Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump’s Attempted Coup in Search of a Legal Theory EXPOSED and other Radical Right Treachery This Week

Episode Date: April 3, 2022

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF x MeidasTouch is back for another hard-hitting look in “real time” at this week’s most important developments.  This week, Ben and Popok discuss and analyze these Big 6 stories: 1.    The DOJ substantially expanding its criminal investigation against members of Congress and in Trump’s inner circle with a new DC grand jury. 2.    A California federal judge declaring that Trump is “more likely than not” a criminal. 3.    The missing 7 hours in the White House Jan6 phone logs and what it means for Trump in a criminal prosecution. 4.    The Supreme Court continuing its assault on the Voting Rights Act and minority voter protection. 5.    A Texas federal judge defying the Supreme Court and overrides the Navy’s vaccine mandate (again). 6.    A New York federal judge denies Ghislaine Maxwell’s new trial motion before heading off to the Second Circuit to take her seat. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: LightStream: https://lightstream.com/legalaf AG1 by Athletic Greens: https://athleticgreens.com/legalaf 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 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 Zoomed In: https://pod.link/1580828633 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A New York federal judge denies G-Lane Maxwell's motion for new trial, calling the jurors failure to disclose his history of sexual abuse, a mistake. The Texas federal judge who was smacked down last month for preventing Biden's vaccine requirements for the military strikes again. Did he defy a Supreme Court ruling? Rhetorical question alert, the Supreme Court continues to gut the voting rights act and permit rampant racism in Republican legislators. What is going on? A federal judge in California says it's more likely than not that Trump engaged in obstruction of official proceedings on January 6th, calling Trump's actions a coup in search of illegal theory.

The 7-hour 37-minute gap on White House phone logs. Does it show a guilty conscience of Trump? Retouricle question alert. The DOJ expands its January 6th investigation and its staff. A week of consequential legal news, we are here to break it down to cut through the jargon to pierce through the BS. This is legal AF, Ben Myceles, Michael Popak, recording live, coast to coast Popak, the Popakian.

How are you? I'm loving this new intro. I mean, we're like artificial intelligence. pop the pop. Yeah. How are you? I'm loving this new. I'm loving this new intro. I mean, we're like artificial intelligence. We're actually intelligence because we are just evolving. I'm artificial. You're intelligence, but we are evolving week by week in a way that even the coasts find mesmerizing.

I love that opening. Let's keep it. Let's keep it going. And let's get into the news. Popa, just let me make one comment. Are you in a different color room today? Last time I look a green today, it looks teal. What's going on there?

My goal is to gaslight my, my co-eiker and just act like we're changing the color of the room. No, no, it's just the light thing on zoom is making the color look a little bit different. It's the same tealie room that I was in last week. Gaelaine Maxwell's bid for a new trial is denied judge Alison Nathan and Obama, a point D for district court. Now a second circuit court of appeals judge who was still presiding over this case denied Gaelin Maxwell's motion for new trial. The motion for new trial was filed because a juror named

Scottie David following Gilein Maxwell's conviction for sex trafficking. He kind of went on a media tour. He did media in Europe. He did media here in the United States. He talked about his history as a victim of sexual abuse and seemed to imply in these interviews with the media that that was important in his decision in ruling

and finding Gilein Maxwell guilty. Not only that, Michael Popak, but he seemed to also imply that he was encouraging other jurors to vote for guilt or just at least providing them with information. I think we all feel, I feel that she's very, very guilty and she deserves to rotten prison for the rest of her life. That's how I feel about it. But we still want the deliberations to be sacrosanct and you're not supposed to bring your own kind of personal experiences into the jury room and become an expert in substitution for

actual experts and substitution for the actual facts that we're taking into place and taking into account. So Gilein Maxwell after her guilty conviction, she sees these interviews, reaches out to the court, explains to the court that this is highly unusual and asks for a new trial. And indeed, Michael Popock, this was highly unusual conduct to occur in a jury room. This Scotty David, he took the Fifth Amendment. He was given immunity by the government to testify. When he took the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination,

he testified in front of District Court judge, Allison Nathan, and was cross-examined on why he did or didn't say things in the jury questionnaire. Because the key thing here is that he didn't write in his questionnaire that he was a victim of abuse. And it was one of the questions in the questionnaire where you have victim of abuse. Lawyers have the ability to on their own strike jurors and then you could also strike jurors with cause or without cause. You have a certain amount of what's called

paramptory challenges on your own for any reason unless they're like racist reasons or discriminatory reasons. You can just say, hey, I don't want that juror on my jury. Then there's four cause. A person has a bias. They can't be fair in the case. I didn't answer the questionnaire. But here, in the courts ruling, the court said that, it seemed to be an accident. It seemed to be an unfortunate accident. The judge says that this juror would not

be stricken for cause anyway. And the judge also said, wouldn't we be setting a strange precedent here in all sexual abuse cases? If you couldn't be on a jury, if you were a victim of sexual abuse just for that reason, Popok, do you think the judge got it right here? I know you probably don't. We've talked about this case about a half a dozen times. I think at one point you you were definitely convinced that this was grounds for a new trial. I don't know if you I don't know if you've changed, but look here's a couple of things.

You got to let the federal judge do her job and she did. She under oath, as you said, the Justice Department was considering prosecuting him and this this is where good lawyer income's into play. And you and I like to talk about it. And we like to admire and compliment good lawyer. So Todd Spodeck, people know from the inventing Anna series about Anna Delvey, who represented her, got hired by Scottie David, relatively early on in the case. And people were sort of scratching their head.

Why does this guy need Todd Spodeck? You know what? He navigated a very prickly situation for his client where he was able to trade, okay, I'm taking the Fifth Amendment. My client's taking the Fifth Amendment unless I get immunity on this issue. And I'll happily let my client testify. And they were able to work that out. So anybody that questions, why do we need defense lawyers?

Why are defense lawyers important in an adversarial process? This is why, because Scotty David is not coming up on his own with the concept that he could trade with the Department of Justice, Fifth Amendment assertion for immunity. That's something that a good defense lawyer knowing what he's doing, or her, she knows what she's doing, does for them.

