Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Jack Smith secures KEY TESTIMONY that will SINK Trump

Episode Date: June 29, 2023

The top-rated legal and political podcast Legal AF is back for another hard-hitting look at the most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics.  On this midweek’s edition,  Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo, discuss: 1. Updates in the Mar a Lago criminal prosecution of Trump, including his co-defendant Walt Nauta failing to appear, the new orders of Judge Cannon including denying the DOJ’s request to file its “no contact” list under seal, and how this case will be tried; 2. Trump filing a retaliatory case against E Jean Carroll for “defamation” leading to the question can Trump actually be defamed given his indictment and impeachment status; 3. Ivanka Trump getting a rare win in having the NY Attorney General Civil Fraud case dismissed against her by an appellate court, which will also lead to some of the $250 million sought in the case being shaved off; and 4. Rudy beginning the process of testifying against Trump and so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS! Lomi: Visit https://Lomi.com/LEGALAF and use code LEGALAF and checkout to save $50! Head to https://REELPAPER.com/LEGALAF and sign up for a subscription using code LEGALAF at checkout, and automatically get 30% off your first order and FREE SHIPPING! 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 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 American Psyop: https://pod.link/1652143101 Burn the Boats: https://pod.link/1485464343 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

Judge Eileen Cannon can't stay in her lane and instead colors outside the lines to send the DOJ back to the drawing board on its efforts to keep their 84 top witnesses secret from the public until trial, while granting the DOJ's motion to set a conference to discuss continuance and classified documents procedures and co-defendant Walton out of struggles to get to Florida again for his arrangement and to find local counsel. Back in New York, a setback for the New York Attorney General's civil fraud case against the Trump family set for October, as an appellate court rules for Ivanka and dismisses her from the case. Not because she didn't commit the fraud, but because the attorney general was late just slightly in filing the case against her.

And other large transactions that are a part of the $250 million dollar Discouragement case may also have to be dismissed before trial. We'll talk about that. Speaking of off the rails, Trump and his lawyer of choice for hair-brained filings, Alina Habba, have retaliated against E. Jean Carroll, who may New York jury already found he sexually abused in 1996, awarding her $5 million dollars by filing their own defamation case because she uses the word rape to describe what happened to her not sexual abuse.

I posit whether Donald Trump's reputation can ever be defamed and what's the damages he could have suffered between a buzer and rapist. All this and so much more, it's like beyond bedbath and beyond. On this week's midweek edition of Legal AF with your usual lineup of anchors, Michael Popok and Karen Friedman, Agnifalo, Karen, you're in New York. I'm in sort of New York. How are you? Good. It's good to be home finally and just being able to do this from home.

We were joking before the show, so but I think people like to hear us joke for the show about sometimes when people just tune into our show for the first time. And it's hard to believe we've been on there for two and a half years. And there are first time people, welcome first time people to the audience. And sometimes they don't get what the show is or who the anchors are, and then Ben and I do it on Saturday. And sometimes they think, I'm the guest, and you're the host, or you're the host,

and I'm the guest, or Ben, and we get criticized. Let the guests speak more, or the host is, but we're both anchors. And that's what makes this show, this propels the show. I think every week in the right direction. So I'm really glad that you are my co-worker, you are my colleague, you are my friend. Here we are. And now it's time to talk about all things. Eileen Cannon, the judge that we all are white knuckling over her every move, her every docket entry.

It's hard to believe that it's only been less than three weeks from an indictment. We're already up to docket entry number 45 in the case. And we've got a ruling, and I want to talk to you more about it. We got a few rulings that have all kind of got spits fired out by Judge Cannon recently. The first is, and I might take a different position here. Her first ruling about the unopposed motion by the government to both file their top 84 witnesses as part of the special condition that the magistrate judge had set judge judgment actually

had set in the case where judge Goodman said, you know, I'm going to set one special condition of release from arrest and a reign that have Donald Trump. He shouldn't talk to witnesses identified by the government. I'm summarizing, except about things not related to the case. So I'm going to set that special condition and I'm going to let the department of justice develop their own list. And then they can give it to the other side,

follow me here, they can give it to the other side. And that's the list that Donald Trump will have to abide by and not talk to about the case itself. Okay, seemed pretty ordinary. Department of Justice hadn't asked for that special condition, but they got it by way of the Magistrate judge. And then about a week or so later, they developed their list of 84 potential top witnesses. Not all the witnesses, they're going to use a trial.

They said in a footnote, but the top 84, okay, I would have thought they would have just sent that over to Chris Keiss and Todd Blanche for Trump side and now for his lawyer, Stanley Woodward. And that would be at the end of it. For some reason, the Department of Justice decided that in order to sort of comply with the special condition, they need it to file the 84 names on the docket. And here's where the tension comes in.

Things are supposed to be public and available to the public, both for you and I and Ben to talk about on legal AF on might as touch network and just in general, because the public's right to know about our justice system is very important as important as the rights of the other parties to the actual prosecution or litigation. The public is a party, if you will, to all of the proceedings because we have to know what's going on, otherwise we're living in a society or in a country where we have secret trials and you find and people get sent to gulags. We don't want that. So the media will often intervene and remind the court and the parties that the public has a place at the table

and ask to have everything produce. Now there's that tension. Some things are like classified top secret national security. Maybe that needs to be sealed or redacted. Or for a time period, things need to be protected from prying eyes of the public and articles, media, hot takes and podcasts. But not forever. And so even as an example, when the department of justice filed last August,

with the then-magicistrate judge, Judge Reinhart, the application for the search warrant of Mar-a-Lago and had affidavits and all of that. Eventually, a redacted black line version of that document got released, not immediately, but at some relatively soon time and certain blackouts were there, for things that needed to still be protected,

but the bulk of the document was there. So people get a sense of what's going on. That is the general approach. And so I am not, I was not flabbergasted by Kenan saying, okay, you filed a two page motion department of justice signed by Jay Brad, the head of the counterintelligence department of the DOJ. It's unopposed. I get it.

The other side is not opposing this particular relief, but I got all the media that's intervened in the case are trying to intervene in order to get whatever you're about to file. And I have a few questions for you. This is how she put it in the order. So I'll take me put the order back up. All right. So she said, A, I don't know why you need to file this. Why can't you, in other words,

why can't you just give it to the other side? Who told you to file it? And if you're going to file it, show me a particularized need that's a term of art. Give me the basis for the entire document from now on through trial to be sealed and not available to the public. Why can't you redact it?

Why can't you redact certain parts of it? Why can't you do a partial sealing? And why can't you address any of that in another motion? So I'm going to bounce this one, DOJ, come back to me with a renewed motion because she dismissed it without prejudice, which happens. And file it again, try to make either come back to me and say, we withdraw our request, we're not going to file it at all. We're just going to give it to the lawyers.

And if there's a problem, like they violate it, we'll come back to you, judge, which is what I think, and I want to hear from you, Karen, what the Department of Justice may do. Or they're going to say, no, here's the particularized need, and it should stay locked away all the way through trial. And here's case law that supports it. So that is the order issue.

Then she said motion for motion for status conference under SEPA, the, you know, the, the law, the guards over top secret. I'll do that. I'll do that in July, like the 14th, because there's a holiday. And the other side, you guys give me your opposition to a motion for continuance. Tell me when you want the trial. We'll get together sometime in July, and we'll talk about that. The government's motion for that is granted.

In the meantime, walk now to get your act together. You don't have a lawyer. You missed your plane for the arrangement. We'll do the arrangement again another day. Get a lawyer. Get a day. Get a lawyer, get a life, get a lawyer. And then we have this question that you and I've never talked about. We'll do it now, Karen, is are these cases going to be tried together? Is this going to be US versus now to Trump in one case or is somebody going to make a motion to sever

or to consolidate? How do you think this is going to be tried? We never really talk about those things. Okay, that's my frame. You did some hot tics on this stuff, really interesting with Ben. Start with the order, then go to the status conference, and then we'll end with, how do you think this case gets tried? Judge Cannon did this order that was not written,

but it appeared written in the docket, where the one that you just put up there, that spelled out the question about this witness list. And I think you're right, it is a little bit of a headscratcher, but looks unpack it a little bit and back up, okay? In a normal criminal trial, the prosecution doesn't have to turn over their witness list until way down the line, right? Much closer to trial, mostly because half the time they don't know exactly who their witnesses are going to be at trial, who they're going to call, what order, but also because you don't want any interference, you don't want any witness intimidation, you don't want to necessarily give the defense an opportunity to do anything to cause the witnesses to not want to come forward, etc.

