The MeidasTouch Podcast - Time to FIGHT BACK against a perjuring SCOTUS and wannabe dictators NOW!!!

Episode Date: June 28, 2022

On today’s episode of The MeidasTouch Podcast, we bring you the latest breaking news to keep you up to date! On today’s show, we dive right into it and discuss the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe, another new Supreme Court decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton allowing school prayer by a coach during football games, thereby eviscerating separation of church and state, Rudy Giuliani lying about his “assault” at a ShopRite, the Grand Jury Subpoena in NY for Trump’s SPAC and much more! If you enjoyed today’s episode please be sure to rate, review and subscribe! New episodes of The MeidasTouch Podcast drop everyday with our long-form episodes releasing every Tuesday & Friday. If you enjoyed today’s show please be sure to rate, review and subscribe! As always, thank YOU for listening. Shop Meidas Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, Welcome to the Midas Touch podcast. We have a lot to break down.

Let's talk about the Dobbs versus Jackson health holding overturning Roe v. Wade, a precedent for over 50 years, giving the constitutional right for women's reproductive rights, the right to choose as further affirmed in the Supreme Court decision in Casey Planned Parenthood, which took place in 1992. We also need to talk about a new Supreme Court decision that's breaking today in Kennedy versus Bremerton, which is allowing school prayer by a coach after football games, but really in doing so essentially eviscerating the separation of church and state by eliminating a test known as the Lemon Test from a case called Lemon versus Kurtzman, which looked at the effect of separation of church and state decisions.

And now the Supreme Court has developed an analysis based on historical tradition, which is the same logic that they've relied on in overturning Roe v. Wade, in overturning a New York ban on concealed carry weapons and regulating it in certain situations. I want to break all of that down. And then we should talk about Rudy Giuliani as well. Rudy does what Rudy does best, which is lie. He lied about being assaulted at a ShopRite supermarket and claimed that he was hit and he had this dramatic event of what took place. But the surveillance footage shows absolutely none of what took place. But the surveillance footage shows absolutely none of that took place. And then we should talk about what Trump does

best, which is scam people. A grand jury out of New York has now subpoenaed the special purpose acquisition company, the Trump SPAC, in an apparent criminal investigation taking place. In addition to the SEC investigation taking place and shares are tumbling in that digital world acquisition company SPAC. Brett and Jordi, a difficult Monday to be recording this podcast given all of the news dark times here, but I am reminded by Sotomayor's speech that she recently gave in Washington, D.C. two weeks ago where she says, sometimes I feel beaten down, sometimes I just want to cry. And that's coming from a Supreme Court justice. But she says, I just then realize what my job is. I get up and I fight. And so

that's what we need to do. We need to fight and not accept this version because this is what right wing fascism wants us to do. They do not represent the majority of Americans and they want us to feel so beaten down, so disenchanted by the system that we will no longer engage with the system and allow them to fully take over. That's what we see here and in fascist countries across. Brett, what's going on on your end? Oh, man, it's a really scary time. I don't think I've ever been this afraid for America and this scared for the future of America. I mean, it just feels like, you know, they've got these Supreme Court justices in there and they're taking this opportunity now to do everything that they've spent the last 50 years

trying to do. And that's take away all of our rights. I think we need to make clear that the Republican Party is coming for all of our freedoms, like they are the anti-freedom party. They wrap themselves in the flag. They wrap themselves with the cross, but they are the anti-freedom hate party. And I think it's important that we know that. And I'm actually touched by Justice Sotomayor's words because it was something that I think about. And it's something that I think about often because I feel like all of us are obviously under the stress of all this every single day. And we often take on that anxiety of the world around us. And we try to think, is there more that I could be doing? Is there anything that we could be doing to fix this? But the thing that I've realized personally

with all this is there are things you can control and there are things you can't control. And there are a lot of things out of our control. So all that leads you to be able to do is do the things that you can control. And that's why seeing you guys in Texas over the weekend, knocking on doors, doing the activism, doing the work that needs to be done. That's called taking things into your own hands right there. You know, you can't control the Supreme court justices. You can't control what any branch of government necessarily does, but what you can control is you control your own destiny and you can knock on those doors. You could get people out to vote and you could spread the message. And that's what I think all the Midas Mighty listeners are doing with us every single day.

And I'd love to hear more about your trip, guys, because I wish I could have been there. I've never been more jealous. Seeing the action out there, seeing the crowd, seeing the Midas Mighty meetup in Dallas, Texas. It was really, really cool and inspiring to me. And I think that's, you guys set an example there that I hope that all of our Midas Mighty across the country are following. Jordy, could you tell us a bit about the weekend? I really want to hear all about it. Yeah. Yeah. First off, a huge shout out to Mel, Jules, Aaron, Matt, and Jerry, especially for hosting us down there in Dallas. It was really an incredible event. We had a Midas Mighty convention out there, and it was really epic.

We wrote 200 letters to remind folks to get out to vote this November. So we did a little, not a little, but a big letter writing campaign out there, which was awesome. And then the day after, we went canvassing, we were knocking on doors in Dallas proper, getting out there, reminding people, hey, get out to vote for Beto this November, get out to vote Democrat this November, because, you know, democracy is on the line. And Ben came down with me. Brett, unfortunately, couldn't come through. There's always has to be someone manning the ship over here at the Midas touch front. But really, what was even cooler than Ben and I out there was the Midas Mighty down there knocking on doors, writing those letters side by side with us.

And it's exactly what you said, Brett. You know, there's just been terrible news coming out almost seemingly every day at this point. And all we can control is what we can control. We could go up and we could write those letters. We can knock on those doors. And I we can control is what we can control. We could go up and we could write those letters. We can knock on those doors. And I think we knocked on something like 1100 doors or something wild like that when we were out there. And it was truly, truly an amazing experience. And I just cannot be so any more grateful for this community of the Midas Mighty that we fostered. Just thank you all for your continued activism, getting out there and spreading the message that democracy is on the line. I'm so proud of you guys. I'm just so proud

of the work you did. And one of the recurring themes that I noticed in all the videos that you guys sent me of people is that people are fed up. People are sick of this shit. People are sick of the oppression and they're ready to vote Democrat. And it's up to us to fire them up and to just make sure they're registered and to get out there. And so I want to say, if anybody else wants to get involved in any of our volunteer efforts, we are super proud to have partnered with a group called Field Team 6. And so every single week, we here at Midas Touch are curating our favorite efforts, our favorite ways that you could get involved. And you could do this either from the comfort of your home, or you could do this by actually going out into the field like Ben and Jordy did this weekend.

And so here's where you go to do that. Go to fieldteam6, the number six,.org slash volunteer dash ops. Fieldteam6, the number,.org slash volunteer dash ops. And we here at Midas Touch are curating the best ways for you to get involved. As I said, this includes right now, we got in-person voter registration events coming up, phone banking, text banking, postcard, and we got a volunteer fair. So please get involved. Now is the time. There is no time to waste. Let's get into the news. I want to talk about a recent poll, the Congressional Generic Ballot Poll by Marist.

