Legal AF by MeidasTouch - BREAKING: New Update in NY Trump Investigation should have Trump TERRIFIED

Episode Date: March 28, 2023

Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo, co-anchors of Legal AF report on and analyze today’s new development with the Manhattan DA Grand Jury investigating Trump for the Stormy Daniels hush money cover up crimes that called back for new testimony Trump best friend and former publisher of the National Enquirer, David Pecker. Pecker already testified to the grand jury in January that he met with Michael Cohen and KellyAnne Conway to arrange a “catch and kill” program to pay off women, like Stormy Daniels, who claimed to have had sex with Trump to protect his campaign chances, and Michael and Karen discuss what it means that he is one of the last witnesses, and when we can expect the Grand Jury to vote on an indictment. SUPPORT THE SHOW: Shop LEGAL AF Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Join us on Patreon: https://patreon.com/meidastouch 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 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Majority 54: https://pod.link/1309354521 Political Beatdown: https://pod.link/1669634407 Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://pod.link/1676844320 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is Michael Popak, Karen Friedman, Ekniffelow, legal AF hot take. We've got some breaking news in the Donald Trump stormy Daniels indictment process. We've got reporting that not only the 23, all 23 of the grand jurors show up for duty this afternoon called in by the district attorney, the Manhattan district attorney,

but one witness at least has already gone in a testify for almost a couple of hours. David, I know why he calls himself Picard, but we'll call him David Pecker, formally the founding founder and publisher of the National Inquirer through a company called America Media, a best friend, a BFF of Donald Trump for years dating back to Palm Beach County and Boca Raton, where National Inquirer was based, who's already his company already pled guilty to a federal election law crimes related to things like Stormy Daniels and the payment to Stormy Daniels and to another woman who

claims that she had sex or an affair with Donald Trump's Karen McDougal. David, because already testified, he's one of nine people that have already gone in to this grand jury and testified. And we know what his testimony is because in the non-prossecution agreement that the federal prosecutors back in 2018 signed with his employer, America media in the allegations of the non-prosecution agreement. It lays out exactly what David Picard is going to testify to. He is the inventor of the catch and kill program. He met with this is according to the federal prosecutors in their non prosecution agreement, he met with Michael Cohen, then the in house general counsel, counsel, yery for Michael for a Donald Trump, and then unnamed member of the Trump campaign from

2016. We now could probably figure out because there's only been one person from the Trump campaign that's gone into this grand jury. And that's Kellyanne Conway. So for the purposes of this hot take, we're going to say it's Kellyanne Conway, Kellyanne Conway and Michael Cohen go to Boca and meet live with David Picard, the publisher. He offers to run a program to help kill negative stories against his buddy, Donald Trump, then candidate Trump. The first test case for that was Karen McDougal, a playmate who claims that she had a affair with Donald Trump also.

And he arranged a direct payment to her for $150,000, very similar to the $130,000 that was paid by Michael Cohen to store me Daniels. They promised her, and it was all a lie, all a ruse. The National Enquirer promised her that she'd be the cover girl, the cover story on some of their articles. None of that was true. It was a catch and kill program. Catch it, pay the person, have them enter a non-disclosure agreement and a confidential agreement and then never have that story see the light of day. David Picard is also at the center of Stormy Daniels because he arranged this time through Michael Cohen, the payment of $130,000, which by the way came out of Michael Cohen's home equity line.

He took out a loan to pay Stormy Daniels because he knew he was getting repaid by Donald Trump. That is what David Picard has already testified. So here's the question for my colleague, friend, and former prosecutor and former number two in the very office that's prosecuting Donald Trump right now. The Manhattan DA's office Karen Friedman, Ignitfalo. What is what are you what's your takeaway? What do you think? You're six cents about David Picard being the witness. Who called them? Does the, is it the grand jury wants to hear from them? Does, does, does Alvin Bragg's team think there's a hole in their case? They got to bring him back for why David Picard based on that, that expected testimony?

