Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump’s ARREST is Tip of the ICEBERG with WHAT COMES NEXT!

Episode Date: April 6, 2023

The midweek edition of the top rated legal and political podcast Legal AF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this special midweek’s edition, anchors national trial attorney Michael Popok and former top Manhattan DA prosecutor Karen Friedman Agnifilo discuss: 1. The Trump arraignment and what we learned from the “statement of facts” that accompanied the 34 count felony indictment, and the next steps by the defense team and the prosecution; 2. Trump losing again against Jack Smith’s prosecutors before the DC Court of Appeals who has ruled that Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, Stephen Miller and Trump’s entire national security team has to testify against him without any executive privilege, and Mike Pence getting ready for his grand jury testimony too; and 3. Liberals not right wing extremists now being in the majority of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and what that means for voting rights and women’s rights in Wisconsin and nationally, and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! MIRACLE MADE: Head to TryMiracle.com/LEGALAF and use the code LEGALAF to claim your FREE 3 PIECE TOWEL SET and SAVE over 40% OFF. GREENCHEF: Head to https://GreenChef.com/LegalAF60 and use code LEGALAF60 to get 60% off and Free Shipping! SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump has pledged not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in New York, the financial capital of the world, and yes, that's a crime. But what happens next with court dates, the DA turning over records at witness statements to the defense, and the inevitable roll-out of motion after motion by the defense to delay this trial. And just who is in charge of the Trump defense team anyway? And why is Boris Epstein, this year year's Michael Cohen sitting at the defense table yesterday anyway?

He's already got his own problems with the feds. Then we'll talk about Trump's pile of losses before the DC Circuit Court, where he's now forced his inner circle to testify before multiple grand juries. The latest is that court of Appeals rejected his emergency appeal and come on down, Mark Meadows, Steven Miller and a parade of other Trump insiders, including national security advisors of Donald Trump will tell you why it will tell you what happens next. And finally, Republicans have to be troubled for their party's national fortunes, following dogs and ripping away what had

been a US constitutional right for a woman to control her own bodily autonomy with the results in the $40 million Wisconsin Supreme Court race for one open seat to tip the balance of power, liberal or maga, the liberals grabbed it and what does that mean for abortion rights and new electoral maps and Wisconsin and the nation for the next two years. You know what happened, but find out what happens next on the midweek edition of legal AF with Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifalo. Karen, watching you on all the news shows over the last months and days reminds me of that chant from Ted Lasso about Roy Kent. You're here, you're there, you're everywhere, but now you're home with legal AF that we're so happy to

have you on the show following a week that will go down in history. How are you exhausted? It was, it's been intense. I mean, it's, it's my old office and I've never been more proud of my old office and, and seeing the work that they have done. And the fact, of course, it's the Manhattan D.A.'s office that's going to go down in history as the office that did something really important and brought the first criminal indictment against a former president.

Watching the evolution of Karen Friedman, Ignifala, both of us, my friend, co-anchor, and on this show just shows you how fair we are without really pushing a narrative. Because I know, in watching you, in working next to you, in the beginning, you were a little sanguine, a little disappointed with what you could observe about the pace of the office after Alvin Bragg

initially got in over a year and a half ago. Why did Mark Palmerance and Carrie Dunquitt? Why is an Alvin Bragg initially got in over a year and a half ago. Why did Mark Pomerancin carry down quit? Why is an Alvin Bragg picking up where side dance your boss left off? This is not a happy day for me. These were things that I heard you say, but the turning point, I think, for all of us is there's before Mark Pomerancin quit noisily and wrote a memoir and there's after Mark Pomeran's quit and wrote a memoir. So talk to us a little bit about your mental evolution that got you to the point where you are now,

which is, of course, acknowledging Alvin Bragg and what he's done to come out of the shoot first with an indictment. So just was in the beginning, as you said, I was a little bit frustrated because it wasn't just Mark Pomeran. There was another lawyer with him, Carrie Dunn, who I worked with for many years, who I have tremendous respect for. I didn't know Mark Pomeran's, I never worked with Mark Pomeran, so I had no opinion of him

one way or another. And I also knew how much work, not just the two of them, but others in the office, had put into the larger Trump organization case involving the valuation of assets. I didn't know the specifics of the case, but there was a feeling from largely just where Mark Pomerantz and Carrie Dunn were at the time that Alvin Bragg became a district attorney that it was time that they felt that the case was ready to go and ready to go in the grand jury. And I believed at the time that it probably was ready to go into the grand jury. But again, that was just more from knowing the prosecutors, not knowing the case itself.

And of course, I didn't know Alvin Bragg and he ever worked with him. And so when Mark Comerance left very dramatically, when Kerry Dunne left, by the way, he didn't hear anything, he just resigned. And then when Mark Comerance left, anything he just resigned. And then when when Mark Comerance left he left very dramatically and he cast a lot of his versions on the office on Alvin Bragg, on the ADA's who were there. And it made many people say that they were

somewhat concerned and concerned about the office, concerned about DA brag. And, and he said several, Mr. Pomerant said several things that again, made several people worried is the best way of putting it, I suppose. And so I was disappointed. I was disappointed because I had thought that perhaps the office had lost some of its gravitas and that Alvin Bragg wasn't the prosecutor that we had hoped he was when he was elected DA. Since then, and that was just a gut reaction, right, it was no, I had no information other than his leaked resignation letter and news articles and news reporting.

Since then, however, so much information has come to light about who Mark Pomerance is, his judgment, and frankly, the fact that Alphan Bragg has really remained steadfast throughout this time, that the case and cases were still open, he was still investigating them, and he wanted, it was more than he wasn't ready to go forward, two months into his brand new tenure as Manhattan DA, he wanted a little more time, and a Mr. Pan's wouldn't give it to him and so rather than allowing the the allowing the D.A. to get his his sea legs a little bit and understand the case and perhaps make his own decision which is what Sivance allowed him to do by not bringing the case purposely. He turned it over to Alvin Bragg to evaluate it for himself.

And Carrie Dunn and Mark Pomerance resigned. And Mark Pomerance clearly didn't want to wait. And clearly thought his judgment was more appropriate and better than the elected district attorney. So since then, as I said, Alvin Bragg has continued to investigate the cases. He has patiently said without raising his voice, without being dramatic, without talking inappropriately about facts that we are all desperate to hear. He just kept putting his head down and doing the work and saying the cases are open, the cases are open,

they're still open investigations. And since then, he was also handed a case involving the Trump organization involving 17 counts that that was already an indictment and he he staffed that with his lawyers and he got a conviction 17 count conviction against the Trump organization. And then he turned to the case that was indicted this week involving the first time Donald Trump engaged in a conspiracy to interfere with an election, that being the election of 2016. And he turned his attention to that case. He thought he had developed enough evidence to prove that case beyond a reasonable

doubt. And in addition, that case was about to the statute of limitations was going to run. So it was now or never on that case. And that's where we are today. And I just he, he actually, my opinion has changed because he's done what every prosecutor should do, which is put your head down, do the work, action speak louder than words, not write a tell-all book and you know just really he's done a great job. Yeah I think that's that's a great understanding of you with your insider knowledge but observing the office from the outside and how you've evolved and and and reach the point where you are which is obviously very proud of the office and all the line prosecutors and career prosecutors most of which you