In April, it showed it pretty much neck and neck with Republicans up 47 percent to 44 percent. The new post Dobbs polling coming out showing a 10 point swing in favor of Democrats. That's the margin that experts frequently say is needed based on the way the maps are gerrymandered. I mean, our whole system is such an absurd process that you have to be up 10% to win nationwide as a Democrat through the congressional seats. But that is good news politically. But what's not good news legally is the decision in Dobbs. And let me break it down for you, though, about just from a pure legal perspective, why this is such a radical, extreme decision, just based on what we learn as lawyers and what they teach us in law school. And many of you may know, I went to Georgetown Law School.

I studied constitutional law. It's interesting. I took one day of class with a guy by the name of Paul Clement, who was the Solicitor General of the George W. Bush administration in Viet Dinh, who wrote the Patriot Act. And it was kind of a Federalist Society gateway kind of class. I lasted about one day in that class, and then I dropped the class that day when I saw what they were teaching. But I have a good deal of experience in this area representing people in constitutional cases. And really what the Supreme Court did on so many levels goes against literally everything they teach you in law school, everything they teach you about the law and going back to precedent and going back to stare decisis, which is this idea that we follow what the

Supreme Court previously holds and what it does. And we don't disrupt those decisions. And we certainly don't disrupt those decisions. And we certainly don't disrupt those decisions dramatically. And so what the Dobbs case was about, it was on a very narrow issue about Mississippi's 15 week abortion ban. That's what the case was about. So the Supreme Court was asked, was the 15 week ban a valid ban in light of Roe v. Wade and in light of Casey, which basically established a test of viability. And it said that when a fetus reaches a stage of viability, then governments,

their interest was a significant interest. And the government interest was such that they could regulate upon viability. And then you've seen many laws that the states were already enacting, which have been held to be okay laws and states requiring a certain amount of time before an abortion can take place, states requiring information be given. But ultimately, a woman had the right to choose. But rather than resolving the question of the Mississippi issue that was before it, they went further and they abolished 50 years of precedent in Roe v. Wade and said that Roe v. Wade is not good law. That's such a good point, Ben, and sorry to interrupt your flow here, but like they didn't have to go that far. Like there was nothing that said we have to totally completely get rid of Roe v. Wade. It wasn't a black or white thing. It wasn't yes, Roe v. Wade or no Roe v. Wade. It was

they could have taken a nuanced, which still would have been devastating, but they could have taken a more middle of the road approach here and said the 15 week ban stands, but Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land. And they didn't even do that. They use this as an opportunity to put their push, their radical fascist authoritarian agenda on this country. Yeah. When Roe v. Wade was decided, the reason that that court, by the way, it was a seven to two decision Roe v. Wade and five Republican appointed justices in Roe v. Wade made the decision of Roe v. Wade.

And so when Republicans say Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, Roe v. Wade was not decided by Democratic judges or liberal judges. They were decided by mostly by Republican judges. And it wasn't a very controversial decision at the time, per se. It became over time in terms of it being supported by the overwhelming amount of Americans at that time, which it still is supported by the overwhelming amount of Americans to this day. We 60, 65 percent of Americans supported Roe v. Wade and potentially more even just said, we don't want

the government being involved. But yes, Brett, not only did they not have to do an overturning of Roe v. Wade, based on all of the things that they've said before and what the Supreme Court rules are, they're not supposed to rule on issues not before it. And that's exactly what the Chief Justice John Roberts, it was a five to four decision. John Roberts, though, the Chief Justice basically said, look, I would uphold the Mississippi ban because I think that the viability standard doesn't really make much sense, especially as we evolve to know when is viability with modern science, but I'm not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. And our job as Supreme Court justices is to only answer the question before Wade. And our job as Supreme Court justices

is to only answer the question before it. That's the rule that governs us. So not only did they violate that rule and answered a different question before it, they overturned all of this historical precedent in Roe v. Wade, in Casey. And what they relied on in Justice Alito's majority opinion for the court was this idea of historical tradition and not, you know, they say, oh, we're originalist, we're textualist. They went back in history to see what rights were afforded to women in history. And when you look at history as your goalpost, especially a history from a male hierarchical standpoint, that's a history of burning witches at the stake. That is a history of women being second-class citizens. That is a history where these issues

were never talked about because what happens in history, we try to evolve and get better and improve systems and give people more rights and not try to take away their rights. And so that historical analysis was the main thing that they relied on. And they basically said, look, the founders don't mention abortion in the constitution at all. I don't see any reference to that. So let's look at history. And in history, this is how women were treated. So we're going to treat women the way they were treated in history. So that was their analysis in Roe. That's their also analysis in the case where New York had this concealed gun law on the book since 1911, where the state said,

we are going to make common sense regulation. People can have guns in New York, but we want them to show proper cause why they need a gun. And so if they can show us, hey, I need a gun because I'm a hunter. I need a gun because I'm in law enforcement. they need a gun. And so if they can show us, hey, I need a gun because I'm a hunter. I need a gun because I'm in law enforcement. I need a gun because I have these, you know, I do X, Y, and Z. Just show me proper cause and you can have a gun, you know, a concealed permit license. We'll be able to give it to you. But there, again, and this was a Clarence Thomas written opinion. We have Justice Alito wrote Dobbs. Clarence Thomas wrote this decision in New York State Rifle in Pistol Association versus Bruin.

And he said, let's look at history. And in history, in his view of history, people were allowed to have as much guns as they want. And then they use their analysis of the Second Amendment, which doesn't read into the Second Amendment the idea of a well-regulated militia. They just say the right to bear arms. And arms historically means any type of weapon. So even though AR-15 is not mentioned in the Constitution, right, you would say, well, nowhere in the Constitution does it say AR-15. They go, well, it says arms and we, the Supreme court thinks arms means any gun.

Like the founders were going to be aware that these weapons were going to happen. Yeah. You want to talk about history. You want to talk about historical precedent. Bullets weren't even invented at the time of the constitution. There were no fishing as bullets. So let's think about historical precedent here. And also there's just so much hypocrisy baked into this, of course. And even if you just look at the fact that they're saying that states are unable to regulate guns, but they're able to regulate a woman's body, that's hypocritical right there. The historical nature of it all is also a danger. And Clarence Thomas said this outright. He said, guess what we should look at? We should

look at the case that covers same-sex marriage. We should look at the case that covers same-sex relationships. He is coming for all these contraception. That's where the Supreme Court is heading with all of this. And I think time and time again, over the past few years, people have raised the alarm, including us at Midas Touch when we made the traffic stop GOP handmaid's salad. We've raised the alarm. We've said Roe is in danger. These rights are in danger. And people go, oh, you guys, you guys are being so alarmist here. You guys are being so alarmist. Why are you guys trying? What are you trying to get clicks and retweets? And no, we are trying to warn you of serious threats. And I hope that you're on board right now, because if you don't realize that our

alarmism is warranted, and if you don't realize that our alarmism is warranted, and if you are not yourself alarmed, either you are not paying attention or you are okay with it. And you like the fascism. You want these policies because there's really no other option at this point. Either you understand the game that they are playing and you are ready to fight back, or you are being willfully ignorant or you support it. So choose your side right now. Oh, I couldn't agree more. And who warned us specifically? You know, Hillary Clinton warned us. I want to play these clips, Brett, from the debate where she really wasn't even being asked the question. So she almost had to bring up the question on her own in one of the

debates. And then it was talked about in another debate. But let's play, you know, the first clip, Brett, of her giving this debate and her talking about how she hasn't even been asked the question of Roe v. Wade and her warning people about what would happen if they elect Donald Trump. That the only people that I would ever appoint to the Supreme Court are people who believe that Roe v. Wade is settled law and Citizens United needs to be overturned. And I want to say something about this, since we're talking about the Supreme Court and what's at stake. We've had eight debates before. This is our ninth.