So he got in the box sworn in the very last act before she took her seat at the second circuit on the 30th of March is now Southern District, New York, Judge Nathan interrogating him. He's got immunity, so he's free to say whatever he wants. And her, the results of that interrogation is her belief that it was an innocent mistake, not to include on the jury questionnaire what, that he was a victim of sexual abuse in the past. She did not, and you and I talked about this in prior podcast, she did not delve into, and she drew that line in the sand at the beginning of the entire process, in telling the lawyers what she wanted briefed, what was the issue she

wanted to focus on. She was not going to get into the jury deliberation room. I thought, and I think you did to it one point, she was going to bring in like all the jurors to find out of juror number 50 and his potential bias had infected the jury deliberations to undermine the Sixth Amendment right to affair an impartial jury on behalf of Maxwell. She did not do that because she said three weeks ago or a month ago, I am not doing that. I am going to determine if in the Void deer, the jury selection process, there was, he is really biased, Scottie David, made his way through the jury selection process through Sceptrefuge because he was, you know, not the runaway jury, I forget what, maybe the runaway jury to get on the jury. And she concluded that he made an innocent mistake

and that just because he was a sexual assault victim in his childhood, that of course, that not preclude him from being an unbiased juror in this case. And she did not move into the jury room to ask him, well, what did you tell the other jurors and did you mention your sexual abuse and the recovery of your memories and all of that.

That was a line in the sand and that was never going to happen. So all the defense was left with was arguing, had we known that Scotty David was a sex assault victim in his childhood, we may have or we would have used our preemptory challenge to remove him from the box. But that's not, that's not necessarily sixth amendment privilege, because that's only one of 12 and it doesn't, and that doesn't matter. And what you would have could have done with your preemptory challenges is not often grounds for a mistrial or a reversal of a, of a, of a case under rule, criminal rule of federal procedure 33. of a case under rule criminal rule of federal procedure 33. Can I I like the outcome?

I don't like the ruling is just how I feel about it. What I mean by that is I genuinely feel having followed this trial, having followed the situation that Gilaen Maxwell is guilty, as can be, that Gilaen Maxwell deserves the maximum sentence. But I do think that all criminal defendants, anybody charged with crimes in the United States of America deserves a fair trial. This was one of the most high-profile, if not the most high-profile trial of the time and potentially of the year. You know, the fact that this juror said because he was waiting in a long line that that distracted him from reading and reviewing the questionnaire of a

case of this magnitude and the fact that the judge would not inquire about whether setting aside this case, just take it out of this case, because this case, obviously the facts are such that we all want. Gilaean Maxwell to go to jail for the rest of her life, because we know what was happening. But just the idea that a jury can go in, not answer, imagine if this juror was on your case, can go in, not answer. Imagine if this juror was on your case, would not answer the questionnaire truthfully, then potentially go into the juror room to deliberate on your life and liberty, and to use facts that you didn't even know about, that your lawyers didn't even know about privately in the deliberation room. And a judge says, we're not even going to inquire into those facts. We're not even going to ask about those facts. And then that could have led to you being found guilty for the rest of your life. It's a hard

pill for me to constitutionally swallow, even if it's a harder pill for me to swallow that that would mean that G-line Maxwell should get a new trial. It's so hard for me to say that, but that's genuinely how I feel about the constitution in this case. I don't believe that you just, it's okay just to lazily go through a questionnaire. And you know how, you know, you know, how Popak, it also frustrates me that he then went to the media right afterwards. And so he didn't have enough time to read the questionnaire, but he had enough time to then give media interviews and go on a media tour and, you know, and set himself up to write a book like, it's just not cool. So I agree with you on the not cool factor.

But firstly, it's grounds for an appeal. And I'm sure the issue has been preserved on appeal by the lawyers for Galein Maxwell in front of Judge Nathan. I short-circuited this discussion today between you and me when I said she drew a line in the sand on not going into the jury deliberation room. That issue, whether she should have drawn that line, and whether she should have brought all 12 members

of the jury in front of her to ask about the impact of that juror on the deliberation process, is a grounds for appeal up to the second circuit court of appeals, and I'm sure that's one of the issues that the defense is going to raise. However, she believed as a threshold issue that if he, if his participation in the Wagner process, the jury selection process was not nefarious, but was innocent in the mistake that he made.

And she grilled him and drilled him on his potential bias because she doesn't want to set the standard and you don't either, I know, that a sexual assault victim, who's not the victim in the case, could never serve on a jury about a sex crime. That can't be the law, and that's not going to be the law

after she's made her ruling. So we have that. The last thing that's important for people to know, is I don't think we ever talked about this, there is no bar. There is no ban on jurors following their service. And once they are discharged from jury duty, even after, even if there's an appeal that's ongoing, they are free to talk to the media. They are, and they often do, they are free to go and talk. We might not like it. We might find it unsavory.

But the media goes after them, tries to find one or two to give sort of salacious comments about the liberation process or how it went down. So he was free to do that. I get your point that, sure, he was all ready to do that, but he never figured out how to successfully get through a questionnaire. And I'm sure in reading, I think he purposefully did not list that he was a victim of sexual assault as a child, but you know what, judge Nathan

in doing the interrogation didn't believe that. And that's what mattered for this particular motion. Just will always give some, I always want to give federal judge trivia out there just to provide facts and just some of the judges I explained to you that Judge Nathan was an Obama appointee. Now on the second circuit court of appeals

as a Biden appointee for that position, Judge Nathan is recorded as the second openly gay jurist on the federal bench after Deborah Bats who was a Clinton appointee in 1994, who was sworn in during gay pride week in June of 1994. But by the way, that is a fascinating, yet frustrating statistic that she's only the second openly gay federal jurist in 30 years. It's one of the reasons that I want to give those facts out there because it is a complete

head scratcher and definitely, definitely disappointing. It's that to talk about. Also incredibly disappointing to talk about is this ruling out of Texas. I guess it's not a surprise with Judge O'Connor, who's a George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush appointee. He was a W. W. Bush or George W. Bush, he was a W. W. He was a appointee. He was the one who struck down Biden's vaccine mandates for the Navy and for the military. The Supreme Court had to actually step in and the Supreme Court and a judge Kavanaugh of

all people stepped in and basically said, look, Article 2 says that the president is the commander in chief of the United States military. And if the commander in chief and his generals say that the military needs to get vaccines, we defer to the president, we defer to the military generals and federal judges should not be intervening in those decisions. And so the Supreme Court basically said to this federal judge

with respect to decisions over deployment of troops, assignment of troops, and other operational decisions regarding troops, you federal judge, don't have the right to issue an injunction. We'll let this case go on to an appeal to the fifth circuit and then come to us, but you can't stop the president for making those decisions. So what does this federal court judge do to kind of poke his finger in Biden and the Supreme courts?