worked with and they worked under you when you were the number two who are now the ones that are getting the indictment from the grand jury that are going to try the case, probably not Alvin Bragg, but somebody very senior there that's going to develop and work up the case moving forward from indictment. Before we get to some of the nitty gritty of what is a statement of facts, how is that different from the indictment? Are they the same? Are they both charging documents? And what do they say in the statement of facts that are important to the world to know what the actual charges are? Let me talk first. Let me switch to the other side of the table and go to the defense because there's been a change in the defense team for Donald Trump, just 48 hours before he entered the courtroom

yesterday for his arrangement. And if we can put up salty, that photo, leave it up there for a moment because I'm going to talk about, this looks like a terrible version of the last supper. This is I'm going to start from the far right forward and end up at the first chair closest to that that deputy for the courtroom. On the far right in a three-piece suit, the balding gentleman is Boris Epstein. Boris Epstein is effectively the consuliary for Donald Trump now. He stepped into the shoes that were once worn by Michael Cohen. that were once worn by Michael Cohen. He is invested, he's being investigated by the feds by Jack Smith. His phone has been seized by Jack Smith

and all the content taken off of it. He's already lost an argument about attorney client privilege related to that. And they're looking at him related to everything from the fake electors scheme and putting that together all the way through Mar-a-Lago and everything in between. The other reason he's in the room, but not a trial lawyer, but sitting there on the other side of Joe Takapina, is that he brought to the table the new defense lawyer, Todd Blanch.

Let's put the photo back up. Todd Blanch is sitting in chair number one, looking up the guard. Susan necklace is next to him. Susan necklace is the defense lawyer who tried and lost the case against the Manhattan DA on behalf of the true two major Trump organization entities for 17 counts of felony tax evasion and books and records fraud, which is a similar count to what's found here. So yes, you can indict an entity or a person for fraud related to books and records, and yes, you can get a conviction in the state of New York in front of a jury, a unanimous conviction, because it happened 17 times. That's Susan Necklace, but we call in the business, 17 times that's Susan necklace, but we call in the business who's who's in the first chair. That's the Lee trial lawyer and and Todd Blanche who literally left his million dollar law firm practice because they didn't want him to represent Trump to go on his own three days ago to represent him.

He's in the season chair one Susan check neckless isn't chair to Donald Trump. They're looking for Lauren slash angry slash confused as in chair three and then babysitting him and being given what effectively as a coloring book and crayons is Joe Takapina. He's he's been charged with sitting on and babysitting Donald Trump. That's why he's on the far end of the table next to Boris Epstein who thinks he's the mastermind of this whole legal team that's there. So that's the change.

I think we're going to see a lot more of Todd Blanche. He spoke the most. That's what the reporting is in the courtroom in front of Judge Mershon. I think he's the newly trial lawyer assisted by Susan Neckless and then on down the loan. Joe Takapina, I think he's still there to be on, like I said, to color in a coloring book and to go on television and try to do trial balloons

of defenses and ideas and concepts. I don't know if you've ever had the opportunity to be against Todd Blanche. I know you know Susan Neckless well. What about Todd? What do you know about him, Karen? So Todd was the lawyer that was brought in when we brought a prosecution against Paul Maniford. If you recall, he was prosecuted federally and he was pardoned by Donald Trump and Sivance brought charges against him that were

similar but not exactly the same as the charges for which he was pardoned and Todd Blanche came into that case and he successfully legally litigated that case and got it dismissed on double jeopardy grounds. So I'm sure that is why he was brought onto the legal team because he successfully beat a case against the Manhattan DA's office on legal as opposed to factual grounds. So I think that's my guess to why they brought him in. Yeah, just for our legal AF law students, the double jeopardy is you can't be tried twice for the same crime, even though one was federal and and he got there was a conviction and

that a pardon, the real estate loan issue that was a fraud that was being brought by Sivance, Karen's old boss, lined up so similarly in terms of the nucleus of facts, the supporting facts that the Appellate Court in New York found that in that case, it was effectively being tried for the same case, same crime twice. Some people might be saying, well, why was banning then who got pardoned? Why is there a state prosecution of him about Bill DeWal? And that's because the facts are different. The indictment is different.

It's not a double jeopardy, even though Banan tried to raise that issue as well. And Paul Manafort, Paul Manafort was the chairman of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. So just for people who don't know who that was, Paul Manport was the chairman of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign. So just for people who don't know who that was, he's a Republican strategist and he's definitely was in Trump's inner circle. As we move into the information, the statement of facts and the indictment, the supporting

statement of facts and the indictment, and we get into the 34 accounts, the real meat of the thing, the thing that everybody's reporting on is that is the 20 or 30 or so paragraphs of detail in the statement of facts. Explain for the audience and for me, the difference between the statement of facts and the actual charging document of the indictment. What's the purpose of the statement of facts?

Is it seen as a just a part of the indictment. What's the purpose of the statement of facts? Is it, is it seen as as a just a part of the indictment? Is it a separate document? What is the defense shoot at when it moves to dismiss? Is it the whole thing? Why don't you explain that to everybody? Okay, so when a person is indicted by the grand jury, that an indictment is generated and an indictment is a document that has the charges that you are being charged with, and it says, the grand jury in the county of New York charges you with X, Y, and Z.

And here, there were 34 counts. And the indictment that you see there involving the falsification of business records is very common, it's very common. It's very common, or I should say, it's, that's what an indictment looks like. That's very illustrative of what an actual indictment would look like. We call it bare bones.

And that's how they're all written. There's nothing special or not special about it. It's, they defend it in the county of New York, honor about ex-date, committed the crime of falsification of business records and the first degree. It's just very simple. It's the legal language.

And then it says, by writing a check or something like that. It's just the most bare bones notification of what the charge is and what the theory is. So some more checks, some more invoices, etc. And there is a slight exception to a bare bones indictment and that involves certain charges that have a story component to the charge. And that's so one of those types of charges

is conspiracy. Conspiracy is the crime of two or more people agreeing to commit a crime together. And then they take steps to accomplish that crime. And those are called overt acts. And those conspiracy indictments, when conspiracy is charged, there's a couple other crimes that are like that. One is an organized crime, or Rico,

is it talking or speaking indictment. There's a couple other charges that would give lots of facts, but conspiracy is the main one. And several people had speculated, will conspiracy be in this indictment just so that Alvin Bragg has an opportunity to give more detail and to talk about the entire factual basis of the case. And so for example, if he had charged conspiracy, it would say the defendant, along with unindicted co-conspiracy or lawyer number one, and unindicted co-conspirator CEO of

a media company number two, agreed from the beginning of the election to the well into his presidency to catch and kill stories, you know, have a, to catch and kill stories, you know, have a scheme to catch and kill stories, to try and influence the election. And it would have sort of overall language like that that would talk about what the scheme was. And then it would give overt acts, which are all the facts that are in furtherance

of that conspiracy that you intend to prove a trial. And I believe that, frankly, they probably should have charged conspiracy. That's what I was going to ask you. I was going to ask you. So, yeah. 34 counts don't include that as a count, right? Yeah, they do not include it. And I'll get to my feelings about why they did and why they didn't and why I think they

should have in a minute. But let me answer your question first. So they clearly made a choice not to charge conspiracy. And so they were left with a bare bones indictment. And obviously in this particular case, that wouldn't have been enough. And there would have been demands from the defense and the public to be given notice of what they are being charged with in detail.

