Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts DISSECT legal consequences of day 4 Jan 6th Hearing

Episode Date: June 21, 2022

On this special midweek edition of LegalAF x MeidasTouch, the top-rated podcast covering law and politics, anchored by national trial attorney and strategist, Michael Popok and former prosecutor and leading criminal defense attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo, discuss 1. Day 4 of the Jan6 hearings and its focus on Trump’s attempt to criminally interfere with the Georgia election and the connection between Ginni Thomas and Arizona’s attempted fake elector scheme. 2. Whether the Jan6 hearings have provided future prosecutors with enough evidence to prove “criminal intent” against Trump beyond a reasonable doubt for federal and state crimes, and if so, whether prosecutors will indict Trump. Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to a special edition of Legal AF with your co-acres Michael Popak, Karen Friedman, Agnifalo, on a special Jan 6 hearings edition. As everybody knows both Karen and I are dropping in and doing pre-game and post-game commentary every day of the hearing on the Midas, Mighty or the Midas network, which is being hosted by Tony Michaels. And what we're doing that again, each day of the hearing, we're coming up on day four. We thought it'd be especially relevant for us to do two things on this midweek episode. One, to talk about from a prosecutor standpoint, leaning in on and leaning on Karen's past

history as a prosecutor, about whether there is enough evidence that is being presented through the Jansk six committee for a prosecutor to prosecute Trump for crime showing willful violation of federal or state, we'll talk a little bit about state crimes, or not, or whether his bury at this head in the sand and act ignorantly about whether he won or he lost the election is enough to stop him from being prosecuted. We'll talk about that. And then lastly, we'll give you a preview of what day four of the Gen 6 hearings will be bringing us, which is if day three was hang Mike Pence, day four is Georgia and Arizona with a little sprinkling of Jenny Thomas Karen.

How are you? I'm good. I'm really good. It's so so much going on right now in the world of Trump and this country and democracy. It's just so much to absorb. Yeah, well, we're going to try to do it. I'm going to try to do it for our our our Legion growing Legion of legal a efforts. Let's kick it off with the question that's on everybody's mind, which is Jan 6 is doing a admirable job on not an evidentiary scale, but certainly with an overwhelming sequence of primarily Republican witnesses, whether against their will or otherwise, against

Donald Trump. As I called it on the weekend edition of legal AF with Ben, my Salis, I said, this is Ronald Reagan's 11th amendment. Do not speak ill of other Republicans writ large. That's all they're doing is Republicans crapping on Trump, you know, rightly so, as fact witnesses. But the question is, is all of this, all of the sequence of videos and depositions and swear testimony and documents as powerful as it is as presented by the JN6 committee, is it enough to establish willful and criminal intent to violate a federal statute? We've talked about those federal

statutes in the past, interfering with governmental operations, interfering with the election count, seditious conspiracy, and all of that. Is it enough? And if it is enough, at least on paper, will Merrick Garland or any attorney general in his shoes bring a case against the former president who's going to be running for office again, or does he or she not do that for other political or moral reasons? Let's kick it off. Firstly, what do you think? You've seen it all. We got criminal intent. Well, what I can say is the January 6th Select Committee is absolutely presenting a roadmap for prosecutors, and they're presenting it in a way that is a roadmap for

prosecutors. You know, there's think about it. They've had over what a thousand witnesses and lots and lots of documents and videos and and they could have synthesized it and presented it in any way that they wanted and they could have done it in chronological order. They could have done it in, you know, various different orders of how to present it. And what it looks to me like is it's a spoon feed to the American people to change the hearts and minds from a willful kind of political standpoint

to say yes, Lex, do this, but also for the prosecutors who I'm sure are watching to show, these are the crimes that could be prosecuted. And this is the evidence that we have and that you could subpoena from us or that we would give over to you, that you could introduce as proof that Donald Trump committed these crimes.