And so Jack Smith had no intention of giving the witness list over right away. You know what you see what Trump does to the witnesses. You see what he does to, you know, not just him, but all of the MAGA crazy people who go out and, you know, intimidate and threaten. I mean, look at Shay, you know, Shay Moss and Ruby Freeman, you know, what happened to their lives, their lives were destroyed because their names were out there. You know, Trump is a name calling bully and he, and he foamance, incredible amount of violence and dissent. And so if I were the prosecutor, the way I'd be thinking about it is, okay, I don't want those, I don't want those names out there,

certainly not for me because if something happens, I don't want to be the cause of it. You know, they can surmise that someone might be a witness, they'll get some discovery that they might know. I'd probably redact some names, but I'm not going to be the cause of somebody's life being ruined because I gave a name over. That's how I would

think of it as a prosecutor. But, so, Jack Smith goes to a raiment and he decides not to ask for any conditions of release at all. And surprisingly, the magistrate judge on his own without anybody asking says, you know what, I'm gonna protect the integrity of these proceedings, even though Jack Smith and DOJ, you're not asking for this, and even though Donald Trump, you're not asking for this, I wanna protect the witnesses here. So I'm gonna have you not hand over a witness list, but I wanna list of all the people

that Trump should not have contact with. Okay? So in some ways, he's making the point that these, that Trump and his people are a bunch of harassing, threatening individuals, and he wants his own list of people who, who, the DOJ would say, have to be protected from Trump, frankly. And I think that the DOJ was a little bit concerned. We didn't want to turn this over.

Because now, yeah, you're telling them not to have any contact, but in some ways, you're giving them a roadmap. You're giving them a roadmap of who to have. You are people threatened. You're your army. Your MAGA army of, you know, insurrectionists. And so, but so if I'm Jack Smith, I'm like, okay, well, I've been ordered to do this by a magistrate judge. So it's a court order. Therefore, I feel I have to in order to comply with it, I have to file

it with the court. But I'm going to ask that there be a protective order, right? Essentially, because as you said, you know, the press often will make motions seeking access to sealed information or sealed courtrooms. And why is that? It's because you know both the first amendment guarantees the right of a free press and the six amendment guarantees the right of the constitution the right of defendants right to an open and public trial and free press and the Six Amendment guarantees the right of the Constitution, the right of defendants right to an open and public trial.

And together, putting those together, the press has just as much of a right to be in a courtroom as anybody else. And I've had to be on the other side of press motions where they want to seek access to information in closed court rooms and there's very limited times that you can seal something or close a courtroom and to do that you have to make a particularized showing and a particular of a particularized need for it and a right to do it and I think I think you know the DOJ and Jack Smith they just assumed because this was a

court-ordered thing that we didn't even ask for. And he got the consent of Trump's lawyers. I don't know how he could get the consent of not as lawyers because he doesn't have a lawyer who's licensed to practice in Florida, but it was unopposed. And so I think they just assumed because it's unopposed, they can just sail it through and file it under seal and the judge would agree. Well, the judge said no, not so fast. I also have a motion pending before me from various news organizations who are making these first amendment and

six amendment arguments and they have a right to this information unless you follow the law and show that there's a particular eyes need for this for some reason. And it's just you just have to give a reason under the law. You have to, you know, the protective orders are generally given if you can throw a show that, you know, there's a risk that there's privacy issues or safety issues or or other reasons, you know, you just have to give them and and and Jack Smith, you know, he didn't do it here. I think they just thought that it would be okay

because it was unopposed, but I, but Eileen Cannon is, you know, trying to go by the letter of the law here, but at least she did it in a way that was, that was without prejudice to give them an opportunity to file something. So I think what's gonna happen next is we're gonna see a filing or we're gonna see that there is a filing. I don't know if we'll get to see it. I don't know if it'll be under seal or not about why they need this list of what essentially turns out

to be a witness list, even though it's a no contact list, it's essentially a witness list. Why can't they question? She leads off with, why do you even need to file this? Why didn't you just send it over to the other side? Why don't you think the government now reverse, doesn't just reverse course and say, got it. Here's the list, uh, blanche. They're already under a protective order about the contact and let them hang themselves if having gotten the list, Donald Trump screws it up. Why she's right. I mean, I hate to say the words she's right and canon are very difficult for us, but I'm gonna call it as I see it, right? I didn't think this was a bad order.

I thought actually, as you said, them trying to slide it through on a two-pager. It isn't an easy call. It wasn't reported properly in two pages. And I don't understand why they need the whole list from now until the trial to be protected. If I were them, I don't want to hear your opinion. Why not just send it to the other side? Forget the whole filing thing. And the media can't fight for it if you're only sending it between parties. Because, you know, they only have an interest in

docketed things, things on the public docket. Why would you just send my question to you? As a now prosecutor thinking like Jay Brad and the lawyers for Jackson Smith, why not just say, I'll screw it, we'll just send it to them. They might, they might, but the reason they're probably not doing it is two reasons. Number one, since this was a court order, right, this is an order of the magistrate, you have to somehow show that you are in compliance with this, right? And how can the, how can the magistrate order that order someone to not have contact

with individuals if the magistrate doesn't or the judge, the court doesn't know who those individuals are? So I kind of think it's, that's, you know, I think that's part of the order. You need to, otherwise it's not enforceable and it's not really discovery, right? This is, and only the discovery is what was ordered to be, you know, has a protective order

under it, right? Not every communication between parties is under this protective order, just the discovery. And this isn't really discovery. This is really in compliance with the court order. So I think that's why they were doing it that way because they really don't want this to be public. And that's the they were doing it that way because they really don't want this to be public. And that's the only way to ensure it.

So that's why I think they were doing it that way. Yeah. I probably, there is an artful way to do it. But again, this is how many angels are dancing on the head of a pen. You could file a one-pager that says, we have complied with the special conditions set by the Magistrate Judge. We have supplied the other side with a list of 84 names. And should there be a violation of it?

Will file something in camera to tell you which of the 84 have been improperly contacted pursuant to the special condition? And then the Magistrate can say, you know what? I want to see the names. And then it's an order. You know, I was surprised she jumped in and didn't let Goodman handle it because it was his order or at least Reinhart the other magistrate, but you know that's again inside baseball stuff. I'm not sure at the end of the day It matters. You may be right. They'll just file the motion. They'll just file the 84

Ask for they'll make the particular eyes showing as to why they need it for the period of time that they need it and the other side I'll brief it and then we'll sort of decide. What you think about the other order related to the setting of the pretrial conference, the date of it, keeping things sort of on track, and then I want to talk about whether you think now to Trump or tried in the same case or not. Yeah, so, you know, look, I think she's trying to keep this moving, right? She's trying to keep it moving quickly. So the first pre-trial conference was set for July 14th to, to focus on the SEPA classified

information, Procedures Act, Procedures, and, you know, just what that is means that there's a statute that was passed in the 1980s that basically talks about how to deal with classified information during a criminal trial, because when you try someone, typically every, as we just discussed, it's an open courtroom and it's a public courtroom. And so, for example, all court exhibits are public record. And so anyone has access to them, anyone can see them. And obviously, it's a problem if that information is classified. So SEPA, the classified information procedures act, was passed in the 1980s to try to protect the government against what they call graymail, which is different. It's not quite blackmail, right?

It's a graymail. In national security cases, which is what graymail was was a tactic where the defense attorneys and defendants would threaten to reveal classified information at trial saying, you know, saying, we could go to trial. I want these documents in as evidence betting that the government would prefer to drop the charges rather than risk disclosure.

So really what CEPA requires is the defense to disclose which documents they want to use at trial in advance. So the courts can decide whether or not to put any restrictions on them. So you know, if the government feels that the restrictions are not enough, they can decide whether they still want to continue with the case or with that charge. And the first step under CEPA is for Judge Dischedule Hearing with the prosecutors and defense lawyers, which is what she has done here.

And then they will start to establish a time table for discovery of the materials and how the defense will be able to use them a trial. Now, if you remember, when they executed the search warrant, they recovered over 100 classified documents, right? But Donald Trump and Walt Natta, you know, Donald Trump is only charged with possessing 31 of those documents.

So what that says to me is that Jack Smith already in consultation with national security officials has already gone through the 100 and something classified documents and said, okay, you know, the nuclear codes, that's way too secret. I'm making that up. I don't know if there were nuclear codes, but whatever, whatever the most, you know, absolutely super secret national security document that was there said, you know what, there's no way even the existence of this document would put people's lives at risk, let alone the document itself being put out there.

So we're not going to charge that one because no SEPA procedure could guard against and protect against, you know, making that information public. I don't want to fensil or sing and you know whatever. So I'm sure there's the extremely, extremely sensitive documents were taken out of the mix and then which ones do you want to do you want to include in there? And we'll see. I would also guess they would be ones that are most obvious. The ones in the bright red, the bright red envelope, and the ones in the, you know, that weren't just, you know, mixed in with other things that were in like a section

called classified or whatever. You know, the most obvious so that you can show that the possession was intentional. It wasn't accidental, right? He knew he had it. It was in with, you know, certain other things, etc. And they narrowed it down to 31 documents. And so I think that procedure has already started on the part of the government.