And so there's a concept in the law called the Bill of Partitulars, which is something that, usually, in the past, I should say, the prosecutor would be required to give to the defense to give him the defense, to give him notice of what he was being charged with. So you do a bill of particulars that would have a lot of these facts. And it's something so that the defendant can then say, okay, I am going to make, that's how they know what motions to make, right?

They'll know, oh, I want to make motions on the statute of limitations or I want to make motions that the felony that you relied upon doesn't qualify as a bump up for falsification of business records. I know we'll get into that in a minute or I want to make a motion that the Susan McDougal facts should be kept out because that's prejudicial and it's unchart. Sorry. I do the same thing. I know. I know. Sorry. You know that that Karen McDougal that she that those facts are prior bad acts and unchartched crimes and those those those are overly prejudicial and shouldn't come in. And so so those are the types of motions that I anticipate will be made.

And the bill of particulars is something that would inform the defense of all of the facts that would apply that they could make motions about. Now, why didn't they call this bill of particulars and why isn't it a bill of particulars? They just decided to call it a statement of facts. And that's what it, because that's what it is. And that's what they, they filed.

Prosecutors are doing less and less, are providing less and less bill of particulars now because in January of 2020, the laws in the state of New York changed. And, and now we basically have open file discovery, which we did not have before. And when we didn't have it before, the prosecutors' file was closed to the defense until the very end of the case right before trial, which, and so that's why prosecutors had to do a bill

of particulars because that was the only way defendants could know exactly what they were being charged with. Nowadays, now that we have open file discovery, there's less need for a bill of particulars because they're basically just going to get the entirety of the prosecution's file. That being said, in this case, they decided that the defense would have wanted notice, and of course, the public would have wanted notice. So this is not done in every case but it's also not never done either. So they decided to create a statement of facts

and file it. But I think it's risky for them to have done it this way. And what this means by the way is this is the evidence that was presented to the grand jury. This is what the grand jury heard is this is the evidence that was presented to the grand jury. This is what the grand jury heard and more, but this is the gist of what the grand jury heard, of what the facts are, the evidences, the law is, and what they voted on. Okay, so this is the grand jury presentation. I still think it's risky and still think they should have charged conspiracy. That's what I want to talk to you about. First, first quick question, then I want to get into exactly what you just said

that you want to talk about. First is, is the combination of the statement of facts and the indictment, the charging document? No, just the indictment. Just the indictment, right? But it is now traveling with this other thing, which used to be a bill of particulars, but now because of the rule change and all that you've identified properly And the need for the public to know but now giving the defense also some sort of roadmap They there's this statement of facts. That's why we all got excited during the live version that we did on the Midas Touch Network yesterday

Where we had I don't know 50,000 people watching the group and I was participating with, we only got the indictment first. We're like, and I've seen indictments, of course, I've drafted things that look like indictments, but aren't indictments. And it's like 34 counts of this business record and this general ledger and this, we're like, where is the meat? Where is the, where is the, you know, and then you get into the statement of facts and you find out about the story to kill, the illegitimate child rumors and Karen McDougal, the playboy playmate, not named by name, but by woman one and woman two

stormy Daniels and doorman one. Then we got all what we needed to see. So I want to hear from you though, before we lose that thread. Why, if you were in the office, if you were the one that was their boss, and you were working with Alvin, let's say, why you wouldn't have done it this way,

and how would you have done it? That's what I think people want to hear. Yeah, so, okay. First of all, falsification of a business record in New York is a class e-fellowne, which is the lowest level felony. Conspiracy to commit a class e-fellowne is actually an amistamine.

And so, and that's just the way it goes. The only way to make it a felony is if it's an A, B, or C felony that they are conspiring to do, but since they're conspiring to commit an e-fellowne, it's an amistamine, or C felony that they are conspiring to do, but since they're conspiring to commit an E felony, it's an A misdemeanor. So I know that was, I just know because I know how the office works. I know that there was lots of discussion about whether or not it's worth it to include a misdemeanor.

And I also wondered whether it was beyond the statute of limitations, because there's a two-year statute of limitations for a misd a two-year statute of limitations for a misdemeanor. I wondered whether that was the reason they didn't include it. But then when you think about the time period involved, a conspiracy is an ongoing crime, I think they probably would still be within the statute. But there was a question I think

that they must have considered about whether or not it's worth it to charge a conspiracy. What if you lose the statute of limitations, then Trump will go nuts. You know, see, I won. I won this charge. And I got a charge dismissed, and he would make a mountain out of that. So that could be one of the reasons. The other reason I would assume they didn't charge it is because again, it's just a misdemeanor and so what's the point? What does it add?

And so why risk the jury compromising and acquitting on felonies? And because he's dead to rights on the conspiracy, and I think it was a strategic decision for them to not charge a misdemeanor, because if you have misdemeanors and felonies on an indictment, sometimes they might, during, might compromise, and it's counterintuitive that the conspiracy, which seems like the most serious charge, and

it would be on top of the indictment on the very top even though it's the lowest charge probably because it tells the story. And so it seems counterintuitive that a conspiracy would be a lesser charge or a misdemeanor than the felony. And if the jury had some issues about the legal theory that they're relying on for falsification of business records to bump it up to a felony, then maybe they might compromise and so they don't want to risk that. So I would guess those are the reasons they didn't charge conspiracy.

I however, and those are legitimate concerns. And I think that it's perfectly legitimate where they landed. I just happened to land on the other side and I think that they should have charged conspiracy and the reason is I wouldn't want to risk. I mean, all 34 counts in the indictment are about stormy Daniels, 100%. And the legal theory that they are relying on

to bump this up to a felony. So just to go over the elements of the crime really quick, falsification of a business records is a misdemeanor in New York. And the elements of that crime are with the intent to deceive you falsify a business record, right? And it's very just, it's just very simple. And there's no doubt that Donald Trump did that crime. It becomes a felony if your intent to deceive and defraud involved trying to the intent to cover up, conceal, or commit another crime. And so there's been a lot of speculation of what is that other crime, and why is it not charged in the indictment if they are going to commit or cover up another crime?

Why is that not charged in the indictment? Oftentimes, it is in other cases. And so there's a lot of speculation about that. Alvin Bragan has press conference and in the statement of facts yesterday outlined what the crimes are that he believes they were intending or Trump was intending to commit and or conceal. And that was a federal election law violation, a state law election law

violation, and tax crimes. So those are the three crimes that they are alleging Trump intended to commit or conceal. I'm sorry, those three, but it was conspiracy to commit those three crimes. So an actual conspiracy charge. So that that two or more people conspired that would be Trump, Cohen, and Pecker conspired. That means they got together and agreed. We're gonna catch and kill stories in order to influence the election. We are going to block and tackle, right? We're going to kill the stories of the people who are trying to hurt Trump, and we're going to promote stories of your opponents. We're going to,

other people's negative stories. We're going to find them, and we're going to put them on the front page of the National Enquirer, and anything bad about Trump, we're going to find them and we're going to put them on the front page of the National Enquirer and anything bad about Trump, we're going to suppress. And that's the criminal conspiracy and we're going to do that to influence the election. We're not going to, and we're not going to pay people off, which in and of itself isn't to crime, but we're not going to claim it as election contributions and PS, we're going to also make it so that it looks like legal fees and so we don't have to pay, it's not income and so you don't have to pay income tax on it, you can just deduct it. So that's the legal theory that it

was a conspiracy to commit those crimes. And Alvin Bragg's office, the DA's office, is saying the conspiracy, the agreement to do all of that, and evidence of that includes the doorman and Stormy Daniels from this long period of time. And I think that's risky. I think that's risky because it's, yes, it was relied on in the grand jury, but it's not a charged crime, and it's not an overdact in the conspiracy. And I think one of the legal arguments that the defense is going to make is that it's an uncharged crime. And uncharged crimes are typically not allowed in a criminal prosecution because they will say, yes, it's probative.