And there's lots of different crimes that he could have committed. And we can go through them in a little more detail, but what you are alluding to is, is what is the standard and what do prosecutors need to be able to prove and what everybody's sort of opining on in the Twitter verse and everywhere else is whether or not Donald Trump intended to commit a crime. And there's something, you know, the difference between murder and a car accident has to do with intent, right? The result could be the same. A person could be plowed down and you know, the hit by a car and die. And in one scenario

where the person intentionally pointed the car at them and tried to run them over, that's murder. You know, if it was a situation where they didn't see them and they weren't speeding and they weren't doing anything wrong and the person just started in front of them and got hit by the cart and tragically died. You know, that could be, that's an accident and no one gets prosecuted. And the reason for that is it has to do with the intent or what's known in legal terms as mens rea.

And the intent of these various crimes is that he had to know or should have known that what he was doing was wrong and that it was a crime. And so that's really where prosecutors are sort of analyzing and micro-analyzing the evidence here because when you look at the January 6 insurrection riot, whatever you want to call it, everybody's emotional reaction is, oh my god, that's terrible and you know, someone has to be held accountable. And, and what, 800 people,

Popok are being prosecuted at this point by DOJ for that. And people will be held accountable. The question is, what is Donald Trump's criminal exposure here? And that's what I think everybody is hyper analyzing right now. And really where the questions are, because as you said, you know, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to see is there admissible evidence that would show proof beyond a reasonable

doubt, which is a much higher standard, the highest legal standard in the country. It's much higher than the civil standard of more likely than not or clear and convincing evidence. Okay, I'm not letting you off the hook, Karen. What do I think? I asked your question. Do you think? Thanks.

The way, let me, let me finish because we went on, we went on a rant there for a minute. Here's the question, prosecutor wearing a prosecutor hat. You've seen the evidence, just the way we've all seen the evidence, but through a lens of experience of being a prosecutor, you know the willfulness, what you call men's ray of prop, properly is the major issue from what you call men's ray up properly, is the major issue from what you have seen so far through day three of the hearing and all of the

other clips and pieces of evidence that have been spoon fed to the media by the Jansick's committee. And I mean, that in a good way, do you think they are establishing willful intent to commit a crime and they required guilty mind of Donald Trump based on what you know and what you've seen. Yes, I do. So I think the easiest case to bring, and I've said this many, many, many times here, is the case in Georgia that we're going to see at day four of the Jan 6 hearing. We're going to see the evidence of the recorded telephone call where Trump calls Secretary of State Rapvin's burger and says find the votes, right? Find the necessary votes.

And I think he said one more than the number he lost by in Georgia. To me, that right there is the easiest case to bring. And hopefully, they will bring it. Now, the issue there, and I think the reason it hasn't been brought so far is because Fannie Willis, the Fulton County DA, has been reported that she's her investigation is expanding. She's not just now looking at that one call, because, you know, that's what prosecutors do. They sort of unravel and onion, just pull the threads and pull the threads

and they go where it leads. And in this particular case, I think there's so much evidence of widespread crime in the form of trying to get this election not certified fraudulently. So that I think you could keep going and keep going forever. So somebody's going to have to pull the trigger at some point. And I think that's the easiest one to do. And I think she needs to focus and bring that case, the state charges. The Department of Justice is a little bit harder. So I think in that particular,

in those particular kind of 18 USC crimes that you were talking about, you know, you have to prove what was in his mind. And did he have the intent here to stop an official congressional proceeding or other crimes that were there. And it's hard because you're never in someone's mind, right? And so how do you prove intent? And I was saying before, with the violent crimes or with the car accident example, the results sort of speak for themselves.