It's a ha. What you did not mention is separation proceedings. In other words, disciplining troops for not getting the vaccine. Separation is the first part of a disciplinary proceeding before discharging the troop. We're not complying with, for not complying with orders. So what this judge did was kind of on his own

granted class certification, certified a class of plaintiffs of Navy members who are suing, it's about 4,000 or so, like military members suing Biden, and basically said to Biden and said to the United States, government, you can't discipline these troops for not getting the vaccine. You can't start that separation process, which would seem to even though the Supreme Court

didn't directly address that issue, because that issue wasn't before it. The Department of Justice made a tactical decision based on the speed and the need. What I'm gonna say is a tactical decision like the lives of troops were on the line. So they wanted to make sure they dealt with the operational and deployment issues first before this rogue judge in Texas could force potentially troops with COVID infecting

other judges, but this judge, I mean, infecting other troops, but this federal judge in Texas made this ruling and said, you know, President Biden, you can't engage in any like adverse separation proceedings or begin those against, you know, troops for not complying with the chain of command. And he made like a very strange comment too in it. He said something like, military generals do not, he's going to quote, generals don't make good judges, especially when it comes to nuanced constitutional issues as well. You know who he was quoting there? Who was he quoting?

himself from a month earlier. He actually quoted his own case. He quoted his own case. That was a, the popo, popo Keyens like to use a use a hand symbol from Star Trek. This is another set of fingers, one in particular, that the judge has focused on the Supreme Court telling them to go F themselves. So just to bring it home here to square the circles,

as we like to say, you've got the Supreme Court, the Justice Department made a tactical decision, and it was the right one to bring only to the Supreme Court two weeks ago, a narrow issue, as it relates to operational effectiveness of the troops and the ability for the commanders to decide who is gonna be deployed in the field for special missions and who isn't. And basically said, a federal judge is telling the commander in chief and the department, the secretary of the military, you know, secretary of defense and all the

operational commanders in the chain of command, what to do. And they shouldn't be able to do that. And that should be stay. That should be a partial stay of his order, as it relates to not to the discharge issue that you talked about, but the Justice Department was very strategic about getting the Supreme Court to issue a stay of the vaccine mandate ban that this judge, O'Connor, had rendered as it relates and as it tried to tie the hands of the commanders to deploy troops. Okay. So knowing that, O'Connor said, I'm going to do two things. As you said, I'm going to certify class of 5,000 members of the military, all of whom have applied for religious reasons to be exempted from the mandate.

And because I see the writing on the wall that none of them are going to get the exemption through the administrative process of the internal naval system. I'm going to declare that they are part of the class, that they've been injured because they have or will be denied their religious exemption to a vaccine mandate. And I am also going to enter a preliminary injunction at the class action certification stage to prevent the military from implementing five different naval operational orders. Try to order this, Navy command order that. I mean, specifically telling the Navy, you know those operational, that operational book that you've created for readiness and effectiveness of the troops.

I'm gripping pages out of it as a federal judge. And then to stick it back to the Supreme Court, literally, he said, except I'm going to stay the aspect of my injunction, that is inconsistent with the ruling last week that says this can't be used for operational decision-making. So the Navy will still be able to say, you see them, you seal, you are not going on this mission. You need to stay at the base, but they will not currently until the Supreme Court rules on this issue again after the fifth circuit in Texas, first rules, because that's that's going to be the path here. And I will have to see what the Supreme Court, if they're going to get pissed off at O'Connor and say, we told you once before you can't,

you shouldn't go forward with any aspect of the case. Or they're going to say, you know what? You found a narrow path to both comply with our order. This could be the ruling pen, but move the case along on the class action side. And so we're not going to touch your injunction. I don't think so. I think, and I want to hear your opinion, I think the Supreme Court's going to say, no, you can't enjoy discharge either. We've told you the commander in chief of the Armed Forces

under article two of the US Constitution is the president of the United States, not a federal judge. And yes, we saw your cute little comment about you know, who make terrible judges generals. I got it. And by the way, it's admirals when you're talking about the Navy. In any event, I think when it finally went its way back up to the Supreme Court with Katana, you brown jocks and sitting there. And I think if it was six to three the last time, I think it'll be six to three again that this judge has, has effed up. What do you think? Yeah. I agree with you, bro. you know, you have to go back and

the jurisprudence of, you know, even the right wing bench is to put all of this power in the hands of the president to know where is the power of the president kind of even, you know, stronger even, you know, than in cases involving the United States military of military readiness, you know, of deployment issues. It's a, it's one of these issues, though, where you see kind of the QAnonism, you know, and, and this United States Supreme Court is a radical right extreme court. But there is still even kind of an extremer right wing fringe that exists out there where there are judges who believe that the United States president is actually not the commander in chief that judges are the ability to second guess president's decisions on issues like vaccine mandates.

You know, it's just on issues like vaccine mandates. You know, it's just always very weird to me, Pope, I too, that this judge, I've commented on this on Twitter this week, like this judge in Texas considers himself conservative. And I said, like, we can never call these people conservative. How could it be a conservative position? One, to say that people shouldn't take personal responsibility over themselves, their families, their communities,

to get a vaccine that's proven to work in the medical community. And then how are you imposing as a judge, which is like the most activist thing you can do, telling the president what he can and can't do with troops. I mean, his prior order literally ordered, ordered the prior order, but the Supreme Court said, no, ordered Biden to deploy unvaccinated troops who could then potentially infect other troops.

And while our troops are abroad, and there is a wartime footing going on with what's going on with Russia's unlawful invasion of Ukraine, to have rampant COVID outbreaks amongst our troops, I mean, it is the strangest, most vile of rulings that exist. I say, strangest and most vile of rulings that exist. But then Popok, we go to what's going on with the Voting Rights Act and the Erosion of the Voting Rights Act. For long time legal AF listeners, you know we've focused on the intricacies

of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it's one of the most consequential things of the moment right now as the radical right legislatures are passing legislation to suppress the right to vote specifically in black and brown communities and as right wing radical legislatures and you know

through radical right you know know, governors who are approving it are gerrymandering districts in ways that are completely and utterly racist. And they're kind of getting away with it in the court system, that kind of they are. And so, you know, what's going on here? We have the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and section two of the Voting Rights Act, one of the most important of acts, one of the most important sections. And it says, no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting our standard practice or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any state or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of their right of any citizen of the United

States to vote on account of race or color or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in 1973 B. So basically, the Voting Rights Act says, you know, states can't make racist gerrymandered maps. You can't, you know, suppress the right to vote based on race. You can't engage in that conduct. As it relates to kind of gerrymandering, there was a process that was in place called pre-clearance, federal pre-clearance. And this was found in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and pre-clearance meant that either the Department of Justice or a panel of federal judges would have to approve maps provided by state legislators to determine if the map was fair, if the map was not racist.