We've not had one question about a woman's right to make her own decisions about reproductive health care. had one question about a woman's right to make her own decisions about reproductive health care. Not one question. And in the meantime, we have states, governors doing everything they can to restrict women's rights. Okay, so she said it in that debate. Let's play another clip from another debate where she says it as well. In this case, it's not only about Roe v. Wade. It is about what's happening right now in America. So many states are putting very stringent regulations on women that block them from exercising that choice to the extent that they are defunding Planned Parenthood, which, of course, provides all kinds of cancer screenings and other benefits for women in our country.

Donald has said he's in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood. He even supported shutting the government down to defund Planned Parenthood. I will defend Planned Parenthood. I will defend Roe v. Wade. And then for good measure, let's just even though this clip is not about reproductive rights, it is Hillary Clinton warning us about Donald Trump's fascism, which she repeatedly warned us about in the debates. Just play this clip because I think it's just worthy of just listening to so we can then make the point we want to make here generally. We've been around for 240 years. We've had free and fair elections.

We've accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them. And that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election. You know, President Obama said the other day, when you're whining before the game is even finished, it just shows you're not up to doing the job. And let's, you know, let's be clear about what he is saying and what that means. He is denigrating. He's talking down our democracy. And I, for one, am appalled that somebody who is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position. I mean, I'm almost speechless when I listen to that because it just sends chills

down my spine. And I think about that election in particular, and I'm not going to name names of people or organizations that I see right now who are basically railing at the Supreme Court. How could this happen? This is fascism brought to America. Many of these were the same organizations and the same groups who called themselves progressive, who called themselves liberal, who basically suppressed the vote for Hillary Clinton and said in 2016 that because she wasn't the perfect candidate, they weren't going to vote for her because she didn't check every single box and didn't pass their purity test that they weren't going to vote for her. So you let Donald Trump win. And you see signs of

that even taking place now. And I hope this is the wake-up call, even though it is the worst type of wake-up call that could ever take place. But I saw that same rhetoric where if Biden didn't pass the 100% agenda that you wanted, but is fighting for the 100% agenda, but based on the realities of our political system, couldn't deliver that 100% agenda. People are like, well, then I'm not going to vote. I'm staying at home. I'm not going to vote Democrat. What are Democrats doing for us? And I don't know what else I can tell you or show you other than those Hillary Clinton clips. I don't know what's at stake. Is the goal here

for people who say that then to elect the person who's literally trying to kill them? Is that the option that they want? They prefer the person who wants to take away all their rights against the people who are trying to fight for their rights, who may not always succeed. So they're going to allow the people taking away their rights to win. And let's just play some of the clips of some of these people and the absurd things that they say. Let's compare and contrast the Clinton clip

and let's just play the Lara Trump clip who's now the kind of main Trump surrogate out there. And this was her response to the decision in Dobbs. Long ago that even people who are very far left or were very far left would even admit that it was a terrible decision for a woman to have to make if she had to make the decision to have an abortion, and that it affects the woman, it affects the child,

obviously, in irreversible ways. But now it seems to be championed in a way. And people are advocating for you to have an abortion as opposed, Nicole, to giving you the choice to choose whatever you want. It's terrible. And it honestly seems like there's a moral decay that is set in on our society.

And I think it's contributed to some of that. It's the gaslighting, the utter stupidity, and the authoritarianism that takes away your rights is kind of the commonality here. All wrapped in one package. All wrapped in one. The argument that because of this decision in Dobbs, that now gives choice to women. That's what they're arguing. That's what they're arguing. And let's just play Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her one about now how, let's just use the words that she says about how safe women are. Let's play the clip.

We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom, the workplace, a nursing home, because every stage of life has value. No one greater than the other. Unbelievably, as Brian Tyler Cohen noted, ah yes, classrooms in 2022, famous for safety. These people are just so- All those locations. All those locations, workplaces. Yeah. It's a speech you would almost hear out of like like veep like a tv show is and but it just it's reality and it's not funny at all well here's the thing like

and this is kind of the progression of like first it was like wait a minute you can't even have veep on the air anymore because like the real parody is what's taking place and then you're like wait a minute you can't even really watch Handmaid's Tale anymore because that's not parody. In many ways, the dystopian society they have there is similar to what's going on. I mean, obviously some of the theatrical dramatics and the clothing and things like that are not what's going on, but you really have this theocratic, authoritarian, extremist Supreme Court that are now divining things based on their interpretation of historical tradition and a historical tradition that's based on what they believe where people were

second-class citizens. And remember, what this ties in with, it's all part of a plan and it's all moving collectively together, which is why we as pro-democracy loving people need to be focused on building coalitions together. At the same time, the Supreme Court is saying we need to look to our history. What is their political arm doing? We need to erase our history. We need to purify our history to remove any references to diversity and to championing what happened in the past that led to why we are fighting for equal rights. We need to remove, they call it, they came up with their term, which was a law school class, critical race theory, as being taught when it was only taught in law school, to erase diversity from textbooks.

So much so to erase diversity in math books and to take away books from our library so that their version of history can shine. And a very dark version of history. And then you have the question as well of like the 14 states, we have these trigger laws that are going to be already taking effect and will be taking to effect about 13 or 14 states, which have on the books, the moment Roe is overturned, their abortion bans will go into place. And some of those have already started in states. Some of them will be continuing to take place in other states. But the 14 states that have the most restrictive abortion laws, including South Dakota, for example, invest the least in policies and programs for women and children. And Governor Kristi Noem was interviewed about that exact topic. And

let's give, let's just play what her answer is, which is a bunch of gibberish, because they have no real answer. And listen to what the words that she says. It's like more of the same gaslighting. We want to help support these mothers. I think we can do better in this country, making sure that we're walking alongside them in these situations and making sure that they do have the type of health care and the support financially that they need. Well, let's look at that support. The Nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, a social policy think tank, says the 14 states that have the most restrictive abortion laws, including South Dakota, invest the least in policies and programs for women and children. So what do you mean when you say these mothers will never be alone?