And you can sort of put that together. But in a white collar kind of non-violent crime situation or scenario for a prosecutor, proving a state of mind is a little bit harder to establish. And you have to prove he either knew or should have known what he was doing was wrong. Or you have to present circumstantial evidence. So for example, everyone told him

that the election wasn't stolen and that he had no claims and that he wasn't allowed to stop pens from certifying the election wasn't stolen and that he had no claims and that he wasn't allowed to stop pens from certifying the election. You know, those sort of kind of that evidence could show that he circumstantially knew. There's also as you were alluding to a willful blindness. Now you can't the law doesn't allow you to sort of turn your turn of blind eye willfully to something that you could know, but you're sort of avoiding learning the truth that you're not allowed to do that. And so he can't really say that, but he, you know, he dropped a 12th page this this week, he dropped a 12th page sort of what

all his defenses would be, kind of, you know, rant, as what I would call it, as to why he was convinced that the election was actually stolen and why it was within his right to challenge that. And to me, it looked like it was written with the help of a lawyer to try to put his defenses out there because if he can just put a tiny sea. It was written with the help of a lawyer's written by Cacora, who's a white collar guy who represents Trump. Oh, there you go, because you could tell.

You could tell that somebody was advising him and saying, you know, look, you need to put a little seat of doubt in there in the prosecutors and in the jury pool and whoever, that you thought what you were doing was okay. And therefore, you didn't intend to commit a crime. You thought it was in, you were trying to, kind of, you know, the will of the American people,

you were sort of going there and kind of doing it, but, you know, doing what was in your right, but I just think that to me just falls flat as a prosecutor, I think. Can I comment? Of course. Okay. I think he retries that defense.

Let's talk about a future trial. The trial would likely take place, I imagine, in the District of Columbia. He'll argue all he's citizen, he's citizen, Trump, he should be tried in Miami, but I think all of the acts that he did, all of the bad acts that he did are in District of Columbia. So now you have a DC, do you disagree with that? It's gonna be are in District of Columbia. So now you have a DC jury. Do you disagree with that?

It's gonna be in the District of Columbia. Absolutely. He'll move for change of venue. Can I have it in Miami? Can I have it in West Palm Beach? I think the answer to that is probably going to be, no. And so all the witnesses, all the data, all the facts, all the, you know, everything is in the forum

that is convenient is DC. A DC jury sitting there and panelled against Donald Trump is gonna, it leans left. Let's be honest. Yes, it's supposed to be a jury of your peers, but it's gonna be a people that live and reside in DC, which primarily are liberal progressives and people of diversity.

So that's gonna be the jury poll. And then they're gonna hear all the evidence put on by a top notch prosecutor like you about all the things that were told to him, even by people in his intermo circle at every moment to which no reasonable person would be able to hold the opinion that he had won the election after the onslaught of so many people in his inner circle telling him the exact opposite. You don't, you, you can have, I understand your point. You can defeat mens rea if you reasonably in good faith believe something, but after two dozen people testify at the highest levels and then add to that all have his things to try to keep the conspiracy going, removing in the last hours of the administration, the Department of Justice, the Attorney General of the United States in a midnight massacre, removing Jeff Rosen, replacing him with Jeff

Clark, an environmental lawyer, five rungs down the chain because he's going to be the fraud guy. Um, and then you have what I think could could be devastating testimony. We haven't talked about it yet. We'll talk about it on when we get to also the fourth day is that the, uh, a woman who was the last communications director, because you know, everybody was leaving. They're, they're getting off the Titanic as fast as they could. The last communications director when the musical chair stopped. She said she was in the dining room with with with Trump. And she's testified already under oath that when Biden came on as president, Trump looked to no one in particular and set out loud. Can you believe I lost to this guy?

Okay, stop right there. I don't care what he's told people in the past. At some point, he recognized that he lost to the guy, and he'll probably argue, the guy being Biden, he'll probably argue, well that was a different point in time, but that can't be because he tweeted as of, or social truth as of hours ago,

that he won the election. You can't have all of those competing ideas at the same time. And not in front of a jury that's going to be instructed properly on what is willful blindness to connect the dots with enough first-hand knowledge witnesses and documents about the seven-part conspiracy that Liz Cheney laid out. I think he lose it. I think so too, but I'll take it one step further. I wanted to defer the white collar practitioners that are opining on his intent are formidable legitimate good lawyers.

I hear what they're saying. I don't say what I'm about to say lightly. I hate, and I, and I don't take it, I don't say what I'm about to say lightly, I hate to go against them because I have a lot of respect for them. And I get that you do need intent. But part, I kind of feel like even if he thought it was okay, even if he thought that he won the election and even if he believes his own lies, even if that is the case, I still think you can charge him and convict him of obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress for January 6th.

