutors have to begin the prosecution of a case within a certain time period misdemeanors are two years, felonies are five. There are some exceptions. Murders don't have a statute of limitations, so you can bring that any time. Same thing with certain sexual assaults, but in general, that's what it is. So misdemeanors have two year statute of limitations.

There were certain times that statutes of limitations get told, meaning they get paused or stopped. And that period of time does not count towards your either two or prosecuted when he was in the White House, plus COVID. And during COVID, all statutes of limitations in New York were stopped because of COVID. And so despite that, these crimes occurred way past the two-year misdemeanor statute of limitations, even with the tolling by the time they were indicted. As a result, the misdemeanor falsification of business records, which is a lesser included offense of the felony,

and what it means to be a lesser included offense means that the elements of the misdemeanor are the same as the elements in the felony, but like a funnel almost. They have to have exactly the same, but fewer elements of that crime. And if the reasonable view of the evidence supports the lesser included offense, either party can ask that the jury be given that lesser included option. And sometimes jurors will compromise from the higher level of felony to the lower level of felony and all sorts of strategic reasons go into when a lawyer would ask for the lesser included offense. Because this is because the statute of limitations has told here

the prosecution could not ask for that. I'm not sure they would have. I don't know if they want a compromise verdict but they couldn't have asked for it without the defense consenting. And the defense could have asked for it, but they would have to waive the statute of limitations. That could have happened up until this morning when the jury got the case. And while the jury was charged, if the defense had come in and said, right before the charge, had said, you know, we've been thinking about it, Judge. We would like the lesser included misdemeanor falsification of business records, which is the falsification, the intent to defraud falsification

of a business record of an enterprise that does not include the extra added portion, meaning that it was that other crime part of it that everyone talks about. It had to be in furtherance of or to aid or conceal or commit another crime. It just is eliminating that part of it, of the requirement. And we've been thinking about it, judge,

and we would like you to charge the lesser included misdemeanor and we will waive the statute of limitations. They could have done that up until this morning and they didn't, so it's too late. Can't ask for it, jury can't do it. It's an all or nothing. Either they unanimously find him guilty of one or more of the 34 counts,

or they have to unanimously find not guilty as well. They have to go through each charge and find them guilty or not guilty unanimously of each of the 34. And they can have a mixed split verdict. They can find them guilty on some, not guilty on others. If they can't unanimously decide on any of the counts, they will come back to the court and they will say, we're deadlocked, we can't do it. And the judge will then read what's called an Allen charge, which has some version of you're the best jury that whatever this case could ever have, you're thoughtful, the case went in, no jury's better than you.

It's really important to basically go back. No one's asking you to change your view, but we're asking you to consider other views to see if you can work really hard and come to some consensus. And you know, the judge will give them as many Allen charges if they hear it and say, okay, we'll go back and deliberate. I've had several Allen charges given before. The jury could take as long as they want to deliberate. And if there's no, they can keep asking for read back,

they could keep asking questions as long as they're deliberating, it could go on for days, it could go on for weeks. My husband once as a prosecutor way back in the day had a jury out for six weeks. And it came back a mixed verdict, some convictions, some acquittals and some hung on the charges. And that happens.

And they won't get an Allen charge until they say that they are having trouble or they are struggling. If they're deliberating and they don't express that they're having a hard time with it, they won't get an Allen charge. And even after the Allen charge, they will keep deliberating until they come and say, we are hopelessly deadlocked, no amount of time,

no matter how far we keep going. There was some note once that said something like, hell will breeze over before this jury reaches a verdict. Sometimes they come in with funny notes and then they hang some or all of the charges. If the whole case hangs, let's say, then there'll be an assessment on the part of the prosecution of whether they bring this case again. So let's say it's 11 to 1 to convict, and there's just one juror who's just an outlier. They might actually retry it again. If it's 11 to 1 to a quit, they probably wouldn't retry it. If there's a conviction on even one count and they hang on the rest, I don't think they'll retry it because it does. Just any conviction, I think, is is is considered a victory

because they're all equal. All the charges are the same. So those are the kinds of things that are happening and will happen and how the jury works. And you know, look, the jury, if they have any questions, they send notes out, they buzz, they send a note, it's signed by the foreperson. The foreperson is automatically the person in seat number one, but they're not supposed to sign their name because it's an anonymous jury. So there's all these procedures in place. So the short answer on the beginning part is there's not going to be a lesser included defense. So it's either felony or nothing and they can do between one and 34.

