Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump’s FIRST CRIMINAL TRIAL is Here

Episode Date: April 14, 2024

Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok are back with a new episode of the weekend edition of the top rated Legal AF podcast. On this episode, they debate/discuss: gets the audience ready for all they need to know as a “viewer guide” for the historic first criminal trial of a former US President that starts in NY on Monday; Judge Cannon’s recent decision and motion practice that will be required to be completed before any trial is set as she delays the trial of Trump before the November election; recent potential securities law violations by Trump regarding his cratering Trump Media stock; and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Rhone: Head to https://Rhone.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF to save 20% off your entire order! Mosh: Try Mosh today and use LEGALAF to save 20% plus free shipping at https://moshlife.com/LEGALAF Fum: Head to https://TryFum.com/legalaf and use code LEGALAF to save 10% off when you get the journey pack today! Lumen: Head to https://lumen.me/legalaf and use code: legalaf to get $100 off your Lumen Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/legalaf Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

FanDuel Casino's exclusive live dealer studio has your chance at the number one feeling, winning, which beats even the 27th best feeling saying I do. Who wants this last parachute? I do. Enjoy the number one feeling, winning, in an exciting live dealer studio, exclusively on FanDuel Casino, where winning is undefeated. 19 plus and physically located in Ontario. Gambling problem? Call 1-866-531-2600 or visit connectsontario.ca. Please play responsibly. Trial is here on Monday, April 15th despite

Donald Trump's 11 separate attempts, including four emergency appeals very recently to try to stop this case from going to trial. Jury selection takes place on Monday in the Manhattan district attorney criminal case against Donald Trump for falsifying business records in connection with the 2016 election, trying to, uh, interfere with the 2016 election by making these hush money payments to Stormy Daniels and falsifying the business records to cover it up. There it is right there. Popak, I want to break down what everybody can expect during jury selection. Also in no uncertain terms, the judge presiding over the case,

Justice Juan Marchand warned Donald Trump and Trump's lawyers that further frivolous filings will be met with serious sanctions as Karen Friedman Agnifilo, our co-host on Legal AF, also pointed out that this is a criminal case. Let's be clear, things are going to go down very differently than what we saw in the civil cases and what she also pointed out as well. And she knows that courtroom better than probably anybody. If she was the number two in the Manhattan district attorney's office, you know, there's a jail cell right down the hallway from that courtroom.

And if Donald Trump backs up, Karen Friedman Agniflo says that she knows Justice Mershon would not hesitate to put Donald Trump in that jail cell right down the hallway, will break it all down and Donald Trump, just like he did though, in all of the previous cases that he lost, he claims he's going to testify, he says he's going to testify. He says he's got nothing to hide at this point. It's so predictable, the moves that he makes, but nonetheless, he's saying he's going to testify during this criminal trial.

You and I do not think that's going to happen at all, but we will chat about it. Also, federal judge Eileen Cannon in the Southern District of Florida issued an order reversing herself, reversing her prior order where she was going to compel the identities of confidential informants and other confidential witness statements to be made public on the public

docket. As special counsel Jack Smith pointed out in a motion for reconsideration, Judge Cannon, you're applying the wrong legal standard. You don't know what you're doing. After being called out by special counsel Jack Smith, Judge Cannon reversed herself, but get this. She blamed special counsel Jack Smith for not educating her on what the law was earlier. She said that it was his fault for not explaining the legal standards.

Really, Judge Cannon? You think special counsel Jack Smith's job is to teach you the most basic things that you don't reveal the identity of confidential witnesses? We'll break it all down. Also I want to chat with you Michael Popak about the next wave of lawsuits that you and I I think bolt see on the horizon for Donald Trump. And that involves Trump media and his crashing stock. Donald Trump's last attempt at doing a public company, like all of the other things that he's pretty much done in his life, failed miserably.

Now Donald Trump is kind of repeating that like all of his ventures. This is failing, but he's doing all the things you're not supposed to do or not allowed to do when it comes to publicly traded securities. Making statements about how great Trump media is, how this is the greatest movement ever. Things that would normally be called the pump phase of a kind of pump and dump and also saying things like the balance sheet looks great and everything is doing really good and they got really good cash positions. There are serious rules about false and misleading statements and regardless of what the SEC

does, there could be a wave of shareholder lawsuits coming. So it doesn't have to be the SEC brings it. Individual shareholders can file a class action for false and misleading statements. And Donald Trump and the board can be held responsible for the billions of dollars in damages for the loss that was caused by their inducing people to purchase the stock at prices by saying the company is great. So we'll cover all of that here on Legal AF, but this is one of those episodes, Michael Popak, that I think is really historic.

You know, you and I and Karen Friedman Agnifilo, you know, we've, you know, covered all of these indictments, starting with the Manhattan District Attorney indictment. And then we talked about the special counsel, Jack Smith, indictments in Washington DC in the Southern District of Florida and Fulton County. But this is an episode that's right before this criminal trial is about to start, the first ever criminal trial against a former president. How do you frame this historic moment, Michael Popa? Yeah, thanks Ben. Yeah, I think it's, we've been

working towards this moment almost from the start when you and I co-founded Legal AF. Justice has a long trajectory. The wheels of justice are not small, they're gigantic and when they turn, as we've said in the past, it may take a while to move a giant stone wheel of justice, but when it does turn, it grinds very finely. And now we're at the end of the wheel's turn with Donald Trump and his henchmen, depending upon which case we're talking about, about to be brought to justice. I don't want, and I know you don't, that's why you're framing it this way. I don't want us as a body politic, as an audience, to get Trump fatigue because we need to bring these issues to the fore. We need to analyze them.

We need to do explainers like we're doing now in real time often to keep up with the news. We're not, but it's hard, right? You can get glassy-eyed thinking about all of the things, just Donald Trump. And we don't just do a show about Donald Trump. We do analysis and hot takes about civil rights and constitutional rights and women's rights and immigration rights and everything Supreme Court. But we have to report on historic moments

the way you've just framed this one. To all the people out there, maybe because they were just trying to manage their own expectations, or they're just naysayers. To all the people that said Donald Trump will never be indicted, I point you to five separate indictments in four different jurisdictions, state and federal. To those who said he would never see the inside of a courtroom civilly to be brought to justice for things that he did or said against E. Jean Carroll, I point you to two, not one, but two separate federal juries

that found against him, to those that said he'd be able to get away with hiding his finances from the American people and his tax returns and his fraud. I point you to the 17 count felony conviction of all of his major companies two years ago defended by one of the same lawyers you and I are going to talk about today, Susan Necklis. To those that said he'll never with his delay strategy, he'll never be tried in a court of law for any crime before the election. I point you to tomorrow's beginning, or I'm sorry, Monday's beginning of jury selection in the Manhattan DA's case. The case that Karen, our colleague says, people might have thought was not the trial that we wanted,

but it's the trial, as I said, it's the trial that we get. But it is an important election interference case. And it's more important because it breaks the glass ceiling of expectations. I think it's poetic justice that a much maligned Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA, almost from his first day in office, including about all things Trump, got the first indictment, not Fonny Willis, not Jack Smith, got the first indictment against Donald Trump, and is trying the first case against Donald Trump, as the others have been caught up in different quagmires, some of which are Donald Trump's making, some of which are judges making, some of which is the Department of Justice a little bit slow on the trigger. But we now are here and everything changes.

I mean, I saw an article, Ben, in mainstream media that I was following. It was like, you know, sort of what to expect or, or, you know, will people know this was better. Will people care? Listen to this. Will people care about the trial as if this is like the 15th moonshot and people got bored after the second one, you know, with the Apollo missions, nobody will care. I assure you, not only our audience of almost three million strong and growing, but the rest of America will have to pay attention to the fact that for the first

time in 270 years, a former president of the United States is standing trial for crimes and election interference that he committed before he even got elected. You know, it's so obvious when the media projects its own lack of understanding of the moment in such kind of clear and present ways as you just call out. That's why it's important that we go to the experts. I mean, look, you're practicing in New York,

but also a lot of our knowledge on this that we go to the experts. I mean, look, you're practicing in New York, but also a lot of our knowledge on this is informed by Karen Friedman Agnifilo when we ask her questions and she guides us all through this process. I mean, she was the former number two at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. She worked at that office for almost 30 years.

There were times where she served as the acting Manhattan district attorney. And so she knows all of the players. She knows the judge. She knows the lawyers. She used to work with special counsel, Jack Smith. She's very familiar with the local rules and that provides a roadmap to help kind of guide all of us.

I do want to mention that Karen will be providing daily updates first to all of the Midas, Midy and the Legal AFers every morning and every afternoon. She will provide recaps here before she goes and talks to anyone else, which I think is going to be a major asset as well. Michael Popak, this past week, it seemed like every single day, and it was almost hard to keep track of, even for people whose job is to keep track of it. Which Article 78 emergency motion was the Appellate Division denying on any given day? Was it the one about Donald Trump saying it was an unfair venue?