Well, I would say that the facts on the ground are that South Dakota is doing a lot to coordinate with nonprofits, with churches, and then also the state in a new way by launching this website and committing to in legislative session to support these mothers is incredibly powerful. You know, this is a conversation that we have a change now at the federal level. The states will be each evaluating how they approach this situation. Getting health care to mothers, helping them during a time of crisis is incredibly important. And these states, remember, Martha, are overwhelmed right now with other situations that are going on with what Joe Biden is doing to the energy prices in this country, what inflation is. I want to stick with our nation. I want to go back

to abortion. Governor, a lot of things that need to be addressed in this country. Just the endless and endless gaslighting, just nonstop. And it's also because they know that it's an untenable position and they know that the American people are not behind them on this radical position. So what do they do? They try to create these diversions. They try to gaslight you. And one of the other ways they try to gaslight you is by this mythical left wing violence that's coming. Oh, look, the left is about to get so violent. They're about to kill you. They're about to rush into Capitol buildings. Oh, where are we? Where have we seen that before? Where are they're about to do X, Y and Z. So you need to protect yourself. Be safe. President Biden, you got to start protecting people and they try to get fear. And everything on Fox News lately has been this fear of we're bracing for violence. We're bracing for violence. And guess what? The violence has not come from those in support of choice. The violence has come from the right. We saw an incident in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where a truck driver mowed down in his truck a few peaceful protesters who

were protesting the road decision. We've seen this horrible footage of police officers across the country, macing people, throwing them to the ground, beating them with batons at these peaceful protests. That is the violence that we're seeing. And then you have people like Kevin McCarthy with his endless tweets about left wing violence. Beware of violence from the left. You have Ted Cruz doing the same thing. Beware of violence from the left. It's coming. It's coming. You have this garbage Rudy Giuliani story, which ties into it, which we'll get to later because I don't want to mix this issue up with that issue, but it does have to do with this as well. But that's what they're

doing. It's just an endless gaslighting to try to make people afraid, afraid of things that don't really exist. So they don't see what's actually happening to them and what's actually happening to this country. And what's happening is that people's rights are being stripped away at the fastest rate we have ever seen in this country. And it is terrifying. And it is because of these fascist Republicans who are trying to turn us into a theocracy.

And we say it a lot on the show. The Republican Party are just master projectionists at this point. Everything that they try and warn you that the left is going to do, they're already doing. They're the ones doing the insurrection. They're the ones causing chaos in the streets. And it's that dangerous gaslighting rhetoric that's made this country so divisive. Guess what? The people who aren't the more polished up politicians, they are saying the quiet part out loud, these people. They're not afraid to say why this is really a victory for them. And I want to point you to this one person, white nationalist, Vincent James, who said that overturning road does not go far enough. In fact, now what we have to do

is we need to start rolling back the rights of women for the past hundred years. And I'm not exaggerating here. Let me play the clip. You can never be content. You can never be happy with the victories that come about for us. You have to always keep pushing. You have to always have the mindset that, okay, this is great, but this does not go far enough. We have to move on to the next thing. Things have gotten so completely out of control, as far as licentiousness is concerned, that we need to start to roll things back in order to begin to restore order. And yes, that might look like rolling back the rights of women over the past hundred years. That's probably going to look exactly like that. To most people.

Especially liberals. But that is what is needed to be done. There's something next on the horizon. Because gay marriage. Is going to be going away. Contraceptives are going to be going away. Anal sex. You know the anal sex that you like to have. That's going to be going away as well.

And many other things are going to be going away because there is a true rise of Christian nationalism in this country. And he's not saying that as be aware of this threat. He's giddy about it. He is very happy about it. And Ben, that reminded me of something actually that you were talking to me about over the weekend where you basically said, here's the thing when you traffic and just hate and when your policies are designed to just hate people and oppress people. we got this big victory and now we have our rights restored and we feel good. No, it's, there's no bottom to it because you still feel that rage regardless of how much you oppress people. Just tell me, like, just tell the listeners what you were telling me about that, because this is the perfect example of that. Yeah. You know, I saw a great clip from,

it's called the damage report. And they made that great point that when your agenda is to take rights away from people, when you see Trump supporters and MAGA supporters, even when they get a win, a win for them is taking a right away from someone else. additional health care. They're not getting more income for themselves. They're not getting their student debt issues addressed. They're not getting more vacation time from work. They're not getting safer worker conditions. They're not getting their social security further protected. They're not getting all of these things delivered to them, which exist in mostly all modern democracies kind of outside of the United States of America. They're not getting more rest breaks and lunch breaks and higher salary and higher wages. So the wins for them are how have we hurt another group? And so now they hurt women and then they hurt LGBTQ plus, and then they hurt other vulnerable

groups of people over and over again by taking away their rights versus how are they restoring their rights? I mean, to me, when Obamacare passed, which is universally applauded now, I don't really hear other than certain right wing groups that are trying to get rid of it and people who just will attack Obama on the right because he's Obama. But people, 23, 24 million Americans got healthcare because of him. It was a celebration that you may otherwise have died because you couldn't afford that surgery. So my celebration is that that's a big win for us as people. Not that I took away your healthcare. And Ben, it's such a good point too, because in the

same kind of momentum, like if you look at momentum shifts of passion, like where do you focus your energy next? Right? Their energy is okay. We took away rights from this group. I feel empty inside. What do I do now? I got to take away rights from this group now. And I got to take away rights from this group now. When something like Obamacare passes, the opposite reaction is, okay, well, how do we do more for people? How do we now expand coverage and make it even more affordable? How can we make coverage free for people? Is there a Medicare for all option? Is there a way to get a public option in here? That's the opposite of the right wing version of that. It's a striving to say, okay, we got this plan. Now it works. We got people on it. We have people that aren't now

falling through the cracks. Now, how do we really save lives and expand on this and make people's lives better? That's the opposite direction of all that. Yeah. Linda Greenhouse, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter who reported on the Supreme Court for the Times from 1978 to 2008 and was an opinion writer from 2009 to 2020. She wrote an incredible guest essay for the New York Times called Requiem for the Supreme Court. I would tell everybody to listen to this. And she makes so many great points. I mean, the entire essay is incredible. So I'd read the whole thing. But there was one point that stood out to me particularly because one of the bases for Justice Alito's historical tradition analysis in Overturning Roe is the turmoil that Roe versus

