The MeidasTouch Podcast - Special Edition: MeidasTouch Presents 'Legal AF', Episode 15

Episode Date: July 4, 2021

On this very special 4th of July episode (No. 15) of Legal AF, MeidasTouch’s Sunday law and politics podcast, hosts MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok examine Chief Justice Roberts continued assault on fairness in the election funding and voting process. First, Ben—podcasting from "outer space"—and a very terrestrial Popok explore the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority and Justice Alito’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the 15th Amendment, in finding that Arizona’s new voter suppression laws making mail in voting harder, and disenfranchising accidental wrong precinct voting, are constitutional. Ben also observes that Alito’s "five factor" analysis to be used in future VRA cases addressing the time, method and means of voting, is not only "made up," but will be used to kill what’s left of the law the next time around. Popok gives Ben a “Pop” quiz on which chief justice from 200+ years ago set the course for how the Supreme Court operates today. Next, the LAF co-hosts dissect Chief Justice Roberts’ majority decision finding that California’s attempts to regulate charity fraud through disclosure of major donors is overbroad and violative of the First Amendment and its freedom of association clause, allowing even more dark money to flood into our electoral system. The co-hosts round out the Supreme Court review with a look at decisions this term that address social rather than political and electoral issues, including a decision to leave in place a lower court’s ruling that discriminating against transgender people by forcing them to not use the bathroom that aligns with their identity violates the 14th Amendment and Title IX. SCOTUS' inconsistent approach to social and religious issues this term is also discussed. Next up, a topic of the LAF law school students have been waiting for: Cosby and the 5th Amendment, where Ben and Michael respectfully disagree on what Cosby was promised by prosecutors before he sat for a civil deposition, and debate whether the 5th Amendment is more important than any one celebrity defendant, no matter his crimes. And of course, no LAF podcast would be complete without a hard look at NY’s indictment of the Trump Organization and its long-time CFO on 15 counts of tax fraud, the existence of a Trump “second set of books,” and what it may mean for the Former 45 and family in the near term. Easter Egg Alert: Back by popular demand, more Popok Paper Crumpling! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/meidastouch/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/meidastouch/support Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The new Mitsubishi Outlander brings out another side of you. Your regular side listens to classical music. Your adventurous side rocks out with the dynamic sound Yamaha. Regular you owns a library card. Adventurous you owns the road with super all-wheel control. Regular side, alone time. Adventurous side journeys together with third row seating. The new Outlander, Bring out your adventure aside.

Mitsubishi Motors. Drive your ambition. You've got unlimited access to music, but time? Now that's limited. The PC Insider's World's Elite MasterCard gets you unlimited PC Optima points, free grocery delivery, and time back for what matters. Save time and earn $1,100 in average value each year. The PC Insider's World's Elite MasterCard. The card for living unlimited. Conditions apply to all benefits. Visit pcfinancial.ca for details. Value is for illustrative purposes only. Wendy's most important deal of the day has a fresh lineup. Pick any two breakfast items for $5.

New four-piece French toast sticks, bacon or sausage wrap, English muffin sandwiches, value iced coffee, and more. Limited time only at participating Wendy's Taxes Extra. When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer.

So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus, enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply. Instacart. Grocer groceries that over-deliver. Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there.

With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more, make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun and make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only.

Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome to the Midas Touch Legal. AFBA stands for analysis and the F stands for friends. Your legal AF hosts, Ben Mycelis broadcasting from apparently outer space right now, and Michael Popak of Zupano, Patricius and Popak. And I'm from Garagos to Garagos. And I say outer space because Popak, I don't know if you know this about me, but I am a big hater publicly of Zoom backgrounds. I talk shit about it for no reason.

When people have Zoom backgrounds, I make fun of them. But right now, I found a Zoom background where I'm in outer space and I like it. And I'll tell you why. I think I'm self-conscious of my background. I taped these legal AFs in the office room that I've been delegated by my girlfriend. I had the office space in our spot and then she took the office space over and kind of moved me here to kind of a half closet, half office space. I was doing a business call the other day and someone really kind of talked shit about it.

And I had it on speakerphone and my girlfriend heard them speaking shit about the location. And she's like, see, I told you. And I'm like, no, you're the one who moved me to begin with. So I'm self-conscious. I got this great background. I'll take a screenshot for everybody. So all of the mightiest mighty can see it. But anyway, Popak, I'm talking too much. How are you today? I'm doing great. And the last time, well, I always say coast to coast and cover to cover. Now I'm going to say coast to coast, cover to cover and interstellar. And we're going to use a clip from

this to put it online because now everybody is intrigued. Also, the last time you told the story about your girlfriend and the room next door, she was using a lot of power tools, which concerned me for various reasons as to what she was building or what she was up to. Oh, of course. And it was all good. I think it was a table in the other room. I guess I'm oversharing on this legal AF a little bit already. But one of the things about me as well is, although I give great legal information and I think I'm a pretty good lawyer practicing. I cannot build anything. When we have to bring in those Ikea tables, when we went and we purchased an outside patio from a place a few months ago to assemble, you might as well have been telling me I was building the Martian

rover because those instructions I could never figure out. And it was funny because we hired somebody to build it. I would have paid the guy like 1500 bucks because it seemed like the hardest task ever. And at the end of it, when he was done with it, he quoted me $120. And I was like, I gave a great tip. I was so grateful. And then my girlfriend, Sochi, when he was done with it, he quoted me $120. And I was like, I gave a great tip. I was so grateful. And then my girlfriend, Sochi, she was just like, Ben, mostly everyone can build something like that. You should not think that that was an incredibly impressive task.

My legal intern built my entire reception area, I'm proud to say. And she did a great job. Different sides of the brain, but the sides of our brain that you all care about is not the side of the brain to build your table, because that's not why you're listening to this podcast. Listen to Build a Table podcast for that. This is Legal AF, where we cover this week's or the most recent legal news. And of course, there's some great legal news this week and also some challenging and difficult legal news that we need to confront. So in this Legal AF, we're going to speak about the Trump Corporation and Allen Weisselberg being

indicted. If we did not cover that, y'all would be like, what in the world is the purpose of legal AF? So we're going to hit that. We're going to talk about the Cosby Supreme Court ruling that basically set Cosby free. We've heard about Supreme Court rulings that overturn lower court rulings, but a ruling that just completely overturns it and says, you know what? Not only did the trial court get it wrong, you shouldn't have been charged. At least it was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. It was the Pennsylvania. It wasn't Florida for once. And let's start where we're going to start, which is some Supreme Court rulings. We're going to talk about some difficult decisions involving voting rights and difficult, meaning really gutting voting rights, making it

easier for anonymous donors to inject dark money into the political processes. And we're going to talk about a good situation where the Supreme Court, again, was not intervening in a dispute over transgender rights in favor of a transgender man at the time, a high school student who wanted to use the boys' bathroom and was being told he had to use the nurse's bathroom. And so it was a win for transgender rights that the Supreme Court was not going to hear a case in the lower courts held. But let's get into these voting right cases. And we turn to all places, Arizona, where the fraud is taking place. And this Supreme Court ruling involved a dispute in Arizona, Brnovich versus the Democratic National Committee.