So the burden was actually on the states not to do racist maps because they were going to be reviewed by the DOJ or this federal panel. Well, what happened was in 2013, this was a history of radical right wing judges. This is a plan that took place through the Federalist Society. This has been going on for a long time.

We're now seeing the impact of decisions that were very strategic and planned by these radical right people. This case, Shelby County versus Holder in 2013 struck down the factors that could be analyzed for pre-clearance. And so for all purposes, what that meant is since the factors were struck down, pre-clearance was struck down since the factors themselves were deemed to be unconstitutional. So this is the first time since there was a new census that was taken, where legislators have been engaged

in gerrymandering without pre-clearance. And so the burden has now shifted away from the legislators, away from them to justify their maps to two civil rights groups who have to challenge whether a map is racist or whether a map is not racist. And so that's a very hard burden, especially when federal courts have applied a doctrine that they call the Purcell theory, which is based on a, I think it's a 2006 Supreme Court case called Purcell

versus Gonzalez, I think it is, which says as you get close to an election, the Supreme Court shouldn't or courts shouldn't be able to make any rulings about the maps. Well, by the time you're done gerrymandering, you're pretty close to an election. And so you have Republican legislators who now view this as a free pass for them to do racist maps. And they say,

challenge me. Oh, and by the time you challenge me, guess what? The Purcell theory, it's too late. We're now at the election. My racist map gets to, you know, my racist map gets to hold. And even where federal courts have stepped in, I mean, like in Alabama, in Alabama, you had a three court panel look at what the Alabama legislators, Jerry Mandarin did there and said, look, you created one district, just one district that represented the black population in the state. When there was about 30% of the state, it has a black population. And they're only represented in one of like the seven districts. You have 12% representation for a 30% minority in the state. And there were even two Trump judges on that three judge panel who said this was two extreme.

And the Supreme Court stepped in there in Alabama and basically utilizing the Purcell rule and the Purcell theory. And they were like, Hey, too close to the election there. We're going to let the legislators map hold. We're not going to defer to what this district court judge said. And they kind of selectively apply the Purcell rule when it benefits them, you know, when it doesn't benefit them,

because here in Wisconsin, and talk about this Wisconsin case, the Supreme Court out of nowhere didn't apply the Purcell rule. They just wanted to stick their thumb in the Wisconsin legislator and the Wisconsin Supreme Court because there a map was established that created this extra

district. I think it was an assembly district. It wasn't a Congress district, but it was an assembly district. People didn't even think the Supreme Court was going to get involved in this Wisconsin case from this week, but the Supreme Court struck down kind of in violation of even like their own rule of the Purcell theory because the map was established. And the state and everyone said, look, Supreme Court, if you metal with our map now, you're going to create chaos in our election process.

But the Supreme Court didn't care in this recent Wisconsin case. So I hope that background was helpful to our listeners and viewers and understanding, like the history of the Voting Rights Act and what's taking place and why it's so consequential, but Popok breakdown, this case. Well, look, you're right about Purcell and it's troubling and it's obvious and it's transparent that every time the supermajority on the Supreme Court want to rent metal in weakening and deluding section two of the Voting Rights Act, they will use Persell as a shield or a sword to do that. There's no other explanation. I mean, in the last two months, they found almost the same amount of time between the

next election and the map to be either too early or too late. And it's almost the exact same amount of time, just depending upon when they get the vote. Sometimes they find it too early, sometimes they find it too late. It's whenever they want to metal. It's usually when a Republican map is at risk or the Republicans are challenging a map. And in Wisconsin, they have kicked it back the majority of the Supreme Court with a direction basically to the state Supreme Court of that state of Wisconsin that normally under normal circumstances at any time other than now. But the Supreme Court had done in the past based

on precedent is to allow the state and the state Supreme Court to make these kind of rulings. Now they have no problem as you've said, munking around with all of these issues, deluding the Voting Rights Act. So they've told the state Supreme Court come back to us after you have looked at whether a race neutral analysis would have led to a better allocation of the map rather than adding plus one because there's been an increase in the black population in Wisconsin, which is what the Supreme Court of Wisconsin did saying, reflecting that we have more black Wisconsin residents, there should be a plus one in terms of a district.

And they said, no, no, do it under a race neutral theory, because to the super majority of the Supreme Court, who believes they are color blind, and now since 1965, there are no states, as you mentioned earlier in the segment, Ben, there are now no states that need pre-clearance before they do their gerrymandering and they're redistricting.

Even ones like Alabama and others who have historically, Mississippi, who have historically used gerrymandering to deny voting rights of minorities, primarily black Americans. And the Supreme Court now says, no, no, we live in a race neutral world. We don't need critical race theory. We can be colorblind. There doesn't need to be affirmative action. We can just let the chips fall where they are. We don't need to teach anti-racism because that's not a racist country. No, no racism. I'm sorry. What America did you wake up in before we podcast it, Ben? There is no racism in America. If the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court is to be believed, there is no longer any racism. We all know

on this, all the fellow travelers on this podcast, and you and me know that that is a bald face lie. But it is, it is the persistent doctrine and dogma of the federalist society and of the people that are in the supermajority on the Supreme Court. And this is the manifestation of it when you throw it back to a Wisconsin and you say, no, no, we don't like the fact that you've adopted a map that reflects the color of your population. Do it again. And do it. They don't like you. They don't like what the legislator and the Supreme Court did in Wisconsin, where there they tried to create a fair map based on the demographic composition, but when the legislators like in Alabama

or in Texas create the racist maps, inherently racist maps, what the Supreme Court is saying, district court judges, federal judges, it would be racist of you judges to challenge the racism of the legislature. You judges shouldn't consider race, but the led the ledges, the ledges, the legislators got it right. We just got to be deferential, but we know the legislators are carving these maps to deprive black and

brown communities of representation. That is what is going on here folks. The Supreme Court, look, justice is supposed to be blind, but it's not supposed to be bound, gagged, and with cotton stuffed in its ears. And I don't know what what society the Supreme Court lives in, but they've turned our culture and reality on its head. It is now completely upside down in terms of what the court should be doing. And I, you know who I feel, I don't feel sorry for him. I was almost not able to start for him. Roberts in 2013, when he was, when he presided over a Supreme Court decision and a Supreme Court that even then completely diluted the Voting Rights Act and left only standing section two, which you and I have spent a considerable amount of time on all

podcasts talking about, that racially discriminatory voting practices are prohibited. He said to the people that objected to the decision that ripped apart the other aspects of the Voting Rights Act as being unnecessary. We don't need anymore. We live in a race neutral society of his making. He said, don't worry. Don't worry. I'm paraphrasing.