Okay, it's relevant. It's probative. It's helpful. But it's overly prejudicial. And so some judges will keep that out. And so there's going to have to be a ruling on that, I think. And to me, it's risky. Whereas if it was in the conspiracy, and they were overt acts in the conspiracy, the conspiracy

to catch and kill, right? The scheme to defore- scheme, you know conspiracy to catch and kill, right? The scheme to de-defore, scheme, you know, to catch and kill stories and throw the election and the overt acts, the things they did are, pay Karen McDougal, pay the door man, pay stormy. You know, all that, then it's your overt acts, then it is a charged crime and no one will keep it out. So I think that, I personally think it's slightly risky not to do it,

but they're super smart lawyers, and I think they, if they decided not to, they have a good reason not to, but like I said, I lean on the other side. So there's a mismatch, which is what we're talking about. There's a mismatch between the statement of facts, what used to be called the bill of particulars, and all of the facts that are listed there. From the Karen McDougall, woman number one, Stormy Daniels, woman number two, the door

man and the illegitimate child rumor that was killed, which is all there. There's a mismatch between that and the charged crimes in the indictment, as you carried pointed out, all of those 34, all of them, all those entries would appear to support only the case involving a stormy period and not Karen and McDougall and not the doorman soall and not the door man. So that you have that mismatch. Now I guess you can clear that mismatch up later with a superseding indictment, which is an indictment that comes later, which I guess the office could bring at the appropriate

time. But right now, you've got this mismatch and you're saying that potentially the defense could use it to the disadvantage of the prosecutor's office, understanding that the prosecutors knew about this mismatch and must have done it for a reason that we're going to follow. And just so I can kind of summarize it and then kind of just wrap up this particular segment. In the, if we put up the statement of facts for a minute, the way it's broken down, the way to read it, if you want to read it on your own, is that you start with paragraphs two and three.

And that sort of gives you what Karen is referred to as kind of this overarching conspiracy, the catch and kill, or as Ronan Farrow, who discovered it as related to the Doorman's story called it, the, he called it the, the buy in, the buy in burn or something, I wouldn't have called it, but whatever he called it, it's the catch and kill. And then if you go to paragraph seven and nine, you'll see the meetings between David Pecker and what we now know is Michael Cohen in Trump tower to devise the scheme in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the statement of facts. You see the door man and the and the Matt Calamari along with the rumor of an illegitimate child for the 1980s and that story being killed for $30,000 and a payment on behalf of

Donald Trump in the election. In 12 and 14 paragraphs, you've got the Karen McDougal story. She's identified as woman one and in 16 through 21, you've got the Stormy Daniels part and all of it under this are overarching catching kill conspiracy. So that's how that all runs and that's how we learned about I did a hot tick on the door man. Whoever I mean we thought with 34 accounts there was something else going on but really the accounts don't match the statement of claim, the statement of facts anyway because as you said it's all about stormy. If you added all these other people in this would

be a hundred a hundred count indictment and it could still be in in the future. Was there anything about the statement of facts that you found interesting? Before we turn briefly to Judge Mershon, the attacks on him, the attacks on his daughter, and the decision on the gag order, which Judge Mershon has already ruled on, as of now, for what Donald Trump can and cannot say.

Yeah, I was surprised, because I didn't remember this fact if I once knew it. Well, first of all, I didn't know about the Doorman, and for five seconds, I thought, oh my God, is there a love child? And I realized that's been, you know, that's been debunked, but when that first came out,

I was surprising. The second thing that was truly most surprising to me was the invitation that Trump invited Pecker to the White House once he was elected to thank him for helping him win the White House, which is exactly what proves this crime that this was about the election. So I think that's pretty good evidence. So yeah, that's the one thing I found in the statement of facts that I thought was great. I thought this is a pretty strong case. Yeah, I like that a lot. They stuck that in there. I also

liked for me the one fact that was in there and then we're going to let one of our sponsors help us keep the show moving. As the, I think a dig at Donald Trump and one of the defenses that Joe Takapina and others were floating, which is the Melania defense. Oh, he didn't do it to help himself in the campaign. He was embarrassed about it with his wife. And so that's why he had Al Wieselberg and other people at the Trump organization fraudulently make entries into the books and records. As if Melania goes down to the office and checks the books and records.

Putting that aside, it turns out that David Pecker and the American Media International National Enquirer publisher, they made false entries in their books to cover up the $150,000 payment that they made to Karen McDougal the playmate. So I'm sorry, they were doing that to cover for Melania too because Melania was going down to the national inquire. Okay, you could just see the silliness about these defenses. But before we move on and we go on to our next segment, let's have a word from our sponsor. This podcast is sponsored by Miracle Mate Cheats. Whether you want to get more fit, be a better parent or get more done at work, there is one thing that will help, and that's better sleep.

With Miracle Mate Sheets, you can tap into the power of self cooling temperature regulation, which has been shown to improve deep sleep quality by over 20%. Using silver infused fabrics originally inspired by NASA, Miracle Mate 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 cleaner and fresher 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 bed sheets used by some 5-star hotels. Stop sleeping on bacteria, clean sheets mean less bacteria to clog your pores, and fewer breakouts and other skin problems. Go to trymiracle.com slash legal af to try miracle made sheets today. And with mothers and fathers day right around the corner, this is the perfect way to give someone you love, the gift of better and more luxurious sleep. Save over 40% and be sure to use our promo code,

legal AF, check out to save even more and get three free towels. Miracle is so confident in their product, they backed it with a 30-day money back guarantee. So if you aren't 100% satisfied, you'll get a full refund. Upgrade your sleep with MiracleMade, 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.

Thanks again to MiracleMade for sponsoring this episode. You know, it's a tongue twister that I didn't realize. Three-piece towel set. That's a tongue twister. I found that out when I did that ad. So before we leave this segment, because I'd be remiss if I didn't take full advantage of the big brain of carrot-free miniciflo on these things. The defense is going to be filing a flurry of motions. We'll be following them on legal AF and on hot takes.

The ones I've heard about so far, I want to get your opinion. Change of venue, move this thing, the stat in island, we're all the Republicans in New York live. I think that dies. That gets done through the appellate court. I don't think that'll work. I want to hear what you think. Motion to dismiss the indictment

because of all the things that you identified, some of the mismatch, some of the staleness of some of the crimes, the federal versus state crimes, all sort of in there together. Although you and I nailed it. We said there was probably tax evasion, was going to be one of the crimes

because he's covering it up in his books. He's taking a tax deduction and he's avoiding paying taxes. That sounds like tax evasion. Don't forget. Don't forget. You don't have to have completed the crime. Right.