This was a challenge to a, basically to volunteers helping people vote who are working hard. I don't want to, I will use the term that you heard out there, but this is the QTP, or as Popak says, the QTP kind of talking points version of of it when they call it ballot harvesting, you know, which is really a volunteer going to homes and of perjury. There was zero evidence whatsoever that there was any fraud in this process, that the volunteers were somehow forcing people to vote in certain ways. But there was a state, an Arizona state limitation on that. And so this case addressed whether these states can make these types of limitations. And the court didn't just reach the issue in this case, but set forth a four or five point test

that kind of went a little bit above and beyond, which is, Popak will tell you, you know, bodes not very well for democracy challenging these discriminatory voting rights measures that we now see across the country. Popak, I'm a bit loquacious. I'm talking too much on this podcast. It's your turn. It's okay. It's because I'm in outer space. You're literally high. You're in outer space. Because I'm in outer space right now. I'm feeling a certain vibe, right? Right. And you and I have showed our age. I'm older than you, but we've showed our age.

They don't call it outer space anymore. They call it space. Well, you know, as a litigator at my firm, I age in dog years. So I think I'm about 20 years older than Popeye. So let's talk about what happened in Arizona. We're going to talk about what happened in California. We're going to couple those two things together on attacks in our election system. And it really comes down, as you and I anticipated last week and the podcast even before that, this is rapidly becoming, as he's desired, the Roberts Court. Roberts, as he's done certain things well, like preserve Obamacare, and on some social issues like

transgender rights and other discrimination against the LGBTQ community. So on those issues, he comes out okay. But he has had, ever since he was a lawyer in the Reagan administration, he's had a hard-on against voting rights and the Voting Rights Act. The legal term. Yeah, I finally got to use one. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which had the Department of Justice supervising certain historically prejudicial and biased states in there, the way they run their elections. That was gutted. That Shelby County versus Holder? Correct.

So that's gutted. Now he's got his hands around the throat of the Voting Rights Act in Section 2, which is the only thing left in the Voting Rights Act, which was passed, if people remember the, you know, the movie about Malcolm X, I'm sorry, about Martin Luther King and the crossing of the Pettit Bridge, that was to get the Voting Rights Act passed by Congress, and it was amended later on. The only thing really left in terms of its teeth to support this 15th Amendment, which we don't talk about too much, but the 15th Amendment, which is really important, was passed after the Civil War in order to protect the right to vote by freed slaves at that time. Of course, it's been applied beyond that to all

minorities who are subject to bias and discrimination. So the Voting Rights Act supports the 15th Amendment through Section 2. It's the same section that the Department of Justice used last week when it filed its case against Georgia. It has become toothless under the current ruling. Ostensibly, it was addressing two recent laws passed by Arizona, which was done, you know, under the guise of voter protection, voter fraud elimination, which we know what that means, voter suppression. And it attacked two things that you've mentioned. One of them is the collection of mail-in ballots by people. So when you're housebound, you're in a nursing home, or you work 22 out of 24 hours and you can, a person in the household, or an election official, you can't deliver a ballot. And if you do, it's a crime. So that means a law abiding citizen that wants to help their neighbor, who's housebound or in a nursing home, make sure that their ballot counts, has committed a crime under Arizona law.

The second attack on the means and methods and manner of voting has to do with wrong precinct voting, which is exactly what it sounds like. It's where you think you're in precinct 72 and you show up at 71 and the election official takes your ballot, that ballot is canceled out and disenfranchised by Arizona. And you think, well, how hard of a problem is that? Well, I saw statistics that out of the entire country and all wrong precinct voting, which happens, one third of it happens in Arizona. So one third of wrong precinct voting happens in Arizona. Now, the argument is either that the precincts are really confusing. And so the information that's being given out to people to show up at the right polling place is confusing.

And that falls indiscriminately or discriminately on Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics, and others. And that's the argument, that this is racially biased in its application disproportionately. And so Alito got the majority decision. It was given to him by, I'm sure, Justice Roberts. And he established a test, basically watering down to next to nothing, The voting is right. The Voting Rights Act. So he established five factors, as you will see. OPAC with the paper. Oh, sorry. So I think we keep that in the pod. The last time we took it out of the pod. But the last time I did it, the clip got a ton of views. But the little

shifting notes right by that mic. All right. So the Alito five back to the Alito five days in the pod stays in the Alito five factors looks at the law as to time, manner and place of voting, which which Alito declared is the first time the Supreme Court has ever looked at the Voting Rights Act versus that type of restrictions on voting. And he says, you have to look at this in its totality. You have to look at the size of the burden on voting.

You have to look at the deviation from the standard methods of voting in place in 1982. So you have to take a time machine back to 1982 when the Voting Rights Act, which last amended, and you have to say, is the new restriction so out of the norm, so aberrational that it wouldn't have been considered in 1982? Sort of a weird standard. Three is the size of the impact on the voting. So you look at statistics. Four is you have to look at the voting system as a whole. How many different methods of voting does the state have? Mail-in, early voting, walk into your precinct, you know, all absentee voting.

You have to look at all of the voting in its totality. And fifth, you have to look at this. What is the stated policy that the state is addressing or allegedly addressing? And Alito went through the entire factors and said, no, we're fine with all this. Let me break it down right there for one second. So Alito, for all the people listening out there, just made this shit up. OK. These five factors, which are now the law, how did it come about? Like literally made up. I mean, and so that's one of the things when we talk about like the law, it's why it's a practice of law and not a science of law.