Wade created in his historical review and historical analysis. And this is what Linda Greenhouse says. She says, quote, Justice Alito's reference to turmoil reminded me of nothing so much as Donald Trump's invocation of carnage in his inaugural address. There was no carnage then, but there was carnage to come. And everyone references the inauguration of Trump and his whole speech was America carnage. America is a horrible place. America has all of these problems. America is this dystopian vision. And then he went about creating the dystopian vision. Roe v. Wade gave choice to women and created a great deal of stability. States were still permitted to provide the literature and the information and do those things under that. And states were still permitted to

have regulation upon viability under Casey. States were allowed to do those things. That existed and that created stability for 50 years. And now what we're already hearing about are stories of women with ectopic pregnancies who need abortion care because without it, they will die through the ectopic pregnancy. could mean, not could, will mean that that doctor under the current trigger laws in place for the states would be charged with murder. And these are many states that have the death penalty. So trying to find a doctor to provide the healthcare needed in situations like ectopic pregnancies and similar situations like that, which takes place very, very, very frequently. That's outlawed apparently, right? And that's the broad sweep of these rules. And then you can get into, of course, that these states have no exceptions for rape. They view upon fertilization as when abortion rights, it was when their laws outlawing abortion and reproductive care would take place upon fertilization. And so the question is also,

what does that mean for in vitro fertilization? What does that mean for other areas too that are now, and that's also one of the things that Requiem for the Supreme Court goes into, and that's the turmoil that's also being created and just removing choice. They're celebrating harming women, and that to me is disgusting. And we've played you these clips and I want to move on to the other case that I was talking about that was just decided today by the Supreme Court and Kennedy versus Bremerton. But you've seen the clips of Hillary Clinton. You've seen the clips of these right-wingers and what they're doing, what they will continue to do. And so the question is, what country do you want? What country do you want? If you can't get

motivated and get other people motivated, and we can't win this election, I genuinely do fear that our country is gone. I mean, we actually have an opportunity. And I know I said I'd move on, but let me just give you one other thought right now, though, about, I think, what we can do. What's an action item even right now, a step that we can take right now? I know that Manchin and Sinema have said that they don't agree with abolishing the filibuster generally, but everybody recall the filibuster is abolished when it comes to nominating Supreme Court justices and voting on Supreme Court justices. There is no filibuster for that. So it's not like the filibuster exists for all purposes. That was

called the nuclear option. The nuclear option was off the table. Each party blamed each other for you know, for invoking the nuclear option. But nonetheless, there is no filibuster when it comes to nominating Supreme Court justices. So my question is the following. Manchin and Sinema and even Collins, you all are saying that you were defrauded by these Supreme Court justices who told you that they were not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Susan Collins, Justice Gorsuch looked you in the eye according to the notes from you and your staffers, which were leaked to the New York Times. And he said, I wrote the book on precedent. Of course, you can trust me that I'm not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. So some people are like,

focused on what the Supreme Court justices said during the hearing, their confirmation hearings, where they said, we'll agree with precedent, we won't overturn precedent. But they never specifically said, we won't overturn Roe v. Wade precedent, which I think they clearly did by saying that this is precedent and we don't overturn precedent. And we agree with precedent on top of precedent. But even if you move that aside, they lied to federal officers and federal officials. They went into the room and they specifically said there, we will not overturn Roe v. Wade, trust us. I wrote the book on precedent. Kavanaugh said, you can trust me not to overturn Roe v. Wade because I'm not the kind of person who will rock the ship in a situation like

this. I would never do that. That's in her notes. So what should you do? Well, if for the narrow purpose of voting on Supreme Court justices, there's no filibuster, well, here's my rule. If a Supreme Court justice defrauds you for purposes of being nominated and approved and confirmed based on that issue, but for that issue, you wouldn't have voted for them, the filibuster should be abolished to remedy the fraud. It's a very simple solution. You will remedy the fraud by now codifying Roe v. Wade because they lied to you and they told you they were going to keep Roe v. Wade because they lied to you and they told you they were going to keep Roe v. Wade in place. So to remedy the wrong where the filibuster wasn't invoked, let's just not use the filibuster for just that purpose. My overall view is that the

filibuster is an absurd thing anyway, and I think broader abolition of the filibuster, but we don't even have to get there. That's how I would analyze it on a very discreet basis. And I think that's one of the things we should be pressuring them to do. Now, I think it's brilliant analysis, but if we're relying on Susan Collins or anybody like that to do anything right of fold, I think we're in a lot of trouble. But I think you can't focus on the issue of the difference in my plan versus lots of plans, though, is being very specific that it is narrowly tailored to remedying the fraud against you. But I'm with you that Susan Collins is difficult to get around. I do want to talk briefly about Kennedy versus Bremerton. And Jordy, you and I had this debate going into the show, and I don't mean to put you on the spot, but your view was basically, hey, this situation involves a coach. It's after the game.

According to the facts here, the coach is on his own. He's kneeling, and he's engaged in kind of a silent prayer after the game. It's not like he's like forcing players to do it. And so as I read these facts, you know, is there really something that kind of wrong and nefarious with these set of facts? Am I selling your position? That is an accurate interpretation of how we discussed this prior to the pod. And yeah, I mean, I'll just go a little bit of a step further. You know, I played football growing up and it was kind of commonplace, not specifically for coaches to pull kids aside or to do their prayers, but you had players who

would pray before or after the games. Football is inherently a very dangerous game where you're putting your life on the line every snap. And so to make it out of the game without any serious injury and with your life is something that people really take seriously. And in my personal belief, pray to whoever you need to pray to if you're a religious person, because the game is that dangerous. And so as I kind of explained to you, and I appreciated us having an area where I think there's a clear area of disagreement. But what I wanted to explain to you is what you just said is the very trap the radical right Supreme Court wanted you to fall into. They specifically picked the case with a very sympathetic fact pattern to achieve an objective that would undermine the separation

of church and state by a reaction that you just had. Because what their broader goal and vision was, was to eliminate what was called the Lemon Test. And it's based on this case that starts with the individual by the name of Lemon, or that was the heading of the case. And that case basically said, we have to do a multi-part test to analyze if there is a violation of church and state, the Establish Is there an establishment clause violation? And so what they would look to is the effect of it. And so by looking at the effect of something, what they would look and they would balance the interest, they would say, it's not just the football coach. The football coach is the leader of the team.

By him engaging in this conduct, you have to follow what the coach is going to do. And it's not really a silent prayer. It's the coach trying to tell other people to engage in the prayer. But you have a state actor, because the coach is a teacher, engaged on school property with a prayer, kind of using his implied course of authority as a coach. You listen to your coach to do it, but you look at the impact of how a policy impacts. So what the Supreme Court did though here is abolish that test and said, we're not going to even look at the lemon test anymore. So this is where they get a little, they use this sympathetic case and say, all we're going to look to in making these determinations

is historical tradition. And we're going to go back to determine if there is an establishment clause violation or if what we should really be focusing on is the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. And so when you read the First Amendment, it says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, establishment clause. The next sentence is, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, the free exercise clause. And what they basically are saying is, based on our view of history, the same way they view history with the Second Amendment, right? A well-regulated militia being necessary.