You have to have intended it. You didn't have to actually evade. You just intended to evade. And then lastly, this is where I really, this is the inside baseball that only you can give us, which is what you can do with the grand jury minutes when you get your hands on them and try to argue that the charging decision and it was corrupted in some way with the grand jury, what do you think? We want to know. What do you think? If you were a defense lawyer, which you are, what would you do next? Don't give them all the secrets, but give them a couple of them.

So I would argue a couple of things that the statute of limitations has run in this case, So I would argue a couple of things that the statute of limitations has run in this case, and that the times that the prosecution was relying on to exclude or press pause didn't count, and so it's beyond the five-year statute of limitations, I would argue that you can't use a federal election law as the, if you intended to commit a federal election law violation since it's a presidential election, the federal law would control that state law can't, you can't intend to violate a federal law. It has to be state law, even though it doesn't say that anywhere in the statute. And then I would argue that you can't rely on state election law because it was a federal election.

So no election law is count, and so it has to be a misdemeanor. I would argue, I think those are the big arguments that I would make. I would also argue that the grand jury presentation was defective. And that the evidence wasn't sufficient and that they charged them on the law wrong because they had to specify different crimes and not this crime. I mean, there's lots of legal and factual arguments you can make about the grand jury minutes that you don't get to do federally, actually. This is a purely a state thing that you get kind of a bite at that apple. I don't think any of those are going to go anywhere. I don't think they have any legs. Like you said, I don't think

the venue and move this to Staten Island. I mean, his argument is I can't get a fair trial in New York, but I would argue that the reason he can't get a fair trial in New York, if that's true, is because of the things he's doing. He's threatening the prosecutor. He's threatening the judge. He's causing... He's threatening the judge.

He's threatening for attention. Yeah, he's exactly. He's, you know, he says, oh, I can't get a fair trial because there's too much negative media attention against me. You're creating that and you can't create your own mistrial or you can't create your own media frenzy because then think about it, you know, he's trying to get the judge off the case because it doesn't like this judge by threatening him. But think about the precedent that would set. That would mean any defendant

who doesn't like the judge in front of the Molly Estadu is threatened them or same thing with the prosecutor. So I Well, two observations on that and I agree one and and we slipped into a little New York ease you and me and I do an occasion but but for those that don't sit in New York when we say New York in that context, we mean Manhattan. in that context, we mean Manhattan. And it's one of the five New York is one of the five burrows and comprised as opposed to New York City, which encompasses Staten Island. So he can't get, he says he can't get a fair shade in New York slash Manhattan. This is the same guy who said he could walk down Fifth Avenue

and shoot somebody and get away with it. So I thought he was beloved in New York slash Manhattan, not that. And then you're right, you can't conjure up your own reason while you can't get a fair trial by polluting the water so much. It's like the old line about the person that kills his parents and then asks for mercy because he's an orphan. That you can't do. So I agree with you. I think all these, but the time delay, and I know that other agniphylose of the television,

the time delay could push this well into the campaign, couldn't it? Yeah, it could. I mean, look, there's so many things that are going to happen between now and then. So the next court date is in December. And there are several people who are saying, why so far away? Why is it so pushed out so far.

And I think it's to account for all of these motions that the judge is giving the defense plenty of time to make all of these motions. And then the prosecution gets to respond and then the judge will or make it, you know, render a decision and they'll come back in December. I think that's a reasonable period of time to make all of these motions and have sur replies and replies and and and get to a final final in December. That's about the right amount of time and and there's really no reason to come back before then. So they call it filing off calendar. And that's what being filing off calendar means, meaning we don't have to have an actual court appearance where the defendant has to come and then you have to close down the streets and have a motorcade and security. I mean, it's such a pain every time he comes to court and defendants have to come to court unlike civil cases. So, and he's going to be quite busy coming up in the near future, right? In three weeks time, he has his rape case that he's going to. Before we talk about that,

I just want to say one other thing. Despite the fact that we aren't scheduled to come back to court in December, just there's a little something nudging me, you know, pulling at my, my, my little spidey senses are tingling. I think that we are going to be before the court much sooner because there was something in those minutes from the proceeding that were closed, the arrangement that just happened, that was closed, that I read where the prosecution wants to turn over their discovery, the open file discovery, right, the contents of their entire file. But what they said was, we will do it, but with a protective order. And what a protective order is, it means that it's for your eyes only, for it's for the

defendant's eyes only and the lawyer's eyes only. It's to prepare for trial in this courtroom. And they want a protective order. And the prosecution said, and we're very close to having a joint protective order with the defense and then it'll be that it can only be in the lawyer's office and you can't release it and you can only use it to prepare for court. And as soon as we have that judge, we'll file it with you and then we'll turn over the discovery.

And so I have a feeling that's going to go off the rails and they are not going to reach consent because I just can't imagine that this group of lawyers sitting at that table are going to agree to that because Trump is going to want to try this case. He's going to want to have a trial before the trial in the court of public opinion. And so what he'll do is he wants to get those documents and release the ones that he thinks helps him, hold back the ones that hurt him, or dump the whole thing out there so the defenceless of the world can pick it apart

and do his defense for him. And the court of public opinion can trash the case. And then he really won't get a fair trial. Because the jury will have had this mini public opinion trial before the actual trial. Well, Judge Mershon is no fool, so I don't think you guys... But that's why I think there's going to be a court appearance for the number, because I think we're going to have to come back to sort that out.

One last thing before we move on to the next segment, as fascinating as all of this is, I would like to try to see if we can get the other two in today. The question I have is, and it kind of ties back to when you were in the office with Sive Ants, and there's now reporting, including your old boss on, in his interviews, that he was asked by the Bill Barr Department of Justice to step back on continuing to investigate Michael Cohen, and ultimately Donald Trump, related to many of the things we've talked about on this podcast today and that he deferred. The question is this, first to indict doesn't mean the first to try a case. We have Fulton County, which I believe will be if everything goes according to their

plan, the next regular schedule scheduled grand jury is in May. So it would be conceivable that Farty Willis would present her case now having had it fully prepared in May and reach an indictment in May. And then Jack Smith and one of three or four grand juries, let's say Jack Smith between now in December, which I think is very highly likely. In Dite's Donald Trump and others, related to one or all three or more of these major issues before the grand jury federally, will what would happen if the Department of Justice called up Alvin and said, we're going to go first step back. What do you think what happened? So it's the way it has to work is the federal judge would call judge and

Michonne and say we're going to go first. It's really that this is this is now the quartz calendar and the judges in charge. So the it's it. So that's that's who's going to make the decision of who goes first and who doesn't and that's between the judges and that could go anyway. So the federal judge does a big foot because of that kind of federal primacy doesn't get the big foot to stay court judge, right? That's a great question. And I don't, judges typically are more, they don't get in public fights like that typically. They usually sort

things out very civilized, so I actually don't know if it came to blows what would happen. So what was I talking about when he said he stepped down because DOJ asked them to? Oh, so that's the investigation. That wasn't that wasn't the trial or the case. So that was just the investigation. So so so Siamance. So the DA's office was investigating had a large financial investigation into Donald Trump regarding all sorts of issues. And we hit a roadblock because we needed his tax returns. He was primarily being investigated for tax fraud and or tax-related crimes.