I'm glad we finally cleared up and it was until today that the the defense had the right. I think we had some issues about satchel limitations, but I think you've cleared that up now for the audience that it wasn't really going to apply. And they could have asked for it, an outlet pass, an exit ramp, if Donald Trump was willing to take a misdemeanor. In terms of the, we'll get to the notes in a minute, in terms of what could happen, just to remind our group, some of which may not have been with us last week, the unanimity of the jury 12-0 on the violation of the business record fraud statute, that's 12-0. In furtherance of a second crime, what's called the predicate crime,

that's 12-0. In furtherance of a second crime, what's called the predicate crime, they don't have to have unanimous thought process or reach consensus because they're not convicting him. It's an uncharged predicate act. They just have to find that he, Donald Trump, had willfully violated, because he's the defendant, willfully violated the business record fraud statute to put in false entries or to cause them to be entered in the books and records of the New York company in furtherance of a second crime. But they don't have to reach consensus on what the second crime is. Apparently there's two that they're going to be picking from based on the evidence that was presented. It's either an election crime, an election interference crime, state or federal, or it's a tax crime, one or the other.

And the crimes there are you're not allowed, and a company in the Trump organization made the ultimate payment through the straw man of Michael Cohen and his LLC to pay off Stormy Daniels. And if that's considered a contribution, an election contribution, I'm not sure it's in kind, it's really dollars, but it would help and benefit the campaign in a way that a corporation cannot lend $420,000 or even $130,000 that netted out to Stormy Daniels to help a candidate in one way or the other, federal or state. And so you got that and then you got the other one.

So that's a win at the charging level for the prosecution because as you noted last week, that is New York law. The general sort of intent is sufficient to commit the crime and that second crime was not charged. As to the, then once that's over, as you pointed out, fortunately we got through six weeks of trial with the original 12 in the box and we didn't have to go to the alternates. Alternates have been dismissed. No, they weren't dismissed. Well, you can't bring them in for deliberation. So what do you do?

Yeah, so it's interesting that you can dismiss them, but the judge asked them to stick around and be available. That's interesting. But available for what? Because my understanding is once deliberation starts, unless the defense agrees, which they never will, if they lose somebody in this process of deliberation and the defense

doesn't, well I guess, I guess, if the defense could agree and put the replacement into the box, I mean into the deliberation room, is that it? Yeah. Okay. All right. All right. So they're hanging around. They're not in the room though, right? They're just hanging around. Okay. All right. So the original 12 are in, are in the room with the jury for person number one. There's, and I did a, I did a hot take kind of an overview of what is publicly available and already been published. I'm not outing anybody about who the jurors are

and their various seats and a little bit about their backgrounds. And now we've got, you know, I joke, it's almost like waiting for the Pope to be selected from the concave and wait for the white smoke to come out. Except here we got a buzzer. And you've let us know that we know that two buzzes mean they've reached a verdict. We don't have that. A one buzz is every time they have a question or a request. And today we had a question and I

guess two requests really. Now we're throwing up on the board a version of the note. I've seen four different people in the room give, I don't know, I don't know whether they can read their own handwriting or it was just read so fast they couldn't get it down. I think Klaasfeld's here that we're listing is the closest one, as I've seen three other people have a very similar number one. They want it, they want, this is a request as you laid out for us last week, Karen, the jury has to ask for the testimony, court reporter finds it, the parties get together with the judge to figure out what this means and what they're going to provide in response.

One is David Pecker's testimony regarding his phone conversation with Trump. And that, you know, is going right to the heart of willfulness and intent and Donald Trump's participation in the in the conspiracy. They want to have David Pecker's conversations with Trump at Trump Tower. They want to have Michael Cohen's conversations with Trump at Trump Tower. Pecker's testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting that's at the end, Michael Cohen's testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting. Now remember, for those that aren't following as closely as we are, in the opening statement, and throughout the trial, the golden thread

through the trial that the prosecution was pulling, was about the Trump Tower conspiracy, the TTC, as I like to call it. And there were three participants to the TTC. It was Donald Trump, David Pecker, and Michael Cohen, the jury heard from two of them. Donald Trump never having testified. Didn't have to testify but he didn't testify. But two-thirds of the

conspiracy testified against Donald Trump. David Pecker and Michael Cohen and the jury wants that back. And they also want to find out why David Pecker didn't complete the transaction with Karen McDougal because that sort of ties into why Michael Cohen was used. And again, there's 12 people there, 12 opinions and 12 memories of what went on during six weeks with notes that they've all taken. I defy people to, you know, you, we've all been in classes, high school, college or whatever, and there's, you know, the really good note takers. Those are the ones you want to grab right before the exam and share their, and borrow their notes from them. Then there's other people.

I was somewhere in the middle. I was going gonna say, what do you think I am? Well, I know I was in the middle. I wasn't the one, first, you couldn't read my handwriting. Second of all, I, yes, I took it for my purposes so it worked for me. You, I probably would have wanted your notes before a final. Yeah.