What does it mean? And what does it mean for the timing possibly of the indictment? Now they got all 23 there and they need 13 thumbs up to get the indictment out of 23? What do you think, Karen? So what this tells us is that, first of all, we're timing wise. We're at the very end. This is a rebuttal witness because as you said, he's already testified and he has now come back after the defense witness has testified after Bob Costello came in at Trump's request last week. So this is the variant and and that's where we are timing wise. As for why they called him again, my prediction and my supposition is for two reasons.

Number one, he testified, it was a long time ago. He was one of the very first witnesses who testified back in January. That was a long time ago. Sometimes when you, there is no summation in the grand jury process, like there would be at a trial where you could remind them of testimony that was five months ago, or three months ago, or whatever this was. And so it is good to sometimes bring someone back to underscore points that they already made. Also, I think there would have been claims made by Mr. Costello about Michael Cohen and why

you can't trust or believe him. And a lot of this rests, there's no doubt that Stormy Niels was paid. There's no doubt that she was paid by Michael Cohen. And there's no doubt that there were 11 different payments that were made and that there were entries in the books and records that said it was for a legal retainer that there was no such retainer. So really these only open questions for the grand jury have to do with two things. Number one, what did Donald Trump know or not know? Like what was his involvement in this?

Was this at his direction? Did he know about it? You know, linking this to Trump. Number one, and then number two, was this to influence the election? Or was this for some other reason, as Donald Trump is saying, like, because I didn't want Molania to know? And to the extent that Michael Cohen, his credibility, is such that anything he says has to be corroborated.

And we know that he's going to say that Trump knew and that this was for the purpose of influencing the election. The more witnesses you can put in to shore that fact up and to corroborate that, I think that's what's necessary here. And David Pecker, I think, is somebody who is in uniquely positioned to say those things, right? He was friends with Donald Trump.

He was his job, his agreement, his frankly, co-conspiracy with Donald Trump, was this catch and kill program to help the election, right? That's what they were doing. And so he's a great person to bring in to corroborate that fact, to show that this was for the purpose of influencing the election, and that this was very much at the behest of Donald Trump. And so that is why the prosecutors would call him now and call him just to, I'm sure Bob Castello did a great job at doing what a defense

attorney will do to Michael Cohen at trial, which is call his credibility into question. So the more you can shore up anything, he said, that's what you need to do. And I think Michael Cohen's a great witness in the sense that he provides all the color and insight and background to everything that goes on and went on and how Donald Trump does things because as he said, he wrote the book, but you do need this corroboration and he and I think David Pecker is the person to do that. And so that's why they would have called him today. What that tells me, there was some speculation last week that Alvin Bragg's office, the Manhattan D.A.'s office, is potentially considering not asking the grand jury to vote on this case. And I would

say the fact that they're putting on a rebuttal witness would tell me that they are going to ask them to vote. It's just a matter of when. And so it's up to the grand jury to vote. You need 13 people to vote to indict. But this grand jury has the weight of the world on their shoulders because they know that Donald Trump is out there making threats. They've seen him make threats before to other people. They've seen what he did to the mother daughter duo

down in Georgia, who were just regular people, just like grand jurors are, and how they said that he ruined their life. And then they see what he would do to a sitting prosecutor, threatening him with a baseball bat, and saying that there's going to be death and destruction. All of that has to weigh on these grand jurors. And so I worry a little bit about some of them could potentially feel fear to do the right thing here. So I think that law enforcement is very much protecting them

and going to continue to protect them. And it is a secret proceeding. But it is something that I think we can't underestimate that pressure that they are feeling here based on Donald Trump's actions. The question now is when will they ask the grand jury to vote? And that's going to be soon. It could be today. It could be Wednesday.

And I guess it's probably one of those two days. I also think my understanding is that Donald Trump has to be in New York later this week to sit for a deposition. So if he's already going to be in New York, I would say that that is a good time. His Secret Service agents and law enforcement and lawyers would say that would be a good opportunity since he's already going to be here to surrender. And so as a result, my prediction is it's going to be today or Wednesday. So let's let me unpack a couple of those things, Karen, from your perspective. I agree with you that the fact that they brought back Pecker, but Carr, who was witness number

one or number two along with the assistant, then assistant publisher of the National Choir way back in January. Things are moving so rapidly, but they're also moving slow. And for a grand jury, the delta between January and March, end of March, you're right, can be, can be great. And I like your observation, because I've made it also, and we've done it on legal AF, about finding ways to bolster Michael Cohen, who of course, for good or for bad, is the bride at the wedding and the body at the funeral when it comes to this kind of case.