And the former president refused to give over his tax returns. And so at Grand Jury, Sapino was issued. The went all the way up to the Supreme Court twice. Ultimately, they got the tax documents and weeks later, short time later, brought the Trump organization indictment, because that's what they were waiting for to do that. In the meantime, when they were doing this big case, and this happens in the Manhattan DA's office, this is not unusual. Oftentimes, in big, especially white collar investigations, but sometimes some big violent crime investigations,

you bump into each other. And one office is investigating something and the other office is investigating something and you bump into each other and you fit and they figure it out through either either through law enforcement or other witnesses who say, oh, yeah, you know, Manhattan, DA's office You want me to come down? Yeah, I just got your subpoena, but I'm already cooperating with the Southern District or vice versa So that's how law that's how the offices find out about each other, oh, I didn't know that the other office had an open case. Or I should say an open investigation.

And so the prosecutors then pick up the phone and have a conversation and say, which one does it make sense to have this case? And sometimes it's very clear. The Manhattan D.A. office has this big sweeping case with lots of witnesses, lots of evidence, and we're this close to going in the grand jury, and the Southern District is like, oh, we just got started, so it's better than it go here.

Or sometimes you bump into each other, and it's like, well, you know, the Southern District, you know, the feds have better laws that are more suited towards this crime than the state, so you take it. And so usually it gets worked out. Every once in a while, there's a turf battle. And every once in a while, it gets ugly.

And this appears to be one of those situations where the Southern District called up, the Department of Justice, or the US Attorney, called SIE. And that's when you know it gets ugly, because the line prosecutors aren't working it out themselves. When it goes US attorney to GA and the bosses, it's ugly. And they just said stand down. And frankly, they can do that because they could, if they wanted to, they could subpoena our entire case file and our witnesses.

I mean, they have that power. They don't really use it, but they could. And so when they say we are taking this case, stand down. We don't, the DA's office kind of doesn't have a choice and they did that here, Bill Barr did that here. And so Si stood down on that case. So, and that was the Michael Cohen situation. And so Si said, okay,

but we're gonna do the other bigger financial case. You take Michael Cohen and this election interference case, we'll take this other case. And then this other case, that's the case that went and ballooned and got bigger and bigger. And they went to the Supreme Court and then COVID happened, which delayed things. And by the time that Michael Cohen case was done

and finished and Trump had no longer been president, Sy Vance was well into that other case, and then the Trump org. And so that's what that meant. So yeah, that's great. We just got some great insight knowledge there. What happened between states and state and federal prosecutors and what could happen here? We're going to talk in the next segment, next two segments,

about what just happened to Donald Trump in the other wheel of justice. Jack Smith's prosecutions and why having seven or eight of the inner sanctum of Donald Trump, including four of his top national security advisors. And now Mike Pence, it's been reported, will not appeal the order that is forcing him to testify before the grand jury. I ultimately against Donald Trump will do that and the next segment, but let's hear from one of our sponsors. And now let's think of quick break to talk about our next partner, green chef. Green chef has expanded their menu. Now choose from 30 recipes weekly, with the option to mix and match meals from different dietary preferences in the same box without changing your plan.

This means you can order vegan one day and then keto the next. Green Chef is the number one meal kit for eating well, with dinners that work for you, not the other way around. Bring more flavor to your table this spring, with Green Chef's wholesome elevated recipes featuring seasonal, organic produce and unique farm fresh ingredients. Eat well without having a sacrifice taste. Also, green chef is the only meal kit that is both carbon and plastic offset. Green chef offsets 100% of their carbon footprint as well as 100% of the plastic in every box. My wife and I absolutely love Green Chef because of how easy it is to cook the meals and how delicious each meal is.

Our favorite recipe is the Parmesan Crossed Chicken. It is incredible. Go to greenchef.com slash legalaf60 and use code legalaf60 to get 60% off plus free shipping. That's greenchef.com slash legalaf60 and use code legalaf60 to get 60% off plus free shipping. And now back to the video. Jackson Smith is piling up wins in front of all things grand jury starting with barrel howl from us to your straight then the chief judge who stepped down after her term was over. in front of all things grand jury, starting with Barrel Howell from his two-year straight, then the chief judge who stepped down after her term was over. She's still a federal judge,

but she's no longer the chief judge. And he's winning, still winning in front of Jeb Bozberg, who's the new chief judge of all things grand jury in the District of Columbia, where Jack Smith and all of his live prosecutors are working feverishly to get an indictment against Donald Trump, both for Mar-a-Lago, fake electors, interference of the election, the failure to peacefully transfer power, Jan 6, the grift of raising hundreds of millions of dollars on the back of a big fat lie that Donald Trump was a part of.

That's all going on. We now have new reporting today that Jeb Bozberg, the chief judge last week, and his the first win for the Department of Justice, ruled that while Mike Pence did not have to testify literally about what he was doing in the Senate chamber as the Senate president for that moment under the speech and debate immunity, he had a testify about everything else related to Donald Trump and the failure of the transfer of power and conversations he had

with Trump and others about not certifying the election and the fake electors scheme and scandal and all of that. So he is not going to appeal that to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. It's certainly not to the Supreme Court Court of Appeals. Donald Trump had appealed earlier this week to a new three judge panel of the DC Circuit Court that turned out, because it's randomly selected, not the same panel that had ruled against them the week before. That was a different panel that he lost, but this is a new panel and it came up Obama, Obama,

Obama, Trump. Those are the three judges and who they were appointed by and those judges either two to one or three zero. It's hard to tell because it's still a secret docket protecting the secrecy of the grand jury, but they ruled against him in a record time. I thought the last round of a pellet briefing, which took place in less than 72 hours,

we went from a peel, full briefing into the middle of the night and in order. Here, as Karen, you've once said, suspectulating that they're tired of paraphrasing, tired of Trump's shit, and they just want to speed this appeal process up. They got the appeal on Tuesday night. They turned to the Department of Justice on Tuesday night and said, give us your response. The Department of Justice, God love them. In two hours, filed their opposition brief on the appeal of whether an entire

list of insiders within the White House and policy advisors and national security advisors around Donald Trump, including Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, Stephen Miller, who's been traveling with Donald Trump all the way through the arraignment process, Robert O'Brien, John Ratcliffe and Ken Kuchinelli and Inner Circle of National Security Advisors and Homeland Security Advisors. You know, that's the group that judge, that judge, Barrel Howell before she left the bench that you guys are all testifying. There's no executive privilege here. Go to the grand jury. Go, go, go. And then he took the appeal. And after a two hour response to the Department of Justice, the court came back and said, no, emergency

appeal denied. Now, Donald Trump, I had thought would bring it to the Supreme Court. It's got to go through John Roberts, who's the sitting's a judge, who's responsible as chief judge for the DC Circuit, and he does the first review, yeah, your nae thumbs up or thumbs down and emergency applications, but they didn't try that the last time. And so it's unlikely, I think that Donald Trump's going to try a Supreme Court appeal. So all of these people are going to go in. And the one I want you to focus on Karen is the reporting that the national security advisors for Donald Trump, Robert O'Brien, John Ratcliffe and Ken Kuchinelli have testified or will testify about Donald Trump's attempts in the waning hours of his administration to seize voting machines in order to continue to perpetuate his

fake ballot, fraudulent ballot, bullshit scheme that he thinks Joe Biden executed for the $7 million, $7 million vote win. So seizing the voting machines and that this was not a national security interest. And he was told that, Trump was told that by his national security team. In other words, you can't have a little mini martial law and go see his voting machines. What do you think of, if that is true and that is the reporting right now as of today,

what do you think that says about where Jack Smith is in his prosecution on this angle? I mean, Jan Six, insurrection, here we come. I mean, he is in the grand jury presenting evidence. And I think he's in the thick of it. My question, you know, he's very much in the thick of the meat of the presentation of this case. I wouldn't say he's at the beginning and I wouldn't say he's at the end.