I'm gonna be in your study group. Yeah, I get that. I made my study group laugh. Does that count? All right. So we've got note taking, but they can't remember everything. So now they're, now they're playing lawyer in the deliberation room. Somebody's, I don't mean the lawyers. I mean all of them. Well, there was a comment and I remember something that David Pecker said. Well, I remember though,

something that this person said, and then they want to get to the bottom of it. So right away, they zoomed in to the heart of the prosecution's case, right or wrong, zoom. It wasn't like, let's have all the testimony that would, because they could have asked this, I'm not sure how it would have been answered, but they could have said, we want all the testimony and all the evidence that ties Donald Trump to the conspiracy. They're beyond that. They want the participants, their testimony, and these other things. And they're not buying so far,

at least in the first question, requests. They're not buying the alternate conspiracy theory, or the, this is just normal campaign stuff. Every campaign is election interference. You wanna win. They're not buying that either. So that, those have to be resolved. And I'm not sure, and you can weigh in probably better, you've been rubbing elbows with people that have been in the courtroom with your CNN stint and all

that. Whether, I don't think in the time they asked the question, at the time they were dismissed, they got all of that evidence yet to play. I think it's coming. I think it's coming their way. And it's not something how the request is, is, is genius in its simplicity, but it's devious and how it has to be responded to. Because it's not that easy. It's now you have to go find it's not like give me David be the David Pecker Trump Tower. They can find it, but it's a little disjointed. He didn't, it wasn't just all done in one section. So they got to find all that for them. So that is going to be responded to tomorrow. And then at the very end, right before they left, they said what you and I talked about, I asked you if the jury instructions are in the room. You said not unless they asked for them. And they've already asked for all of the jury

instructions to come into the room. And what format does that come in the room? The written jury instructions that the judge read from? No, Read back. Always read back by the court reporter. Correct. Why don't they give him the hard copy? You know, a lot of people ask that question. I'm not sure. I don't know why. It's just not done. It's all read back. Because the trials, they look at it as the trial is the trial. And if you're gonna hear, I think they want to make sure that if the charge is being given to them, again, it's only being given the way the judge wanted. Like if they give it to them in the back, maybe they can only look at certain pages. Or maybe they'll, I don't know. I don't know why, actually.

But what if it comes out later that one juror can't read or something? I don't really know why. I'm totally just guessing, but it's all through readback. And what's happening now is the judge excused the jurors for the night and the parties all night have been going through the transcripts and seeing if they agree, because this has daily copy. Normally when there's no daily copy, the court reporter locates the places in the transcript

and proposes it to the lawyers. Here, because they have daily copy and they have the transcripts, what they're doing is they're saying they're seeing if the lawyers agree first. And apparently, and I'm going on CNN again tonight at 11 o'clock eastern which I can't believe how late to talk about it because apparently there is I'm told consensus by the lawyers uncertain of the risk of where the transcripts are responsive to the questions but not all of the questions and so but not all of the questions. And so I'll learn more in about two hours of where they are with that. And so what will happen is they're gonna try to come,

because someone else asked, well, why don't they just send the transcripts back? And the reason is because transcripts are an actual transcription, as you know, of the court proceedings, which have things in it like bench conferences and objections and objections that were sustained so the question is there and it's preserved but there's no answer none of that stuff that's not actually in evidence or appropriate for the jury would be read

back and that's why they not just handed the transcripts go ahead I like the read back part and I like this description this is how I've done it that's why I said it was it's, it's, it's simple. And the questions are simple. But the answers are very complicated. And that's why the judge is, as you said, let the jury go home a little bit early and is working through, working through it to come up with delivering what the jury wants or what they can agree to. Ultimately, the judge is going to be the arbiter. If

the defense digs in with with no that passage from Pecker doesn't relate to that. That's not what they ask for. There's that fighting. But he's, he's who decides? The judge. And the judge is going to decide if he can reach agreement and consensus through shaping it great. But if he can't, he won't. We're going to talk more about and certainly tomorrow morning when you and Ben are on together, you'll be able to share what you've learned this evening from this other group of people that you also operate with. I don't know how to put that.

All I know is you're on with us first, and we appreciate that. I don't know if they appreciate that, but I certainly do. So we're gonna talk about Mar-a-Lago. This is like, I mean, I gotta do a human emoji head slap. Again, Cannon finds a way not to make a decision, yet basically endorsed Donald Trump's claiming that he was the victim of an attempted assassination.