We'll read out that. We believe history just says the right to bear arms. That's our view of history. Here with this decision, what they're saying is our view of history is the free exercise part, not really the respecting the establishment of religion part. So they've snuck in through this case, the abolition of a precedent that's been around for a very long time in the lemon test, which basically said separation of churches, it's a real thing. It's a serious thing. You want to go and pray. You want to have church. You want to do all of that. That's great. We support that. Just

don't do it in state sponsored events. But what they've done now is they've now basically said there really is no separation of church and state. Now this case will be how you get in all these other things where religion will be taught in schools. And we saw that also with the decision last week as well, forcing states to subsidize churches and church schools if they subsidize any other private institution. So that's what they did there. It's the domino effect. How you explained it is how I wasn't looking at it. I was really looking at it as that one focus central issue, not realizing you can't. Also, listen, no one cares if the coach wants to go and pray on his own. Like no,

that no one has a problem with that, but it's when the coach as the leader of the team, as a state sponsored actor is then leading prayer sessions with his players, it becomes a problem. And all you got to do is put any other religion in that box. And it becomes pretty damn obvious that they would not be okay with this if it was any other situation. But put a Muslim coach in there leading prayers based on the Quran. They would have a huge fucking problem with that. Put a Jewish coach leading prayers about the Torah. They would have a huge problem with that at these schools. And the parents would freak out and they would sue, and it would be a huge deal. It's one thing if you were at a private religious institution,

and that's going on. That's one thing. But when you're at a public school, religion has no place in a public school. You can't have a world where you go to math class and your teacher goes, okay, before we start doing these math problems, let's take out the Bible and read a passage and pray. You can't do that in public school, full stop. And what this sets it up is it sets it up so that we could be going on here. And it's also worth noting, too, that these these rulings that they are overurning these very clear cut cases and they are turning America very rapidly into this theocracy. I mean, it's it's what's happening before our eyes. It's all tied together. This is tied together with the abortion ruling. It's tied together with the paying for religious schools. It's all it's all the same thread. This is what's happening in America. And so you need to be aware of what's happening in America and how each of these cases is chipping away at our freedom of speech, our freedom of religion, our freedom from religion, by the way, as well. All that stuff is being

totally chipped away by this radical right Supreme Court and the Republican Party. It's a great point you raise, Brett, because these decisions that the Supreme Court are trying to now portray as being these rogue decisions by the Supreme Court, like Roe v. Wade and like Lemon, these were decided overwhelmingly by Republican appointed judges. These were not like decisions by, as I mentioned earlier in the show, like Democratic appointed judges. They were done in very nonpartisan ways because these views were viewed as kind of very common sense things. Like with the lemon test, of course, we should look at the effect of how the conduct impacts things, right? Like, of course, we should look at the

effect. We're just going to look into our, we're going to summon the Oracle of white supremacy and our view of a Christian nation. We're going to summon that. And what does that say? Oh, that says guns everywhere. What does it say? Let's summon the Oracle. And the Oracle says no rights for women and LGBTQ plus. Let's summon the Oracle and go to history. History tells us, but that's what they're doing. It's an absurd way I'm saying it, but that's what they're saying versus, hey- It makes just as much sense as when you read those documents that they put. I mean- We live in 2022. We need to look at how these things impact people. That's what the Supreme

Court now is saying. Yo, that is controversial. We need to summon up what we And even though the history even suggests, otherwise they make up their own history too, about how to justify it. Like if you break down the second amendment and what militias were and how militias were armed, it means nothing like what they say. If you break down the common sense of what the second amendment says, if militia should be well-regulated, shouldn't the individual be well-regulated? So militias, army, yeah, you get regulated. Individuals, you're cool. Take that AR-15. No instruction needed. Go for it. But militias, we're going to regulate you. That make any sense to you if you just look at the words? And these are people who call themselves originalists

and strict textualists. I call them fascist bullshit artists is what they really are. And talking about fascist bullshit artists, let's talk about Rudy Giuliani for a second. Let's talk about this Donald Trump digital world acquisition company. We could probably lump them into our category. We'll close the show with lying sacks of shit. Before doing that, everybody go to store.midastouch.com. Go to store.midastouch.com. It's where we have all the Midas merch. Lots of people, I mean, people have been loving the new shop and all the merch we have there. Store.midastouch.com is where you can get all your Midas merch. Talking about though, let's talk about Giuliani first. Brett,

we want to talk about Giuliani. Yeah, we'll talk about it. So yesterday it came out, you know, there were all these reports, the New York Post, all these people saying Rudy Giuliani was assaulted. And this is goes with what I was saying earlier about these kind of claims of violence from the left was assaulted by somebody who was a protester, who was mad about the Roe v. Wade decision, and he assaulted Rudy, almost killed Rudy. Rudy almost died. It was practically an assassination attempt against Rudy Giuliani. These were all the headlines. He was attacked. He was assaulted near death. That's the most absurd things. And Rudy Giuliani went and he started taking to the various, I don't know, just weirdo radio stations that he goes on, whoever allows him. This guy's a disgusting guy. He goes on one and he says, oh, you know, he talks about how he could have fallen. He could have cracked his skull. It felt like a bomb went off, you know,

all this. It felt like he was shot in the back. It felt like he was shot in the back. That was the word he used. And so, you know, everybody was like, you know, the right got up all up in see the violent radical left. Look at them at it. They're they're assaulting Rudy Giuliani. And so, you know, everybody was like, you know, the right got up all up and see the violent radical left. Look at them at it. They're they're assaulting Rudy Giuliani. And so then the footage comes out because these people have got to realize it's 2022 and everything is taped. And so the CCTV, the surveillance footage comes out of this event. And I'm just going to say it doesn't quite line up with Rudy's story. And I'll play it right now for our viewers. And I'll narrate for our listeners as to what's going on. So you have Rudy surrounded by a few people in a ShopRite supermarket. He's just standing there. Somebody taps him on the back, kind of as if you were like an attaboy. It's a very light tap. It's not even like a hard tap. And then the person next to them puts their arm around Rudy. Everybody

looks at this guy. They clearly engage in a quick verbal spat, a verbal back and forth. And then the guy is kind of pushed away and that's it. I think Rudy ended up having the guy arrested for assault. Clearly not a near death experience, not a bullet going through his shoulder. I mean, I pet my dog harder than that. It's literally a tap on the, it was a tap. It was like a love tap on the shoulder. And let's just hear Rudy Giuliani's description of the event now that you've heard me speak about this and for the viewers now that you've watched this. Let's listen to Rudy's take on this issue. First thing I have to do is I have to use the men's room. So I get out, I walk to the men's room, I come out of the

men's room, a group of people are around me, hugging me, kissing me, telling me Andrew's great. And all of a sudden, I feel a shot on my back. Like somebody shot me. I went forward, but luckily, I didn't fall down. Lucky I'm a 78 year old is in pretty good shape. Because if I wasn't, I'd have hit the ground and probably cracked my skull. All right. That's all we need to hear. But let me, okay. I've got a few comments already even. That goes on for another minute. I think we get it though in 29 seconds. Let me just jump in real quick. Let me just jump in real quick. Yeah. So I think where this happened is also an important factor of the story because that clip you just heard came out before the surveillance tape came out.