Was it Donald Trump saying it's unfair that the judge refused to recuse himself? Was it Donald Trump saying that it's unfair pretrial publicity? Was it Donald Trump saying it's unfair that he was not given absolute presidential immunity Trump saying it's unfair that he was not given absolute presidential immunity for conduct that predates when he was actually in office because he tried to cover up the crime when he was in office. Those aren't like hypothetical things like, oh, Ben, you're just saying these things. Those are actual things that Donald Trump tried to raise on emergency bases this week to try to adjourn the trial and stop it from going forward.

And at each turn, the appellate division rejected it, rejected it, rejected it. And then Justice Mershon rejected Trump's claim of unfair pre-trial publicity. And Justice Mershon did that one at the end of the week and said, what are you talking about, Donald Trump? You're the one who's creating the publicity. You're going out there and making these statements, projecting your grievances to the world every day. Like 90% plus of the publicity and the potential issues that you're

complaining about with the jury. You're the one trying to cause your own delay by making the jury hate you with your behavior. I'm obviously summarizing in a way, oversimplifying what Justice Mershawn said. And then Justice Mershawn also then made a statement to not just Donald Trump, but Trump's lawyers in this final order by Justice Mershawn saying, look, the Manhattan district attorney's office was not asking for sanctions yet in this specific motion, but I want to be very clear that you

need to stop filing things that are just objectively false to this court. You know, one of the things that, uh, uh, that Donald Trump and Trump's lawyers, uh, were saying was that, uh, their former CFO of the Trump organization, Alan Weisselberg, was coerced into entering a guilty plea in the New York attorney general's civil fraud case. And so Justice Mershon goes through what Alan Weisselberg actually said when he pled guilty to perjury and he was asked the basic questions about, were you coerced? Nope. Did you commit the crimes? Yep. Did anybody threaten you or harass you to do this? Nope. Are

you doing this on your own volition? Yep. You committed the perjury, right? Yep. You're not being persuaded. You're not fearful of anything. Nope. And so Justice Murchhon said, you know, stop with this BS and my courtroom is not going to be treated like a, you know, like Mar-a-Lago. This is a court of law. I thought that was a powerful statement. Popak, what'd you make of this week where it was every day there was a new emergency article 78 application to the appellate division. And then what'd you think of Mershan's order?

Yeah. And I liked the way you introduced it. And we have a competitive advantage on this network is Karen's got the prosecutor experience and I've tried cases on the defense side in criminal court in New York. So I think between the two of us, we court, we sort of bring the audience together from both perspective, you know, I've never been a prosecutor. And, and, and, uh, so I definitely tip my hat to some of the tips and tricks there. I listen to her for my future practice. Look, first of all, I think you're being

kind. I don't think it's just a call out by the judge. I think it's an invitation by the judge for the prosecutors who are obligated ethically, as you and I both are as members of our respective bars, we are obligated in a self-policing profession to report violations of ethics to the appropriate regulatory body. In New York, I did a quick hot take on this one today, in New York, we don't have a unified bar. When I say I'm a member of the New York bar, that's sort of shorthand. I'm not a member of the New York bar because there's no such thing as the New York bar as there is in other states that I'm a member of,

like the Florida bar. I am a member, as each member that practices in New York, every bar member, of an appellate division that admitted me and is forever responsible for my professional conduct. My appellate division that I'm a member of, as I said before, is the appellate division first department, which is Manhattan, which oversees the same appellate division that we will be talking about at length on this podcast, which oversees all things, all appeals in the first level of appeal in New York, in Manhattan, sits over this particular case, civil and criminal, anything that happens in Manhattan goes to the Appellate Division First Department. I don't know which department, but I presume like Susan

Necklis, the lawyer for the, for Donald Trump, who's taken sort of a backseat to Todd Blanch, another lawyer for Donald Trump. And just because you have sort of a backseat to Todd Blanch, another lawyer for Donald Trump. And just because you have an office in New York like Todd Blanch doesn't mean that you are regulated by the appellate division in New York. It depends on where you were sworn in. If he was sworn in in the second or third department, that's who regulates him. And we have an obligation as bar members, even if I'm not involved with the case, and the judge too, to make a referral to the bar of the appellate division that Todd Blanchard is a member of if he thinks, and the judge has now found, as far as I'm concerned, it's not just a comment.

He has quoted the language from the people, which is that there have been false claims made in this courtroom, and the judge has effectively made a finding that that is true and has asked and invited the Manhattan DA to do something about it. And to do something about it takes two forms. One, they file a motion with the judge for sanctions and it'll be granted. It'll be against the lawyers, Todd Blanch at least, based on the filings that have been made.

You gave one example, the Allen Weiss, the constant, this is as if it's been written by Donald Trump, because this is right out of Donald Trump's playbook and things that he said on social media about his poor, beleaguered, almost 80-year-old chief financial officer who he paid off $2 million, sung Happy Birthday to as he was lying on the stand in front of the attorney general case that led to his perjury conviction and his second ticket to Rikers Island for fraud or false statement. I mean, and the fact that who coerced him?

The fact that Mershon said, and I'll paraphrase, when Mershon who presided over the same judge over the 17 count felony conviction of the Trump Organization entities that committed tax fraud. You know, Trump just skated by there. He should have been indicted as well. But that was like a test run for Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA. He said, let's try the companies first on tax evasion. You and I and Karen talked about that as a test run, a dress rehearsal. Let's see if I can get a conviction. Yes, I can get a conviction against a Trump entity. Now let's go for Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels. That's how that progressed. In that case, Mershon was the same judge. Jury fines against Donald Trump. Yes, you can pick a fair and impartial jury in New York

against Donald Trump. How do I know? Because we've done it three times already in the last two years, right? Nine jurors twice in, so 18 jurors total in the civil case against E. Jean Carroll, with E. Jean Carroll's case. 12 jurors in the case involving the tax fraud. And Marchand said after he took the deal that the Manhattan DA was stressing, because they felt like Alan Weisselberg would help them more than he ultimately did in that first trial. And he got, and he said, all right, what's the deal? He'll cooperate, Your Honor, five months, Rikers Island. He says, okay, seems a little light, but I'm going to take it. Then Weisselberg didn't really cooperate as much as he was supposed to. It was a weird deal. He barely cooperated at all. And the judge commented at that trial that had he known the full extent of the evidence that was presented in the courtroom at the time,

he would have sentenced him to a lot longer time in jail. That's what Donald Trump has to worry about. When you and I get to that point in our discussion today about whether Donald Trump is gonna testify or not, is that the judge, although he's not the trier of fact, the jury is, the 12 member person of the jury, 12 members of the jury, the judge is listening, he's presiding, he is evaluating witnesses and evidence in his own way to weigh them for places like sentencing,

which is if there is a jury conviction, two or three months later, there's going to be a sentencing hearing that's only the judge, this judge, the judge that thinks the lawyers have committed fraud in his courtroom, the judge who thinks that Donald Trump has been unhinged and out of control in attacking him and his daughter and the prosecution. This same judge is going to be doing the sentencing. So enough with the, as you said, the attacks on Alan, you know, the Allen Weisselberg affair for the two-time now convicted felon who's going to jail. And I think if I'm the Manhattan DA's office, I bring a motion for sanctions because it's been invited by the judge. And I've never turned down

an invitation from a judge. And I don't think you have either, Ben, in your practice. I take it. I take that gift when it's given to me. May not be today. May not be Monday morning. They're a little tied up right now getting ready to pick a trial. You and I have been in trial practice for a long time. Today is a day of tremendous industry over at the Manhattan DA's office and all the dozens

of people that are involved in this case to get ready for Monday. It's not just, you know, oh, well, it's just jury selection. It'll take a week. So they're not really, no, you got to have all your witnesses locked down, your witness statements, your opening statements, your witness outlines, your crosses, the things you got to handle and not in front of the jury with the judge that still haven't been worked out yet. It's a lot of work to be done.

There's going to be, it's 16, 18 hour days, you know, which started weeks ago, all the way through this weekend to get to Monday. That's for sure. And so, and the second thing that Manhattan DA does, I believe, is make their own referral, a grievance, and the judge can do this too, by the way. I think he waits till the end of the trial, but he can make a grievance to the, whatever Appellate Division Todd Blanch is a member of for what he sees as improper conduct in his courtroom. I do not believe that this will go unaddressed by judge and or Manhattan DA. And we have an obligation as a profession to address it because we self-police. You know, I want to talk about what the jury selection process is going to look like, whether you think there could be a fair and impartial jury selected.

I also want to talk about whether you think, and I'll share my opinion as well. Uh, if and when Donald Trump is convicted, he actually will be sentenced to prison and actually serve time. And then I want to address as well Donald Trump saying that he's going to testify in the Manhattan District Attorney's criminal case starting on Monday. We'll talk about all of that and more. Let's take our first quick break of the show.

BOSE CLOTHES ARE UNCOMFORTABLE. THEY'RE TOO TIGHT. OR NEVER ACTUALLY THE SIZE YOU REALLY ARE. NOT TO MENTION THE ENVOYANCE OF TRYING TO PUT A GOOD OUTFIT TOGETHER. EVERYONE WANTS TO DRESS THEIR BEST AND LOOK GOOD AT ALL TIMES. or never actually the size you really are, not to mention the annoyance of trying to put a good outfit together. Everyone wants to dress their best and look good at all times because frankly, it's a confidence booster. I regularly wear Roan when I do the podcast or on hot takes.