Because now those five factors that Popak just described based on the Supreme Court saying that is now the law. And that doesn't come from a statute. That doesn't come from when the Voting Rights Act was actually passed and those things enumerated. That is a activist judge in 2021 making it up. And notice when you actually go through those made up standards, what will happen? In this case, it basically upheld the Arizona restrictions. And in all future cases, most likely in almost all circumstances, it also will. Because the strength, the states are always going to say, look, the strength of our interests are high. You know, we're a state in terms of opportunities to provide that the state provides

for other forms of voting. They're going to say, look, on Election Day, you can vote and look, we have voting from this time. And look, there still is early voting taking place in terms of the size of the burden imposed. It's like the argument saying, well, look, sure, there are black water fountains that are right next to the white water fountains. What's the burden here? All you have to do is go to those water fountains. It's just a two minute difference. And so when you go through all of those factors, like the key factor is its disparity on the impact of different racial groups. That is the point of why it should be a one factor test. If this is a racially motivated racist law, the inquiry should end. You shouldn't have to balance that on the scales of justice against four racist standards. I agree with you. They reversed engineered a series of factors so that they can apply it in future cases to almost never

find a Voting Rights Act violation. And to your point, and for our listeners, so they have some historic perspective, the right-wing judges would have normally said when they don't want to disturb a law that they find supportive of their values, they would say, we're not legislators. We're not Congress. We don't make law. We apply the law. Well, the law that Congress wrote said you look at the totality of circumstances in order to determine if there's a violation of the Voting Rights Act. That's what legislators do. That's what Congress would have done if they wanted that to be the test. Congress would have written it into the law. They didn't. And for this Congress to, with a straight, this Supreme Court with a straight face, to look the American people in the eye and say they're not making law and they're not gutting the Voting Rights Act is a disservice and is disingenuous.

I think Justice Kagan said it best in the dissent. And here's what she said, Obama appointee. She said, what is tragic here is that the court has yet again rewritten in order to weaken a statute that stands as a monument to America's greatness and protects against its basest impulses. What is tragic is that the court has damaged a statute designed to bring about the end of discrimination in voting. Those words right there, you can't say it more directly other than to say Alito is a fucking racist and the majority just abolished all of our abilities to address the systemic racism in voting that millions of Americans fought and marched for in the past. Here's an important thing when we think about laws in general. Elena Kagan, Justice Elena Kagan, Obama appointee, she has a view of things right there, which I agree with. But under her view, unlawful, a law violator, illegal. What what her view is and what the Alito court says is now the law.

And so for all those people, I mean, what Alito said in the Roberts court, what Alito said, leading that, that, that majority opinion, that is the law now that's, that's it. And so when all of you out there, you know, or you had friends or whoever goes, yeah, you know, we talk about this on the podcast, but yeah, I wasn't going to vote for Hillary Clinton because blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Here you go. Here you go. This one's for you, but this is why you got to fight harder and harder and harder because the law isn't this, you know, scientific thing that we look under a microscope and say it's the law. It's made by men and women and people. And we

have to avoid, in the words of Kagan right there, our basest impulses. That's what we're fighting for. And meanwhile, you have a law like this that will allow humanity, will allow Americans who want to harm the right of people to vote to appeal their basis. You know what the most disgusting thing about reading the decision was? And it's not just Alito. This is the six people that are the right wing on the Roberts Court, on the Supreme Court.

They all believe, because you've seen it time and time again in their decisions over the last 10 years and in this last term, that there is no institutional racism in this country, that racism has been resolved, that there's no longer a need for the federal government to intervene in voting, to supervise voting, to worry about disenfranchisement, that it doesn't happen any longer. That's why things like affirmative action are also under assault. We'll see that probably next term. And that is endemic to all of the members of that group of six. And we're seeing it manifested in decisions like this. And the most disgusting thing about the decision is to have

Alito, because he had to do it, give a recitation of the history of the Voting Rights Act and bias and racism against primarily black and brown people. He had to write that. It was lip service. But when he writes it, if you read it carefully, it looks like he's talking about like a bygone era where this stuff doesn't happen anymore. America used to be a place where racial bias took over in voting. Hello, it's still going on. And your job as a lifetime appointee of the Supreme Court is to protect the underprivileged

and the disadvantaged. And that's what Kagan and Sotomayor, in the next case, talks about in their dissent. And it's earth shattering, and it bodes terribly in the next case talks about in their dissent. And it's earth shattering, and it bodes terribly for the next term. Because as we'll tell our listeners now, they're done issuing decisions. We've exhausted all of the Supreme Court decisions for the summer, now on July 2, going into the July 4 weekend. And now we're going to talk about the cases that they're going to be about the cases that they're going to be taking or have taken to when they start the new term in September, and what it

means. And if what this means, and I'll save this next comment or the development of it for the next segment, if what this case and the case in California means is that Roberts is concentrating his power and that he is getting Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to come along for the ride, then all of those things that you and I talked about, all the kumbaya 9-0 decisions, isn't it great? And yes, actually, statistically, there have been more 9-0 decisions this year than in past years as a standard. It all is for nothing when it comes down to the key issues that our followers and listeners care about for next term, because they're just gaining strength and they're gaining confidence in their ability to grab the votes necessary for the majority.

Yeah. And these are the issues that are central to our democracy and the survival of our democracy. I want to talk about the next case, Popak. We actually talked about this case a few podcasts ago. This is Americans for Prosperity versus, I believe it's pronounced Bonta, B-O-N-T-A. And this case is in California. Americans for Prosperity is a fake group that was created by the Koch brothers for the specific purpose of challenging a law that would enable them to give donations, in these cases, quasi-charitable donations without revealing their identity. And they created this group. They got this case to go through the Supreme Court with the idea of groups like the Koch brothers and others want to inject dark money into politics and they don't want to disclose their identity. in California, its ramifications about dark money and politics across the board are broader because

the Supreme Court ruled that in this case, this particular group, this Koch brothers-backed group did not have to disclose their identity and could have donated anonymously while influencing the system. So, Popak, if you could just talk briefly about Americans for Prosperity and the implications. An evil shout out to the Thomas More law firm, which is the Koch, well, there's one brother left, one died. It's the Koch brother go-to made-up law firm that brings all of these conservative cases, and our listeners can go look them up and see what's behind the Koch brother in this case. So here we have Justice Roberts putting his imprimatur on the change in the law again.