And so this happened in Staten Island at a ShopRite. And we're from Long Island and we've been to Staten Island before. Staten Island gets a bit trumpy. And so Rudy is sort of surrounded by his team, his group of people. So when this happens and he gets tapped on the back, you know, his group of people who are shaking his hand, trying to take pictures immediately come to his defense and they immediately just don't care about facts or the situation as what happened. They'll believe and go along with the story that Rudy wants to tell. And so immediately after this had come out, Rudy says, you know, it was like he got shot. Then everyone has their marching orders. And someone from the shop, right? I think it was the woman who was right next to Rudy came

out on tape and just reiterated that story. You're dealing with people who don't deal with facts. Jordy, they're very soft. They come up with their own sort of reality. They create their own thing. And this is what they do with everything. And they're perpetual victims. This is what they do with everything. The guy was tapped on the back. I was shot. I was murdered. Oh my God. God save me.

What am I going to do? You are not, you were barely tapped. And then he goes on this radio show. And I have a lot of comments about this radio interview that I'm excited to get to. So because first the Curtis Silva show, this guy wearing like a red beret. I don't even know what the hell this is. What program is this? W ABC 77.

So he goes on this Curtis Silva show. The first egregious lie that he tells is this. I walked't even know what the hell this is. What program is this? WABC 77. So he goes on this Curtis Silva show. The first egregious lie that he tells is this. I walked to the men's room. I come out of the men's room. A group of people are around me, hugging me, kissing me, telling me Andrew's great. I don't think anybody was hugging Rudy, kissing Rudy and telling him how great Andrew was. I think that's the first kind of lie of the thing. Second of all, if you look at the tape, the picture they use of Rudy Giuliani has to be like from the 90s. That's not present day Rudy Giuliani.

If you don't have 90s Rudy Giuliani on the phone, but you have current day crazy Rudy, I think you need to show a crazy Rudy picture and not this photo. It's just not an accurate representation. And then let's hear how Rudy describes his health and his wellbeing. Lucky I'm a 78 year old who's in pretty good shape.

He sounds like the beacon of health, Rudy. Lucky I'm a 78 year old is in pretty good shape. Because if I wasn't, I'd have hit the ground and probably cracked my skull. Again, it was a pat. It was a pat. It was a pat. As Brett said, he would pet his dog harder than Rudy was patted. And then can we just play real quick the woman who was standing next to him? And I just want to reiterate, I think this is important because this was before the footage had come out. And so they thought they were going to get away with this story. And they basically just got exposed.

How quickly did this incident happen? It happened so quickly. I mean, I was shoulder to shoulder with Giuliani. Okay. And, you know, I could have been hit. Never mind me. I just felt bad for Giuliani. He hit him so hard that I felt it. That's how bad it was. Could you describe the person who allegedly assaulted Giuliani? You know, like I said, I'm an often shopper here and I've seen that employee in here. You you know i've never had words with him or anything i i'm actually stunned that this gentleman did that especially knowing you know

everybody in here is very all this staff they're very helpful nice the owners are nice to everybody anything else you want to add rudy almost died i found the interviewer to be kind of funny too like like even though she just said like anything else you want to add it's like you want to tell me some more dumb shit about what happened can you give me some more dumb shit please because i just want to see how absurd you're going to make it. And look, should the person have even touched him on the back versus just, you know, give the criticism or if you're working, should you, you know, and you're an employee of the entity, you know, should you, do you absolutely have a right? If do invoke your First Amendment right to say it, you should say it, but you may get fired from your job if you say it during work hours. But you absolutely have the right to say it.

Should you have touched him? He probably shouldn't have touched him, his back. But should that, is Rudy Giuliani the biggest liar in the world for kind of making up this fake scenario. And Brett, I guess the only point of highlighting it, though, is it is it's like they're the biggest bunch of whiners, crybabies, you know, perpetual victims feel bad for me. Oh, you know, Trump, they're all attacking me. I'm always attacked. I'm this. It's like, dude, you're the most powerful person in the world when you were the president

of the United States. Like, you're a billionaire. You're not a victim. You inherited hundreds of millions of dollars from your dad. Stop this woe is me bullshit. But the whole ideology is we're under attack. We're victims. And because of that basis, we're going to use that fake victimhood to actually really victimize and torture people through real physical torture, through real separation of families at the border, through real discriminatory measures. We are going to claim we are fake victims so that we could affirmatively victimize vulnerable people and people generally. And when I say, you know, the vulnerable people, that's where they start. And then they come for you.

That is that is what we that is what history is. And it's the same thing. Yeah. I like you said, like it's what history taught us, because it's the same thing we see in Russia right now. What's happening in Russia? That's how Putin runs his government. It's the same thing we see in Russia right now. What's happening in Russia? That's how Putin runs his government. It's the same thing we saw in Nazi Germany. It's these people are monsters to take away your rights. Look at how radical they are. Look what they're doing to you. They're destroying traditional marriage. They're

destroying your religion. They're destroying this. So in order to fix that problem, we got to take some drastic measures right now to restore, quote, freedom. And that's what we've seen throughout history. And that is why this Rudy scenario, while funny and while silly, is so important for us to highlight, because if they're willing to lie about things that small, you see what they're willing to do on an even greater scale to really oppress people, victimize people and even kill people. company, which merged with Trump Media Company, as we now have learned based on a recent filing from the SPAC, the Digital World Acquisition Company. This is the entity that is looking to acquire the made-up Truth Social, which was made up after the special purpose acquisition company. But where it appears conversations about launching this occurred before the SPAC was announced, which is a big, big no-no. It's against the law. It's against SEC rules to essentially collude with the company that you're going to create before you

create a special purpose acquisition company. We've learned that the federal grand jury subpoena has been sent to Digital World Acquisition Company. It's now trading at about $25 a share from its peak that I think was in the 160s or 170s. I don't think anybody called this earlier than you or you and Popak combined on this show. From day one, Ben was like, oh, they're going to be investigated by the Feds, like 100%. There's going to be an SEC investigation. They're going to be raided by the FBI, like all the above. And it's happened. Like, it's all happened.

It's become an area, you know, in my other practice when I'm not doing Midas Touch, you know, I've developed a familiarity. I wouldn't go as far to say a specialty. But in special purpose acquisition companies, which are essentially blank check companies or basically corporate shells that go public, they raise money, and then they're tasked with once they go public with then acquiring another company that's out there and bringing that company public. So you think about one way to go public and be on a stock market is through an IPO process. Think about the other way is a special purpose acquisition company, which is a quicker way to go public than an IPO when you merge a company that's a private company with the

special purpose acquisition company, the holding company. And so it wasn't really hard for me to predict this if you know just very basic information about a SPAC, because the holding company usually has to merge with a company that exists. There was no truth social. It wasn't a company. It didn't have revenue. It didn't do things. Normally, when a SPAC is looking at a company, they're looking, okay, can I see it as trailing revenue for 2020, 2019, 2018? Is the revenue increasing? There wasn't even a thing that existed. So the question is, how would they have acquired a thing that doesn't exist unless there were a broader plan to basically inflate the stock price of the SPAC by using

the Trump brand to do that and then kind of create a company that didn't exist in the first place. Because you have shorted the stock? Well, it's what I have shorted the stock. I mean, it's a very complex question while it sounds like an easy question because the question on these like mean, fraudy kind of stocks is when do you short them? What's the time frame from shorting them? What's the price at which you short them?