So here's the deal. Men's closets were due for a radical reinvention and Roan stepped up to the challenge. Roan's commuter collection is the most comfortable, breathable and flexible set of products known to challenge. Rhone's Commuter Collection is the most comfortable, breathable and flexible set of products known to man. And here's why. Rhone helps you get ready for any occasion with the Commuter Collection,

which offers the world's most comfortable pants, dress shirts, one-quarter zips and polos. Rhone's comfortable four-way stretch fabric provides breathability and flexibility that leaves you free to enjoy what life throws your way. From your commute to work to your 18 holes of golf, it's time to feel confident without the hassle.

With Rhone's Wrinkle Release Technology, wrinkles disappear as you stretch and wear the products. It's that easy. With Gold Fusion Anti-Oil Technology, you'll be smelling fresh and clean all day long. And on top of that, Rhone is 100% machine washable so you can ditch the dry cleaner altogether. Rhone has truly become my favorite clothes.

We're on the move a lot, whether it's jumping from meeting to meeting or catching a flight or a dinner out, the Rhone Commuter Collection has never let me down. Even after I wear it all day, I still feel super fresh because of that Gold Fusion anti-odor technology. Head to roan.com slash Legal AF and use promo code LegalAF

to save 20% off your entire order. That's 20% off your entire order when you head to rhone.com slash LegalAF and use code LegalAF. It's time to find your corner office. when you head to rhone.com slash legal AF and use code legalAF. It's time to find your corner office. As I count down to new fatherhood, the more I find myself wanting to be

that much more intentional about the way I live, eat and take care of my body. Mosh is a company founded by Maria Shriver and her son Patrick Schwarzenegger with a simple mission, to create a conversation about brain health through food, education, and research. Maria's father suffered from Alzheimer's, and since then, she and Patrick have dedicated themselves

to finding ways to help other families dealing with this debilitating disease. MOSH joined forces with the world's top scientists and functional nutritionists to go beyond your average protein bar. With six delicious flavors, each MOSH bar has 12 grams of protein and is made with ingredients that support brain health like ashwagandha, lion's mane,

collagen, and omega-3s. They also have a line of plant-based protein bars in three delicious flavors. But here's the best part to make you feel good. MOSH donates a portion of all proceeds from your order to fund gender-based brain health research through the women's Alzheimer's movement. Why gender-based?

2 thirds of all Alzheimer patients are women. Mosh is working closely to close the gap between women and men's health research. The Mosh bars are incredibly delicious. My favorite, cookies and cream crunch. I have a Mosh Bar every morning before my workout, and it's the perfect way to kick off my day. If you want to find ways to give back to others

and fuel your body and your brain, Mosh Bars are the perfect choice for you. Head to moshlife.com slash legal AF to save 20% off plus free shipping on your first six count trial pack. That's 20% off plus free shipping on your first six count trial pack. That's 20% off plus free shipping on your first six count trial pack at moshlife.com slash legal AF. Thank you, Mosh, for sponsoring this episode.

Great ad reads there, Michael Popok, and thank you to our unapologetically pro-democracy sponsors, the discount code is in the description below. Also want to remind everybody about the Legal AF Patreon. Popok, you're absolutely crushing it there. If you ever wanted to see what it would be like to be in Professor Popok's class or Professor Mycelis, although I've been slacking a little bit, Popak's been the main professor thus far, but don't worry, I'm doing my professorship right now at USC, but I will be done with that soon.

And then you're all my next class, but Popak is picking up for me right now. It's patreon.com slash legal AF, patreon.com slash legal AF. Popok, there's almost like a script that takes place before every Trump trial. He does the same schemes, the same lies. It's the same playbook over and over again. There's the threatening the judge,

threatening the prosecutors, threatening the prosecutors, threatening the witnesses, whining about the gag order after threatening all of them. Tries to do everything to stop it from happening. And when that kind of finally fails, he then puts out statements saying he's going to testify, or he has others put out statements on his behalf, saying that he's going to testify.

Heck, even during the trials, he's got, saying that he's going to testify. Heck, even during the trials, he's got people who say he's going to testify, he's going to testify, and then he does not do that. We saw that in E.G. Carroll, we saw that in the New York Attorney General's civil fraud case over and over again. This is what he does. And so he held that weird, strange, unhinged press conference at

Mar-a-Lago with the spineless new speaker of the house, Maga Mike Johnson, who was there like nodding his head, like, okay, whatever you say, Donald. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. And then Donald Trump during that press conference though, was asked if he plans to testify at trial.

Here's what Donald Trump said. Let's play it. if he plans to testify at trial. there's not even a case there. And then he's asked if he thinks it's risky to testify and here's what he says. I'm testifying. I tell the truth. I mean, all I can do is tell the truth. And the truth is that there's no case.

They have no case. And again, you have to read the scholars, read all of the legal scholars. I haven't seen one legal scholar that said this is a case. And again, you have to read the scholars, read all of the legal scholars. I haven't seen one legal scholar that said this is a case. And in fact, even you people said, oh, gee, that's too bad. This is the first one. All of them are scams. They're all about election and fear interference. We have. You know, by the way, at that same press conference, one of the things that

Donald Trump was saying is he goes, everybody agreed that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned. Every legal scholar, every person agreed that Roe v. Wade, he lies about every single thing. I don't know, maybe his kind of right wing extremists in the Fox and Newsmax echo chamber say that, but that's just not true. And I want to get your take in a moment, Popak, if you think he's going to testify. But just to remind everybody, remember during the E. Jean Carroll first trial,

where Donald Trump was found liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll, as well as for defamation. That's where Joe Toccappena was the lawyer at that time. Um, remember Donald Trump literally fled the country. It was a civil case. So he was allowed to leave unlike a criminal case where he has to stay, but he fled to Scotland and Ireland and was there during the trial. He was like holding a shovel and pretending he was like building something,

which he wasn't. And then he was out there playing golf. And then he was asked if you're going to show up and if you're going to testify. And then Trump said, yes, I'm going to confront this woman here. Remember this? Let's play the clip. I have to leave Ireland and I have to leave Scotland. We have great properties. I have to leave woman. Here remember this? that's leading the polls by 40 points. And I have to go back for a woman that made a false accusation about me and I have a judge who's extremely hostile and I'm going to go back and I'm going to confront this woman.

This woman is a disgrace and it shouldn't be allowed to happen in our country. Of course, he did not go back. He did not confront E. Jean Carroll. Um, in fact, federal judge Lewis Kaplan in that case, um, pause the proceedings even, which is unheard of no other litigant would have that opportunity. And federal judge Lewis Kaplan said, hey, I just saw this press conference that's being reported where your client Joe Takapinas says that he's going to show up and testify.

I don't want him to whine and complain and say that he's been treated unfairly. So is he going to testify? And then Trump's lawyer, Joe Takapinas said, I know you understand what I am dealing with judge, he's not going to be testifying. And then in the New York attorney general civil fraud case, Alina Haba said that Donald Trump was going to testify on direct examination.

She held a press conference and said that we should expect him. Remember when she said this, let's play that clip. He is so firmly against what is happening in this court and so firmly for the old America that we know, not this America, that he will take that stand on Monday. He will open himself up to whatever they want because he's not afraid. People that are afraid cower.

President Trump doesn't cower. We'll be back on Monday. Popak, I wanted to lay all of that out. And normally in these legal AFs, unlike some of the other shows we do here, it's not very video driven, but I think it was so important just to show you those clips to see the absurdity of all of this.

And just also the scripted lies that are told. What do you make all of this, Popak? Well, let me start with the easiest answer. He's not testifying. There is every time Donald Trump has ever decided to testify and or participate in some way in his cases, albeit civil cases, he is not only lost, he's lost with a magnitude that is almost incomprehensible.

He doesn't testify in the first E. Jean Carroll case, and despite the threats that he would, that's the Joe Takapina line of issues that you talked about, and the jury comes back and says, you're a rapist under comes back and says you're a rapist under New York law or technically a rapist and you defamed her and awards her E. Jean Carroll 5.5 million dollars. He then there's a second E. Jean Carroll case that you outlined and he decides he's going to testify and does testify. And now he's got Alina Habba as his lawyer instead as you just showed the clip and now what is the second jury do after listening to him confront E. Jean Carroll, defame her again, including in the courtroom during the proceedings, in social media the jury says I got

an idea why don't we increase the 5.5 million to 83 and a half million? So how'd that go for you, Donald, in testifying? Not great. And then we move forward to the New York Civil Fraud case, where he said he did testify. Remember that one, he took the Fifth Amendment in deposition four or 500 times, then thought better of that and asked to be deposed again, and so that he would testify. Then he gave a several-hour deposition that was terrible for him in video, including the now infamous, that tanked him twice, the now infamous moment where he could not identify and misidentified E. Jean Carroll as being one of his wives, Marla Maples, in the photo with his then current wife, Ivana Trump, just to show you he's unhinged, he's

mentally feeble. And then, on the heels of him saying that she wasn't his type, it's just, well, if it's not his type, well, then why do you think that's the woman you married? And that killed him in front of at least two juries. And so in that case, he, he, he gives his debt position and all that. And then about his financial affairs, and then he decides he's going to testify, testifies, then he decides he's not going to testify a second time, but he wants to do part of his closing

argument. And so we say he's going to do his closing argument. And the judge says, I don't know, Mr. Trump, you want to do party closing argument? Do party closing argument. Stands up, does three or four minutes of bullshit. And the judge says, great, thank you very much. And then $465 million judgment later. So every time Donald Trump does get around to testifying,

not when his liberty is at risk, he fails and fails miserably, crash and burn. The reason I don't think while it makes for great political theater and fundraising, why I don't think he testifies, is that there is just a tremendous amount of risk of him going to jail and since the person that is responsible for sentencing him, which is Judge Murchon, also gets to evaluate witnesses and credit them or discredit them at time of sentencing, it puts him in a very dangerous position to testify because he's uncontrollable. The lawyers won't be able to coach him properly or prepare him properly because he's genetically incapable of being prepared properly to tell the truth in a courtroom or otherwise.