This is the same Justice Roberts who in 2010 was part of the majority, the 5-4 majority in the Citizens United case, which opened the floodgate of corporate dark money into our election system. So this is just the second leg of the stool. Him having voted there in 2010, now he's got his hands around anonymity in donations. It applies to charities, but I don't see why it wouldn't also apply to PACs. As we discussed at another podcast, California has a regulation on its books that the attorney general of your state

requires that charities reveal their big donors, not publicly, but to the attorney general, so that they can regulate charities. Why does that matter? Because California has one third of the charitable donations in this country go through charities in terms of volume of dollars in California. So it's an important public policy for the state of California to make sure they regulate just like they regulate pension funds, and they regulate the stock market and things like that in California as well. And so as you had predicted, because we'd seen the briefing, Ben, the Supreme Court used a 1960s law that was precedent. This is where they like precedent. When they like precedent, they grab onto it and choke it to

death. When they don't like precedent, they won't follow it and they'll create new law. So the law that they've latched onto, which makes you and I feel really, really uncomfortable, is NAACP versus Alabama, which was as you want to give your little rift on that because you had a nice one the last time. Yeah, look, the NAACP did not want to disclose the identity of its donors because they would get killed by the KKK and they would be subject to lynching. And so there was an overriding concern, a safety concern about keeping donors anonymous because they would get killed. And that was the logic in that case. And here, appealing to that law, the Koch brothers basically said, look, if we have to disclose that we're contributing to democracy, we can be killed by terrorists. Al-Qaeda could come after us and

ISIS could come after us and playing the victim of of, you know, of of rich white billionaires being prosecuted, being persecuted for giving donations. amongst other things, that it's not foreign money that's finding its way into the political system through shell corporations and through other entities in the United States, and that the overall contribution scheme is fair and transparent. Right. And so Roberts latched on to that law, the NAACP versus Alabama, and basically said this is a First Amendment violation on its face. The law requiring charities to disclose their big donors because the First Amendment, and this is Roberts, I'll give the Roberts summary, because the First Amendment also protects the right of association, the right to be in a club or a charity or to associate with other people is also protected by the First Amendment, just as donations are a form of expression that is protected by the First Amendment on one hand. And then you have what Roberts considered to be an overbroad statute, an overbroad law in California, because he thought that there are less intrusive ways to accomplish whatever the public policy is, which is to regulate charities and make sure

that there's no fraud being committed. He thought it was overbroad. And they applied a standard, because we're opening up law school here for a moment. They applied the standard not at strict scrutiny, which is the highest level of constitutional analysis that the Supreme Court can use. But one level down from that is called exacting scrutiny. And to pass the exacting scrutiny test, a law has to be substantially, has to be a substantial connection between the law and the public policy and not be so overbroad. So using that lens or that razor, Roberts said, nah, I don't like this law. It's overbroad.

It violates the First Amendment on its face. Could California, with this guidance, redo its law to come within the confines and not be overruled by Americans for prosperity? Probably. But this bodes terribly, again, if you couple the bookends of Citizens United with American Prosperity, you know, put them together. This is just going to be open the floodgates of dark money through charity and PACs into our system without the ability of a government to regulate it. Popak talked about strict scrutiny, exacting scrutiny.

And when you look for the Constitution to find specifically where those things are located in the Constitution, I want you to look fucking nowhere because it's all made up and none of that is in the Constitution. And these are made up things again. Did you raise your hand in law school, con law class and say that? Did you say that? No, but when you see the building blocks of these issues and where these things are coming from, I want our listeners to know how, you know, and the theme of this is that this is all man-made bullshit and it reflects power dynamics. And it's very important that, again, going back to Kagan's ruling, is that the law evolves positively so that our basest instincts as humanity can be curbed and that we can reflect

on the past problems and build a future of true prosperity, not a fucking psy-ops prosperity for America run by billionaires so that they could inject dark money into our political system. Let me just read for everybody out there who goes, wait a minute, is this what this is what the First Amendment says? No. Let me just read to you what the First Amendment says. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people people peaceful peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress or grievance. That is what our framers wrote. Everything else that Popak just said has been what the law has been made up over time to be,

such that a billionaire whines about their First Amendment right not to disclose who they are as they use their billions of dollars to manipulate our government so they could get more money for themselves. So let me gently and gentlemanly push back ever so slightly on my co-host, which is you, with two observations. One, the entire role of the Supreme Court and our co-equal branches of government is effectively made up by, right? Made up by who? Which justice made up what the Supreme Court's role is in evaluating laws and deciding whether they're lawful or not? Oh, don't give me like a quiz on it. Chief Justice Marshall. All right. So Chief Justice Marshall, before Marshall,

there was a Supreme Court, but it did not have the role in American society or the three co-equal branches of government until he declared what the role of the Supreme Court was going to be. And ever since we've allowed. So I'm with you. But if we didn't have a declaration by a court nowhere written in the Constitution to flesh out its role, if we didn't have a declaration by a court nowhere written in the Constitution to flesh out its role, we wouldn't even have a Supreme Court doing what it's doing. And some people might be thinking, well, that might not be a bad thing. But overall, if you look at the course of history, it's important that we have a Supreme Court that plays that role in a democracy. But the second observation is there's many laws that you and I

and our listeners love a lot that are also nowhere written in the Constitution. Abortion rights, the right to choose, things like affirmative action. Yes, they're under assault, but there are things that under, whether they call it the penumbra of rights or right of privacy, which is also nowhere technically in the Constitution. It had to be a Supreme Court, not this one, a brighter one, a better one, that didn't go to their base instincts, but that developed laws that went beyond the four corners of the Constitution. And we like that when we, let's be frank, we like it when it aspires to our higher ideals. We hate it when things right in front of our very eyes, like a train wreck, are being gutted. Yeah, and I would just push back ever so gently back at you, which I never said it wasn't

made up, you know, at all. I just wanted people to know that it is made up and that it is bullshit and that these laws that are being applied in these various tests are ways to justify appealing to our basest instincts possible and not the higher ideals. And the things that you mentioned, when we talk about the concepts of equality, when we talk about what freedom is, all of those things you mentioned, whether it's the right of a woman to choose, whether it's the right of people to be free from slavery, whether it's the right of people to have equal rights. Those are things that I think are truly embedded in the Constitution, either expressly or impliedly, in where we need to be going as a country.

But the ideas of a strict scrutiny versus exacting scrutiny and applying that to these specific fact patterns in the Koch brothers instance, I mean, to me is problematic for a lot of reasons. But I think it is to show people, going back to exactly what Kagan said. You know, it is important that we have justices on the Supreme Court that want to create a situation for equality for all. And with these rulings, we don't want them creating a billionaire oligarchy like you have in Russia or other places and to permit laws like in the first case we discussed that will harm minorities. But the Supreme Court did, I suppose, do a good thing by defaulting, by doing nothing, defaulting is probably not the best word, by not taking a case.

And this case was Gloucester County School Board versus Grimm. I alluded to it earlier about a transgender man wanting to use the men's bathroom. At that time, he was a high school student. So it was the boys' bathroom in high school. And he was told he had to use the nurse's bathroom or the women's bathroom. It worked its way through all different court systems, but it was ultimately in the Fourth Circuit, which ruled in favor of the man. And in this case, the Supreme Court, there was another case that we talked about on the past podcast you know, which, yes, it's a victory, but it should be viewed as something that he should be able to do.