They're already betting that, OK, even if the judge allows these to be used at trial in some form or fashion, it's OK. And I'm sure Jack Smith has cleared that with the national security people. The concern I have, the thing that I think is going to happen at the hearing is I think the defense is going to talk about, okay, I wanna talk about the 70 something other documents at trial,

because that's part of my defense, whatever their defense is. Our defense is this was accidental and inadvertent. So I need access to all of the classified materials that were recovered. Not just the 31, Jack Smith has chosen and that's where the fight's going to be, right? I think over all of that. And we'll see where Judge Cannon rules during the hearing. You know, she has to put a procedure in place that balances the needs of a public trial and a defendant's due process rights at trial, as well as the need to protect national security.

So it'll be very interesting to see if, you know, how she rules. I mean, we're not going to know, obviously, but we will know because it's secret. It's classified. Is if the government disagrees with her ruling, they have a right to appeal and to go to the 11th Circuit, whereas Trump does not. And then to answer your final question, will Trump and Nada be tried together? And the answer is 100% yes. I don't see this in any way.

You know, right now they are joined. They were indicted together. So it would have to be a motion to sever. And one of them would have to make a motion to sever. And one of them would have to make that motion to sever. And the standard for severance is kind of a high bar. And you have to show that you have antagonistic or inconsistent defenses. It's not enough to even have different defenses.

You have to have ones that are antagonistic or inconsistent. So in this particular case, if Nada were to say say, you know, Trump did it, it's all Trump, you know, he made me do it kind of thing. I guess, yes, it could be, they could be severed, but I think short of that, they're going together. What do you think on that? Yeah, I think that, that framework that you just laid out is the right one. I could see where things could get antagonistic between the two of them. There were some phony tweets and social media truths that went out today for Donald Trump that looked like he was throwing Walt Now to under the bus, but we all, you know, careful

eyes spotted that was a phony thing, but that could really happen. Somebody could be throwing somebody under the bus as we get closer to trial. I know the government still holds out hope, I'm sure, that Walt Now to will be their key lead witness along with Evan Corcoran, the former lawyer or current lawyer, depending upon who you listen to, for Donald Trump. They would love to have Nauda, that would be the final nail. There's so many nails in the coffin. I don't know which one could be designated a final nail, but I think Walt Nauda would be. And I think by, you know, he's not having an easy go of

it right now. His boss is probably not thrilled with him. He now knows that both his grand jury testimony, which I'm sure he perjured himself during, is been contradicted by audio, video, and other testimony that they have, and so he's in the crosshairs, and he's gonna lose his own case on his couple accounts. And to cut a deal, listen, you know, there's other jobs out there, there's other careers

out there. He's a 30 year old or whatever he is, 40 year old guy. He's never going to be president of the United States. And he better be every man for himself. So I think if that happens, then there's no trial of Walt Nowda. There's testimony of Walt Nowda and no trial. But, you know, for right now, you now, Donald Trump's going to keep his enemies his friends close to his enemies closer.

And you're right, I think this case gets tried together and the hurdle to reach won't be met in order to sever. But you see these things, there's pundits on the internet. They're like, oh, look, they're talking about the West Palm Beach Gordals, or maybe it's the Miami Gordals, or maybe it's in Fort Beerson, or maybe it's in Fort Pearson, for now to, just everybody relax. The decision as to which courthouse it's going to be and has not been made for either of these two gentlemen. The fact that a hearing here and a rainment there is going to be held

at some convenient location, either with a duty magistrate or the regular magistrate or the regular judge, it doesn't matter. And for us to continue to read T-Leaves, it's really a wasted exercise, doesn't mean a thing. We'll know soon enough. I mean, when the trial is set, what are the issues? I'm sure that Judge Cannon will raise with the DOJ and with Trump's lawyers is, where do you want this?

Now, we know what Trump's position is gonna be. He wants it in Fort Pierce because the counties of the areas around Fort Pierce, that would, from which a jury would be pulled, or some of the rubious red districts around. He won the surrounding area around Fort Pierce. He won, he won Florida, but he also won these areas. And so within the Southern District, which gets progressively more Democrat as you travel south in the district,

and then Miami's its own thing. But still, still a couple of points Democrat favor. He wants a red jury pool for Pierce. West Palm is a little bit more Democrat for Lauderdale's terrible for him. It's very heavily Democrat. Miami's a pick them, but leans slightly to the Democratic side. So you know where he wants it. You know where the government wants it. The government wants it at Miami for Lauderdale or West Palm Beach. And it can be in any one of those court houses. Cannon and consultation with the chief judge, Altenaga will ultimately

make that decision, and then we'll go from there. So, there's one thing I just wanna say about that. Number one, well two things. Number one, the courthouse where this ultimately goes has to have a skiff, a secure, what a skiff stand for, a secure, whatever information facility,

you know, compartmentalized. Yeah, exactly. One of those super secret places that have no, that you can view classified information that can't be bugged, you know, so I don't know which courthouse has a skiff. My, my Emmy has a skiff nearby. Okay, so that's the one to skip. I don't think I don't, I haven't seen reporting and I'm not aware of it, even though I practice down there because I don't do national security work that way, that there's a skiff in Fort Lauderdale or West Bomb. And I know there's not a skiff in Fort Pierce.

So I think that's going to be a factor number one. And then the other thing I just want to mention is in other jurisdictions, and I don't know how they do in Florida, when you do have to have a trial in a different courthouse, they will bus jurors from the proper place. So that's typically how it's done. So if Mar-a-Lago is physically located in West Palm Beach, it's in Palm Beach, but it's next to West Palm. Okay, wherever the jurors were supposed to come from, that's where they're probably, again, if they do it the way they do it in other jurisdictions, they will bus those jurors to wherever the courthouses.

Buscing in Florida for Trump, that has so many levels of special delight. And it would be great because if they get stuck with Fort Pierce jurors, you and I and Ben are going to be having a lot of, oh my God, moments of trying to get a unanimous jury to convict Donald Trump in a place where people think he walks on water. And there are still places like that in the country, as we know. And then we've got, let's just touch on this because it's new reporting today. We've got Rudy Giuliani Who speaking of every man for himself Knowing that he's in the crosshairs and having parts of his aunt the anatomy squeezed in places like Georgia with Fonney Willis and the

Elect the election interference there his role in the fake elector scandal and scheme, and in the lawsuits all around the country that were failed and failing in every way shape and form has now made it looks like he's making an arrangement to come in and have a conversation, which we call a proffer with the Jack Smith special prosecutors about Jan 6, which would mean the Willard Hotel, the headquarters for the Jan 6, and the insurrection, and the cling to power

by Donald Trump and all of that. And if he's met it, if they already have a formal agreement here, it's reporting that he doesn't have the formal cooperation agreement yet, this is a precursor to that. Much the way we've heard recent witnesses come in and talk like the two people that were responsible

on the ground for the fake electors scheme have already gone in and are working on a deal. Now, if the deal that they're working on, there's really two types of immunity we've talked about it in other hot takes and podcasts before. There's use immunity and then there's just sort of full immunity. The question is, how much Rudy Giuliani's testimony is important at this point to Jaxmyth probably?

And then how much he's willing to give him immunity? Queen for a day immunity, ironic for Giuliani, is you come in, you tell us the truth. And as long as you tell us the truth, whatever you tell us can't be used against you. If we develop that same evidence independently, we're using it against you. But what you tell us, you are a queen for the day. You can tell us whatever you like, as long as you don't lie to us while you do it, because then you'll be committing another crime.

So that's limited or use immunity, and then there's the other fuller transactional immunity. We don't know which one, but it's a bad sign for Donald Trump and has been like to say a great day for liberty and justice that Rudy Giuliani's coming in from the cold and may be talking to the lead prosecutor to avoid his own, you know, backside being incarcerated. What do you think about that, Karen?

I don't know. I mean, Rudy Giuliani, first of all, you have to tell the truth, and I don't think he's capable of telling the truth, and he's committed so many crimes he'd have to go in. If he was gonna cooperate, you have to admit to all the crimes you've committed, and he's gonna go in and plead guilty.

I don't see it. I think this is, I mean, who knows, but to me, this is a, this is a play to try. He knows that Fanny Willis is breathing down his neck and next month, which is in a few days. She's going to start, she's going to start her, you know, grand jury proceedings. I think she's going to bring indictments in the next month, right? Everyone's been reporting on that. It's either in July or August, which is in a cut, you know, which is coming up. Exactly. And he knows he is a target there and he is about to be indicted. And so I think this is a play to try to get her off of him, right?

