Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump’s Lawyers Instantly WALK INTO Judge’s TRAP

Episode Date: February 9, 2024

Alina Habba and her co counsel are teetering on the edge of an ethics charge and bar license complaint by Judge Engoron and their communication with the judge have only made matters worse. Michael Popok of Legal AF explains how Judge Engoron laid an ethical trap for Habba about allowing a lying witness and defendant in the NY Civil fraud case against Trump to take the stand, and how Habba stepped into it with both legs. Keep American farming going by signing up at https://MoinkBox.com/LEGALAF RIGHT NOW and listeners of this show get 2 FREE Steaks in your first box! Visit https://meidastouch.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael Popak legal AF Alina Hava may have stepped into the trap laid by the Supreme Court Justice Judge and Goron as to whether she suborned or permitted perjury perjurious testimony to be given by her client and defendant Allen Weisselberg. Trump's chief financial officer now disgraced a felon himself who may be on the verge of pleading guilty to a perjury charge led by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office for the testimony he gave in the courtroom in front of Judge Angoran. What am I talking about? Judge Angoran several days ago asked the lawyers up front whether they knew anything and needed to tell the court, as officers of the court, anything under their ethical obligations, about whether Allen Weisselberg lied,

and what's called a Meisselberg. Allen Weisselberg lied on the stand in front of Judge Angoran about the civil fraud case, whether Judge Angoran is going to take $500 million away from Donald Trump and all of his children and his organizations and shut them down and not allow them to operate In the state of New York going forward. Yes or no The New York Times reported that Alan Weisselberg committed

Perjury on the stand in front of the same judge It's important to the judge to know from the lawyers that presented the case whether one of their witnesses and defendants mr. Weisselberg committed perjury or not. And so he inquired, and we had two competing responses by Alina Habba and her co-counsel Cliff Robert. Judge Angoran has now responded to both, but primarily to Cliff Robert. Cliff Robert wrote a three-page stinging attack and rebuke of the judge, saying that he was an officer of the court and that they challenged the judge's

Impartiality they thought the judge was biased for even inquiring as to whether Alan Weisselberg had committed perjury in his courtroom Taking the ridiculous position that the judge Shouldn't consider at all if mr. Weisselberg Lied under oath in the very case in which the judge is about to render verdict and judgment. Cliff Robert argued that the record was closed. There was nothing to see here. Didn't matter whether effectively Allen Weisselberg lied.

And there was just a scurrilous article in that failing New York Times and it should be ignored. And there should not be any judicial notice taken of the article, but that missed the point. As we said here on Legal AF, the judge wasn't asking to take judicial notice of the article, take it as a matter of public record and fact in order to do something about it. In his ruling, he was asking the lawyers for factual information, which they have an obligation, a sworn duty, and ethics to inform the court whether things like perjury have happened.

And what we got from Alina Habba was, I don't represent him, I, in the case with the Manhattan DA, well, that's true, in the criminal case, he's represented by another lawyer, but he's still her client in the civil case. And my ethical rules won't allow me to tell you more. Cliff Robert went further and said, what about? What about Michael Cohen?

He's a perjurer. Why aren't you concerned about that? And the judge pushed back against that. The attacks on his ethics, the attacks on his impartiality. And he said to Mr. Robert in a new email we got right here right from the judge. He took him to task. And he said, that's not what I asked you. I didn't ask. I wasn't asking if I should take judicial notice of a New York Times article. I was asking you as an officer of the court to inform me as the trier of fact

whether perjury happened in my courtroom about a matter that the record may be closed but the judgment has not yet been entered. All that's done is stepped into the trap set by Judge Angoran. Because if Alina Habba knew or should have known that her witness, her defendant, Allen Weisselberg, lied in front of the judge about the size

of the Triplex apartment Donald Trump owned. Where Allen Weisselberg had a very convenient habit. Every time there was a fact that was inconvenient or bad for Donald Trump, he said he could recall hundreds of times on the stand. But when it's something that he thought could help Donald Trump, he suddenly grew a brain, grew a memory and remembered it and lied particularly

about a $150 million issue. The value of Trump Tower, Triplex apartment, penthouse that Donald Trump owns. Is it worth 50 million or 150 million? That's a big difference. And did he lie to Forbes magazine in order to get his boss out of the Forbes wealthiest people in the world list? And did he lie to banks also about the size of that asset?