And then chastises the prosecution and beats them with both ends of the stick in her order we'll talk about all of that and then we'll talk about talk about upside down Alito um you know running his wife up the flag flagpole to see if anybody would salute blaming her the dog ate my flag uh and everything else and oh i'm not i'm not recusing myself and we're waiting talk about a loveless marriage that letter if my husband ever said those things about me, I'd be like, oh my god. Well, that's what I wrote in my hot,

I did a hot take and I said, and we've learned about a dysfunctional marriage that exists between, right? Do I have to know that she bought the house with inherit, not his money, and she, you could tell, we're getting a version of the fight. This is my flag, Paul. And I,

I asked her to take it down. She said no. She said no. He actually wrote at one point, this was the most poignant we'll get to it. We get to that section. This was the most I actually felt slight pathos, slight sympathy for a leader where he wrote, my wife likes flags, period. I don't. I was like, Do I need to know this much about your marriage? I really don't. And I'm not buying any of it. And it's not supposed to be what you and your wife are

arguing about over the toaster. It's supposed to be what the average reasonable person possessing of the facts driving by the house would feel about your independence and the ability to do your job. That's the standard. Not, I don't, not you're on the couch in couples therapy, which provides. It's your wife, you know? Right. If you want her to have first amendment rights

and you do too, then resign and go work for a MAGA think tank where you're itching to do it. You can just tell. All right, we're gonna talk about all that. And also the Alito and the Mar-a-Lago thing. But first, please stick around. It's really important we support our sponsors. Another word from our sponsors. Sometimes I wish we could have things in life both ways. Like a great glass of

red wine, but without the headache. Well, that's not going to happen in that example. But it is possible to have it both ways with Mack Weldon. I know men tend to think looking sharp means starchy Oxford's and stiff chinos rather than effortless comfort. But know men tend to think looking sharp means starchy oxfords and stiff chinos, rather than effortless comfort. But it's possible to have it both ways with Mack Weldon. From their light as air underwear to innovative anti-odor tees and versatile yet comfortable pants, Mack Weldon has a full range of clothes that never go out of style. Mack Weldon makes timeless apparel with modern performance fabrics for guys who want to look and feel sharp without sacrificing comfort. I love my Mack Weldon Ace sweatpants. They're

incredibly comfortable and also very sharp looking. I have a real confidence boost knowing I'm wearing anything sold by Mack Weldon. Some guys just want to look good without calling attention to themselves. Mack Weldon Apparel gives you understated good looks for understated confidence. Mack Weldon clothes are designed to fit your style and the demands of modern life. They look like regular clothes but feel like the latest in modern comfort. They're the go-to choice for guys who want to look great without even trying. Get timeless looks with modern comfort from Mack Weldon. Go to mackweldon.com and get 20% off your first order with promo code Legal AF. That's m-a-c-k-w-e-l-d-o-n dot com promo code Legal AF. Did you know that traditional bedsheets

can harbor more bacteria than a toilet seat? It can lead to acne, allergies, and stuffy noses and it's just gross. Miracle Maid offers a whole line of self-cleaning anti-bacterial beddings such as sheets, pillowcases, and comforters that prevent up to 99.7% of bacteria growth and require up to three times less laundry. Using silver-infused fabrics inspired by NASA, Miracle Maid sheets are thermoregulating and designed to keep you at the perfect temperature all night long. So you get better sleep every night. These sheets are infused with silver that prevent up to 99.7% of bacterial growth, leaving them to stay cleaner and fresh three times longer than other sheets. No more gross odors. Miracle sheets are luxuriously

comfortable without the high price tag of other luxury brands and feel as nice if not nicer than sheets used by some 5-star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria. Sleep clean with Miracle. Go to TryMiracle.com slash Legal AF to try Miracle-made sheets today. Whether you're buying them for yourself or as a gift for a loved one, if you order today you can save over 40%. And if you use our promo Legal AF at checkout, you'll get three free towels and save an extra 20%.

Miracle is so confident in their product, it's back with a 30-day money back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with Miracle Made. Go to trymiracle.com slash Legal AF and use the code Legal AF to claim your free three-piece towel set and save over 40% off. Again, that's trymiracle.com slash Legal AF to treat yourself. Thank you, Miracle Made, for sponsoring this episode. I see my ad reads like that and I think I needed a haircut at that moment. Now look, before we move on to Mar-a-Lago, we move on to Judge Alito. Everybody take a moment. Come right back. Go over to the Midas Touch live section, you know, YouTube live slide over just right where we we are right now and look right above us and there is mistrial.

M I s s t r I a l a new show anchored by literally by Karen Freeman, Nick Niffle along with two others. You got Daniel, Dona Perry, Kathleen Price. Be there for the first inaugural episode. You'll tell your grandchildren and others that you were there for episode number one just like some OGs like to say I was there for legal AF number one when it was a special episode of the Midas Touch Brothers podcast on Wednesdays how many people let me see a show of hands inside of this chat how many people watched Ben and Me on a Wednesday when it was the Wednesday edition special of the Might of Such Brothers podcast. I'll take a look and maybe I'll shower people

with some memberships. But go over, sign up, comment, get ready, set your alarm, set your alert, and it'll be a great first episode. I'll be in that audience and in that chat. So let's move on to Mar-a-Lago. You want to kick it off? What is going on? I can't even get it out. Why don't you frame it first? What happened? What did Jack Smith appropriately do and his team?