Because he doesn't, because don't forget, if he gets charged in the state and then convicted in the state, he can't be pardoned for that. So he wants to somehow get himself to, in the grips of Jack Smith and get Jack Smith to say to Fanny Willis, hey, you know what, don't do Rudy. We're in the process of seeing if we can get him to cooperate, you know. So I don't want him to be under indictment while he's potentially, because then he can't talk to me, right? So I don't want him to, I indictment while he's potentially because then he can't talk to me, right? So I don't want him to, I don't want to be in that situation. So I think this is Giuliani's way of trying to stall or get Fanny Willis not to indict him, but I cannot imagine

that he would in any way ever ultimately reach a cooperation agreement with them because they're not going to give him immunity. No way. We're not genetically incapable of telling the truth, which is which is which is right. Genitally, a liar agreed agreed and I agree and I think I think you're right. You can see how things are heating up. You know, Brad Raffin's burger, Raffin's burger for people that that are waiting for me to do the pup, pup, we know there's a P in the middle. Sometimes it sounds like a B. We know it's a P. But we're Brad Raffin's perger, the secretary of state, who was on the phone call in search of the 11,758 votes just between us. So I can be present at the United States. Pretty please phone call. He's gone in. And he is,

he's he's struck a deal or he's going to testify. He doesn't need to strike a deal. He'll testify and he's cooperating with Jack Smith and I'm sure Rudy Giuliani knew that and said holy cow this train is leaving the station. I better I better jump on or I'm gonna be under the wheels of it. So We're gonna follow it You know, we'll care in me and Ben. We do hot takes all the time to bring up in real-time things that are happening I think I'm gonna do one on Raffin's Perk or soon. And coming up on this long form podcast that everybody looks forward to it midweek, we're going to talk about the retaliatory strike late night strike by Donald Trump trying to go after Eugene Carroll for defamation because

he's not a rapist. He's a sex abuser. Okay. We'll talk about the merits of that and Alina Haba having filed it and what that's all about. And then we'll talk about what happened. Why is Ivanka Trump now dismissed from the case and why didn't the attorney general file that case more timely against her or get a longer agreement to give her more time to file the case against her? We'll talk about tolling agreements, why they're important to a prosecutor and to an investigator with a former prosecutor investigator, Karen Friedman-Ignifalo, and why even long statute of limitations of

five years and six years may not be long enough in a very complicated investigation. We'll talk about what the impact would be on the New York Attorney General's $250 million Discouragement case if some of the transactions that make up that case are time-bart if they're outside that Statue of Lamentations. We'll do it next, but first a word from our sponsors. And now let's take a quick break to talk about our next partner, Lomi. Now, I've never been able to compost before.

It was always too complicated, too much work, and frankly, I don't think I even knew exactly if I was doing it right. Then I got a loamy. Loamy allows me to turn my food scraps into dirt with just the push of a button. Loamy is a countertop electric composter that turns scraps to dirt in under 4 hours. There's no smell when it runs, and it's really quiet. Thanks to loamy, I have way less garbage each week. My family worked down from three bags per week to just one.

And here's something pretty cool, my wife recently started gardening, and we've been able to use the dirt that Lomi produces to help fill the garden. And since I got my Lomi, I threw out way less garbage. That means it's not going to landfills and producing methane. Instead, I turn my waste into nutrient-rich dirt that I can feed to my plants. I feel so great knowing that I'm composting and creating soil instead of waste. And I have basically a limitless supply of dirt for my garden. The other week I had my in-laws over for dinner and the food cleanup process was such a breeze. Plus, they all think I'm super eco-conscious now.

If you want to start making a positive environmental impact or just make cleanup after dinner that much easier, Lomi is perfect for you. Head to lomi.com slash legal a f and use the promo code legal a f to get $50 off your Lomi. That's $50 off when you head to l-o-m-i.com slash legal a f and use promo code legalaif at checkout. Food waste is gross. Let Lomi save you a cold trip out to the garbage can. Let's stop cutting down trees to make toilet paper. It's true, humans are cutting down tens of thousands every day just to supply the American need for toilet paper. And the

worst part is that when we use trees for toilet paper, it's just one use and done. It obviously can't be recycled or reused, so it just goes straight into our water system. That's why I made the switch to real paper. Real is 100% bamboo, so we're using a plant that grows fast, can be harvested and regenerated like grass that along. And it does an impact entire ecosystems of forests. Real is the best kind of eco-friendly product, because it doesn't feel like you're sacrificing something to help the earth. In fact, it feels like an upgrade. It's always shipped free to my door in plastic free packaging, and I can schedule it on a

subscription so that it comes exactly when I need it, and I never have to worry about forgetting to buy any at the store. Real is now partnered with one tree planted. With every box of real that you buy, they are funding reforestation efforts across the country. So unlike the other TP that cuts down trees, real is helping to actively plant them. I'm thrilled to have real paper as a sponsor to align my eco goals with a product that nature makes me use every day and to avoid further impact on the planet.

Real paper is available in easy hassle-free subscriptions or for one-time purchases on their website. All orders are conveniently delivered to your door with free shipping in 100% recyclable plastic free packaging. If you head to realpaper.com slash legal AF and sign up for a subscription using code legal AF, and check out, you'll automatically get 30% off your first order and free shipping. That's R-E-E-L-P-A-P-E-R.com slash legal AF

or enter promo code legal AF to get 30% off your first order plus free shipping. Let's make a change for good this year and switch to real paper. Real is paper for the planet. I don't know when you do ads, Karen, but I'll be honest. Sometimes I get stuck on a word and I gotta redo the thing like five times.

For whatever reason and I'm reasonably fluent, I couldn't get subscription out. And that had about five different times I needed to say that. So I won't even tell you how many takes that took to get that, to get that right. Just it's amazing how your mind, your mind takes over and plays tricks with you. Anyway, we appreciate all of our sponsors. I really love both those sponsors. They really, the fact that one plants a tree and the other one prevents greenhouse gases, I mean, honestly, I love that they're both so eco-friendly. It's really, they're really great products.

It's the circle of life into two of our sponsors. Okay. Let's move on to why people come to this show, which is a hard-hitting legal analysis and occasionally a little bit of levity. But there's no levity in the E. Jean Carroll case because the former treasonous president was found guilty of by a jury in New York of having sexually abused at least E. Jean Carroll. It's a crime in New York. People might be wondering around the world.

It wasn't a crime case, a criminal prosecution, because the statute of limitations, we're gonna talk about statute of limitations in the second half of the show, in the next segment also had run, and there wasn't a way to kind of restart that particular clock. There was a way to restart the civil case

related to sexual abuse and sexual crimes. And so, E. Jean Carroll rightly brought her case and the jury of her peers and Donald Trump's peers found six men, three women that she was sexually abused. New York is unique. There are most states out there that any part, anything that is placed inside of a woman against her will would be rape. In New York, if it's a finger, and it's not your penis, or the rapist penis, or the person's penis, then it's not technically a rape.

And that's what the jury had to conclude, because E. Jean Carroll said that during the sexual attack that she suffered, and she was a victim of, she couldn't tell whether it was Donald Trump's, you know what? Or his finger. And so the jury was left to conclude, well, if she doesn't know, how are we supposed to know? Well, put it down for sexual abuse. That's not covering yourself in any glory. I wouldn't go to them rooftops and shout to the world.

Hooray! I've been vindicated. I'm just a sexual abuser, which is a crime in New York. Not a rapist. But to Donald Trump, he was vindicated. That's the magical thinking that Ronnie Kaplan lawyer for E. Jean Carroll keeps talking about in her filings that only in the perverse world of upside down world of Donald Trump does being found by a jury after a three week trial and and 12 witnesses against you and 71 exhibits and pieces of evidence.

You've been vindicated because you're just a sexual abuser. And now he's taken it one step further. He originally argued that that she couldn't amend her lawsuit because she did still have one pending lawsuit, the original E. Jean Carroll versus Donald Trump lawsuit, which we used to call Carol Roman numeral one. That one was stayed for a while to see what would happen on the second case, Carol II, which was based on defamatory statements that he made denying, not forget denying conduct or contact with her, denying knowing her, and claiming that she was a hoax and a fraud and a shakedown artist and all of that. And the jury said, no, you knew her, you met her, you sexually abused her, and then by denying it, you ruined her

professional reputation and otherwise, and you're going to pay punitive damages and actual damages of $5 million. So the case that was still remaining was about a defamation statement that he made when he was president, but they were able to amend it, the lawyers for E. Jean Carroll in federal court in New York, because two days or the day after, I think it was two days after the jury verdict, the jury came back. He was at the CNN, now infamous CNN town hall, and he said the same thing. He said, I'm not a, I didn't know where it's a hoax and all of that. And that again is the family, because that's not what the trial of fact found in New York, whether that's Judge or jury, they found that he was a sexual abuser. So now he's

taken a new tack, he filed late last night, a amended an answer and counter claim. Now, let me just walk you through this. When there is a complaint, which is the operative pleading for the plaintiff, the thing that's filed to answer that complaint is called an answer. And in the answer, it really has three parts. It has the admissions or denials of the allegations of the complaint. It has the defenses, usually affirmative defenses, meaning the defense has the affirmative burden of proof at trial to prove that element of a defense. Some defenses, they don't have the burden. And those are just kind of avoidance or regular defenses. And then there's the, then there's

the affirmative defenses that have to be pled in federal court. Federal courts have noticed pleading environments. You just have to put a one liner in there. You don't have to put the operative facts that support your defense in state court practice in some places. You have to put very elaborate factual support for whatever you're pleading. And then if you have a counter claim against the party that has sued you, you bring it in that pleading. You may need permission first from the judge to do it, depending upon the procedural rules.