He is in the in the meat of it and and that's the the slog that it's going to take to prove this case that goes on for many many many many months and is the second election interference case right the first being Alvin Braggs, the second is the one that culminated in January 6th. And these cases can take a long time to present, not just because it's a lot of information and a lot of witnesses. I mean, think the Jan 6th hearing, right? How many, they interviewed a thousand witnesses and summarized it for the American people by putting together those, those whatever 10 hearings that they did and had certain people come and say things. But that's what a grand jury presentation is like.

I mean, thankfully the January 6th committee did some of the work for Jack Smith, meaning the select committee, meaning at least Jack Smith team can comb through all of the depositions and witnesses and say, okay, this one seems really helpful, this one doesn't seem that helpful, this one I think is holding back, I want to go back and try to get them under oath and put them in the grand jury. And so at least it gives them a little bit of a road map of how they want to streamline and put this in the grand jury. But it's very clear that now we're at the voting machine part of it because that's where all these national security advisor types come in.

And they're going to talk about what the president at the time, Donald Trump, who's now defendant, Trump, they're going to talk about what Trump knew and didn't know what he was told, and what he didn't tell. It goes to his mindset, his intent on January 6. And when he, when he, when he called and asked for the, you know, said, find me the, you know, the perfect phone call. Find me the 11,780 votes.

Or, you know know all of his other All the other things that he did he's saying no it's a perfect phone call. I I just wanted them to find votes These are the types of things that go to his intent all the times he was told that it's not a national security issue or You didn't win the election or there aren't missing ballots or there's no evidence of hidden ballots underneath the table. All of the things he was told is very, very important because it goes to his knowledge and his intent, which is critical for a criminal case. So I think that this case is getting ready to go into the, looks, vote on this case and

charge phase. I have a question for you though. Why would the lawyers appeal once, but not all the way to the Supreme Court? What strategically, what goes into that decision? I think that they think it's a dead, dead on arrival. And they don't want to go through the embarrassment of having precedence that by the Supreme Court that they are reading the tea leaves,

they think it's gonna be negative to them. It's hard to believe, I know for the, for most people to think, what Donald Trump doesn't want to go to his hand pick, Supreme Court over and over and over again, look how well he's done, but he has not done well. Even with this Supreme Court controlled in a super majority by MAGA appointments, but

in the area of everything that matters now, presidential records, he's lost. Everything related to testimony, he has lost even before now. So they don't want to keep going back to that well. I mean, you know, the definition of insanity here, you know, is playing out and they don't want to be not insane. The wife and the wife and appeal the first time. I mean, you know, because they might get a good ruling if they get three, if they get two trumpers or a bush and a trumpet or a Reagan and a jumper as one of the three, you know, you only got to convince two out of the three and they want to take the shot, just like they did at the 11th circuit in different

places. The interesting thing is how these, how these lawyers that are at one point appearing before the grand jury testifying ultimately against their client are then appearing later on that same day or later in the week in front of other federal judges like Evan Corcoran is either a witness or he's he's advocating for Donald Trump like every other day. Evan Corcoran and Jim trustee just ran to Jim Bozberg, chief judge Bozberg and asked him to stay the judge barrel Howell's order, forcing all that seven or eight people that I just identified to testify before the grand jury while they took the appeal. So it wouldn't have to be an emergency, just beyond a slower track.

And chief judge Bozberg said, not on your life. And he denied it. So anybody that worried about where Jeff Bozberg would come out after Barrel Howell, and we did so well with her, he's doing just fine. But that was Evan Corcoran, who made that argument. Evan Corcoran, who testified before one of the very same grand juries that we're talking about about Mara Lago and we have new reporting at airtime as we like to say that just as we suspected Mike Pence got a very small win out of a judge Bozberg judge Bozberg found that for the limited purpose of when Mike Pence was standing with that gavill talking to the clerk of the Senate about vote counting and he was acting under the impromotor of the ceremonial role as a member

of the Senate or as the Senate president. He doesn't have to testify about everything that happened in there. That's great because that has nothing to do with any part of the prosecution. But everything else he has to testify to. But of course, trying to find lemon, lemon eight at a lemons. You got Mike Pence, his spokesman saying just before airtime today, the court's landmark and historic ruling, which is Jeb Bozberg's ruling, affirmed for the first time in history that speech and debate clause extends to the vice president and having vindicated that principal, vice president Pence will testify.

Yeah, on a very talk about stretching the truth on a very small part of what happened to him on that day, he'll have to testify about hang Mike Pence, Mike Pence, you're a pussy, all the things that Donald Trump allegedly said, the Jansick's Committee developed in their fact finding, but try to converse Mike Pence and pressure Mike Pence to not certify the election, to certify the fake electors, you know, the him being whisked away into the back of a waiting car by the Secret Service and refusing to go. And all of that that we've always talked about, Mike Pence is testifying too. So we have that updated reporting. Let's go quickly though to a little bit of celebration.

We've had a good week for justice seeing former, former guy come in and be, and be arraigned and, and the look on his face when that happened and when the, and when the court officer slam a door at his face because he didn't really care about him, but in Wisconsin, where this battle now for women's rights and women's reproductive rights is now happening state by state. And that's one of the strategies the progressive Democrats are properly using, which is to try to use the state constitutions to try to find a woman's right to choose and go after bands there.

And it starts with what is your highest court and what is its composition state by state. Every state has a the highest appellate court in almost every state, but New York, it's called the Supreme Court for that state in New York. It's called the Court of Appeals because we like to be different. And in Wisconsin, the also another little quirk because in most states, the Supreme Court or the highest court, the people that get on there, get on there through the governor. The governor appoints them, but not at Wisconsin. In Wisconsin,

and some other states, including in Nevada, in different places, you can run. You can run for office, and the office you're running for is Supreme Court justice. And so we had a battle that became a battle between good and evil, between progressives and MAGA. You know how I know that? Because $40 million of national money poured into that one little seat and the fundraising around in the campaign around it, which pitted Daniel Kelly, who is a fake electric MAGA guy, who is part of the fake electric scheme, total manga who

had been on the Supreme Court against Janet, uh, Protosewitz. Janet Protosewitz was on the Milwaukee Circuit Court, uh, uh, uh, Civil Court, yeah, Circuit Court there. And so she was running for the big court and she was running against the guy who used to be there. This was a battle literally of good and evil. And when she won, meaning that for the next two years, because Janet Proto say what's one, there is now a liberal majority, four to three on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and least until 2025, that matters in new election congressional maps, but we