So you got that going for you. He may try to override his lawyer's best instruction and say he's got to take the stand, but I don't think he does because, turning to your other issue about sentencing, if he loses, and just to refresh everybody's memory or those that are new to our channel or this story, this is a two-step criminal process in terms of the crimes that have been charged. The first one is a misdemeanor normally. It is 34 counts, normally would be a misdemeanor for a crime, but a misdemeanor for business record fraud in New York. It becomes and ratchets up to a felony

because there has to be a second crime that the first crime of business record coverup fraud was being used to facilitate. You don't have to charge the second crime, and that's why he hasn't been charged with a second crime, but the second crime has to be presented as the as the object of the reason the business record fraud was done. And so we sort of know it from the indictment, but there's still some waffle room in there. The second crime that will be not charged but shown to the jury is going to be some

combination of tax evasion that he took the business deduction by making Michael Cohen's the payments the Stormy Daniels went through Michael Cohen first in a repayment plan to Michael Cohen including after the guy was in the White House and all of those payments were probably taken as a business deduction on its tax returns. You got tax, you got election interference or election fraud, campaign fraud, both state and federal, and things like that. And so that's the second quote unquote, uncharged, but has to be proven crime. If the jury concludes that there's been both the business record fraud, which is a misdemeanor, and the second crime has been properly made business record fraud and the misdemeanor and the second

crime has been properly made out. That is the felony, a lower level felony. The sentencing for that is anywhere from probation to house arrest to one to up to 20 years total, if you add up all of it. 34 counts, it would be hard to, I mean if you did it, if you didn't do it sequentially, it would be, but I think it's a concurrent sentence. So high end is 20 years, not gonna happen. The vast majority of people that practice law in New York, including me, think it's gonna, if he gets sentenced, it's gonna be somewhere between one and three years, okay? And there'll be jail time. Judge will have to figure out what that looks like with somebody that's either the president of the United States at the time of sentencing God God forbid or is Not but still has service protection

And so they'll have to put all of that together to decide where he's housed the old military base a hospital Who knows but that's where he ends up. So to answer your earlier question, he's not testifying. But we'll get a lot out of you and I and Carol be able to report on what happens during jury selection. Because during the voir dire jury selection process, you'll hear the lawyers say some version of the following for the defense. Do you understand and the judge will instruct you that my client does not have an obligation to testify? He's got a fifth amendment right not to testify against himself.

If he chooses not to testify himself, you understand you can't hold that against him. And can you be fair and impartial knowing that my client may or may not testify at trial and if he doesn't testify, you won't hold that against them in terms of making your decision. So we'll know they'll put some sort of placeholder in there.

I don't think they're going to commit to him testifying in front of the jury because if they decide down the road that he doesn't, that's terrible for the defense. Popak, talk about jury selection. That's what's going to be starting on Monday. The process of selecting a jury is called voir dire, V-O-I-R, other word, D-I-R-E, quite literally translates to to speak the truth. It involves the process by which, you probably know this if you've ever gotten

a summons for jury duty, you show up, you're there with a ton of other prospective jurors in a room. There's going to be a lot more prospective jurors than maybe the room that you were in then. And the lawyers then ask questions of prospective jurors about whether they could be fair and impartial. If they can't be fair and impartial, they can be disqualified

automatically just for cause because they can't be fair. And then lawyers have a certain amount of peremptory challenges that they can disqualify jurors for any reason at all, provided that it's not discriminatory, you know, when you are disqualifying people on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or religion. It's almost a version of an at-will employment, but for selecting jurors. Yeah, this juror is claiming they could be fair and impartial, but I don't know. They watch a lot of this type of news, and I just don't think they're going to be fair and they don't make a good juror over here. And there's a certain amount of those challenges.

Popak, take us through that process because that's what's going to be starting this week. Yeah, for sure. And I'll try to do a Patreon on that just to have it up there in our library. And voir dire is a very interesting word that you and I all learned in law school by Southern based professors called it bore diary it's pronounced different ways throughout the country it's generally pronounced what dear it's both French but really Latin because in the French it means see say but in the Latin version where we think the voir dear

actually come from it means to speak the truth which is what you outlined New York has a very interesting selection process which is slightly unique the judge presides over it that That's not the unique part. They're going to bring down a veneer panel, probably 40 at a time, 30 at a time, depends on which courtroom the judge is going to be in and how big they are. New York's courtrooms are no... and he's not even in the nice courthouse where this trial is going to be held. There's two main courthouses. There's the one that everybody knows from Night Court, the start of that TV show, that beautiful

one on Center Street. Then there's the one across the street, which is the criminal courthouse, which is not that nice. And so these courtrooms are a little bit cramped. So he'll bring up as many as he can. And he's already told the people responsible for jury selection, the jury process in New York court system, how many the judge, he'll tell them how many he wants, brings them up. Now there's going to be a, there is a questionnaire with 42 questions on it, but the first thing the judge is going to do is try to do a first cut and lop off. He's got to fill 12 seats because they do the jurors, the actual jurors first and all the process through that. And then they do the alternates up to six alternates. It's up to the judge how many of one to six

there are. And I'll talk about what happens if any of the real jurors, the regular jurors, if they can't make it one day or they get sick, what happens during trial? And God forbid what happens during deliberations because it's not good for the prosecution if it happens during deliberations. We'll hold that for a moment. That's a cliffhanger.

So he brings up these people. Judge does first cut to try to fill 12 chairs, numbered one to 12. Whoever finally occupies chair number one is the foreperson. This is not a system, the New York is not a place where, like on TV and other places, where you go in the back on the first day of deliberation and the jury picks their for person.

For person is number one. Doesn't matter who that person is, what their background is, what their language skills are. If they can be fair and impartial and they've made it through the voir dire selection process, they've made it through the challenges that each side have. We'll talk about that in a minute. They are the for person. And then the judge does, tries to figure out without polluting the rest of the jury or potential jury that's sitting there, who can't be fair and impartial, raise

your hands. Okay. You know, and then the judge without getting too deep into it because you don't want to have somebody get up on a soapbox and start doing a pro-Trump campaign speech or an anti Manhattan DA speech. You sort of figure out who you can pick off right away. Boom, get them out of the room. Literally, get them out of the room and everybody moves up in the chairs. And then the judge says, now it's time for the questionnaire. And the judge will do a questionnaire and the results of which, remember this isn't, or for people that lost track, this is an anonymous jury because of Donald Trump's bad behavior, misconduct, attacks on jurors and everybody else that

participates in the criminal justice system. Just as it was an anonymous jury for E. Jean Carroll twice in that case and the one in Georgia is going to be anonymous, all because of Donald Trump. That means the lawyers and the the lawyers each for each side know the names and addresses and backgrounds of the people but Trump doesn't and won't. He's been barred from that and we won't know what they look like or what their demographics are nor will sketch artists because that's all we got in New York. We don't have TV, we don't have audio, we don't have YouTube. I was jealous in Georgia to watch every minute of everything in Georgia.

We don't get that in New York. You and I and Karen are going to have to report from either Karen and I getting in the room one day, which I know she's working on and I got my way to get in, or we have to rely on other people that are in there that we trust that will give us the reports and then we can do our own analysis. So now the judge goes to the 42 questions. Who here believes that, who likes the proud boys? I'm not kidding. These are some of the questions. Who likes the three percenters? Who has a MAGA hat at home? Who watches their news on MSNBC? Who gets it from Fox? And everybody like you and me, they're picking a jury. We've got, I've got a giant, I use a giant piece of oat tag, like a big cardboard that I've sketched out with the jury box, and I start taking my notes.

And then when that's done, that's information gathering. That's the voire d'heure, if you will. Then it's turned over to the lawyers, prosecution first. And in state court, they're given a wide latitude, a big berth to ask these questions. In federal court, that's why they pick a federal jury like in two days, it's really run by the judge. Very little, you can ask very little in voir dire as a lawyer. State court, it is a free-for-all. There's case law that says that everybody has the right to get to the bottom of finding fair impartial jurors, and you can ask what you need to.