And if you have a claim again, somebody else that's not in the case, you can start what's called third party practice and you can bring in a cross claimant, a third party defendant, and you can be the third party plaintiff, and I lost everybody yet, in a case. And it all starts with when you file your answer, you have to make all of these decisions. Some of the claims you would bring against somebody are referred to as compulsory counterclams because you have to bring them in your pleading or you have waved and some of them are permissive counterclaims meaning you can bring them here

or you can start your own case. And that has to go through on that. They already tried this counterclaim once before. When Joe Takapina came in late to the case about three months before trial, taking over from Alina Haba who had been running the case till to date. He tried to bring the counter claim and the judge says, you're too late. Too late on counter claims, that dead, that date and deadline passed.

Now Alina Haba, having shed Joe Patka Pina who lost the trial, she's now filing things on her own. And I've told people in my hot takes, when you see Alina Haba filing something, because she'll file anything. It's probably without merit. That's the only lawyer he can find to do it. And so she filed this amend this new counter claim alleging he's been defamed, Donald Trump, because she, E. Jean Carroll and social media and interviews keeps calling him a rapist. And he's not, follow this logic. He's not a rapist. He's a sexual abuser.

And that's the defamation now. In order to do that, two things have to happen. One, you have to have a reputation that's capable of being defamed. And I'm not sure. I want to ask Karen your opinion in a minute. I'm not sure Donald Trump can be defamed. I'm not sure Jeffrey Dahmer can be defamed. I'm not sure Adolf Hitler can be can be defamed. There are certain people that are beyond being defamed because their reputation is so crappy to begin with that there's nothing to defame

That's my one positive. The second one is you got to show damage And now if it's now if it's accusing you of a crime for which you're not committed, there's a measure in the law that's called defamation per se, and you don't have to really show actual damage. But they're claiming actual damages, punitive damages, incalculable damages. I love that word. And my question is, then they would have to show that the damage between being a, to a reasonable jury, that there's a dollar amount between sexual abuser and rapist. That is because that would be the measure of damage. And I don't know how you would ever calculate because both those things are

so terrible that to the public and to a reasonable person's mind, it's a distinction without a difference. So again, a retaliatory case, like almost like a slap case against E. Jean Carroll by Alina Habba, setting themselves up for future sanctions. Karen, you saw it, you did a hot take with Ben. What did you make about all of it? What did you make of it?

Well, this one makes my blood boil to no end. But before I do, you can't just say a slap case without explaining what a slap case is. Popok. Yeah. So, see, just as I told you, I get tongue-tied sometimes, and must be the S's. It's a strategic lawsuit against something participation. It means you sue somebody because they've sued you. And you're trying to stop them from suing you not because there's merit

But because they'll have to deal with your retaliatory strike and there's anti-slap Statutes on the books in New York that says you can't do that. So I'm sure we're gonna see Robbie Kaplan the lawyer arguing that this is nothing more than their attempt to chill Her right to sue for the things that he did wrong with no real merit. And they're entitled to attorneys, fees and damages as a result of that. I wouldn't tangle or tussle with Robbie Kaplan. You and I have had around the show.

And Alina Haba is, I mean, we talked about it. This is like Godzilla versus Bambi. And I mean that as a compliment, both to Godzilla and to Robbie Kaplan. We're going to see. I think Lena Habba is the Godzilla because she's a monster. Well, she is a monster. She is a lawless monster who is willing to crush innocent civilians or at least attempt to in her wake.

But so anyway, she is a complete monster. What do you think is going to happen with this? What do you think, Judge Kaplan? And knowing Alina Hobb is track record, she got sanctioned down in Florida, speaking of Florida by Judge Middlebrook's for the suit that she filed with her name on it with Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and everybody else for the big conspiracy of the Russia hoax. The judge said this was a political screed in search of a lawsuit without merit, and I'm

going to sanction you, the attorney's fees, the other side over a million dollars, Alina Haba, and Donald Trump. So she's got a bad track record recently in federal court. What do you think, Lewis Kaplan, who brooks no fools, who has already showed an interest in sanctioning and coming up with quick decisions? What do you think he does here? It's gonna be a rule 11 sanction, right?

Federal rule of civil procedure number 11 provides that a district court can sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or they contain frivolous arguments and arguments that have no evidentiary support. I mean, that's what the rule says. And I think he's going to slap a rule 11 sanction on her is, you know, faster than you can make someone's head spin.

I think she's going to be sanctioned monetarily. And I also think he's going to refer her to the disciplinary committee because this woman shouldn't be practicing law. The fact that she would give, do a frivolous lawsuit like this, that is not just frivolous. It is absolutely cruel and it is inappropriate to use, talk about weaponizing. They are weaponizing the judicial system and going after E. Jean Carroll. And, you know, look, I'll agree the New York is completely backwards when it comes to the definition of rape, you know, in New York.

And it's not every state. The only way for there to be a rape is between a man and a woman. And it's a penis into a vagina and it has to be inserted, okay? That's it. Any other contact between, you know, if it's two men, you know, and it's penis to, you know, the backside, that's not called rape. It's called something else. It's called criminal sexual act.

But no one ever says, oh, I was criminally sexually acted, you know, or if somebody, if a man puts his penis forcibly into a woman's mouth, that's also you can't use the word rape in New York. That's also called criminal sexual act. The only time it's actually technically called rape is penis to vagina. And so, and not, and it's kind of ridiculous, right? This is where, you know, because obviously it's you are raped. And so, and both in the legal sense as well as in the colloquial sense. So, you know, the fact that New York has that that antiquated definition of that word, you know, the fact that New York has that antiquated definition of that word, you know, is kind of ridiculous. And so, there's no way, there is in no way, shape or form, can anyone argue with the fact that E. Jean Carroll was raped by Donald Trump, whether or not it

was his penis. And, you know, what he took from her and what he did to her is what he does to women, right? And so, for him, you know, what is he going to her is what he does to women, right? And so for him, what is he gonna do? Is he gonna sue the other two women who also testified at that trial and talked about how he forcibly groped them and what he did to them, one of them in a library, and the other one on an airplane,

is he gonna sue them for defamation too? I mean, this is what this guy does, you know? And so I think it's kind of absolutely outrageous for him to make this claim and to say this to E. Jean Carole. And I also have to say, you know, as a man, why is he advertising to the world that a jury, that E. Jean Carole couldn't tell the difference, he couldn't feel the difference between his finger and his penis.

I'm just saying, it seems like a little bit of a, if I were him, I always danced around that in hot tags, but yes, it's not a, it's right. I mean, I don't know, I wouldn't want that. I don't know if the wind, he's gonna have to say, oh, she would have known the difference.

I don't know, anyway. So this one just, this is just, you know, she was absolutely sexually assaulted by this pervert who he's, you know, in that tape that was released the other night, you know, the tape at Bedminster, that's the feature of the indictment, the Mar-a-Lago indictment, where he talks about Anthony Weiner being a pervert, okay, pot calling the kettle black. Donald Trump is the biggest pervert there is what he does to women. I mean, look at the three women who testified at this trial.

Look at his comments on Axis Hollywood with grab him by the You Know What. So anyway, this one particular story makes me upset. Yeah, I'm be happy. Understandably good. I didn't mean to cut you off. No, no, I'm sorry. So, so I don't know where I have no my legal analysis has sort of gone out the window because I'm really kind of great. Anyway, let me ask you, let me get you just back for a second to the legal analysis. But do you think I posited something? Can Donald Trump be defamed? Can Donald Trump, is he incapable of defamation of being defamed, the victim of defamation

because of his own reputation? Don't you have to have a unsolid reputation that can be defamed? Yeah, no, I think that's an excellent point. I think that's an excellent point. And on top of that, look, he has been fundraising off the back of this, right? His ratings in some ways have gone up amongst his followers. I don't understand it. So it's the opposite for him, you know, in his world, you know, saying things like, oh, you know, women like it when you grab them by the, you know, what? And, you know, him being this like tough guy who sexually assaults women in his world, somehow that's like bravado. That is like makes him. Yeah, so it's like the opposite of defamation.