Section two, section two is still there. That's the bull work against race discrimination in America. Don't worry, section two. And now it's happened. Now he's lost the, he's lost his hold on the Supreme Court as we've spoken about in prior podcasts. He now has right wing people that that adhere to the Clarence Thomas wing of the party and of the of the Supreme Court. And now they've said, okay, we have shrunk the Voting Rights Act down to section two. Now we're going to drown section two in the bathtub

And that's exactly what they're been doing and we're just seeing it writ large in cases like it was constant And now you have as you as we spoke spoke about before we started In New York they all ran into a federal judge in Stuban County I've lived in the New York New Jersey area my entire life. I could not tell you where I'm sorry, where Stuban County is, but a Stuban County federal judge has ruled that the Democrats who were in charge of the legislature in, of course, a blue state like New York, oh, they're a map. They're a map that would have flipped four districts,

including that of at least the Ponic or Stupansky, whatever her name is, it's now the number three for the Republican party in Staten Island. She would have lost her seat because, look, to the winner goes the spoils. And, you know, the Democrats won the state of New York as they win every year and they decided,

hey, let's help the midterms. Let's get a few more districts in the Democratic side. And as long as it's not racially based, that scene that used to be okay. And instead you've got, you know, and again, her making the same mistake we tell our listeners and followers not to make the New York Supreme Court. Oh, actually, he was a state court judge. I said, federal, he's a state court judge. She said, the New York Supreme Court is ruled that these maps are unconstitutional. Yeah, it was a lower level trial judge. She said, the New York Supreme Court is ruled that these maps are unconstitutional. Yeah, it was a lower level trial judge. And now it's going to go to the court of appeals,

ultimately, for the state of New York. But it just goes to show you what you're allowed to do. And I know it sounds a little bit weird. But if you're in the majority and you run the state legislature, you're allowed to carve up your map in a way that does not benefit your opponent. Whatever party is not in power, as long as it's not racially motivated. So where the Stuban County, New York State Judge is getting off by saying, oh, you made four more democratic seats. Yes.

And they're allowed to do that as long as it's not right. You know, at least a Saponsky is a white lady from from statin island. She doesn't have voting rights act protection. I like that you call it stupansky. What is her name? I think it's the phonic. Stupansky. We have a lot to discuss on legal AF. We're going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about

I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about

I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about I'm not going to be talking about an hour and 37 minute gap, and whether it shows a consciousness of guilt, I think it obviously does.

And let's talk about the DOJ expanding its investigation and increasing its staff relating to January 6th. But first, a shout out to our partners. First, athletic greens. Everybody knows that I love athletic greens. You've seen the before and after photos of me and the before photos of me, I was taking vitamins and I was taking the gummies

and I was taking the pills and I thought I was getting the nutrition that I needed. I thought I was getting the ingredients I needed but not the case. And then I discovered athletic greens. Everyone knows what I do. I take that beautiful green powder, I scoop the dupedity, the power,

I looped it, looped it, the power in the cup, I shake it, I shake it, I drink that athletic greens, and boom, I got all the ingredients I need to supercharge my day, right? With one tasty scoop of A.G. one, it contains 75 vitamins, minerals, and whole food source ingredients, including multivitamin, multimineral, probiotic, green superfood blend, and more in one convenient

daily serving. The special blend of high quality, bioavailable ingredients, and a scoop of A.G.1 work together to fill the nutritional gaps in your diet as the research changes. So does A.1. And while most nutritional products stay the same, athletic greens continues to obsessively improve its product a G1 based on the latest research, producing 53 improvements over the last decade alone. It's lifestyle friendly, whether you eat keto, paleo, vegan, dairy-free, or gluten-free, it's for you.

It contains less than one gram of sugar, no GMOs, no nasty chemicals, or artificial anything while keeping it tasting good. So join the movement of athletes, life leads, moms, dads, rookies, first timers, and everyone in between who are taking ownership of their daily health and focusing on the nutritional products they really need in the simplest manner possible. That's essential nutrition and that's what legal AFers love.

I love seeing all of you posting your photos with athletic greens and showing the improvements and gains that you've made in your day, your energy, in your health, to make it easy athletic greens is going to give you an immune supporting free one year supply. Let me repeat it again. A free one year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. If you visit athletic greens dot com slash legal AF today visit athletic greens ATH LETIC GR EES.com slash legal AF today again visit AthleticGreens.com slash legal AF and take control of your

health and give a G1 a try and this podcast is also brought to you by light stream. Are you tired of paying high interest rates on your credit card debt? Check out light stream. I know how frustrating it can be. Like to feel like your credit card debt is getting in the way of your big life goals. Look, we've all been there before. And this credit card consolidation loan from Lightstream can help you pay off those credit cards fast

and keep more money in your pocket in the process. Lightstream makes the process super simple. You can get your money as soon as the day you apply. A lot of people don't realize this, but credit cards can have a terribly high interest rate, even if you've got excellent credit. Your APR could be 20%, 30% or even higher. So stop overpaying and take control of your finances with light stream.

Light stream believes people with great credit deserve a great rate. And that's just what they give you. Lones rage from $5,000 to $100,000. You can roll your credit cards into one low payment at a fixed rate as low as 4.98% APR with auto pay and excellent credit, way lower than most credit cards. Think about that.

You can lower your credit cards one low payment as 4.98% APR. If you've got a lot of credit debt that's been hanging around for a while, you might feel stuck with high rates. But with light stream, you've got an option that actually works for you. They can help you free up all the money you're spending on interest and put you back in the driver's seat.

The process is so fast, you can get your money and pay those credit cards off as soon as today. Apply now to get a special interest rate discount and save even more. Just go to lightstream.com slash legal AF. That's L-I-G-H-T-S-T-R-E-A-M.com slash legal AF. Subject to credit approval rates range from 4.98% APR to 19.9% APR and include a 0.50% auto paid discount.