So you try your case almost like you're opening, you know, when you get that chance. And you start, you can ask, the prosecution goes first and starts asking questions either collectively, who here, you know, has a MAGA hat at home? Raise your hand, write it down. Then you can go specifically and you do follow-ups. Okay, Mr. Garcia, Mrs. Goldberg, Mr. Jones, you said you heard, I saw you react and you interact with them. It's a way to start building credibility as a trial lawyer. It starts then. It doesn't start at opening. You're building your

relationship with the jury as a lawyer then, both defense and prosecution. They're done. They put their case through. They did a little bit of their opening statement. They've asked their questions. They've taken their notes. They know who everybody is. They know name, rank, and serial number, age, profession, occupation, educational background, where they live, and they know those, and then they get this other stuff out. Then the defense stands up, does the exact same thing in their own way, educating the jury in their own way while also getting information. Then that's over, that period of like questioning the jury is over. And now we're up to the challenges. First challenge is for cause, meaning this person

is obviously incapable of being a full and fair juror. They've been on the Trump payroll before they used to work for the Manhattan DA before they know the witnesses, they've seen Stormy Daniels perform somewhere, whatever. That's usually a four-cause challenge. The judge will lop them off right away and remove them from the jury box. Okay? You get out. The next people in line move up in the numbered chairs. Then we go, prosecutor first, we go to what's called peremptory challenges. In New York, you get ten a piece in a criminal case. So, you get ten for absolutely no reason or good reason. You can just get rid of ten people.

And then the defense goes and does the same thing as you keep moving people into the box, to fill it. That's why this is going to take a week. This is not going to be, if anybody thinks this it. That's why this is going to take a week. This is not going to be, if anybody thinks it's a Monday event, there's going to be lots going on that you and I and Karen can report on about stuff that happens when the jury's not around and motion practice that's still going on, you know, until that plane takes off for the actual opening statement. But jury selection is going to take a minute. We'll be able to report on it as best we can

about the results. I think later in the week, maybe even rolling them the following Monday, we'll have a jury. We'll have to see. Now, once the peremptory challenges are done, the only thing you can't do, just to answer a question that'll come up in the chat, the only thing you can't do is you can't use your peremptory challenges to get rid of all the women, all the black Americans, all the Hispanics. You can't target ethnic groups because then there's a challenge to that. And the judge can say, yeah, I don't think that's the right, put them back. And there's a whole process related to that. Once the peremptory challenges are used, ten a piece, and the four causes are used,

you've got your 15 and you can't, there's no backsies. Let's say you use seven out of your 10. You can't go, oh, I want to now get rid of three and eight. Done. You're done. Those are your 15 locked and loaded. They get sworn in as the jury. We start the process all over again with as many alternates as the judge is going to allow her, which is about six. Little quirk of New York jury selection and the alternates I want to talk about and I'll turn it back to you, Ben. The the alternates are no unlike in some other court systems. They know their alternates, but they also are like, you know,

they're like on the bench in a baseball team and they know they could be put in at any moment. You know, center fielder pulls up lame up, Bill, we got to go in. Go. So they got to take notes, they got to participate, they just don't ever get to deliberate if, if they're not needed. But if they're needed, somebody gets COVID, something happens, something bad happens in somebody's life, and they can't go to court anymore, then they're off. And not

temporarily. It's not like the juror just steps in for a moment. And then he comes back out. I mean, that juror is off and alternate comes in. So that's why you need four or five or six for a six or eight week trial, which is what this is estimated. That's fine during the trial process. The exit and entry of new jurors happens. It happens all the time. I've never been in a trial longer than two weeks, whereas we didn't lose a juror at some point. Now, you go to deliberations, which is the trials over six, eight weeks from now. You still got, and we say, thank you for your service, Mr. And Mrs. Or whomever alternates. The jury of 15 goes to deliberate. Somebody gets sick, dies, injured of the 15 during deliberations. Somebody gets sick, dies, injured of the 15 during deliberations. You don't go with 14 and you can't pull an alternate unless the defendant agrees.

Trump, which means so automatic mistrial. We lose one of the 15 during deliberations. It's a whole new game. It'll be a mistrial. Judge Trump won't agree and we'll be trying this case again three or four months from now. That was as thorough as a review of the jury selection process in terms of what to expect on Monday as you will hear anywhere and I thought it was so important Michael Popak that you went through the nuances to guide everybody through like okay so what is going to be happening nuances to guide everybody through like, okay, so what is going to be happening this week?

When we come back, I want to talk briefly about whether Donald Trump violated the gag order with his threats earlier in the day directed at my cohost on political beat down, Michael Cohen, which I think is a clear violation of the gag order. And then I want to talk about Judge Eileen Cannon reversing herself. And what we should do is as we open up a new kind of chapter of what people should be looking for for future cases against Donald Trump, it is how Donald Trump is handling the crashing of Trump

media right now. We'll talk about all of that and more. Let's take our last quick break. Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a device that measures your metabolism through your breath. And on the app, it lets you know if you're burning fat or carbs

and gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, workout, sleep, and even stress management. All you have to do is breathe into your lumen first thing in the morning, and you'll know what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs. Then lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan for that day based on your measurements.

And you can also breathe into it before and after workouts and meals, so you know exactly what's going on that day based on your measurements. And you can also breathe into it before and after workouts and meals. So you know exactly what's going on in your body in real time. And Lumen will give you tips to keep you on top of your health game. Your metabolism is your body's engine.

It's how your body turns the foods you eat into fuel that keeps you going. Because your metabolism is at the center of everything your body does, optimal metabolic health translates to a bunch of benefits, including easier weight management, improved energy levels, better fitness results, better sleep, et cetera. Lumen gives you recommendations to improve your metabolic health.

It can also track your cycle and for women, the onset of menopause and adjust your recommendations to keep your metabolism healthy through hormonal shifts. So you can keep up your energy and stave off cravings. The key to metabolic health is something called metabolic flexibility and that's where lumen really shines. It refers to your body's ability to efficiently switch between using different fuel sources like carbs and fats. There are preferred times to use each.

And how well you can switch places you on the metabolic flexibility spectrum. And after getting to know you through your breath, Lumen gives you a metabolic flex score that you can track and approve upon. So if you wanna take the next step in improving your health, go to lumen.me and use LegalAF to get $100 off your Lumen.

That's L-U-M-E-N dot M-E and use LegalAF at checkout for $100 off. Thank you Lumen for sponsoring this episode. Ever tried to break a bad habit and felt like you're climbing Mount Everest in flip-flops? Yeah, we've been there too. But here's a breath of fresh air, fume. It's not about giving up, it's about switching up. Fume takes your bad habit and simply makes it better, healthier, and a whole lot more enjoyable.

Fume is an innovative, award-winning, flavored air device that does just that. Instead of vapor, fume uses flavored air. Instead of electronics, fume is completely natural. And instead of harmful chemicals, fume uses delicious flavors. You get it, instead of bad, fume is good. It's a habit you're free to enjoy

and makes replacing your bad habit easy. Your fume comes with an adjustable airflow dial and is designed with movable parts and magnets for fidgeting, giving your fingers a lot to do, which is helpful for de-stressing and anxiety while breaking your habit. The first time I tried fume, it was way more flavorful than I thought and it feels very fresh. The look and feel of a fume is very sleek.

It's well-weighted, perfectly balanced and extremely fun to fidget with. Plus fumes just released a magnetic stand for your fume, so there's no more losing it around the house. And it's built with fidget with. Plus, Fume's just released a magnetic stand for your Fume, so there's no more losing it around the house. And it's built with fidgeting in mind. You can spin your Fume around on it. Start the year off right with the good habit

by going to tryfume.com slash legal AF and getting the journey pack today. Fume is giving listeners of the show 10% off when they use my code, legal AF, to help make starting the good habit that much easier. Fume is giving listeners of the show 10% off when they use my code, LegalAF, to help make starting the good habit that much easier. Start the good habit at trifume.com slash LegalAF to save 10% off the journey pack today.

Welcome back, great ad read, Michael Popok. Again, shout out to our pro democracy sponsors. You wanna use those discount codes. They are in the descriptions in the YouTube and in the descriptions of wherever you get this audio podcast. Also remember, if you can, don't just subscribe to Legal AF

on the Midas Touch Network YouTube, subscribe on audio as well. That goes a long way to help the show when you subscribe on audio. Even if you don't listen to the audio podcast and you just watch it on YouTube, make sure you subscribe on both platforms. That helps.

And a reminder about the new Legal AF Patreon, if you ever wanted to be in Michael Popak's law school class, well, we created our own version of that for Legal AFers. Learn from Professor Popak at patreon.com slash Legal AF. Sign up today and it helps grow this independent media platform, which does not have outside investors. All right, let's get into it.