And the treatment, the fact that the Gloucester County School Board would exhaust so much resources to force this high school man at the time, you know, in the boy's bathroom to force him to go to the, to use the nurse and then made it a federal issue to go after him. I could only just imagine the amount of just pain and suffering that this man went through just trying to urinate. Yeah, I'll tell you, though, from our perspective, your and my perspective and our listeners, this term on social issues, everybody's head is just spinning because we can't figure out where the center of gravity, to continue your interstellar mission here, where the center of gravity is for

this Supreme Court. And we've talked about a number of these cases. Let me see if I can just sequence them. You've got cases like this one, in which, and the one just prior to it, in which transgenders cannot be, transgender people cannot be told what bathroom to use, or in sport. And so they seem to be, the court seems to be okay with upholding versions of transgender rights. Okay. Then at the same time, when it comes to religious expression and transgender right, they found, no, we had a case in Pennsylvania just recently where they said, but we don't want LGBTQ foster parents. It's okay if Catholic charities discriminate against them. So you have to sequence that in there with the

social position of this court. Then in the same breath, because they whipped out all these cases, it's like the last gasp of cases for this term, all the last couple of days, the same time they didn't take up the appeal and therefore let stand the ruling in favor of this transgender student. They also had a florist out, I think, in your neck of the woods who didn't want to make a floral arrangement in same-sex marriages and led by the same lawyers who had brought the case of the baker just three or four years ago, who didn't want to make a cake for same-sex unions. In that one, the Supreme Court ruled seven and two in favor of the baker and said he didn't have to be forced against his religious

conviction. But then, just now, this week, they said the florist could be found to have violated somebody's liberties because she didn't make flower arrangements. They are all over the map. And the problem I have with the court is that I almost get the sense, I want to get your opinion on this. I get the sinking feeling and the sneaky suspicion that one of the things Roberts thinks is going to appease people and make them feel like it's not always going to be a six to three on important issues is that he throws a bone now and again

on social issues like transgender rights and the Obamacare ruling and the florist who doesn't want to make a flower arrangement is committing a civil rights violation, while saving the heavy artillery for the bigger picture matters that he drags the court along with the other five over to the right. What do you think about that? You know, I think that we could be reading too much into declinations of cases, because as we know, the percentage of cases that the Supreme Court takes is an extremely low number. I mean, I'm trying to look up just for a reference, like the amount of cases that are taken. And while you do that, for our listeners, you have to have four of the nine justices have to agree to take a case.

So in the case that we just talked about, the one about the transgender rights, they didn't get enough. In the Flower case, they got two people that wanted it. Actually, in the transgender case, Thomas and Alito both voted to bring the case up to the Supreme Court, but couldn't get two more of their brethren to go along with them. Yeah. And put it this way, what would you what would your guess be, Popak? Like, like less than. Oh, my guess of what percentage end up. What would you guess be? How many cases go to the Supreme Court? What's the denominator? The total amount of appeals? The denominator. We're doing some real numerators, denominators. Every case filed in America or the cases that are on appeal? The cases that are on appeal.

How many cases do you think the Supreme Court takes a year? Total number or percentage? Total number. The court accepts. We'll ruin this denominator, numerator. You're right, about 150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it's asked to review. So, yes, there could be a disproportionate amount of media attention on a hot button case kind of issue. And then there's a whole story that is built around it. But what I do think that we are seeing, though, as the Supreme Court allows their core issue, which I think is gutting the Voting Rights Act, and we talked about why, to allow and enable legislatures, particularly white legislatures, to, fix is not the right word, but to address their shrinking

numbers by coming up with laws that are going to go through these standards and tests that we talked about to allow basically their racist conduct to permeate. And I think what we've seen is we've had legislatures and court rulings all pushing things in a positive direction. And I think what we're seeing at the most basic level is, hey, for all of these laws out there, go and pass these voting rights laws. Go and pass laws that may be discriminatory. And we're going to let you do that as a Supreme Court. We're going to empower you and give you the tools to do that so we don't have to come back and hear these cases in the future. That's what is more concerning as they're allowing these racist statutes or allowing legislatures to form and empower themselves that ultimately have these problematic outcomes. But I hear you. But I think on a case like this, it's hard to know if that declination was trying to send a message or it was one of the 600 or rather the 6,850 cases, you know, that are rejected and just not one of the Supreme Court, this term overall. But one of the troubling things I find, just with the way it's been playing out with the six versus the three, is that I just find that

this Supreme Court is out of lockstep with most of America, that most of America is much more moderate, much more liberal, and much more accepting than the Supreme Court. This Supreme Court has almost been teleported from another time. It's like the 1930s or the 1940s, and they're subjecting their ideals and their rock-ribbed, I know you hate conservative, right-wing values on a society that's ever-changing, that's getting more minority diversity, that's getting browner, and that's a good thing over time, where children growing up today who have multiple parents in their life or people they consider to be their parents is fine that they when they have transgender friends that's totally normal for them and then i got a court that's like stuck in the 1940s and i'm gonna say some scary shit right now because my whole theme

here has been that you know these these laws and everything are bullshit. They're made up. They reflect the power. They reflect power structures. And we've taken for granted growing up and being a part of these generations of equality and celebrating these things. But, you know, take a look at Iran, right? Take a look at the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, you know, which is led by Supreme Leader Khamenei. Like, look at that. I bet you, you see the images from before the revolution of where the Iranian people truly were, you know, and you see the fashion, you see the culture, you see where it is.

And in a very small group of people who come in and it's kind of, you see these similar trends across the world, the Taliban, you know, and again, extreme examples. The Chinese communist, Shanghai, before the Chinese communist came over and took over, was a cosmopolitan city up there with Paris and Rio and New York. And now look at it. Small groups of people who are radical and very frequently male, wanting to impose beliefs that they themselves don't even follow,

but to feel morally superior and focused on sheer power, subjugating the land to all of these rules. And Popak, it is not hard to fathom had Biden not won, had you had another Trump presidency and more Supreme Court justices. What if it was 9-0, all Trump appointees, and you had, yeah, maybe Roberts would sometimes side with, he's somewhat, you know, he could have somewhat normal decisions sometimes. But what if you were getting 8-1 or 7-2 opinions that suspend the Constitution? What if you get decisions that basically interpret all these laws as saying, you know what, we're in an emergency crisis. The president should have the powers of a dictator, basically. That's what happens in Germany. That's what happens in Italy. And so I know I'm wandering there, and I don't want to mean to scare you out there, but that's why we have to fight for these things every day like it matters. And that's why we talk about the Supreme Court the way we do, because it is that critical. And you've seen in these opinions the type of impact it could have. And they're smart about it too. The five-factor bullshit test is like a magician a little bit.