Lowest rate requires excellent credit terms and conditions apply and offers are subject to change without notice visit lightstream.com slash legally for more information. Pope, I might be Pope, I might be Pope, I might be Pope, but you're like, when you talk about AG1, you're like, pop by. I'm expecting you to get a can of spinach and put it into your pipe and like show

off your muscles. Age you want, light stream, age you want, light stream. Judge, judge Carter, judge David Carter. I told you my man, judge federal judge Carter is not my man. I can't say that because he'll be like, what are you saying on your podcast? Did you know something about, I want to ask you, was I looked them up because you've been raven about him. Besides the fact that he was a Marine, did you know, and I remember this, do you remember

his claim to fame in the 1990s just to show you how much of a Maverick he is as compared to the other judge we spoke about earlier? Do you know what he, you know, he's infamous for or famous for? Tell me about it, Boba. He had criminal defendants that were in his courtroom who refused to respect the decorum of the courtroom and were busy spewing profanities and wouldn't respect the courtroom staff. He had them duct taped. He had the bailiffs and the person duct taped them while he was in their courtroom.

Of course, the ACL, you didn't like that either. But it just shows you, this is not a judge to be trifled with. Former Marine, former leather neck, he's gonna call it like he sees it. And he's just the kind of judge appointed, I think, by, who was it, by Clinton? Yeah, it was a Clinton. By Clinton that we needed in this, in this dire time.

So tell us about it. So this relates to the judge Eastman's refusal to turn over records. No, he wasn't a judge. Professor Eastman. I call this a perfect, perfect. The least judge, this relates to John Eastman, not judge Eastman, John Eastman, because my Jays relates to, stays in the pot, relates to John Eastman, because my Jays relates to, stays in the pot, relates to John Eastman, who is President Trump's lawyer, apparently, and Judge Carter, the actual federal judge,

accepted for the sake of argument in the brief that John Eastman was Trump's lawyer. John Eastman spoke at the insurrection. He was an insurrectionist. He's an insurrectionist. We saw it with our own eyes. The Clarence Thomas federal clerk, according to Karen, our co-host, she's right. He must have been in the first class of clerks. I thought he'd be too, because the guy's like pushing 70. I thought, Eastman was a Clarence clerk. That's where you learned about insurrection. Right. I mean, he literally was one of the first clerks for Clarence Thomas. And now he's whatever he is now. He was a professor at, he was a professor at a law school,

small law school in Southern California. But anyway, his records were subpoenaed by the January 6th committee. Because he's based in California. He sought an injunction to stop the January six committee from getting his records. There was a case filed in the central district of California and the Southern Division in Orange County. That's where Johnny Smith lives. That's where Chapman Law School is around Judge Carter was the assigned judge. Upon being assigned Judge Carter basically said, look, there's a ton of these documents that are clearly not subject to any attorney client privilege that was says communications between attorney and client and

furtherance of litigation are privileged communications that no one should be able to see. It's a sacrosanct relationship between attorney and client. There's lots of other privileges, but let's focus on the attorney client privilege for now. But Judge Carter said, these clearly are in privilege turn him over. So immediately. And so John Eastman turned over those records immediately. And then after that there was a subset of about 111 or 113 documents. And Judge Carter said, you know, John Eastman, you could brief why you think these are subject to a turning client privilege government, you explain why you believe you should get these documents. And so that was briefed. And then this ruling was a ruling that basically

said 97% of the documents, I think it was 101 of the 111 documents need to be turned over. There was a very small group that the judge said, fine, you know, those are either, you know, these are like random documents. Anyway, they don't even matter, but sure you can have attorney-client privilege over those irrelevant really. But what the judge found in ordering these documents to be turned over though is that there was an exception to the attorney-client privilege. And that exception is called the crime fraud exception, where an attorney can defend a client who's accused of the crime, but the attorney cannot go about committing the crimes with the client or attempting to commit the crimes. It's not just

that you said, just finish and then I'll tell you where you don to have to actually even achieve the goal of the crime, planning the crime. No, no, no, no about it. It doesn't often turn on the lawyer. It's that the client, sometimes a lawyer and client are in co-hutes, yes. And that's one subcategory of crime fraud exception. But the crime fraud exception applies even if the lawyer is not aware that he's being used by the client to facilitate the crime or the fraud. If at the end of that, he says, Hey, Bill, my lawyer, so does this country have extradition? And he says,

I'll look it up. No, they won't extradite for capital cases. Oh, okay. And then the guy goes off and commits a crime, that communication, which would normally be privileged, even if the lawyer didn't question, why are you asking me about extradition bill or what I lost track of who's the client, who's the lawyer, but that communication would be disclosed to the court to the other side because it wouldn't be covered by attorney client privilege because the client is trying to commit fraud and crime. There's want to make sure we're clear on how that works. Judge Carter says in his ruling that what occurred

on January 6th, what occurred between Eastman and Trump, is a coup in search of a legal theory and said that it is more likely than not that Trump engaged in obstruction of an official proceeding. That was the analysis towards the end of his ruling. You go through the ruling, like the first 10, 12, 15, whatever pages of it are kind of like distanced and a little bit boring. Then you get to the bottom of the ruling and judge Carter makes a clear look.

When I'm presiding over is a dispute over discovery, is a dispute over turning over records. I'm not here to judge a criminal proceeding. I'm not here to judge a civil proceeding. There ultimately should be accountability, but I think he wanted to message to the public that, I'm not the person, that's not the issue before me. But let me analyze for you what's taken place here is what, you know, Judge Carter basically says when he breaks it down, I am ordering these documents

to be turned over. I'm paraphrasing the rule. I am ordering these documents to be turned over to the January 6th committee because I am making a finding that more likely than not, Trump, the purported client here, was engaged in criminal activity, and it was clear to me that that's what was taking place. That's a powerful statement coming from a federal judge and a respected federal judge. First time in history, first time in the US history, 230 years of federal judge has under any standard has accused a president while he was in office of committing a felony and an obstruction charge. Now, a couple of things, one's rhetorical, one's a question for you. Why don't you think since this was set up as Eastman versus Benny Thompson and the Jan 6th Committee. Those are the parties. Trump never intervened in the case. As we know, as lawyers and as we'll teach our legal AFers,

the privilege of attorney client privilege is held by the client, not by the lawyer. The client has to do conduct, has to have committed something that waves the privilege. In this case, participating in the crime fraud exception with his lawyer, under that subset of the lawyer and the client were both conspiring to commit a crime. That's the easiest subset of crime fraud exception. But the privilege is held by the lawyer, by the client, sorry. Why do I have a question for you? And I haven't seen this talked about anywhere else or in the media. Why didn't Trump intervene to make an argument, to file a brief, and if things went awry, like they have here, to be a party for the appeal? Why didn't he?