Earlier today as well, Donald Trump made the following post. Has Mark Pomerantz been prosecuted for his terrible acts in and out of the DA's office? Has disgraced attorney and felon, Michael Cohen been prosecuted for lying? Only Trump people get prosecuted by this judge and these thugs, a dark day for our country. MAGA 2024! It's not even a close call in my opinion. It seems to be a clear cut violation of the protective order. So, if you've been wondering, or the gag order, if you've been wondering why or what Donald Trump will try to do to delay this or to create some sort of pretext to blow this trial up and see if he can create

some controversy or delay. You know, it appears what he's going to be doing is threatening witnesses. Look, we'll keep you posted every step of the way on what's going to happen. I think the question really becomes at this point, not if, but when Donald Trump is found to have violated the gag order, how quick that's going to happen, and then what the ramifications are.

And I think the same thing when it comes to Donald Trump's lawyers, how quickly are they going to be sanctioned, not if they are going to be sanctioned. That's what happens when you have a law and order judge in Justice Mershon as compared to a judge like federal judge Eileen Cannon modeled after lawyers like Alina Haba. When I think about Judge Cannon on the bench, I think about really, and it's

unfortunate because Popak, early on, I know you as a member of the Florida bar in addition to New York, I think you wanted to keep an open mind about Judge Eileen Cannon, the way the process works, as she's recommended by the senators there, and she did work in the DOJ for a little bit. So maybe she got it wrong. The first round, even though she was a Trump appointee back in 2022,

when she did what no judge ever did in American history by asserting equitable jurisdiction over the search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago and claimed that Trump should be treated with special rights above everybody else. And she tried to basically stop a search warrant from being validly executed, which was already signed off by a magistrate and she got reversed twice by the 11th Circuit. So I know everyone was like, oh, right, maybe Judge Eileen Cannon's going to learn from that experience. And as you now know, she's only learned the wrong lessons, which is try to do everything possible,

but avoid getting reversed from the 11th circuit. Because the moment the 11th circuit gets their hands on this, the moment special counsel Jack Smith has an ability to appeal an actual order, which he hasn't, and Judge Cannon's been very careful not to let that happen, I think she's gonna get thrown off the case. I think she's gonna get reversed. Popak, you talked about how that there may even be grounds for removing her right now based on her failure to file the law and follow the law. And everybody can go back and see the summary you did on last week's Legal AF, and I think you broke down the various factors there as well.

But let me just break down what she just did. So she previously ordered that the names and identities of confidential witnesses, confidential informants, witness statements, things that never get released. It's unheard of, They don't get released. The very reason why you have a protective order in cases is because you keep certain information confidential before there's an actual trial that takes place. Donald Trump has access to the information.

The prosecution has access. The judge has access. It's just about not publishing the names of potential confidential informants publicly before all of the steps are taken to protect them. If there's a public trial, those names will certainly, to the extent they're going to be testifying, those names will get disclosed, but it's about taking steps and precautions to be protective of witnesses, right? That shouldn't be a novel concept that you have to teach a judge that that's kind of 101 One of the first things you'll learn about, you know in kind of a crim law class as you start understanding You know protective orders in in criminal cases. Well judge Eileen Cannon made a prior ruling saying she was gonna release this public

Well, Judge Eileen Cannon made a prior ruling saying she was going to release this public. Basically, she said because Donald Trump wanted to file things that were subject to a protective order on the public docket, that she was saying, all right, it's presumptively public now, which is just a ridiculous argument because it would basically render meaningless any protective order. So if there's a protective order, every criminal defendant or every person who wants to violate it would just say, okay, you produced the discovery under the protective order, but aha, trick, yeah, I'm gonna make a filing on the public docket

and just detach all of your documents to the public docket and then I've figured out a hack. I've hacked the protective order and I figured out how to release it, right? I mean, it's just so stupid on its face that it doesn't even require, it shouldn't even have to require a judge to be educated. But special counsel Jack Smith,

when Donald Trump wanted to make this public, said, judge, we're dealing with witnesses, of course, you gotta protect witnesses. Special counsel Jack Smith didn't have to go on basically say, actually, Judge Kennan, if you took a law school class, what you should know when you open up the second chapter about witnesses,

you need to learn that witnesses need to be protected in criminal case. It's such a basic concept that it was enough for him to say, say obviously the good you know the good cause standard for why you have protective orders is the standard that governs. So she ruled that she was gonna make it public so special counsel Jack Smith said oh really Judge Kenham what you've done is committed manifest injustice because you're gonna get witnesses killed and you applied the

wrong legal standard. The standard is a good cause standard. You're requiring us to show a compelling government interest to keep witness identities confidential. But even if we don't show a compelling interest, which we have, by you releasing this information, it's manifest injustice because you're gonna get people killed. So Judge Cannon waits and waits and waits

and doesn't make rulings because that's what she does. I think she has to think, whoa, I'm going to get reversed by the 11th Circuit and they're going to kick me off this case. So then she has to issue an order this past week where she reversed herself. It was like she said, I was wrong, but rather than just admitting that she got it wrong and she applied the wrong standard, which would be what some judges do, hey, apologies, I got it wrong and she applied the wrong standard, which would be what some judges do. Hey, apologies, I got it wrong. And upon further review and consideration, here's what it actually is a good cause standard. And the court interpreted the law incorrectly. That happened. I've seen that

happen before where the courts aren't infallible, but they recognize that they can make a mistake. Frankly, I've never seen it on an issue as basic as this before, but I've seen it on some complicated issues where there may be actual novel issues, not like, okay, we need to protect witnesses. But here is what Judge Cannon ended up saying, if we have the order coalition's motion, the special counsel failed to engage with, let alone refute the press coalition's arguments that the first amendment attached to the subject materials. And she uses this language a lot now I see in her orders, like engage with. She used that before, remember a few weeks back

where she wanted special counsel to engage with other unlawful scenarios. I've where she wanted special counsel to engage with other unlawful scenarios. I've never seen a judge refer to engage with it, like just play games with a Rubik's cube. Let me engage with this. No, I mean, special counsel Jack Smith's going to engage with the law and you as a judge are presumed to like you should know law 101. So she reversed herself, but then blamed Jack Smith for her error. And again,

to me, that shows how unqualified she is. But that also prevents special counsel Jack Smith from appealing that to the 11th Circuit Court appeals because Jack Smith won. So it's hard to say, well, I'm going to appeal her blaming me for her mistake when ultimately I won and then she applied the right standard after getting it wrong because I had to appeal her blaming me for her mistake when ultimately I won and then she applied the right standard after getting it wrong because I had to educate her and then she blamed me for educating her. One other thing about educating her, back in November, Special Counsel Jack Smith tried to educate her on actually a fairly complex issue if you don't know SIPA law. If you know SIPA law, the Classified Information Procedure Act, it's very basic about when you set SIPA section four

and SIPA section five hearings. So when Judge Cannon set a revised scheduling order, but did not set a SIPA section five hearing, which is when the criminal defendant discloses information that they want to make public that's classified information at the time of trial, you're supposed to set a SEPA Section 5 hearing in a scheduling order. It's one of the earlier things that take place in SEPA cases.

So Jack Smith said back in October or November, hey, judge, you revised your scheduling order, but you have no SEPA Section 5 hearing listed. Can you list it? And then she responds on her minute order, no, my scheduling orders, my scheduling order, I'm not doing it. And again, it's a paperless order. That's something that's not appealable

because she's within her discretion to set her calendar. And then at the end of this past week, she sets finally the SEPA section five notice for May 9th. So why would, if you were to set it in May 9th, why wouldn't you just set it when Special Counsel Jack Smith said to do it in October or November? And here's the thing also, Popak, and then let me throw it to you. She hasn't moved the trial date yet. Trial's still scheduled for May 20th, 2024. Back on March 1st, there was a hearing on the trial date where Special Counsel Jack Smith suggested July, Donald Trump suggested never,

and she was more on the fence of never than July. She said July is unrealistic, but she has not ruled from March 1 to the recording of this live to April 13th on what the trial date is. And now she's first set a SEPA section five notice, May 9th, 11 days before the trial. And she's almost forcing the parties to do the trial prep, even though we know that the trial's not gonna happen on May 20th. And so I just want people to know

when I'm partially critical of Judge Cannon, it's not just an arbitrary, oh, she was appointed by Donald Trump. There are a lot of judges who were appointed by Trump though, who still follow the law, more than unfortunately don't, but it's because she doesn't follow the rules. She doesn't follow the law. Because she doesn't follow the rules, she doesn't follow the law. And because she's incompetent, she also doesn't have though an intellectual curiosity to get it right. And a good judge may come in young and inexperienced, but want to get it right and learn.

And all she wants to do is basically rip apart the law. So it was a long, you know know I geek out on SIPA. I'll let you talk more about the Trump media stock and his false and misleading statements. But anyway, that was- Let me contribute on this segment and just more of a briefer. She also heard, and as I joked on our legal AF text chain,

what could go wrong with this? She also heard two and a half hours of argument yesterday on motions to dismiss the indictment brought by Carlos de Oliveira, the maintenance worker. I always feel like I'm talking about a game of Clue, the maintenance worker and the butler in the library with a candlestick. So you got, you know, Wal Nauta, the butler,

who brings his own motion to dismiss the indictment, and Carlos de Oliveira. And to your point, Ben, why are we in the middle of April talking about a year and a half old indictment and the hearing on the motion to dismiss is just happening now for the indictment? Meaning any appeal that either the losing side takes is inevitably going to delay this trial. So we have that going on. You know, Judge Chutkin, by contrast, who's waiting patiently with bated breath to restart her DC election interference case to show you the comparator of somebody who is knowledgeable, seasoned veteran, and knows how to run a courtroom, Judge C. Judd-Shutkin.