And what did Trump do? And then we can pick up with what the judge decided to do. So Jack Smith and his team were responding to a series of accusations made by Trump and all of his henchmen. Things like when they raided Mar-a-Lago, the FBI was going to assassinate me, they put a hit out on me, they were going to use deadly physical force. They planned on killing me. I mean, just horrendous claims, horrendous claims. And, and Jack Smith's team, the,

the special counsel's office, they filed a, an order to modify Trump's conditions of release, because don't forget every he's, he's out on bail, or I should say he's out on release conditions on all four of his cases, because he was arrested and he had to be released, and he was released with conditions, and now they wanna put a condition to modify his release status,

saying that he can't make statements that pose a quote, significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to law enforcement agents participating in the investigation and prosecution of the case. It's almost like an emergency motion or an emotion to basically just say, you can't do that, right? You can't.

That by making these kinds of comments, you basically put a target on the back of law enforcement. And the way, so when this happened, I was focused completely on the Manhattan DA case that's on trial right now. So I didn't actually read it until in preparation for this episode. I also then saw that in a paperless order,

Judge Cannon denied this saying, Jacksmit didn't meet and confer, he didn't do what he was supposed to do, it was a technicality, that's a local rule in Florida that before you make a motion, it might even just be a local rule in her court, I'm not really sure, but there's a requirement that you do a meet and confer, which just means you meaningfully get together and you discuss it and see if you can resolve it. If you can't, you say whether when you make a motion, it was either on consent or after a meaningful meet and conferral, we could not come to a consensus. And so this is opposed. This motion. So from the coverage, I just assumed there was no meet and confer. When I was preparing for this podcast, I was shocked when I read in the motion, the one

that we just talked about, this emergency motion saying that there's imminent foreseeable danger to law enforcement based on these outrageous statements made by Trump and his supporters, okay? There's a footnote, footnote number one. And footnote number one reads as follows. The government contacted counsel for defendant Trump who stated that they object to the motion and the timing of the conferral on this holiday weekend. It is their position that the government

has not provided an opportunity for meaningful conferral. They do not believe there's any imminent danger and asked to meet and confer next Monday. However, within just the last few hours, Trump has continued to issue false statements smearing and endangering the agents who executed the search. And then they posted the truth social, the truth social statement that he claimed the FBI was authorized to use lethal force on Trump or anyone at Mar-a-Lago while the FBI and DOJ plants evidence to frame Trump. I was shocked.

I'm sorry. The government did exactly what they were supposed to do. They called him. They notified them. I was surprised they even did that. This is an emergency motion to protect law enforcement. And they called him and they're like, no, I'm sorry. It's a holiday. I want to go to a barbecue. They didn't frame it as an emergency. Why not? Why didn't Jack Smith make it an emergency motion?

You mean in the title of it? Yeah, he didn't he didn't file it as an emergency motion. See, my point, Karen, I did recently, is that there's two things I would have done. If you got to follow her rules, and she's already let the prosecution know a number of times that they've been violating her rules when it comes to, she's big, talk about hobgoblins of little minds, she's big on this meet and confer thing. And she has chastised them and wrapped their knuckles to prosecution a couple of times under this 88.1 local rule about meet and confers. It's her thing. So when you got a judge, that's

your thing, then you got to follow it. The problem is what I would have done is I would have filed it as an emergency motion for exactly the reasons that you just laid out so eloquently and I would have moved for an expedited briefing schedule a motion to shorten time on the briefing schedule So it didn't play out over the normal briefs. It went in a shorter period to also read me whenever I do an emergency motion I almost always asked for shortened time for briefing because that shows that it's an emergency I'll tell you the reason they wouldn't have done it. Because this is for bail conditions. I mean, you know, this is, this is a release conditions.

This isn't just a motion for the court. This is, he's posing an imminent danger based on his release. You don't do that with briefing schedules. Bail, these bail condition motions are typically done in this way, right? You come before the court and you make your argument and then you have them modify the bail conditions. I mean, I don't know. I don't know why they didn't do it that way and maybe you're right, but I assume that they probably thought that that would have taken longer. But I was just appalled by her reaction. She said,

you know, the way she reacted to this. But I just want to read a little bit more about what Jack Smith was asking for. He said, the court should modify Trump's conditions of release to reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community and to implement the court's independent obligation to protect the judicial proceeding.