This is, this is what, who he is and what people like about him, I think. He gets more adulation, the more indicted he gets and the more he's accused of being a sexual abuser. And then I don't understand the damages here. This is why it's a slap case. That's retaliatory and disgusting as you as you so eloquently put because I don't really get the damages. You know, you can't jump up and down and tell the jury, I'm not a rapist. I'm a sexual abuser. And that's impacted me dollar wise as far as they're going to get an expert to say there is an economic difference between sexual abuse being than a rapist. This like you said, she wasn't sexually, she wasn't whatever the crime thing is called in New York. You know, she's allowed to say her version of what happened to her and he's not allowed to deny it by saying that he was vindicated by the jury. Some people might be asking,

what's going on with that appeal? Well, he posted his Donald Trump had to put up a bond. We call it a super CDIS bond. It stops the enforcement of the judgment for that moment of the appeal. Could be a six month to a year long appeal. But it does guarantee that if he, if the appeal is denied, here's the, thank you, salty. Here's the cashier's office receipt for the, we can talk a little bit about that. Yes, the clerk's office has a bank account

and they take in and segregated funds all of these kind of when you want to pay into the court registry, you can always pay in plus 10%, the amount of the judgment against you and stop the enforcement of the judgment. Because if in plus 10%, the amount of the judgment against you and stop the enforcement of the judgment. Because if you don't stop the enforcement of the judgment, she has a judgment right now and she can go do post-judgment enforcement, she can go to banks, she can garnish wages, she can go grab money at a bank account, wouldn't that be nice?

She can go put a lien on buildings, anything with that, his property property that's in his name. She can move to try to pierce the veil and try to get to his personal, you know, to his other assets that are not in his name and are in trusts, but you can't do any of it if the bond's been posted or the cash bond in this case has been posted. Now, whether he did it because he couldn't get a bond's bondman, a bondman. Yeah, I was going gonna ask you about that. Why don't you close cash? Well, according to Joe Takapina in a text to the media, he said, bones cost money. It's 110,000 to keep a bond in place for two years. And so he's got the cash.

That's my artist rendering. I don't know. I think I'm pretty close. I'm pretty couldn't get a bond. It might not be, although bonds people, I mean, somebody would write that bond. I think they just had, I don't know why he wanted to tie up $5.5 million. But the good news for you, it's not his money.

All right. He's griffed off of his fundraiser. I did a hot take where he's taking 10% of his presidential campaign fund raising money in tiny six point font that he changed in March that used to say 1% when you donate to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, 10% is going to save America pack which he can use for his legal fees, which nobody knew and nobody read. The York Times Maggie Haberman did a good job of finding that. You're right, it's not his money.

So he's whipping it out of the 20 million that we think has left and saved America back and he's putting it over in the court, in a, I'm not sure it's interest-barring, but the good news for E. Jean Carroll is that if the appeal ends at that level, either the first department court of appeals in New York or then the subsequent court, which is the court of appeals in New York,

it's the highest court in the state of New York. Oh, no, actually, this is federal. I'm sorry. Second, forget all that. Stays in the pod. Second circuit federal court appeal is the dex level of appeal. And the only thing above that is the US Supreme Court. If she, if he loses at those levels either because the Supreme Court doesn't take it or he loses instantly that $5.5 million goes to EG and Carol.

And if there's not enough money in there, let's say this thing spins out another year, like two years, I think the court requires them to put in extra interest. So she'll get her money faster because that cash is sitting in the bank. That's a good thing for EG and Carol. And I think you're right just to wrap up that one thing

and then we'll turn to Ivanka is that, Lena Habo, get ready, you're getting sectioned again. Apparently this this is how she's going to make a living. She's just going to go on Newsmax and say stupid things on Fox and try to grab other clients because her client base before wasn't that great. She operates Newsflash. She operates in New York out of a WeWork Regis near Penn station. You know, she listed at 17th and 18th floor of East Bonnevers Street, and I looked it up and that's the Regis. So she's got a rent to office there for her New York stuff regularly.

She's in Bedminster, New Jersey right near the golf course, which is where she met Donald Trump. So it all comes full circle. Speaking of Trump and rounding out the show, Ivanka Trump got some good news and we'll have to explain what it all means. Ivanka Trump and all the other Trumpers, including Donald Trump, had appealed, judge and gore-on of the New York State Supreme Court's ruling, denying their motion to dismiss. They had argued to the trial judge that a lot of their claims or all of their claims were

time-barred, meaning the applicable six-year statute of limitations for the New York Attorney General to bring an executive law 63-12 case, which is the special power, special superpowers that the New York Attorney General is given by the state legislature. In order to stop continuing fraud in business practices, they can go into court and get all sorts of what we call equitable relief. Equitable relief stands in contrast to law, relief, legal relief, which is money damages and things like that. Equitable relief are injunctions and things called Discouragement, which people sometimes confuse with damages because it deals with money, but it's not damages.

Damages are, if I, if I would never do this to Karen, somebody who's somebody else, if I hit Ben's car with a fender bender, I backed up in his driveway and I hit whatever he's driving this day, he's Kia, whatever he's driving. And I did $1,000 with a damage. That's a damage. And I owe him or my insurance company, it was $1,000 with a damage. That's a damage. And I owe him or my insurance company owes him a thousand bucks. That's legal damages. But that's not discouragement. Discouragement is somebody made money off of fraud. And that calculated to a sum, a sum certain.

Right? I made $50 million grifting. That money can be ripped away, clawed back by somebody like the New York Attorney General in a action called Discouragement, which is a remedy, an equitable remedy at equity that the judge can enforce that rips away that money, discouraging them of the Elgatan gains. It's like a corporate picture, right? It is a civil forfeiture asset forfeiture or other equitable remedies that are available there and we

often use that same term as you do in the Rico statute of ill, gotten gains. It's exactly what it sounds like. It's money that you got you shouldn't have gotten because you got it on the back of a fraud. So the discouragement case of of the of the Tisha James in New York attorney general, which, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of in which they tried to inflate the value of their

real estate for some purposes, like when they needed a loan or they needed to get insurance coverage and then like a balloon, deflated it when they didn't want to pay as much on taxes. And they kept doing this, inflating and deflating based on whatever Donald Trump thought the value of these things were without using real appraisals. And that's a fraud. This is the argument. And therefore she totaled up, you know, let's say, 12 transactions and said they made, they should have gotten this loan for 20 million.

They should have gotten this loan for 100 million. They should have gotten this loan for 50 million. And she drew a line under it. And that's why we say it's a $250 million. Discouragement case is what she's seeking. But now she's got a problem. Her problem is, and I want you to weigh in as a prosecutor, she had six-year statute limitations.

The courts are very consistent that there's a six-year, not a three-year statute of limitations in which to bring your case, use it or lose it. If you don't bring your case within a statute of limitations, whether it's a civil case between two parties, a criminal case, everything in the law has a statute of limitations attached to it, almost everything. I mean, really everything. Sometimes that statute of limitations is told T-O-L-L-E-D, somebody puts a hand on the clock and stops the clock for a period of time.

Sometimes that's because something happened, like a fraud that wasn't discovered, and they give you a little bit more time to discover it, or because the party's entered into a tolling agreement, and therefore it gives the prosecutor or the investigator more time in order to bring the case because the defense has agreed to it. And why does the defense agree to it? They agree to it because they don't want to get

prosecuted right away. And they want to play ball with the with the in this case, the attorney general. But the the court here, which is the first department, the the state court first level, a pellet department for Manhattan ruled that everything related to Ivanka Trump that was in the pleading was filed late. It had to be filed by a date certain and they were outside the six-year window when she filed her case,

and I believe in August of 2000 in 2022. And so she just missed it for Ivanka as to the rest of them, including Donald Trump. She said, the appellate court said, most, if not all, of the transactions are within the statute of limitations, but judge and gore on, here's the cutoff date we're going to give you. And you need to use that as a razor. And if any transactions fall on the wrong side of that date, you are to remove them from the case before it goes to trial. And from what we can tell, there's two big transactions that are on the

wrong side of the statute of limitations date. One of them is a big Florida golf course acquisition and the other is a project in Chicago. So that if that's true and that is, then the number from the 250 is going to get shrunk and you and I will have to calculate how much. Talk about it from a prosecutor's standpoint. Why do you want a tolling agreement? And how did Latisha James, because she's done everything so right and so well, was this a screw up by her? Or did she always know that these dates, these transactions were going to fall off the

time continuum against Ivanka Trump? Yeah, so look, Statute limitations exist, as you said, in civil and criminal cases. And you know, some things have no statute of limitations like murder, you know, has no statute of limitations. You can bring a murder case anytime you can solve it. But, but there are other things that have shorter statutes of limitation in

civil cases, as well as criminal cases, because, you know, at a certain point, people have to be able to go on with their life and know that whatever it is was put behind them. And look, this is a rare win today in the Trump, or yesterday in the Trump world, where a Trump, Ivanka Trump, she won something. It's on a technicality, it's not on the merits, but she did, she is now out of this case.