You know, so when it was at, when it was trading at its crazy, you know, levels, you know, could you have shorted the stock then? I think there's a lot of people who did short the stock then and said, no, this,

there's no basis for this valuation. It's going to go down. One of the things that Trump did also that people don't really talk about with the stock too, is that once they got the price at that incredibly inflated level, most SPACs trade at $10 a share, not anything above it until the merger is completed, not announced, completed. And then oftentimes it's very rare for a SPAC to even trade above 10, although good SPACs are able to trade above 10, but consistent with its revenue or consistent with its EBITDA, like consistent with data, not based on made up things. And so once the stock was trading at this wildly inflated price, they then went to what's called the pipe market, which is a private investment in public equity,

and then came up with a way to, at its core, screw over retail investors by promising these institutional pipe investors discounts upon which the retail investors were getting their shares at. So that ultimately the retail investors would be screwed in the long run, even if the stock price decreased and diminished. And off the back of the pipe and off of screwing the retail investors, that's one of the ways that they were able to fund the launch of Truth Social. So I could go down this rabbit hole and give a whole lesson in this, but I rather I spare you from it. Suffice to say that they're looking at what the grand jury is probably looking at is insider

trading and where people tipped off about the SPAC going public before because there was unusual trading volumes taking place and And were there unlawful negotiations before the announcement as well? And the relationship between this guy, I think his name is Brian Orlando, who's one of the people who started the SPAC, who's got this weird kind of strange history too. He's not a well-known finance guy who's got major experience in the area, but whether his advisory firm, I think it's called like ARC something, ARC Capital, what their involvement was as well, that was part of the subpoena. So we'll keep you all updated there. And now we have some breaking news as we're- Before breaking news, did you have a question about the SPAC, Brett?

Are you telling me, I just need to get it straight. I'm just like, Donald Trump potentially engaged in criminal behavior? You know- I thought I just need to get it straight. I'm just like, Donald Trump potentially engaged in criminal behavior. You know, I thought I was going to say something. Let's move on to the break. I will say definitely potentially. Okay. So let's, this is the breaking news just in and get ready because the January 6th committee has just announced that they are going to be holding a surprise

hearing tomorrow. That's Tuesday. If you're listening to this podcast on audio, that is today, Tuesday at 1 p.m. Eastern. That is going down. They say that they have obtained new evidence and they're going to receive new witness testimony that they need the public to hear. I think this is a massive, massive, massive, massive deal because they were currently not planning before this. They weren't planning on holding another hearing until July. And so they just decided to set this emergency hearing for Tuesday at 1 PM Eastern. So I am excited to hear what happens in these bombs. That means they called everyone back from the 4th of July vacation to come back and recess.

This is a big deal. They do not do this lately. They do not do this lately. So you need to tune in. You need to watch and you need to spread the word about these hearings and make sure everyone you know watches. And the best place to watch the January 6th hearings, as always, we are getting our cameras there right now to figure out what time we could get in there. Our coverage always begins one hour before the hearing with our expert panels. We have some of the best guests. We got the best coverage, unapologetically pro-democracy. We will never both sides this shit for you. We will always give it to you straight, and we will always ensure that we are upholding our democracy.

So you can watch that on the Midas Touch YouTube channel starting at noon Eastern, 9 a.m. Pacific time. That's youtube.com slash Midas Touch. That's youtube.com slash Midas Touch at noon Eastern on Tuesday. Tune in for these bombshell hearings. Set your notifications right now. This is going to be huge. I cannot even imagine what made them cancel their recess to have these hearings, what evidence they obtained. Who knows? It's going to be the documentary footage that they were talking about because

apparently the Trump family taped the whole thing because they thought this was a great idea. Looking forward to this. And this is a this is a big, big, big, big, big deal. And we're learning, for example, that Eric Trump had told the filmmaker of it that inciting violence was, quote, fair game. And so we will see. It would be so great if Eric Trump was. It would be so Eric Trump. Like, I definitely we need Don Jr.

We need Donald. You know, we need Don Jr. We need Donald. You know, we need Ivanka Kushner, the whole criminal cartel. But it would just be great if we just cuffed Eric Trump. Like that kid is, that kid just needs to go down. Like just as like an appetizer.

Like, you know, like, you know, when you go to like the, if you go to the, just as like an appetizer, like you go there, like that would be like my mozzarella stick to my steak would be Eric Trump. You know, I'd be like, all right, that was a good taste. Eric Trump is so not worthy of mozzarella sticks. He's really not. Eric Trump would be like, okay, Eric Trump. I could go on. I want to see this footage. Eric Trump probably laid out the whole cool plan.

The whole cool plan. He probably just explained to the filmmaker. Eric Trump is such a dumb shit. He probably told them. Yeah, exactly. He's probably like, all right. Yeah, of course my dad wants to attack the Capitol and incite violence in order to overthrow the government.

We'll find out. Tune in. We will find out. Tune in and make sure everybody that you are subscribed right now to the Midas Touch YouTube channel and that you're subscribed to Midas Touch on audio. Here is my big ask for all of you. If you're watching this on YouTube right now and you're not subscribed, hit the subscribe

button right this second on the Midas Touch YouTube channel. If you're watching it on YouTube, then go over to Midas Touch Audio, wherever you get your podcasts, just search Midas Touch and subscribe right now to the Midas Touch podcast. And if you want to subscribe to Legal AF podcast, but definitely subscribe to the Midas Touch podcast right now. If you're listening to this on audio and you're not subscribed, what are you doing? Subscribe to the Midas Touch audio on the podcast. And once you're done with this, just search Midas Touch on YouTube. Do a search. Go to YouTube, search Midas Touch, and then subscribe to us on YouTube. And we have other content and other videos on YouTube, too, that you might find interesting as well. So you may enjoy that. We also have rolled out

a new series. As you now know, Midas Touch is a daily podcast because we try to figure out as brothers, we're already getting just like three hours of sleep. How do we get no hours of sleep? Also, everybody was saying, let Jordy speak, let Jordy speak. So we gave him his own entire podcast. Jordy is the host. You will hear Jordy's voice and the host of our incredible Midas Touch contributors. I'm sure you've already seen them on your feed. Those will be daily on days where the typical Midas Touch podcast does not air. So just for clarification, Tuesday mornings, Friday mornings, you will get the Midas Touch podcast as usual with the guests you love, with the three brothers. And every other day of the week, you will have daily podcast comments from Jordy over here and our favorite Midas contributors every single day.

Make sure to subscribe. Make sure to tell a friend. Pass it on. We are building something really, really, really special here. And we are so thankful that you are on this journey for us because we need you. We need you to protect our democracy. You are at the front lines of protecting our democracy. And it starts with you. It starts with you speaking and having these conversations with your family and your friends and spreading the word. It has never been more important. Shout out to the Midas Mighty!