Professional law enforcement officers and agents in this country put their lives on the line every day in carrying out their duties to enforce the law. When executing court authorized warrants, those professionals face many uncertainties and potentially grave risks. To minimize the threat to harm to law enforcement professionals and civilians,

agents plan carefully for all contingencies and they also follow standard policies and protocols, including the prohibition on using deadly physical force except when necessary. The FBI followed these entirely standard and appropriate practices here. Trump however, surprisingly, this is my editorializing, shocked, has grossly distorted these standard practices

by mischaracterizing them as a plan to kill him. His family and U.S. Secret Service agencies, those deceptive and inflammatory assertions, irresponsibly put a target on the backs of FBI agents involved in this case, as Trump well knows. Indeed, Trump himself recognizes the power of his words and their effect on his audience, agreeing that his supporters, quote, listen to him like no one else. He quoted, that's a quote of a transcript from CNN's town hall that Caitlin Collins did with Trump May 11, 2023, and his documented pattern of speech.

And it's demonstrated real time, real world consequences have often. Now, I just want to point out two things. Number one, Trump is treated differently than everybody else if anybody else in any other case Endangered the lives of law enforcement and grossly distorted facts and lied like this The judge any judge would not hesitate they'd put him right in I mean look at what Sam Bankman happened to Sam Bankman Fried Okay there he was gonna release something that had to do with his ex-girlfriend,

letters, she was a witness in the case against him. There was no briefing schedule, there was no meet and confer, there was a haul his ass into court and he was put in. That is what happens, that is how judges behave. The fact that he could go out there and distort the facts and say when when they put in there do not use deadly physical force and except in these circumstances and you know what upset me about this search what pissed me off about this search is how the FBI treated

Donald Trump and his family differently than they treat every other person than every other person especially people of color in this country. Look at, and again, I say this because it's my husband who represents him. It's Puff Daddy, the Sean Combs case and the execution of that search warrant. Look at how that search warrant against a black family, his children were put in handcuffs.

They came in with tanks down the street and they had guns blazing to execute that search warrant. Look at how they did this one. They made sure that they weren't wearing uniforms, they were wearing collared shirts, and they made sure that Trump and his family weren't home that day. They coordinated with the Secret Service ahead of time and they called the lawyers for Donald Trump to make sure, if there any issue we will coordinate together. This was the softest execution of a search warrant in my that I have ever seen. I mean the way the way you ask any person of color in this country who has had a search warrant executed against them

they have they are they are they are hand cut they're put up against the wall anyone who's there anyone and everybody indiscriminately treated a certain way. The way they bent over backwards for Donald Trump in the execution of that search warrant is so outrageous. So for him to then turn around and make this claim against them is just ridiculous. And so I just hope that the law enforcement and the people who are bending over backwards for this man to treat him a certain way Should realize he's not your friend. He I don't know why they do it I don't know why everyone Treats him this way and bends over backwards for this man But you know they do it and yet he he stabs them in the front anyway

And so, you know, maybe it's time to start treating him like everybody else But the fact that they're the government tried to meet and confer and she said it wasn't enough, this is real. These are real targets on the backs of these agents who put their lives on the line every single day and we should revere them, we should respect them, and we should not treat them this way. And I'm just completely outraged by the story. I know you just asked me to frame it and I went off, but I apologize this one really pissed me off Sorry, well your your former your former former prosecutor and you know How agents should be treated and the issue is that there is in every search warrant? This one was authorized through a federal magistrate judge Reinhardt up in Fort Lauderdale

based on Testimony sworn testimony that was provided to him which indicated that it was like more likely than not that a crime was being committed at Moro Lago related to the retention of top-secret documents and information belonging to you and me and having hearing that and hearing that Donald Trump was moving the documents around and trying to delete security footage they got their search warrant. And in the search warrant, as boilerplate in every Department of Justice search warrant

that I'm aware of, it has a limitation on the use of deadly force. It's a limitation on the use of deadly force, not an instruction to use deadly force. And it says only, and first of all, all FBI agents or their derelict in their duties have to carry firearm. They don't get to take it off and leave it in the van because it's Donald Trump. They're law enforcement. They need to have their firearm. There's so many instances, and we can start with in the last 40 years, Waco and Texas and different places where law enforcement lives are at risk when they're executing what seems to be perfunctory search warrants but turn out not to be because they've been ambushed. That's one.

Two, it outlines for them the limited time when they're allowed to use force, when their life is in imminent danger and things like that. Donald Trump knows, he knows, that's why it's a lie, to his public, to his grifting donors, that he, it was August in Mar-a-Lago, he's never in Mar-a-Lago in August, he's always in Bedminster into camps there by March or April because it's hot as balls. I've lived in Florida and in that area in particular in August. You're hilarious. It's hot as balls in Florida in August. I lived in West Palm right across the bridge from Mar-a-Lago.