If we didn't break it down for you, you'd go, oh, those factors. But when you explain the factors, it's subtle. But it's subtle and it will always you towards allowing discriminatory voting rules in these various states. And the timing of it is sinister and not coincidental. And I want to move from that kind of nightmarish monologue I just did to two other nightmarish organizations and people who are not too dissimilar. I want to talk about Bill Cosby and Donald Trump. I may as well be talking about very similar people for obvious reasons that our listeners know. But let to talk about Bill Cosby and Donald Trump. I may as well be talking about very similar people for obvious reasons that our listeners know.

But let's talk about this Cosby decision briefly. I remember when the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania issued or their highest court issued the decision overturning the conviction of Cosby and letting him go. And I hadn't read the order when I first got the call, you know, and someone said, hey, did you hear about that? You know how that happened? I go, no, but I can probably tell you how it happened. It was because there was a non-prosecution agreement that was purportedly entered into by Cosby

and the Montgomery County DA in 2005. Bruce Casor. Yeah. Who that name should sound very familiar because Castor, Bruce Castor, the Montgomery DA, was the Trump impeachment lawyer. So if you heard the name, go, where did I hear that name? He was the idiot railing on the floor and making a fool of himself. He was the individual that entered into this oral arrangement with Cosby purportedly saying to testify in a civil case so that Cosby could testify without invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This whole deal is very weird. And one of the things that I have to remind myself sometime is this was a secret deal between the Montgomery County District Attorney and Bill Cosby in 2005. It was so secret that there's no paperwork around it, which could resolve what the actual deal is. That's one of the craziest things about it is that there's no email that actually confirms what the deal is.

No, but there's a press release. Wrong. Wrong. No, that's not wrong. Well, let's battle. There are different interpretations over a press statement that was made. And over time, Bruce Castor has made numerous different statements. And on the press release that you said,

Bruce Castor once said, well, that just meant that I wasn't going to talk about it in the future, not that he wasn't going to get prosecuted again in the future. But then Castor testified actually at the Cosby trial and stated that it actually was a firm non-prosecution agreement. But there's actually a great Philadelphia Inquirer article that talks about it. I know the press release you're referring to, but he's taking four or five different positions since 2005 regarding the implications of what that was. I thought we had our first fight already on this podcast. We're having our second one. All right, I like it. I read the decision. I don't know about anything other than what's in the record that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court relied on. So let me do a little exploder here so that everybody understands the Fifth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's application in a civil case,

and then the statement that was made, a press release where the press statement that was made and why it was made by Bruce Castor and why the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania felt like it was a bait and switch against Cosby and why they could not then prosecute him based on the same, by the statements that were made in a civil deposition. Castor made a evaluation as a prosecutor who exercises prosecutorial discretion, they all do, not to bring a prosecution against Cosby based on Andrea Constance's testimony and her facts. Why? Because, and this is in the record in the case, he believed as the prosecutor that she had a credibility problem because she waited over a year to report what

had happened to her. She waited, she got back to Ontario where she lives. She reported it to the Ontario authority a year later. Also between that one year when it allegedly happened and the time that she reported it, she had had a lot of contact with Cosby, both in person and by phone. And this all came out in the record. And so Castor was like, I don't believe I have a strong enough case based on the evidence to bring this case. He believed, and this is what he's testified to, that the only justice that she was able to get was if she had a civil case against Cosby with a lower burden of proof, the civil burden of proof instead of the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof. And in order to get what he believed Cosby to testify in order for her to have her civil case, he had to publicly declare, which he did

at a press conference, that he did not have enough credible evidence to bring a case against him. Why does that matter? Because in a civil case, a person can assert the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if there is a reasonable belief that there is a prosecution lurking out there against the person. If you don't have a prosecution pending against you or likely to be brought against you, you cannot assert the Fifth Amendment in a criminal proceeding. The court is then usually instructing the jury that they can make an adverse finding, an adverse inference against the civil litigant who asserts the Fifth Amendment. But again, if there is no prosecution, if the sovereign, in this case the prosecutor, declares that there's no case against you, you cannot assert it. And if you did, the civil judge would have told him, I'm sorry,

you're going to have to answer that question and not assert the Fifth Amendment. This is what Castor testified. And there's email exchange between Castor and the second prosecutor, who was his number two, who took over and said, okay, I've seen the civil deposition. I see what Cosby is admitted to. That's enough. I'm going to prosecute him. And Castor wrote his number two and said, you can't do that. I already made a commitment and a press statement in order to encourage him to drop the Fifth Amendment and testify. You can't bring the criminal case. perhaps based on one of the other 100 women who have testified that this happened to them too. But you can't do it with constant, and you can't do it based on the civil, on the civil deposition. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed, and you always say, Ben, words have consequences

and words have meaning. And the Supreme Court in its decision spent a lot of time talking about the weight of a prosecutor's words. They're not just a normal participant in the criminal justice process. When they say something, it has to have value. And if you rely on it on the other side, as the criminal defendant, then if you, okay, I'm going to testify now because I just got told I'm not going to get prosecuted for Andrea Constant for that particular matter. I have immunity, if you will, for that matter. He did it. He believed that he had that.

Castor has testified that that was his intent of the press statement. And in return, Cosby did something. Now, look, let me make it clear. I think Cosby's a scumbag. I'm pretty sure he did all of those terrible things that people have accused him of. But we also have a Fifth Amendment in this country. And we also have constitutional protection, even for really bad people. And so I happen to agree, unfortunately, with the way the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has analyzed the case. That's not to be confused with me agreeing that Cosby's a great person or that he's innocent.

It's the opposite. But I am a protector of the Constitution in my own way. And I did believe that the analysis that was given was accurate. I agree. It was a horrible outcome for justice generally, in this case, for the victims of Cosby, who seeing Cosby go to jail after getting away with his sexual assaults, molestations, drugging women for decades, it was a devastating tragedy of a situation to see this man walk free. The evidence that I saw was overwhelming at the trial and was disgusting, some of the things that he did. But Popak, you're right. The Supreme Court, on the basis of a deal was made. The government at that time, the Montgomery County DA,

made a deal with Cosby and Cosby's lawyers that Cosby would not be prosecuted. If you remove Cosby and you remove the sexual assault, which was the basis of the prosecution. And we just talked about John Smith was given a deal that he would not be prosecuted if he did something by the government. Then he did that thing. And then five years passed and he was prosecuted by that same government simply because a new person was elected in that position, we would say, if the facts were not these egregious facts, we would say, and I'd ask you, the listener, the question and put it on a law exam, should John Smith be prosecuted? You would go, of course not. They made a deal saying they would not prosecute him.