I think there's two explanations. One is, he just not paying attention to it, which sometimes Occam's race. He missed this one. Not that he missed this one. I mean, that it's just not, you know, he's not exactly surrounded by the greatest legal advisor. So that's true. You know, so there could be more or he could be being advised, look, you know, you don't want to intervene here because if you intervene,

you could subject yourself to an evidentiary hearing potentially. And you may be called to take the witness stand about January 6th. And, you know, maybe you just kind of stay out of it. That's exactly the reason. You're your last reason is exactly right. He has to Trump cannot now reverse course and admit the following. I surrounded myself with moron lawyers to of which have now been disbarred who were pumping me full of bad advice and letting me bury my head in the sand. He can't admit that because now he's facing criminal prosecution, which we'll hopefully talk about before tonight's podcast is over with the Department of Justice and

another places that we've talked about, possible criminal prosecution. We're going to talk about a next Pope. No, no, no, but I mean, I don't know what we're going to say once we get there, I guess, is what I meant. So he now is only defense to all of these things is that I didn't have the criminal intent. I couldn't form the criminal intent. I didn't have men's rea as we talk about it because I was surrounded by these lawyers and they're all lawyers,

they're all members of the bar at the time, even though Giuliani and Powell aren't now, but I got all of this at an Eastman, Eastman will probably soon be in this part. But I got all this advice at an Eastman, Eastman will probably soon be this part. But I got all this advice about I was doing the right thing in the Electoral College Count Act of 1887. It was unconstitutional and all of this. And so I never, I can't be a criminal

because I had pure heart and pure mind. So he can't, I think you're right. He can't intervene in these things, A, subject himself to possible testimony or depositions. And B, he's got to act like, I don't know. I was relying on John Eastman. He looked like a, you know, he had a bow tie. He was a law professor. He seemed to know what he was talking. He wrote in that phone. His name was Judge Eastman, you know, Ben thought he has been elevated him. He by the way, scared the crap out of our audience. Trump wins again.

We're gonna have Eastman on the Supreme Court if there's another opening. So be careful. Anyway, I think he has to continue to double triple quadruple down Trump on the big lie. That's why he tweeted after this. You know, the big lie, it's the big lie. I believe that he's got to continue to promote this every way, shape and form because he's

got to stay in that lane of, I don't have men's reya. I really believe my own bullshit. And you're saying men's rayages for people and that's literally spelled M E N S space are E A men's ray, which refers to criminal intent, which the literal translation from Latin is a guilty mind, which is required. The state of mind is a requirement in most crimes. Well, there's some things that are strict liability that just do it, but it's very, very, very rare. But yes, but here, Trump's to Popox point is saying, I don't have criminal intent. I didn't have any, I didn't have the requisite mens rea

because I thought what I was doing was right. I didn't have a consciousness of guilt. And that's one of the jury instructions that federal prosecutors. And his first firewall. Yes, that his first firewall is look at the law firm that I assembled, the law firm of Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Sydney Powell, John Eastman, and all. That was my law firm and look at that brain trust. I relied on them. They told me all these cockamamae theories and QAnon based theories about the US Constitution, the Electoral College Count Act of 1887. And what am I layman? I believed all of it. I'm the president. I

only did what they told me to do. That's that's going to be the ever gets in a box prosecuted. That is going to be his defense, ladies and gentlemen. But what would rebut that defense? We've heard the seven hour and 37 minute gap in the records, his the official White House phone records, you know, which are supposed to document and show all of the calls that were taking place, you know, by the president of the United States. That's supposed to be documented under the Presidential Records Act. We know that Trump was on phone calls during the insurrection.

How do we know? Well, we've heard from people like Kevin McCarthy and from Jim Jordan and from others that they had conversations with him. because there's been 800 people that have testified before the JAN 6 committee. Yeah, they're on the phone records. Let me be clear. It's not like, and this is CNN to this report, which has drove me crazy.

They're like, well, actually, the paperwork is there. We have the records. Yeah, the literal paper is there. We have the records. Yeah, the literal paper is there like we have the document itself, but it is missing the phone calls on the records. Wait a minute, wait a minute, I don't understand this. Thank God for Bob Woodward, but you know, and all presidents must shake their fists like Bob Woodward, Bob Woodward and is pushing 80s broke the story in the Washington Post that there is a gap pushing 80s broke the story in the Washington Post that there is a gap in the White House phone log. Not the recordings. I don't want to people think this is audio recordings. In the written log about every call the president's supposed to make, which has to be recorded as you said

under the Presidential Records Act, there is a gap from 1117 until 654 in the evening, the day of the insurrection, which is almost the entire insurrection. And CNN's reporting is what, Ben? CNN ran a story that basically set like five people who wrote the story. They need to like five writers apparently. We've seen the logs and the logs, the paperwork all exists. Like as though what CNN, CNN was trying to basically say like the logs are actually there. Like the log is not missing the piece of paper during that time period, which was not the point. The book's there, but there's no entries from 11. He ordered a yoga in the morning and he called Dan Scavino at 655 and the entire thing in the middle is

missing. And we know from reporting and from the Jan 6th committee that he made at least seven phone calls. We also know you guys talked about it on the brother's pot. We know there's groups that use burner phones at the at Trump and his minions direction. We know that the Jan 6 planners and all of these Q and on right wing proud boy groups were told when you call Eric Trump, when you call Mark Meadows, when you call the people in the Willard Hotel Command Center for President Trump, use a

burner phone. So you and I, I've never gotten a call on a burner phone. I don't know how it turns up on your, on your caller ID. I know it doesn't say burner phone, but I'm sure like Eric Trump doesn't just randomly pick up a phone that he doesn't know where it's coming from. If it says blocked or unknown, he knew to pick it up. He knew they were using the burner phones, which gets back to where you're going with consciousness of guilt and the missing pages. So there is a jury instruction that the jury gets when a prosecutor is trying to show the guilty state of mind, which covers consciousness of guilt. And the jury instruction states, quote, if you believe that the defendant sought to conceal evidence, then you may consider this conduct along with all the other evidence in deciding whether he she thought he she

was guilty of the crime charged and was trying to avoid punishment. In other words, if Trump didn't think he was guilty. If Trump thought he was just following the advice of his lawyers, if Trump thought that he was engaged in legal conduct, not illegal conduct, he would have put the injuries of everybody he talked to on his logs. But the fact that he kept it from the logs shows he has a consciousness of guilt. An innocent person does something. An innocent person does not conduct themselves this way. And the jury can use that to determine whether the person's criminal intent is present.