I know of what I'd speak. Now, in all the coordination that you talked about, secret service, staff at Mar-a-Lago, family members and the rest, he was no, in order to be the target of an assassination plot by the President of the United States, which is what Donald Trump's claim is in his emailing to get money, he'd have to at least be, I think we'd all agree, he'd have to at least be in the same physical location as the FBI executing. Not only that, the lawyers for Donald Trump were present, right? We had Christina Bob,

she now indicted and having been arraigned in Arizona for her role in many things, Trump was involved. Evan Corcoran, who participated in a crime or fraud according to at least one judge up in the District of Columbia, and had to turn over all of his notes and all of his recordings, he and Jennifer Little were all involved. Some of them were watching it on video recordings. I didn't even know they had video cameras until I read that they wanted to watch the execution of the search warrant on video. So to your point, people of color, even rich people of color like Puff Daddy, don't get this courtesy and they certainly are, they can't claim that they were the subject of an attempted assassination.

And you're right, I think you're right. I don't think you have to label it emergency when you're talking about conditions of release. Because every criminal defendant, state or federal, for those that watch us around the world or aren't as attuned to this as we are, every criminal defendant once it is released from, it has bond conditions at the at the mercy of the court system and the presiding judge. They are free because a judge has allowed them to remain free until their trial unless they're so violent or have violated other things that constitute flight risks that they need to be put away like many of the Jan 6 defendants. But you are not, and this

is what Judge Chutkin does regularly and Judge Mershon does appropriately regularly, which is to put Donald Trump in his seat and remind him that he is a criminal defendant in a criminal case that and his liberty is at their discretion. Cannon flips, talk about shifting the burden, turns it on its head and make and I understand the prosecution has the ultimate burden but this is this is a criminal defendant in a criminal process who what I I defy Aileen Cannon if she's if I'm ever on a panel with her down in South Florida, to tell me one other defendant that she's ever presided over, criminal defendant, that was allowed to claim that the prosecution and the Department of Justice and the FBI was

going to assassinate him in his home and tell that to the public and amplify it on a megaphone to millions and millions of people and that wouldn't be a violation of the conditions of release that you read aloud. And she wouldn't be able to answer that question because she it's a lie. It's a lie. So what we have is what what some people are like I don't want to leave them in despair. What happens next? But there were two motions that were denied without prejudice. One was Donald Trump's, because he actually filed a motion for sanctions

against Jack Smith, arguing that they violated the meet and confer, they didn't confer with us nicely. And now the judge says, yeah, I don't like the way that conferral went. So for now on, there has to be a conferral with reasonable time, and then you have to put a paragraph of 200 words or less of exactly what the other side wants you to put into their statement so that I can see exactly how the conferral went. And

I'm like, are we like, talk about losing the forest for the trees. What about the guy over there who's violating his terms of his release and attacking the FBI and claiming they're trying to kill him? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no the the uh prosecutors if you do it again i'm gonna sanction you um which the people trump didn't ask for and then trump had his own motion for sanctions which he denied without prejudice because they didn't confer with the government but that was like the tail end like you too you didn't do it right either neither did you and so we got a paperless order that you can't appeal and now it's without prejudice meaning both sides can file

after they have meaningful conferral. So I assume at some point now that the jury's deliberating or at some point they're gonna have meaningful conferral sometime this week and the two of them are gonna file their motions again. And the judge is gonna have to get to the substance of this. But you know her, she'll drag her feet out, it'll suddenly be August. Speaking of August, by the time she sets a hearing or rules on the thing, and then she'll rule against the prosecution. She'll say, no, First Amendment court political speech, you can say what he wants, even if it's a lie, which is not really the constitutional

precedent. But she'll say that. And then he can take her to the 11th Circuit. By that time, it'll be August or September, and we've got a trial in November, right? What do you think? I think we got to hit our last topic cuz I got to get to my mistrial podcast and That's that we're dropping in ten minutes popak. All right, so you want me to do a lead? Oh, what do you want to do? Yeah? I just have one comment to make you do the Alito and all that I have one comment to make No, no, you'd say you do a little Oh do a little in a comment. Oh, I have a comment about make. All right, go ahead, make your comment. No, no, you'd say you do Alito. Oh, do Alito in a comment. Oh, I see. I have a comment about Alito, but you frame it.

Oh, I see what you're trying to say. Well, I got a comment about Mistral. You were so busy today, get ready, Salty, you were so busy today recording and doing things that you had to take the Midas laptop, your laptop with the Midas recording, onto CNN with Sydney, our, you thought I was gonna let you off the hook on that one?