It's an oversimplified version of what happened, but that's what happened here. And that's what the Supreme Court ruling was about. And if you want to go back and blame anybody, I think you have to go back and you have to blame the DA for making a deal at that time. But I will say this. In 2005, there were very different views and wrong and incorrect. We've evolved since 2005. And the views about people like Cosby and supporting victims. It should have been more robust supporting victims, but that didn't exist at the time. And the prosecutor at that time thought they would not get a conviction in 2005. And if you believe the prosecutor, and I don't, but if you believe the prosecutor, the prosecutor at that time claimed that they thought that through the civil case, that was the best way that they thought that some justice could come for the victim and that he thought he was going to lose the case.

I don't think he would lose the case. I think he should have pursued the case. archaic and horrible thinking that allowed Cosby and Weinstein's and other predators to go free because, you know, these prosecutors wouldn't go after. And Epstein, because if you recall, Acosta, who was the, who eventually went into the administration of Trump as the, as the labor secretary, he was a U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida, and he cut a deal with Epstein back when he was a U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida, and he cut a deal with Epstein back when he could have shut him down 10 years before it, you know, he got eventually prosecuted and put in jail, but he could have shut him down earlier, and he declined to prosecute Epstein then and cut a deal. And that led to the kind of the fall

of Acosta. But look, but the difference there in Epstein, though, is that that deal, the case wasn't regarding the same victim and the same counts that were subject to that deal. And there was clarity about what that deal also actually was and its contours. And the new case that was brought, there were statute of limitations that allowed certain cases to be brought within a significant period of time and new victims and other cases were identified where those charges could be brought by a federal prosecutor. So what do you think about this? There's been over, I don't know, like 100 victims who have come forward about Cosby. A number of states, including yours, California, and mine, New York,

have extended the statute of limitations for sex violence and crimes like this. Maybe one of these hundred or somebody else who's now going to be so pissed off by Cosby and his lawyer gloating. I mean, literally gloating coming out of prison. His lawyer said aloud that even women in this country should be thrilled that justice has been done. I mean, that's just how tin-eared they are,

which could lead to other people coming out of the woodwork. And with the longer statute of limitations, he may not be out of trouble. What do you think? I think that the way Cosby spiked the football after a technicality win will potentially inspire exactly what you were just talking about, Popak, because there was no need to do that. He was certainly not innocent. And to kind of claim innocence when that's clearly not what the Supreme Court said, to me is a real issue for him. And it's a real issue for everyone. I mean, it was really messed up to do that. And I think that he will, I do think that, I mean, I think what the prosecutors want to weigh against that is he's 83 years old. And by the time you get through a prosecution, he may be, you know,

and I don't know what his health situation is, but by the time you prosecute and sentence him, you know, will there even be, you know, a point given his age and his health condition? But I think there is, but that's something that a prosecutor may be considering right now. And finally, I know we kept you. This was like, as we're really developing legal AF, I feel like we're that,

the program where they like keep the real red meat at the end. We've made you listen to our analysis of all of these Supreme Court cases. You've seen Popak and I bicker a little bit on this podcast. I think that's because I'm broadcasting from outer space, as I mentioned from the beginning. And I've had a new found sense of human awareness now that I'm above Earth, a new perspective on planet Earth. But here we are, Popak. Popak says that he predicted, and he did predict, that the Trump company and Weisselberg would be indicted. The funny kind of offline joke that Popak and I said is, and we'll see what a good legal AF listener you are. I thought Popak went one step further on the last legal AF and said he thought Trump himself was going to be indicted this week, which I said Trump would be indicted in November, but I'll give Popak an A- on his predictions.

I think it's an A. And it wasn't an A+. I'll give Popak an A- on predicting accurately, and it's an incredible prediction. Popak's predictions are pretty much 100% on the Midas Touch podcast that the Trump company and Weisselberg would be indicted. It was a 15 count indictment. Popak, you want to just break us through in some in substance. Yeah. And I want to I want to rehabilitate not me. I'll talk about that later. I would rehabilitate the indictment because of course, all the Trump acolytes and sons of Trump all jumped on and said, oh, that's it? That's all

they got? Fringe benefits? Who cares? Okay, let's put this in perspective. Cy Vance and Letitia James brought the case that they have at the moment, not the case that they desire in the future. That grand jury is still impaneled and is still listening to evidence. And there is no reason why. And in fact, I am quite confident to continue with the Popakian predictions. I am quite confident that there will be- To the Popakists. The Popakists, yeah. Although they've all gone team Popakian. We'll go with, I think your majority came up with that, with a symbol. I have like a hand symbol related.

It's a Spock thing. I like it. But the next indictment, it's called a superseding indictment, which is what it sounds like. This indictment is fine with the 15 counts. There'll be another indictment that will supersede this one. It will have more counts, hopefully against more people like the former 45. They brought the case after two years of looking at and examining the tax returns and the daughter-in-law of Weisselberg, who has been cooperating publicly. I don't know, look, grand jury is a secret process, but we know it because she's been on every talk show talking about how proud she is to have cooperated with the federal government and the New York, I'm sorry, the attorney general in New York and the DA in New York in against her father-in-law, her future, her ex, sorry'm not making this up, a million pages of financial

documents that happened to be in her garage that she turned over to the prosecutor. So they brought the case that they have right now. Say what you want about Cy Vance as the prosecutor, but he is conservative and he brings the case that he has. Alvin Bragg, who's going to start in a few months, will continue with, with the attorney general's office to continue to bring new cases, new claims, and new people into the case. And so it's not a fringe benefit case. That makes it sound like it's a jaywalking case. The allegations in the indictment, which is based on proof that was provided and evidence provided to the grand jury, is that there were two sets of books at the Trump organization. They kept meticulous records that the grand jury has now

seen of entries concerning Weisselberg, the CFO, and all of the money that Trump gave him, not in cash, not in salary, where payroll taxes and federal and state taxes would have had to have been paid by the Trump organization and by the individual receiving it, but was paid directly to private schools, the apartment that was leased for him, the rent, the Mercedes for his wife and himself that were leased for him. And Trump just wrote a check, literally himself. There are signed checks with Trump's signature for all of these events totaling a couple of million dollars over 10 years. But they didn't just do it and like, oh, it was an accident. It was an accounting mistake. You know, it was an IRS thing. They kept a set of books that listed every dollar that went