He said he didn't, but he told the Manhattan DA a different story, apparently, which is the perjury charge. He told Forbes magazine a different story. So the reporting that there may be a plea deal being led by Allen Weisselberg's lawyer for criminal matters, Seth Klayman, is important to the judge at the trier fact. I'm excited to tell you about Moink.

That's Moo plus Oink. Moink is a meat subscription box company on a mission to fight for the family farm. They're located in rural America, run by an eighth generation female farmer. Their animals are raised humanely, their employees are paid a living wage, and the quality of their product is better than anything you'll find in a store. Moink delivers grass-fed and grass-finished beef and lamb, pastured pork and chicken, and sustainable wild-caught Alaskan salmon straight to your door. Moink farmers farm like our grandparents did.

And as a result, Moink meat tastes like it should. Because the family farm does it better and the Moink difference is a difference you can taste. Unlike the supermarket, Moink gives you total control over the quality and source of your food. You choose the meat to live it in every box, like rib eyes, to chicken breasts, to pork chops, to salmon filets, and much more. Plus you can cancel anytime. Moink is helping save rural America.

I cook three to four nights a week. My family and I love all the Moink proteins they have to offer and how they enhance my recipes, and you will too. Join the Moink movement today. Shark Tank host Kevin O'Leary called Moink's bacon the best bacon he's ever tasted. And ring doorbell founder Jamie Siminoff, he jumped at the chance to invest in Moink. Plus they guarantee you'll say, clink, oink, I'm just so happy I got Moinked. I know I do, and you will too. Keep American farming going by signing up

at moinkbox.com slash legalaf right now. And listeners of this show get two free steaks in your first box. It's the best steak you'll ever taste, but only for a limited time, spelled M-O-I-N-K box.com slash legalaf. That's moinkbox.com slash legal AF. That's moitbox.com slash legal AF. So he wrote to Mr. Robert back as follows,

dear Mr. Robert, this is the lawyer for Donald Trump's, the colleague of Alina Hava. When I sent my straightforward narrow request for information about possible perjury by Allen Weisselberg, I was not seeking to initiate a wide rangingranging debate with counsel. However, your misleading response grossly mischaracterized the letter that I wrote and I feel compelled to respond. By the way, that's the beginning of an email that could easily lead to a

referral to the bar of Cliff Robert and Alina Haba, at least Cliff Robert, for misleading the judge and for attacking him inappropriately, that could be a bar violation. But we'll put that aside for a minute. The judge continues, arguing against judicial notice is attacking a struck person. In other words, I didn't say I was gonna take notice of the New York Times article.

And the judge says, I've not taken, nor do I plan to take judicial notice and did not suggest or hint that I would take judicial notice and did not suggest or hint that I would take judicial notice of the New York Times article or the contents of it. Similarly, I have not taken, do not plan to take nor have I suggested that I'm going to take the Times article into consideration in my findings of fact. I don't plan, did not plan and didn't hint that I would invoke

the legal doctrine of falsus and uno, meaning if you lie about one thing, you lie about all things. On the story, any such invocation would be based on trial testimony and or guilty plea. However, if tomorrow, interesting choice of timing, Mr. Weisselberg publicly confesses to having committed perjury about a significant matter in the case before me, or he pleads guilty to such perjury at any time before I issue my final decision. I will research and consider what the law allows. I take seriously my obligation to find the facts and determine the truth to the end, to that end. And here's the admonishment, the knuckle wrapping by the judge of Trump's lawyer. I find it appropriate to have reached out to counsel for Mr. Weisselberg, who was a defendant in this case to inquire as to her.