With Sydney, so there's the laptop. I wish we could circle it. There's the laptop, which is uploading the episode with Sydney, our producer involved on the set of CNN. That's true. There are many reasons I love you, but that one I love especially. No, it's true, it's true, it's true. It was. But that one, that one I love. No, it's true. It's true. It's true. It was because you know, it's going slow. And so

it was load. I'm hearing multitasking and trying to like do the, you know, record and also doing CNN also know like we have a note, we got to get you back on set. And they're like, Oh my god, but it hasn't loaded yet. And so they're like, you have to keep your computer open. So I bring it with me and Very official with your open people probably thought you were doing research at the time You know, it's like no Sydney's just waiting like for the hourglass to run so you can record All right. So look, we're gonna get crap from salty here if we don't move on Alito. I'll just I'll do it backwards We all know about the upside-down flags we all know he's been blaming the wife

We all know about the upside down flags. We all know he's been blaming the wife. We all learned way too much about their marriage, the fact that she wears the pants and has the wallet in the pants about everything in their life. And she loves flags and flag balls. And she has, according to him, a First Amendment right that has nothing to do with him and his bias.

The problem is that the letter that was sent that he responded to that said he's not going to recuse himself from the pending matters that we're waiting on in the next week or two from the Supreme Court about immunity for Donald Trump and about obstruction of official proceeding being an appropriate count against Donald Trump and others. He's not going to recuse himself. And he said, this your letter to the chief justice has been referred to me because I'm the justice

under the rules that has to decide whether I recuse myself or not. And, uh, and then he created entirely new, um, rule, uh, the Lido made rules that has to decide whether I recuse myself or not. And then he created an entirely new rule, an Alito-made rule that has nothing to do with the canon that he violated, which is if a reasonable person possessing of the facts would believe that he's not fair and impartial and he can't execute his duties. Well, anybody riding by the house seeing two insurrectionist flags flying from the Alito household is not going to stop and think, I wonder if that's the wife. his duties. Well, anybody riding by the house seeing two insurrectionist flags flying from the Alito household is not gonna stop and think, I wonder if that's the wife, I wonder if that's a daughter. They're gonna think that's F in Sam Alito's house who I'm going now to argue in front of, how am I gonna get a fair

trial? And so he said anybody created a new one. It was anyone who was apolitical and wasn't trying to influence a Supreme Court decision, that's not the standard. The standard is what I just laid out and you violated the standard. So he didn't like the standard, so he created a new standard that was ridiculous and you couldn't possibly meet the evidential burden of you know burden of and then say and by the way I'm not recusing myself PS, you know XO XO Sam Alito. What did you want to comment on about that? I look I just wanted to say what one of the things he said in that it really upset me was you know in this in The other in the Beach House flag, that's the upside down Tree or the tree the green. I'm sorry, the green tree with

the white background, the appeal to heaven flag has a Christian symbolism to it apparently and a history that dates back to the Revolutionary War according to him. But you know, look, today this is what it means. No one's seen that flag since the Revolutionary War. It's been reinvigorated by the Jan Sixers. It's clearly a January 6th symbol in addition to the upside down flag. And there's no way she was flying that flag for any other reason.

And Alito made some comment that, oh, well, just because it has a new meaning doesn't mean the historical meaning of it is gone. And I just couldn't help but think of the swastika, which, you know, is obviously it's an ancient religious and cultural symbol. You know, it's found in some African and European and Asian countries from ancient old timey times, right? It's an old, but no one in this day and age in this country would display a swastika and say, oh, but it has some old... You can't wear it anymore. You just can't. It just has a different meaning.

And so to me, this really smelled of that. And it was, I thought, kind of a really not a great answer. And it's very clear that this is the, he's dog whistling too. And it's just disappointing because the legitimacy of the Supreme Court of one whole branch is just, it's just not there. And the fact that Judge, that John Roberts, the chief judge, who

I think was everybody's last hope that he was going to do whatever he can to try and bring legitimacy back to the court, allowed Alito to be the author of the voting rights decision in the middle of all of this. And we basically disenfranchised many, many, many, many black voters. So I just go ahead. Chief Justice Roberts is circling the drain as the worst Chief Justice that we've had. He's completely lost control of this court and has done nothing, nothing to stand up for it or its legitimacy. Karen, I want to keep you on your schedule. So we reached the end of legal a F Karen's original show. That's four years ago. Shout out for legal AF. There's ways to support. Thank you very much. We need this

ways to support as you know what they are. It is to listen to this. It is to go on our podcast on all the podcast platforms. It is to watch us here, comment and leave comment. And then we've got the Patreon, patreon.com slash legal AF switch over now to mistrial M I S S T R I A L a new podcast anchored by Karen Friedman and Nick Nifilo with a couple of her contemporaries. I think you're going to love it. It's coming up next. Karen, I can't wait to see you for both pot takes and duets and in person and next week on Legal AF.