She did the motion practice. You and I reported on the motion practice in the DC election interference case six or eight months ago. And that one came second. So that is just showing you how a judge through her own fill in the blank incompetence, lack of daisicalness, lack of lack of effort, willingness to help the other side out, it makes decisions, micro decisions that impact the ultimate case. You know, I was thinking, I'm always kind of as you are getting ready for these podcasts and for

our audience, I had to remind myself, because I knew a lot about Judge Cannon before she got on the bench. She, we're not the same age range, but we have people in common. She went to private school down in Coral Gables or Coconut Grove, Florida, sort of where my practice was located. I know people that went to that same school. She went to Duke, my alma mater, for law. She went for undergraduate.

She went to Michigan and was high up in her class, magna cum laude, order of the coif, the whole thing. Federalist society, sure, but there's no reason to believe she was gonna be doing the things she's doing now. The reason I bring it up is I got a buddy of mine who's down at Duke for an alumni event, and he took a picture from me and sent it to me

of the law school, and he took a picture from me and sent it to me of the law school. And it reminded me that Duke Law School has this amazing judicial college for judges. It's basically after you're a judge, you go back to schools like Duke and law school there, and you take additional courses on how to be a better judge. It's like boot camp for judges or after it's really a master's program for judges. And I'm thinking, God, I have a perfect candidate for that in her name. I'm wearing my Miami shirt today and her name is Aileen Cannon. And her constant, you say this engagement is a weird verbal tick of hers that she writes out. The other thing that's weird for her is

that she constantly admits in her orders that she doesn't understand the law. And then, as you said, backhandedly criticizes the government, why did you bring the basic law in this area to my attention earlier? Why don't you know the basic law in this area? Why are you admitting to the world in the last two orders that you've granted that you don't understand the law? That you're using jury instruction, hypotheticals to sort of understand the fundamentals of Espionage Act versus Presidential Record Act, which is like for you on this case, you're nine months or a year into the case. How have you been making decisions to date?

What have you been using as your guiding light if you don't understand the law? This is why she's basically admitting, inadvertently or otherwise, to her appellate bosses at the 11th Circuit that she is unwilling or incompetent to handle the case, which is why as soon as there's another order, and I think there's already been enough of them, he's gonna, we'll see this 11 circuit appeal taken

at some point, and I think an emotion by Jack Smith to also have her reassigned off the case while there's still time left on the clock. It's not like a new judge is gonna make things go slower. I mean, she doesn't even, like you said, she doesn't even set a trial date, but just to manage expectations. There's no way that trial happens in May, July, or anytime soon. This is not going to be a 2024 pre-election event that you and I are going to be able to comment on.

I just don't ever see that happening. We'll have to see what she does on the indictments. Now, the reporting from inside the room on Oliveira and Nauda is that she wasn't buying what their lawyers were selling. And I would sort of be surprised, although she shocked me numerous times before, if she ruled to dismiss any aspect of the indictments against those two, the people that helped Donald Trump with the obstruction of justice counts, not really the Espionage Act, but the obstruction of justice counts, not really the espionage act, but the obstruction of justice counts in their conduct and their behavior. And so we'll have to see all of that. But I think this is yet another example in this most recent order you talked about,

where she's confessed to the world, so it was like a Freudian slip, that she doesn't understand the law, that she has been charged as the lawgiver with understanding and that has gotten us where we are today, which is we can't report on a trial that should have been set because she hasn't set one. It's the most basic aspect of law. I would be one thing if it actually was the kind of nuances of the interplay between SIPA 4, SIPA 5, SIPA 6, SIPA 7, how that tapestry of classified information procedure statutes play out. If it was your first SIPA trial, I get that. But on the issue of protecting witnesses, and you're upset that the government

didn't play another mind game of engaging with ridiculous concepts, and you don't understand that witnesses need to be protected. I mean, it's really embarrassing, and frankly, it's embarrassing to the 11th circuit. Like it's embarrassing to other federal judges in the Southern district of Florida, it rubs off on them that they have a colleague. You know, it would be like, uh, if someone was on your team, think about your favorite baseball, basketball, soccer, hockey, whatever team, and there was someone on your team who didn't know how to play the sport, yet they were wearing the Jersey and they were, you know, you know, it was a soccer match and then they started picking up the ball with their hands and throwing it

into the goal and it's like, okay, that's not the way you play the sport. It's that embarrassing and humiliating to you. You've watched me defend the Southern district of Florida, because not only do I practice there, but I know many of the judges there from when they were at lawyers or when they were in, I played softball with them in charity softball tournaments, or when they were state court judges. And I have always been proud to have been a member of the Southern District of Florida and many of the lawyers there and the judges there and the types of cases that they handle

and the way they do it. I can't continue to defend obviously what's going on in the Fort Pierce division. And it does, as you said, it does back up on the luster of the, of the entire bench and judge Altenaga, chief judge do something, although she can't really at this moment do anything. I want to talk very briefly about Trump media because it is a preview of what's to come. You know, if you're thinking about this as a book in chapters of the lawsuit, right? The Manhattan district attorney case is getting towards the end the same way the New York attorney general civil fraud case ended. But now we're kind of in the epilogue

where Donald Trump can't figure out how to post a bond and now there are fights over that and fights over the independent monitors. This is like the prelude of Donald Trump starting to engage in conduct regarding Trump media that in our opinion, and again this is our opinion, we're not giving stock advice. I want to make that very clear. I believe are false and misleading statements that violate securities law. If you just, before even going into Trump's statements, just think about all of the things that have happened with Trump media already. You have the founder of the SPAC accusing a current director of Trump media of hacking his files and engaging in a corporate coup to oust him. You've got that same founder of the Trump SPAC suing Trump media.

You've got Trump media suing that founder of the SPAC. You've got Donald Trump and Trump media suing the co-founders of Trump media to try to, different people here, to try to, the founder of the SPAC and the co-founders of Trump Media to try to, different people here, to try to, the founder of the SPAC and the co-founders of Trump Media are different people, suing the co-founders of Trump Media to try to take their 8.5% that they have in the company saying that they engaged in mismanagement. And then they're suing Donald Trump in order to keep the shares that they have.

You have some of the initial directors at the Trump SPAC and some of the main top first investors. They pled guilty to insider trading, making more than $22 million from the insider trading they can face up to 20 years in prison. Again, these two brothers, the Schwarzmans, were there from the beginning at the Trump smack. They pled guilty to insider trading. Remember when it was pumped up when that first announcement happened?

It was people like them who were making a lot of money in it. And then we learned how Trump media was able to survive in 2021 and 2022 with a loan from Paxom Bank in the Dominica with a shady family trust that was linked to Russian oligarchs and this bank that couldn't even, I think, make the loans because it was not licensed to do business in the United States was one of the main kind of financiers for porn websites and they had to set up a family trust through someone in the bank to give $6 million to Trump Media. The independent auditor at Trump Media has a 100% deficiency rate from PCAOB, which regulates

independent auditors. 21 of 21 files that were audited of the auditor were found to have deficiencies. Nonetheless, the auditor did say in the report that was filed in the 8K that Trump media had, that there are substantial doubt that Trump media can exist as an ongoing concern, even if you factor in when the merger takes place, which released about $200 million from a trust account that was held by the SPAC to Trump media, say it was about $200 million that went into Trump Media, that's I think less than a dollar for each of the outstanding

shares that are out there. If the shareholder's paying $30 for a share, the company only just received an influx of $200 million. And so the finances just simply don't finance. And then you got a $58 million loss on $4.1 million in revenue in 2023. I guess I could go on, Popex. Suffice to say that how Trumpian does all of that? The lawsuits, the people pleading guilty to crimes. Oh, there's always got to be some sort of Russia connection and some money that's coming

from an island that I never really even heard of until learning about Trump. You always learn new things with Dominica and Pax and Bank. But now one of the things that Donald Trump is doing as the stock is crashing, and we've seen this with a lot of Spacks out there, Donald Trump's making all of these statements saying how great Trump media is and how it's on firm find, that it's doing well and that this is the greatest movement ever. And those are, you've worked in this field, Popak. This is an area of your expertise.