And but statute limitations are complicated, right? It's not, it's sometimes it's as easy as, you know, here's six years, it's from six years from this date to this date, but sometimes there are times in between that are told. And so, for example, during this six year period, what happened is we had the COVID-19 pandemic situation that caused then governor Andrew Cuomo to issue a series of executive orders that told certain statute of limitations for a certain period of time.

And it got a little complicated and a little confusing. And it even became confusing for prosecutors about was this time counted or not, they were not these straightforward starts and stops. They were these very complicated executive orders that kind of cobbled together different time periods on and off for different things involving the courts and their work courts and their work courts. So in addition to the tolling agreement here, there was also that series of executive orders that she had to calculate.

And look, not only did she get it wrong, Judge Angora got it wrong, because he ruled that this was within, this was don't forget an appeal from one of his decisions saying that the statute, he calculated it the way, the way Attorney General Letitian James calculated it. And so what they did is in a unanimous opinion, the Pelod Division First Department,

what they did was they said no, when we add up this time period and the executive orders and the tolling agreement, et cetera, we find that it's actually this this period of time, not that period of time. And so, you know, look, this was a rare win for the biggest losers, you know, with the last name, Trump, but it's a pretty big deal for Ivanka because it totally takes her out of the mix here. But I suspect that that, that, Tish James, you know, the Attorney General, I suspect that

this isn't a huge shock, because if you recall, do you remember there was a time when Judge and Goran put the Trump organization and the individuals under a monitor ship? Yeah, and she let her out. And she let her out. So she was always on a different track. She was always on a different track. I think they always had, not, I think they always kind of thought that they were pushing the envelope, but they weren't sure.

And I think so, I don't think this was a huge shock for Tish James. I think she was just, it was an unclear area of the law given all of the things we just talked about. And, you know, look, don't forget also this case had that companion criminal case, right? And for a long time, because don't forget, this is the identical case to the other Alvin Bragg case, the criminal investigation into the evaluation of assets, the one where, as soon as Sivance, no longer was the district attorney

when his term ran out and Alvin Bragg came in, an investigation was handed to Alvin Bragg and Alvin Bragg wasn't ready to go forward into the grand jury in the criminal part of this, but that was a joint investigation and that's the one where the two prosecutors very noisily resigned and one of them wrote a book, etc. So that, you know, this is always a side-by-side thing that they were doing together, a joint investigation. And so, you know, there was a lot of

how do you do that? What's more important, A criminal case or a civil case? And so, you know, a lot of times the attorney general or a civil case will defer to the criminal case, right? And let the criminal case go forward. And so some time was potentially, and I don't know this, but I'm guessing some time was eaten up by allowing that case to proceed. So, you know, it's just one of those things that happens, but she has, you know, she's off the case, and now they're going to focus on just the men, on, you know, the boys and Donald, and, you know, the trial's supposed to happen in October, hopefully it still will, but, you know, that's, that's how I see this, Popo, what about you? Yeah, I agree with you. I think that it's a rare win.

I see this, Popo, what about you? Yeah, I agree with you. I think that it's a rare win. Shout out, where shout outs are due, Bennett Mosquits, the new lawyer for at Trapman Sanders, or whatever the firm is now that they merged with a few other firms. For Ivanka, came in a little bit later to a good job. The good news is that the Appellate Court reinforced the appropriate, for the rest of the world, reinforced the appropriate statute limitations

being six years in all cases involving 63-12. So it reinforced the power, the superpower of the attorney general, but Ivanka, the cutoff for those that are playing at home, playing the legal AF home game, the date that all of the transactions needed to be within had to be July 20 for her, sorry, February 2016, six years, meaning they had a file by February 2022. And this case wasn't filed till September

2022. Just missed it. For the Trump organization, the applicable operative date is July of 2014. So there's definitely things that are after that and cut off that are going to have to come off the board for Latissia James. So maybe it cuts the 250 and a half, I'm not sure. But it doesn't change. I think the case going forward on October the second, it'll be whittled down a bit. A won't be there. But you know, also, I think the Latisha has to make the decision whether she's going to take an appeal herself to the court of appeals and delay the trial, or she's going to, like you said, sort of saw the writing was on the wall for Ivanka early on and it's just going to let her take a pass without taking the appeal. The, of course, the two sides already issued their statements.

Chris Kice, who's the lawyer for Donald Trump down in Florida for the criminal case, said see, we told you the New York Attorney General's case is out of control and eventually Donald Trump will be proven to be the amazing business person and successful business person that he always was and there's no victims here. Neither the banks nor the insurance companies were victims that we will prevail to which let's issue James on the other side. Her office said there is a mountain. This is her quote a mountain of evidence against Donald Trump that we will be using. So you know too, so sad about

Ivanka, this is my words, but we have a mountain of evidence against Donald Trump. We'll see you in court, but she didn't make it, she didn't say whether she was going to appeal or not. Do you think they're going to appeal to the highest level court in New York? Do you think they just kind of take their law and move on? Yeah, I mean, because don't forget this wasn't just a motion regarding the Statue of Lamentations. This was also a much bigger motion that was made, challenging the use of that statute, et cetera, and Trump's lost all of that. So this wasn't a win, right?

This was a win for Ivanka, because the case is dismissed on a technicality, but this wasn't to win for the rest of the Trumps. This was an affirmation actually that this is a valid case, a righteous case, a valid application of the law. And you know, look, she knows and everybody knows delay is the tactic. So if I were her, I'd want to trial. You know, we got an October date. That's before, you know, all the other, we have Jack Smith asking for December, we have Alvin Bragg doing his case in March. I'd say, let's go. I would take my time and my trial and I would just do it because otherwise you risk not having

a trial with it. Great. She and I have already commented that Letitius has been on other podcasts and has said that she thinks that her trial date may be a jeopardy. But that was before this sort of fast cannon thing happened. And now the parties are going to have a tussle with cannon in the middle of July or the middle of the end of July about when is the appropriate trial date.

Should it be December around my birthday or should it be some other time after he is a failed presidential candidate for the second time? I don't know which one it is, but we'll follow this really fascinating stuff. I've always a little bit melancholy at the end of our podcast because I could go on forever. I know. We missed the topic. Oh crap. What was the topic we missed? We were going to talk about the Hellerstein brag.

Oh, let's do it. Yes. Okay. So good. All right. You know what? I get sometimes I get caught up in the world of, did we do that already in the hot take and you did it with Ben? All right, you're right. People come to the podcast and the audio version to get the law. So here we go. A couple weeks ago, you and I had a conversation about a pending, a pending decision being made by the federal judge as to whether Judge Hellerstein, senior status, in the Southern District of New York, on a petition to remove the Manhattan DA's prosecution in front of Judge Juan Mershon, former colleague of yours, in the Manhattan DA's office, along with Jack Smith, and whether he was going to still be the judge or it was

going to be presided over by a federal judge and a federal jury Same prosecutor state same laws state but new courthouse because I don't know Donald Trump likes to delay things and go into federal court He's doing terribly in federal court. I don't know why it wants to be there But he wants to get away from judge Juan Mershon and his $35 donation to the Biden campaign because you know it gives him political fodder to attack and raise money. And so there was a very healthy series of briefing.

You and I, you and I run away when that started. I was in my place. You were in your place. And the E. Jean, just so you know how far away that was back in May, E. Jean Carroll had just come down with a verdict in a judgment. And we got, oh, they filed a motion to remove. Now, hella steen has let it be fully briefed and he had a two hour hearing and he was none too kind to the arguments of Todd Blanche, the other, the other criminal lawyer down in Florida for Donald Trump just to keep things straight about why can't the state court

judge preside over this and why only a federal judge can give you justice in this case, I don't see it. What did you do? I mean, basically, you tell the audience, we know what's going to happen next. What's going to happen next? Well, the judge signaled to the parties. What he's going to do, he said, orally, he said, look, I'm going to write on this. And I'm going to write a decision about my legal reasoning about this removal question. But, and I'm going to do it very soon. But my very strong inclination is to remand this back to state court. This is my strong inclination. It's not binding. And what he said was, look, there's no reason to believe that measured justice can't occur in state court. This is my strong inclination. It's not binding. And you know, what he said was, look, there's no reason to believe that measure justice can't occur in state court. You know,

he really signaled to the parties that it's going to stay there. And, you know, I want to give you credit, you predicted this, you know, you said, yes, this is, this is going to happen. I was a little bit, I said, look, you know, I wasn't sure because, you know, I was, I was at the DA's office when we watched, when we were subpoenaing Trump's tax returns, not from him, but from Mezar's, his accounting firm, and that went all the way up to the Supreme Court and back and got that removed. They got that removed to federal court, even though none of us thought that would go to federal court, we thought it would stay in the state. And don't forget once those tax returns were obtained, that was the basis for the 17

count conviction of the Trump organization that happened last year. Anyway, so I thought, look, if they did it there, they could do it here. I didn't, you know, I wasn't sure one way or the other which way it would go, but that, you know, look, that this could happen. And, you know, and so, you know, it was one of those things that could, I thought, could go either way. You know, because Trump is trying to get Mershon off the case, you know, he thinks he's biased against him for the reasons you said. You know, but I think what what Judge Hellerstein was saying is he can get a fair trial in the state.