call Jerry Mandarin, that matters in abortion rights. And now much to the chagrin of the Republicans who in a very pissy sour grapes concession, not even a concession. Daniel Kelly said he's not going to concede to his, the woman who won, who's now, who's going to be justice-elect pro-to-, it's because she's not a worthy candidate. Talk about mansplaining and misogyny. She's not a worthy candidate, and he said at the end, and I want to wish Wisconsin good luck

because you're going to need it. I mean, this is writ large, the battle of good and evil. And if this bodes terribly, I think, Karen, for the Republicans, because every major district race, judge race, special election that's happened since Trump left office has all except in one exception has almost all gone to the Democrats' advantage as we get ready for the midterm, as we get ready for the 2024 election. So if these places, like a very conservative, conservative Wisconsin, although they now have a Democratic governor,

if this is how it's going to play out for them now, you know, this is looking good for the Democrats. What you think about the campaign and the win and what it means going forward for women's rights in Wisconsin. So putting politics aside for a second, you know, like different places have different cultures or different fields, you know, I'm from Southern California and I, I love my family.

I didn't quite fit in there and so I moved to the East Coast and I've been here my entire adult life and I love the East Coast. I love New York. But my favorite people in the country, truly, people I just think are the nicest, kindest, just the culture of the people. It's the Midwest. I just every, every like friend that I've ever had close friends that's from the Midwest, it's just like, just kind people, my kind of people who are just no nonsense, kind people who really are smart and do the right thing and do what they believe.

And this absolutely, this Wisconsin election just really, I think, just solidified that feeling. And that's what the thought I had when I read about this, I thought I love Wisconsin. I love the people there. It's awesome because it's one thing to be conservative versus liberal or I believe this but I don't believe that and you had differences of opinion. It's another thing to be lawless and to be as Ben,

my cellist loves to say a radical right, mega fascist extremist, you know, how he talks about people. And frankly, this is an example of that because Wisconsin is a state that is divided 50, 50 really when it comes to liberals and Republicans and Democrats. And it's really just a divided state that the people are 50-50, they vote 50-50, and the court was basically evenly divided. The legislature typically, you know, it flips back and forth, but it's not like a red state

or a blue state. It really is mixed. But Mr. Kelly, who was running here, wanted to do things that were lawless and extreme. And I think one of them was his radical gerrymandering plan, which would have been the most extreme in the country where he would literally turn a 50-50 state into a six-to-republican advantage in congressional seats. That's just not fair. You know, if it's a red state and you deserve to have all red seats, then you do. Or if you're a blue state and you deserve to have all blue states you do, but to Jerry Mander to stack the deck and make it so that people are not going to be represented and

make it stack the deck six to two. I think is the Wisconsin people said no, that's not fair, that's lawless. And they weren't going to let that happen because if you did let that happen and you did let the this extreme viewpoint come. I think there were a couple of slippery slope horrible outcomes that would have occurred. One is abortion and I think that women's rights would have just completely, Wisconsin would have become one of the states where where women don't have bodily was constantly, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, again, if they deserve it fine, but this would give it to them no matter what. And I think that that radicalization that Daniel Kelly was trying to bring to Wisconsin,

the Wisconsiners said, no, not here. You're not doing that. You've gone too far. And I think that's great. And I also love Janet Prodecewitz. She makes me feel so much better about my last name that no one can pronounce, but she seems just great. And she's going to be a great judge. And I just, it made me really have faith in this country that grassroots

organizations and people who really come together and fight can fight back against this extremism. We saw it in Kentucky too. We were seeing it in places where we wouldn't naturally expect progressives, women, and all to overcome some electoral disadvantages and win elections, win ballot initiatives, and here win a Supreme Court. We know it's important to MAGA because they poured in the bulk of the $40 million into the race to try to get that seat. And I think the ironic thing is this was allegedly a non-partisan election.

Meaning, you weren't supposed to know who was the deaf regret, the Republican, but to her credit Janet, Janet, Proto Saywoods was very public about her platform for women's rights against all the redistricting and the electoral vote issue and counting and being able to undermine the our federal system as Karen outlined and all of that. So I think a heartening result that we wanted to report and talk about here on legal a F but we've reached the end of another addition, midweek edition of legal a F where Karen and me sit on the corner of law and politics and we watch what happens and we bring it back to you

with our analysis and on Saturday, I do a similar show, sometimes Karen joins us depending upon what our agenda is that day, what's on our list with Ben Micellis. And we do a very similar curated show where we pick the top five or six stories rip from the headlines that we think you should know in the politically charged litigation arena.

So sometimes people ask, well, how can you help? How can we help the show? And it's all free. The way you can help the show, we really appreciate it. You'll watch us, which you're doing now on YouTube, or if you're listening to us on a podcast, platform like Apple, or Google, or Spotify, then kind of cross-pollinate, go do the other thing.

If you usually watch us do this live or otherwise on YouTube, go listen to us and subscribe there or hit plus or follow and that'll help the algorithms and how we get ranked. And a lot of you do that and we are regularly in the top 50 globally in news. And in the top 10 or 12 in news analysis worldwide, and we're up against some pretty heavy hitters, and we're now holding our own regularly. And that's because of you, the Midas Mighty and the legal a efforts. And if you listen to us and you want to know what we look like or what Karen, what Karen's doing or what room she's in or what room I'm in or all of that, then you can watch us on YouTube and you can subscribe to the

Midas touch network and We've just cracked one million. We're well over a million now Last week going over that million mark and there's a lot of great content on the YouTube besides legal AF Including a series of other podcasts that we we happily call our brothers and sisters like political beat down the mightest, the mightest brothers, the mightest touch podcast, politics girl, lights on, and the rest. And then we do hot takes, Karen, me, and bad and others on trending takes every day, every hour, it seems, to catch everybody up in these 10 minute bursts of what's happening in real

time in the areas where we have expertise. So that's a place that you can go. And there's merchandise. If you want to walk around town with a legal AF wheels of justice or other type of shirt or coffee mug, we got those for sale. A lot of people like doing that and show them their support that way. That one's not free, but they're everything else that I described is a free way to fly the flag for legal

AF and show your support. But Karen, I know I'm going to see you personally, and I'm going to see you on the television because you're here. You're there. You're everywhere. Karen, Friedman, Agnifalo, and it's always a pleasure to have you with me as my co-anchor. Anything you want to tell our legal A.F.ers, a special customized shout-out? You guys always throw the last word to me and I never, I should be more prepared for this. I didn't say it. It's as if you, you know it's coming. I know. I do know it's coming. So, all right. Well, that's good. Salty, see, Sal salty through his both a life

Preserver let me remind everybody that when Karen Friedman Knifelo is not doing legal a F and is not doing CNN in all the places that She's because she's saying she's a writer and she's a guest calmness on an op-ed piece that's running today in the New York times About the very things that we talked about today although we got a little bit more molecular and more interesting observations by Karen. But if you want to go, you want to read Karen Friedman, a envelope, the author, co author with Noor and Ison, former ambassador, there you go. You can do it today and go find a link to put a link to it up on the chat tonight, you know, while we're doing a live chat. Good to see you.

Good to see you too. We'll see everybody next week. Shout out to the Midas Mighty.