They could probably make the case without Michael Cohen, but Michael Cohen went to jail for the issues that underlie the same nucleus of fact that underlie the storm, he Daniels case. Now Michael Cohen already went to jail. He paid his price and he's debt to society and has come back out now to testify. The bolstering aspect is easy. There were only three people in the room with David Picard, Michael Cohen, David Picard, and I think Kellyanne Conway, who's the other person, and I think the only campaign person who is testified of the nine.

So if two of the people have corroborating testimony that track with Michael Cohen, that bolsters Michael Cohen's credibility because you might want to suspect what Michael's telling the truth about, but he's telling the truth about that because those people under oath swore that that's what happened. And Picard, by the way, got immunity from the Southern District of New York federal prosecutors. He didn't get it from the Manhattan DA, but he got it from the federal prosecutors on federal crimes.

So he's, how do I put this? He's kind of chased and he's not looking to get singed by any other prosecutors. So I believe he'll be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth back to this jury on some key points that obviously prosecutors like you were see, you know what? Why do we shore this up? Why don't we touch this up just a little bit and bring back David Picard? When I've tried cases in the jury's asked questions, which they do during deliberation,

which is the closest equivalent I have to a grand jury seeing new witnesses, I sort of get a sense that I can sort of tell if it's good news or bad news for which side of the case, depending upon which piece of evidence they want to see, which video deposition or testimony in court they want to see, you're like, oh crap. So if you're Donald Trump right now and his lawyers, whoever his defense lawyers are for this case, I don't even, I don't know if he's sorted it out yet. He's doing some sort of hunger games,

putting all of his lawyers on national television and see which one craps the bed faster and so far Joe Takapina's in the lead in that category But whoever his defense lawyers are they got to be sitting around going oh shit. It's David Picard That's the one they wanted to hear or that's the one that the That the DA brought back in that's not good. That doesn't help Donald Trump Let me ask you a question because you've set it here and on legal AF, our podcast that we do midweek. But I want to break it down for the new viewers, the non-lawyer viewers of which most of

our show is that when the DA makes a decision, talk to me about the ways, the different ways that witnesses get brought in front of the grand jury. In other words, is it the criminal target gets to put a list in with the DA saying, here's a bunch that we'd like you to bring it as well, is it the grand jury asking to hear from people again? Is it the DA making that decision, or is it all three or none of those three? Tell us how that works.

So it's all of the above. So really the way a typical case works is you the prosecutor puts witnesses in the grand jury and there's two types of case. There are two actually three different types of grand juries. There's you've been arrested and now we're going to put the case in the grand jury. There's you haven't been arrested yet. There's, you've been arrested, and now we're going to put the case in the grand jury. You haven't been arrested yet. There's a long-term investigation. You're a target, and then we're going to put it in the grand jury and then arrest you, which is what this one is.

Then there's a third, which is just, there's an investigatory grand jury that is there to investigate, but doesn't ultimately bring charges. It may or may not write a report. All three of those things can happen in the same grand jury, by the way. So, but those are the three types of presentations there are. And so, when you're presenting a case in the grand jury, the prosecutor will call whatever witnesses they feel they need to put in a primafacial case that the crime occurred.

You also put in witnesses who you want to lock in under oath and you want their testimony early. So those are other witnesses you put in as well. And then you also call witnesses to have them produce documents and those types of things and records in the grand jury. Now one thing to keep in mind is anyone who testifies in the grand jury automatically gets transactional immunity. So David Picard would get transactional immunity

by virtue of his testimony. So you don't need to enter into a non-prossecution or deferred prosecution with those witnesses because they get immunity by going in. A defendant has a right to testify, or a target, has a right to testify in the grand jury if they know there is a grand jury sitting. So in other words, if this is happening in secret

and you don't have to tell a defendant about it, but if they find out about it or if they've already been arrested, you have to serve notice of it, then they have a right to testify. And if they say they want to testify, then they have to agree to a way of immunity to go into the grand jury, and then anything they say can be used against them at trial. They also don't go in usually because they don't want to walk themselves into a defense