And I think that was partly because, you know, it's a nod to Judge Mershawn who's really an excellent, an excellent judge and has a great reputation. So the other thing too is the standard for removal that Trump would have to use is, it's called federal officer removal. And that's the grounds that the law that would be used to remove a matter from state court and bring it to federal court.

And it's very narrow. The professor of the person has to be a federal officer. And it normally either either it's about charges or conduct that arose under the color of their office and that there's a viable defense or that there's a viable federal defense. And I thought, you know, look, this happened Donald Trump wrote the checks while he was president and of course he's a federal officer. He's the president. And so that's why I thought potentially this could be removed. But the Manhattan D.A.'s office and their brief did something brilliant. And I love love when people do this.

Is they cited to Trump's own words in his brief as to reason why this was not grounds for federal removal. Because don't forget in Trump's own brief, what they said was, look, you know, this, Michael Cohen was hired to help Trump in his personal affairs, right? Because they're trying to have it both ways. They don't want this to have affected the election,

because if they did this to affect the election, then he's guilty. Or if nothing else, just guilty of a misdemeanor. What makes it a felony is, you know, if it's for another crime and it could be for an election crime. But he's saying, no, this had nothing to do with the election. I hired Michael Cohen for my personal affairs, right? This is his personal lawyer for my personal affairs

and was separate apart from my presidency. And that's Donald Trump's entire argument and his entire defense in this case. So the DA's office used that in their papers to say to Judge Hellerstein, look, the federal officer removal, the grounds for removal, it requires that this to be conduct arising under the color of their federal office. And Trump in his own words is saying, no, this is personal.

So I think that alone, his Trump's own words defeats his removal. And so I think it's not going to be removed. But we'll see. We'll see soon in writing. Yeah. I think it stays in state court. And again, just to square the circle here, the reason Donald Trump probably wanted to make it go to federal court, not because he loved Judge Hellerstein.

In fact, that was probably the last person he wanted to see randomly assigned to the case, a Clinton appointee. We'll put up his picture later who looks like Yoda in a 10-gallon hat. That's not the one. There we go. That's not the judge they wanted to pull, who's ruled in favor of Michael Cohen and against Donald Trump in the department of and Bill Barr in the past in retaliation case that Michael Cohen made to be released from lock up after he was sent back

in retaliation for social media postings. That's not the judge they wanted. Why? Because at least in the Southern District of New York, there's a couple of counties that contribute jurors that are more conservative Republican than just a jury pool for Manhattan. Manhattan, jury pool, other than a couple of places in the Upper East side, the Upper West side, is you know, pretty blue. You know, it ranges from dark deep blue to dark blue to blue, you know, with a couple of little pockets here and there. And so they didn't like that. And they already saw how that worked for them because same judge, same DA a year ago,

same lawyers, except for Todd Blanche being added to the team, lost 17 count jury verdict for business fraud and tax fraud related to the two Trump organizations. So they already saw that, you know, they had that movie, that dress rehearsal, that went terribly. They don't want to do that again. Maybe they can, oh, maybe we can get Ulster County and Orange County and this county and that county and Westchester County will get a couple of Trumpers on there. We'll be able to hang the jury or get a verdict. They won't be able to convict. So that's where they were going, not happening.

Going back, it's almost, as far as I know, it's almost impossible to appeal that. And so we're full steam ahead because Judge Hellerstein and his orders three weeks ago when he was setting the briefing schedule, it was like, yeah, in the meantime, Judge Mershon, you got this. You do you, you keep setting hearings and things. We'll get back to you, it was like, yeah, in the meantime, Judge Mershon, you got this, you do you, you keep setting hearings and things, and we'll get back to you on whether I'm ever gonna take the case away from you. And it looks like he's not going to be doing that. I could go on with you, Karen, for a long, long time, but unfortunately, we reached the end, or fortunately,

we reached the end of another episode of the midweek edition of Legal AF. You can only get it on the Midest Touch Network, and you can do it in several different ways. We have different delivery devices for the analysis and news that we do, and they are all tied to the Midest Touch Network. You can subscribe on YouTube where people are watching us tonight. We're often the first or second most watch show on YouTube live in the world.

We would just beat last week. We came in number two during our live taping, our live recording only by Donald Trump doing some crappy thing in front of fundamentalist Christians. Other than that, we were the number one show. So that's one way to get it. That's one delivery device. You can then also, um, and that you can subscribe for free. All free. Everything I'm going to talk about now is free on the, to the, you might as touch a network

on their YouTube channel. You can also then go over to the audio and, you know, in a few hours we're going to drop the audio version of this on literally every known platform for podcasting out there. We are there. And we're easy to find. And you can plus follow, subscribe for free, like us and comment on us there. And it helps if you do both, to be honest, you know, we pack a lot into the show. So a lot of people like to a little more time when we're leisurely, walking the dog, doing errands, housekeeping,

working, whatever, listening to the show, that helps. Both help watching, listening, help commenting. Thumbs uping helps with the algorithms. If you can believe it. And so that's why I say it. And then you can, you know, you can go to our merchandise store where we have some merchandise, we haven't gotten the KFA collection fully ready yet, but we will before the summer is over. But you can go to the minusasTouch store.MidasTouch.com. I always blow that and you can get legal AF gear, including I think you still have coffee mugs as well, which I like and I hand out to people that I know.

And that's how you can support the show. A of people are like how do we how do we support you and support our sponsors? I know the sponsors on every podcast It's controversial that we that we have we have to pay bills for the podcast But we do and we like our sponsors and we curate them and we pick ones that we can support and that want to support What we're doing the mission that we have at the intersection of law and politics, and they're supportive of it. And you should be supportive of them too, because it helps keep this show coming to you uninterrupted,

if you will, week after week after week, and all the hot takes that we do as well, throughout the week. If you add it all up, you're looking at, I mean, literally, if you add up all the hot takes that are legal oriented between Ben, me, and Karen, you're looking at, I don't know, 20 hours plus, you know, 24 hours of material a week, right? If you add it all up, and that's what

you should do. And then we take some of the better podcasts, some of the better YouTube things, we put them over on the podcast so you can grab it there, little short bites, or the people that are committed to our long to our long show format, like this one. So that's the promo for the show. We got to do that every week. I've built the pay. Got salties to pay.

But Karen, you've been jumping into the hot takes lately. You've been doing a great job with those as well, along with your commentary on a network that I will not name out loud, but is reasonably popular and well known, and has been helping deliver real real news lately which I really like involving Donald Trump. Give you the last word. Go ahead. The last word this week is thank God the Pope-Pock beard is back. I was really thrown last week, Pope-Pock. It just you know I'm used to a certain thing and it really threw me off so I'm a fan. It's my first vacation. The beard is back.

The vacation. Anyway, that's I just want to say I'm really I was feeling a little unsettled last week. Little jarring. So I feel much better this week. I came out of the bathroom. The family is like, what happens? Did something happen in there? No, I just needed to see my face. Occasionally, but all right, let's not we won't we won't make the show about what you and I look like. You always look great. Of course, whether you're here, law and order set as a legal advisor for law and order to a plug. CNN as a regular contributor, but it, of a building, you know, that was going up and it was inter-mearing. It's so so noir, right? Isn't it? Aren't you

picturing like a gray, black and white set and like smoke at the bottom and I'm wearing a fedora and you're there or whatever, you're just having a conversation about, you know, what do you, what about me? What about about, you know, what about me? What about you joining? Yes, what about you? This sounds fantastic. Let's start doing it on Wednesdays. That sounds like a great idea.

And that's how we got here. So I really appreciate you reminding everybody how we got here. We're going to end the show, shout out to the Midas Mighty and the Legal A efforts we'll see you next week. See you on Saturday, but then my Salis for the Weekend Show. the legal A efforts we'll see you next week. See you on Saturday.

But then my Salis for the Weekend Show.