This is exactly what you would advise any company or any person affiliated with a company that has publicly traded securities. This is like the first thing you say, do not do this. This is, you know, you will get sued by shareholders. And in terms of what a shareholder lawsuit can look like, right, it is, if you're saying things like, this company's great and it's doing amazing,

and people say they buy it at, let's say, 50, while you're saying that, and then it goes down to say, 10 or 20, or even right now where it's trading in the, you know, in the low 30s. Let's just say that's the loss. One of the ways a shareholder class action would calculate the damage is the delta between the false and misleading statement and the loss and the board, right? And Trump and the people making the statement could be found liable, individually liable for those types of statements as well

to the tune of hundreds of millions and billions of dollars. So why I wanted to preview this is that this is not a new area of law. This is some of the most basic things that you're not supposed to violate. I wanna call it out that again, this is just our opinion, but Trump is doing everything you're not allowed and supposed to do. And then to call it out that again, this is just our opinion, but Trump is doing everything you're not allowed and supposed to do. And then in the future, right, Pope

Otke is going to whine and say, they're coming after me and this is so unfair and da da da da. And it's just like, no matter what he does, this is the cycle that he brings. And at the intersection of law and politics, why would anybody want him to do this to our country? This is what he does with SPAC. This is what he does. Why would you want him to do this to our great country and our great constitution? Why, Popak?

Yeah. Well, yeah, and my background for people that know it is I did work and I have worked for firms that have represented Wall Street companies, but I worked inside of a Wall Street company and one particularly that was involved in SPACs. They were actually a SPAC sponsor and brought many companies public. And I was involved with that, but I've said this on a hot take and I'll say it here again now.

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as we've described at length in hundreds of legal AF episodes, including today. hundreds of legal AF episodes, including today. But when it comes to securities laws and Delaware, where his company is incorporated, putting aside the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and what they can do, the plaintiffs' bar in Delaware are some of the most talented and vicious lawyers I have ever had,

both the pleasure and the discomfort to work with. When I was on the Wall Street side, I had a higher very good defense lawyers and I worked with them closely. And there's about four major firms in Delaware, I actually almost joined one before I went with other group of partners when I came out of working at Wall Street,

that you hire regularly. Then there's about five or six major power hitter plaintiffs. All they do all day long is securities litigation, suing companies, their boards of directors, and their founders for things like Elon Musk getting too much money in executive compensation, lies that are being made where the stock is, somebody buys the stock at, let's just use Trump media for example, they buy the stock two weeks ago at $61 when it hit its peak.

It's now at $31. That's a huge delta given the amount of shares that are floating here and that is every plaintiff's lawyer in Delaware is salivating and I'm sure the suits will, it's not if, it's when in the next two weeks or month these suits are going to be filed and then you're going to get a Delaware Chancery Judge, many of which have already handled some of these matters, who is all about business. That's what Delaware court is. It's a business court. It's also ironic. It's Joe Biden's home state, but it is a business court, right? That's all they do. It's all they care about. The shareholder, the protection of the market. Now, let's be frank. The worst

person ever created genetically to take a company public is Donald Trump because of his fraud that's been proven, his false statements under oath that have been proven, and his lack of self-restraint and his willingness to say and do anything out loud until he's brought to justice, including pumping up his stock versus what was reflected appropriately in his financials and in his securities and exchange commission required filings. You can't say in one place your mandatory filings and have your auditors say it also that your company

is unstable financially destitute and may not survive. And here are the numbers that reflect that. And then say, I don't care what that says. I think it's a great stock and we're doing great. You should invest with me, election 2024. That's called a false statement under securities laws and people that will buy based on those false statements. And there are people that have done that

will then get found by these plaintiffs law firms, become the lead plaintiffs in class action cases. And as I said in a hot dig, it will be the class action cases. That will be the financial ruin of Donald Trump, especially on top of the $465 million judgment that he can't seem to get bonded properly. You and I will talk a lot about that in the next week or so when there's the hearing on the bond and all the other places. You take away $465 million of assets from Donald Trump on top of another $100 million in assets

for the other bond that he had opposed for E. Jean Carroll. You're not left with a lot of assets left, liquid. Now you bring in the civil plaintiffs bar who are going to rip him to shreds and tear him from limb to limb. Let's be frank, he didn't want to go public. That's the last thing he needs to do is to be regulated. This is why companies often delist. They stop being public. They go private because they don't want to be regulated and they don't want

public shareholders to have to worry about. But Donald Trump had no choice because he needs the money, right? He's PT Barnum. There's a sucker board every minute. In this case, his investors slash his voters, usually one in the same. And as I said, and you and I were both right for different reasons, there, there aren't enough people in on his social media platform to pump up his stock high enough to prop up his stock high enough. Um, as opposed to Reddit where you know the investors in Reddit were able to save companies like AMC and GameStop and everything

else that's been portrayed in the book Dumb Money in the movie. There's not enough Trumpers to do that. They don't have enough money to do it. And so the short sellers are now in play and the stock has now been cut in half, even below the 40. It'll head down to 10. While Donald Trump can't do a thing about it because he's tied up for six more months. He did not want to go public, but he needed the opportunity to take billions of dollars from people and he was willing to take the risk.

It's not for me, the SEC. Yes, he can get fined and sanctioned, so can the board. But it's when they start going after that board of directors. And the more importantly, not just the Trump money, the insurance money, because each of these members of the board of directors, unless they were morons have insurance, a stack of insurance for director and officer liability insurance into the hundreds of millions of dollars. You think they're properly insured in a Trump entity?

That's why I said unless they're complete idiots, you would never serve on a board for Donald Trump. That's like saying who wants to be the captain of the Titanic? Oh, I do. So, all right, let's assume they... I'll have to assume for now they have insurance. If they have insurance, there's a stack of 100, 200, 500 million dollars, and that's what the companies, the plaintiffs bar is gonna go after to try to destroy Donald Trump. All his statements that he's making are not just mean tweets or truth socials.

They are the basis for civil fraud cases with a Chancery Court that's like the Sphinx. I mean, I don't know how many, I've appeared in front of Chancery Judges. Do you think federal judges are cold-hearted sometimes and impassive? Go before the Chancery Court and we'll figure out which of the judges get assigned of the Delaware Court. Donald Trump does not, as a middling failed casino operator and real estate licensor, does not know what he's in for. And it's so brazen that, you know, the Delaware Chancery Court and federal courts have dealt with cases that have been viewed in false and misleading statements where a company has been sued and the company denies the lawsuit in a press release response.

The denial of the accusation in the lawsuit has been found to form just, we believe the lawsuit is without merit, without attached to proper disclosures, that's been found to be false and misleading, subjecting them to lawsuits for the loss. So Donald Trump out there saying, the greatest movement ever, the, the, the, the, the, it's like some of the most basic stuff. And there are no judge Eileen Cannon's on the Delaware Chancery Court. And there's no, and you, one thing we left out, because Don, nobody will represent Donald Trump with a 10 foot pole that knows what they're doing. Donald Trump, unlike people that I've worked for, does not have on his speed dial, a sophisticated

group of securities lawyers to guide him and what he's going to say in his public politics world and he doesn't, he doesn. And he doesn't like them anyway. He's got this weird group, this virtual law firm that he's set up himself, of people that are willing to sacrifice their professional ethics to make money. So he put together this slapdash law firm of Keiss and Blanche and Habba and Cliff Robert and whoever else, that's his team. He can't call up like the firm that I worked for in New York who's preeminent in securities law matters and say to him, hey, here's what I'm about to say on the podium during,

what do you think about that? Is that gonna violate securities laws? He's not doing that. He's not getting any kind of guidance because nobody's working for him. Michael Popak or shall I say Professor Popok on Patreon.com slash Legal AF. Learn from Michael Popok on our Patreon.

It's fun. You know, we don't have a outside investors, so we find fun and unique ways to try to continue to build this independent media platform. patreon.com slash legal AF sign up for the classes with professor Pope. Hey, professor, my cellist. I got a question for you before we depart. I got really excited about this tapestry of SIPA that you talked about. When your class is over, you're going to do a tapestry SIPA thing for Patreon. Oh, absolutely. I will do a SIPA tapestry. That's how Popak applies pressure while live.

Of course, I cannot let the legal AFers and the legal AFers that's Michael Popak. That's Michael. That's Professor Popak saying right there. I've been doing all of the videos on Legal AF. Professor Mycelis, are you gonna start posting some videos? And the answer is yes, I am going to start posting some Professor Mycelis videos. My class ends at USC in about two weeks. I gotta prepare a final there.

And as soon as that ends, I will make sure that you will get SEPA, you'll get some torts, you'll get some torts, you'll get some contract law, you will get it all. Thank you everybody for watching this episode of Legal AF. And just remember, we're gonna be with you every step of the way of this Manhattan District Attorney criminal trial.

We've got the best experts, we've got people who practice there, from Michael Popok to Karen Friedman Agnifilo to Michael Cohen. I can't think of any network out there that's better equipped to give you the nuances of this case than the team that we've assembled here. A real might as mighty group of Avengers. But the real group of Avengers is all of you out there, the Legal AFers. None of this is possible without you. We're grateful for you.

Thank you for everything you do. Keep sharing the word about the show, about this network. It really helps. You tell one person, two people, five people, they tell people before you know, that's how this is growing so fast through the word of mouth of people saying, this is exactly what I've been looking for.

Where has this been? I want the facts, I want the law, I want the breakdowns. Legal AF, the Midas Touch Network is giving us the facts, they're showing us the documents. And so share the word, let people know. We'd be grateful for that. Have a great one See you next time remember patreon.com

Legal AF you can go and sign up now. We'll see you later Shout out to the Midas mighty shout out to the legal AF first. Thank you. Have a great day