to Weisselberg that was off the books and for which taxes, state, local, federal were not paid and payroll taxes, which would have been the Trump organization. So they're dead to rights because there's the second set of books. And why does it matter? Because, you know, the thing rots from the head. You have the CFO, the most senior apex financial officer who's responsible for every number related to the Trump organization and the hundreds of companies that it owns and operates under it. You have him committing tax fraud along with the Trump organization based on those financial records. So look, they brought the indictment to continue to squeeze Weisselberg because they'd like him to cooperate. They tried to do it pre-indictment, which you and I have had clients where we've dealt with them pre-indictment with prosecutors, and we're able to cut a deal. It happens. But if they don't, they have to be squeezed harder. So now they're squeezing him with an indictment. They're still holding out hope that Weisselberg flips the way Cohen ultimately did, you know,

your buddy on your other produced podcast, Michael Cohen, and that Weisselberg flips on Trump. If they don't get him to flip, which will speed up and accelerate the prosecution against the former 45, and maybe we hit the November deadline that you've set, then they're just going to have to do it the old-fashioned way by bringing in other witnesses and other documents and keep that grand jury going, you know, five days a week, you know, 360, you know, five days a week, 24 hours a day until they get a new superseding indictment. And that's going to happen too. And what I said in the last podcast is I had said, you're right, that I thought Trump organization, Weisselberg, and probably 45.

However, when you and Dan Lust, eyes bugged out of your head, I thought, well, maybe I overdid it. So let me dial it back a bit. Definitely Trump organization, definitely Weisselberg. And sometime soon in the superseding indictment, Trump. So I got on your bandwagon with Trump. But I'll tell you, there was a reference to unindicted co-conspirator number one within this indictment, who many suspect was former guy 45. And so he was in the indictment. So you can, using exacting scrutiny or strict scrutiny, I could basically say, and applying my five-factor test, I could basically say Popak was correct using the

Ben five-factor test. But basically, Weisselberg wasn't cooperating here. And the prosecutor said, really, you don't think we're going to do it. You sure you don't want to talk to us. Okay, here you go. You could be facing 15 years in prison. Boom. We're going to make you walk. We're going to take the photo. We're going to make this a really shitty rest of your life, basically. But you know, we're still going to show you our weakest hand right now because this is not, as Popak said, the strongest hand that the government has.

There's a criminal grand jury that is still out. With respect to Weisselberg, what the smart prosecutor would be doing would say, look, that was 15 count. We could do 150 counts if we want to. But do you want us to spare you? This is what I think is going on. Or Mrs. Weisselberg. What about Mrs. Weisselberg? I think they basically, sometimes, I'll give you an example. Sometimes, Popak, when you and I file a complaint or a lawsuit, you could file a lawsuit that shows everything, or you could file the lawsuit that has a little bit of information, but signals to the other side that this is going to get much nastier if there's not a resolution. But I'm not trying to put all of our cards on the table. I think that's what's going on here. And this is sending a message to the other Trump execs who all have

Trump as their last name, Don Jr., Ivanka, Eric, to Weisselberg's family, to others in the Trump organization. And they know that more indictments are coming, superseding indictment. I think former Guy, as I said, will be indicted in November. And I think we're going to hear about it about the same way. I think about a week or two weeks before we're going to find out and we're learning about Cy Vance's style, that he will give former guy an opportunity to respond about why he shouldn't be prosecuted in a week, the same way he did with Weisselberg. Former guy is not going to respond. And then there's going to be an indictment there, I think, in November.

And two last points on that. One, we're back to statute of limitations running. There's also pressure on Cy Vance's office to have brought claims because some of them were going to fall off the continuum as being time barred. So they had a hurry on some of the things that they found. Remember, Trump successfully kept them at bay for two years before they were able to get his tax returns. That's two years off the statute of limitations clock. So they had a hurry to bring these charges before they were going to be time barred. That's one. The second thing related to

the indictment is, I think, this is just, here's Popak prediction again. Well, we're back to Popak's predictions. Cy Vance, I think was fine with bringing this sized indictment at this moment based on the evidence that was presented to the grand jury. He may, he may want to let Alvin Bragg, who's going to be the first black district attorney in Manhattan's history in 200 years, to bring the superseding indictment and make that ultimate decision against Trump. Why? Because as a professional courtesy, he may want to let Alvin Bragg have a role in shaping the clothes that Alvin's going to be wearing, right? This wardrobe that's being made for him. Look, I took over for other people too. And if you can, you want to be involved in the decision making because you're going to be stuck with the

result. And Sy may be not only consulting with Alvin, but Alvin's really not a prosecutor yet in the office, so that would really be appropriate. But he may want to let Alvin make the ultimate decision as to the Trump indictment of former 45. And that would be when Alvin takes office. That's pure speculation. But I know how these things work in transition time between an outgoing prosecutor and one that's coming in. Michael Popak, thank you for spending this weekend with me.

Thank you all for listening. You could choose to be anywhere in the world today and listen to any other podcast, radio station, musical act, or choose to not listen to anything at all. We are grateful that you've spent this past hour plus with us. We hope we've broken down for you the critical Supreme Court decisions. We've answered your questions about Cosby, and we've talked about the indictment of the Trump Organization and Weisselberg. We hope we made you smarter. We hope we put a smile on the face while doing so. And Popak and I, to be able to, as friends and as colleagues,

to be able to spend an hour plus on our weekend having these conversations with each other and with you is a true blessing. So thank you all very much for listening to this weekend's edition of Legal AF. We are going to have a special edition, as Popak mentioned a little bit earlier in this podcast, where we are going to analyze this entire past Supreme Court term. How excited are you to listen to that? And of course, if you have any legal issues, if you've been injured in a car accident, if you've been any other personal injury, you, friend, family, colleague, been injured in a catastrophic injury, have an employment case, you've been sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, been abused, have any legal claim, have a case that's out there, have a big business dispute,

if you're the founder of a startup and you've been cut out of that startup, if you have a case that's out there, have a big business dispute. If you're the founder of a startup and you've been cut out of that startup, if you have a case and want a consultation with me and Popak, my email is ben at garrigos.com. That's B-E-N at G-E-R-A-G-O-S. That's B-E-N at G-E-R-A-G-O-S. And Popak, what's your email? It's easy. It's M-P-O-P-A-K-P-O-P-O-K at ZPLaw.com. And as we end, let's wish all of our listeners a very happy and safe 4th of July because we are patriots first. Thank you for listening to this weekend's Legal AF. Thanks for fighting for democracy.