yet, right? They don't want to say stuff under oath and then they're stuck with it. The final question you asked is, can a defendant ask that witnesses be called or can a grandeur or grand juries ask that a witness can be called? And both of those things, yes. It's really the grand jury who decides

what witnesses they want to hear from in addition to the ones that are submitted by the prosecutor. Yeah, that's the point I always wanted to make. I hear this reporting about Donald Trump sent in a witness today. Donald Trump didn't send a witness in today. The grand jury wanted to hear from Castello because his name must have come up in other testimony.

No, no, the grand happens is. Well, they clear it up here. Yeah, so it happens is Donald Trump does will say to the prosecutor, I want Castell to come in. Right. And so what the prosecutor does then is the prosecutor goes into the grand jury and says, right, there's been a request. Right. Would you like to hear from him? Yeah, that's it. That's what I mean. So that it's

like you said, it's always the grand jury making the ultimate decision. But the DA serves it up and says, Hey, would you like to hear from this person? They can say, yes or no, let's end this hot take on this one because this one doesn't get much coverage either. When we're in a regular jury in a trial court level, if it's a criminal case, it's usually has to be a unanimous jury to matter depending about how many, you know, based on how many people are there, it always has to be unanimous. If it's civil, it doesn't usually has to be three-quarters or something less than full anonymity for a verdict. But here for a grand jury,

this is interesting, to indict, to vote to indict. You have 23 of them, let's say they're today. But how many total, you only need 13, so 10 can go no against indictment. Seriously, no, we don't want to indict. And if 13 and now, here's the question for you. Let's say 13, it goes 13, 10, that's the score. 13, 10 in favor of indictment. I assume the prosecutor still exercises

prosecutorial discretion about whether to take that indictment or the indictment is now returned as an indictment. I mean, you can always not file an indictment, I guess, but that doesn't happen. If the grand jury votes to indict typically, I mean, more than typically, then that it'll happen. It'll happen, so if they vote, yeah. I mean, the 13 typically, then the it'll happen. It'll happen. So if they vote, yeah, I mean, 13, 10, he's indicted.

I mean, like the real technical answer is 13 people, if it's that close of a call that is really 13, the next thing you prosecutor has to do is they'll actually look at the roll call, the roll books of who showed up on what days, because it has to, but you have to have sat for the majority of the, you have to be, have been there for all the material witnesses. In order to vote. In order to vote. So, you know, sometimes there's 18 people, sometimes there's 16 people, you need 16 of the 23 for a quorum to move forward.

But you, prosecutors keep track, who's been there for all of the witnesses who are necessary that if you heard that then you vote. So 13 is calling it a little bit close. So the fact that all 23 came in today is a good thing. And with a long-term investigation, you certainly want everyone there and you want everyone to have been there. I would guess that because this is Trump, most of them were there every time unless God forbid somebody had COVID or something like that and they couldn't be there. But those are the ones who will vote. So you have it here and you're only going to hear it from legal AF and hot takes like this with Karen Friedman, Ignitfalo, who used to be just a total couple years ago, was in this very office handling grand juries just like this one.

Karen and I do hot takes like this about every day, if not every hour, on the Midas Touch Network along with our legal commentating partner in crime, Ben Mycelas, and then we anchor a show, which is the leading legal and political podcast on YouTube and on all places that you get your podcasts from call legal a F on Wednesdays, Karen and me hit it. And on Saturdays, it's usually been in me, although we brought Karen on for the last several

because of all the things that are percolating over the Manhattan DA's office can also follow us all on social media. But this was a hot take where you learned that David Picard went in again to the grand jury, all 23 members of the grand jury. We know it as testimony is going to be. It's going to be about the catch and kill and program where he paid off a number of women, including Stormy Daniels, this time through Michael Cohen on behalf of Donald Trump. And that's a bad sign for Donald Trump that that's the witness coming back in. And as Karen Friedman Agnifalo said, we're at the end, expected indictment this week, maybe even as early as Wednesday. Good to see you. Karen, see how Wednesday.

Either way, it could be today or today.