That's Alina Abba, her knowledge of this serious allegation. Indeed, rule 3.3 a 3 of the ethics rules pres- provides that if a lawyer's client offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know if it's falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. I've done that. You step aside, you dismiss the jury, you meet with the judge in chambers with opposing counsel, and you tell them that you

think your client may have lied or a witness. This obligation applies even if compliance requires disclosure of otherwise confidential material. To know of the false city, the lawyer must have actual knowledge, but such knowledge may be inferred from circumstances. He can infer from circumstances that Alina Habba, for instance, knew or should have known of Allen Weisselberg's false testimony and allowed it to be presented to the court, therefore sub-burning burgery, which is an ethical violation and a potential crime. You and your co-counsel, Alina Habba and Chris Kice, have questioned, have been questioning my impartiality, the judge said,

since the early days of this case, presumably because I sometimes rule against your clients. That whole approach is getting old. Your invocation of Michael Cohen's testimony and veracity is completely out of bounds. We've said this before, saying, well, what about that guy? He's perjured himself in prior proceedings. He perjured himself, exclamation mark,

before you judge with no record site and no evidence of that in his letter. That's inappropriate. You have already submitted your post trial briefs and you made your final arguments. I'm not reopening the case, but if someone pleads guilty to committing perjury in a case over which I'm presiding,

he's still presiding over the case. I wanna know about it, Justice Angora. Let me tell you about what's gonna happen next, cause you don't just come to legal layup for what happened. You wanna come for what happens next. I believe the judge Angora will open up an evidentiary hearing. He will bring in Alina Habba.

He will bring in Cliff Robber. He will bring in Chris Keist, the lawyers for Donald Trump, he'll try to bring in Alan Weisselberg, who may or may not take the Fifth Amendment. He'll ask lawyers for the Manhattan District Attorney to attend the hearing as well. And he will get to the bottom, the very rock bottom, of the issue of whether Alan Weisselberg lied under oath in that courtroom about Donald Trump, whether to help him or otherwise, and whether that should have an impact on the outcome. And more particularly, whether it should have an outcome on whether these lawyers should

continue to hold their bar licenses or not, or they should be ethically, professionally reprimanded. I think that is where this judge is going separate and apart from that, he's got to rule on and against Donald Trump because that's where the evidence takes him. That's where 11 weeks of trial testimony, thousands of pages of evidence take him. That's where 11 weeks of trial testimony, thousands of pages of evidence take him. We think that with interest and post-judgment interest, that judgment for disgorgement, which is ripping away ill-gotten gains obtained by somebody improperly

because they cooked the books or tilted the playing field in their favor, we think that's gonna be approaching $500 million. And then there's the other remedies that will also be part of the final judgment, which include dissolution of the Trump legal entities, barring them from continuing to conduct business in New York of any kind, borrowing money from New York banks, transacting real estate transactions in New York, being officers and directors of New York corporations and everything else.

It is the reason we call it the death penalty, corporate death penalty, is what Judge Ngorong is now considering. And it doesn't help when the lawyers for Donald Trump have challenged ethics as outlined by Judge Ngorong. This is a bear trap that Alina Habba stepped into, not only with her two feet, but with her head. And now we're going to see what happens next with Judge Angoran. We'll continue to follow it right here on the Midas Touch Network, two million strong and on Legal AF every Wednesday and Saturday at 8pm Eastern time, only on the

Midas Touch Network, on their YouTube channel, and then on audio podcast platforms of your choice. If you like what I'm doing, Michael Popak, leave me a thumbs up, go back out, comment, it helps with the ratings, and keeps us on the air, and me on the air. Until my next hot take, until my next legal AF, this is Michael Popak reporting. Love this video? Make sure you stay up to date on the latest breaking news and all things Midas, by signing up to the Midas Touch newsletter at MidasTouch.com. This is Michael Popak reporting.