Exactly. And Popak, I think that the evidence is mounting and mounting both the actual hard evidence of what is in front of both the January 6th Committee now and the DOJ and their investigation and the missing information showing a consciousness of guilt. The DOJ needs to step up now. And here's the thing though, to give them credit, now. And here's the thing though, to give them credit, I think that what we see is they're doing that we see they are though. I know, I know, I know it's going slower than everybody wants. I just want to put this in context. It is the most complex and the most work intensive, and the most work intensive, like a prosecutorial effort in the history of the United States period.

And especially it being run and the ultimate perpetrator is the former president of the United States as well. But it's prosecuting- But it's prosecuting- But it's prosecuting- But it's prosecuting- And to prosecute that, just the sheer amount of people is difficult. Popak and I, on an earlier legal AF, we said that one of the things that the DOJ should do is staff up and

hire more people, been sure enough, and the recent budget they submitted, they did that, you know, and asked for tens of millions of dollars more to hire about 120 or 130 more lawyers and staff to help prosecute these cases. And they've also signaled that they are expanded the investigation to not just to the people who were there that day, but also to the financial planners, financial backers, and for those who ate and embedded, even if they weren't there that day. And so that is a sign, and they're doing what prosecutors are supposed to be doing. They are starting from the bottom.

They've been rising and increasing the investigations to then have more senior level people. They've got their first conviction in trial. They've increased the type of charges, charging people with sedition now, you know, and charging people with, trying to overthrow the government and planning to overthrow the government. And when Merrick Garland was asked the other day, you know, have you seen reports on CNN about this and that, you know, he answered, basically, look, I'm not, you know, we're going to follow the law and we're going to, you know, ultimately, that's what's guiding me in this investigation.

So I do think though, they are moving in the right direction. They're moving more slowly than most people like, but I mean, we're in 2022. I mean, this happened January of 2021, you know, and we've have a lot of convictions and they're moving up and we're getting more information out every day. There are two pop culture references I'll make now. One is Drake and the other is Spike Lee. Drake is we started from the bottom now we're here and we are here after 14 months. The Washington Post is reporting, as you've just said, that there is a substantial expansion of a criminal investigation led by the Department of Justice into the planning and to the operational aspects of the ellipse rally,

which led to the insurrection, including the involvement of other governmental officials close to Trump. And they're also investigating the fake electric scheme and the VIPs that attended at the rally as they move closer to both members of Congress and the executive branch. So to answer the question that was raised three months ago, six months ago, nine months ago, if there was a criminal investigation, the Department of Justice was making of Trump and all the people around him at the inner circle, we would have heard about it. There isn't one. There is. There has been Lee Samonico came out a month ago and revealed after the fake electors issue

with the National Archives submission that they had expanded, they had expanded, expanding an investigation means that there is an investigation ongoing that needs to be expanded. It didn't say start an investigation. The post is reporting and they've seen subpoenas because there is a grand jury that has been in panel that is just now getting some press in Washington, DC by the Department of Justice by main justice on these very issues. They brought people into testify in front of that. They've issued subpoenas on behalf of the grand jury. So we we've entered a critical new phase. I don't know if this is the third quarter of a four quarter game, but we are moving into

a new phase parallel to what's going on with the phases that are now moving aggressively in the Jans X committee, which is also make returning in to a new phase with with Jared Kushner testifying vert, you know, by zoom yesterday in front of the Jans X committee without any preconditions about his role. Remember Ginny Thomas had a note to meadows that's been revealed to the Jans X committee saying Jared this and Jared that showing a connectivity with Jared Kushner. So all of these things are moving parallel. And the Spike Lee doctrine, which is what Merrick Garland said during his, his interview was, we're going to do the right thing. We're going to take, take the investigation where it leads.

And he had a great quote in there that reminds you that we have an adult in Merrick, Garland. I know I recently came out and said, and I am getting impatient. Let's be honest, we have a federal judge who just said our, our, our former president is a criminal. He said to paraphrase Garland, the best way to undermine investigation is to say things about it, about how things are going, concerning it. So he is very tight-lipped. People should not confuse his reticence to comment on an ongoing,

substantially expanded investigation, criminal investigation, as meaning he's not doing anything and the Department of Justice is not doing anything. You and I will follow this, but the Jan 6th Committee originally said they were gonna make their presentation to the American public in May. That may slip a bit. Maybe it'll be June, but there's going to be a lot for you and me to cover as we get through

the spring and the summer with the Department of Justice parallel to the Jansix committee. I'm going to have to tell Spike Lee next time I see him that you gave him the shout out on the legal AF special shout out to Spike who's directing our Colin Kaepernick documentary. I've had the honor and privilege of hanging out with Spike over a number of days while I was out in Brooklyn. That was my softball. We were shooting about how about Drake? You don't have any, you don't have any personal connectivity to Drake. What about Drake? If I should some shout out to, uh, to, uh, to spike shout out to Drake. I'm, I'm a, I'm a Drake fan. And also shout out to the Midas touch merch store. Go to store. MidasTouch.com. You can check out legal AF gear there. Legal AF mugs, Midas Touch gear, Midas Touch mugs.

We've got a ton of great stuff there from bracelets to t-shirts, things heading into the summer. That's store.midastouch.com. Head there now and Popock and I are practicing litigators. And so if you've been injured, whether that's, you know, your injury is a breach of contract, whether you're a victim of sexual harassment or sexual assault, whether there's a business dispute, a big complex business dispute, potential class action cases, whether there's even a serious car injury or things like that.

Like Popo can I, we'll take a look if we're not the right lawyers for it. We have a good network of lawyers who we work with, who we can help refer the cases to and try to bring them to the right people. We get lots of calls from the Midas Mighty and we're always happy to help and try to find the time to help. You can email me at benat-touch.com, benat-meid-st-o-u-c-h, and you can email popok at mpopok at zplaw.com. Mpopok at zplaw.com. We may need to create a Midest Touch account for you. Popok special thanks to all of our sponsors on the pod today. Athletic Greens and Lightstream.

Use those codes. Legal AF there. We will see you next time on legal AF where we break down the consequential legal news of the week, of the month, of the year, of our day in ways. You could understand, take out there, continue to fight with truth and fight for our democracy.

Popok, always a pleasure joining you each weekend. You too, we started from the bottom. Now we're here. Now we're here. And always just, what was the spike quote, be good, do what's right? No, do the right thing. Do the right thing.

See you next time on me. Be quick. Legal AF podcast. Special shout out to the Midas Mike. On me, Legal AF Podcast. Special shout out to The Midas Mike.