And the reason is this, first of all, there's no doubt it's an official proceeding, right? And we're done with that. Exactly. It does. Exactly. It does. Exactly. It does, it does, it does, of course, have said it was. Exactly. And, you know, the bottom line is he led them, he invited them to Washington. He told them to, he pointed them in the direction.

It's like he loaded the gun and he pointed it in the direction of the Capitol and he knew that they were, what they were doing. And even if he didn't know they were going to be, there was a came a point where he did know. And for 187 minutes, he didn't call them off. No, call the way, way, way, call them off. He did the exact opposite. When they were on the Capitol steps, he tweeted basically Mike Pence doesn't have the balls

to do which right is not a patriot. Exactly. That led that led and they're going to show this in John six hearing that led at that moment because they follow everything he says and everything he does in real time. That led the mob of insurrectionists to start chanting Pence's name and to hang pants right at that moment. So at the moment where he could have quelled the violence that he infomented, he instead took a giant can of kerosene and sprayed it on the flames. But even then,

even then, if you even at that moment, they go in for 187 minutes. If I were the prosecutor in this case, I would call it subpoena every single, I would try to recreate those 187 minutes. I would show every communication that he had, every television show that he watched, every act of violence that he saw, every person who called and begged him to call it off. I would recreate painstakingly those 187 minutes. And to me, his inaction, his is is the proof right there that he knew great and

that that's his intent of all along and he could have stopped it and he didn't and he had a duty to stop it and at that point so to me that's where he if I if I'm the prosecutor I say bring the case now as you alluded to there's these political questions about whether to bring the case. Now, as you alluded to, there's these political questions about whether to bring the case, but from just a can you and should you legally I say game over? Yeah, we're going to talk, well, let's let's touch on day four of the Gen 6 committee. I call this one Georgia Arizona day, because you're going to see a little bit of what Fony Willis has put on in Fulton County, Georgia to the special grand jury, because you're going to hear from the, basically the CEO of the secretary of state of Georgia and Brad Raffitz Burger himself in I assume live testimony, unless somebody else has a baby and they can't take the stand, but they have, don't worry, Jen Six committee has video ready to go for all these people just in case and you're going to hear about the phone call that

Faithful phone call which is the only piece of evidence Yeah, yeah, well everything's perfect that Trump does the perfect brain perfectly fine phone call But that is the only piece of evidence Karen that I am aware of and you tell me if you've heard anything else Where there is an actual first-hand involvement of Donald Trump making a phone call, writing a note, tweeting something at that moment and trying to interfere with the proper election process in a state or federal area. We have all of this connected dots, which is fine, circumstantial evidence, everybody around him, this email, that memo, he could have done better, he buried his head, but this is, circumstantial evidence, everybody around him, this email, that memo,

he could have done better, he buried his head, but this is the only piece of evidence. That's why we've always said that Foni Willis has the strongest case because she has Trump on a recording, picking up the phone and asking Brad Raffin's burger to find 11,000 votes between friends. Exactly. And if that was done in any other undercover sting, this, we wouldn't even be talking about is that going to be a prosecution? That's going to be a conviction.

Now, let's talk about, you know, political will, war will, and for others. Before you get to that, I just want to round out the whole kind of prosecution. There are other, by the way, there are other things he can still be prosecuted for that I think DOJ is looking at that have nothing to do with Jan 6. So the fundraising, there's a wire fraud. I don't know if you saw that there, there, there might be an investigation. He collected $250 million on a bullshit story about he's going to use it for these lawsuits and to overturn the election. And he put it in his pocket. That sounds like fraud today. Doesn't it? It's totally. And I, and I still hold out hope that Alvin Bragg is going to bring a case. So look,

to me, the prosecutors, they have cases to bring. Somebody has to pull the trigger and they have to do it soon. I mean, it's getting frustrating, but okay, get to the political. Yeah, yeah. By the way, it was funny. you sent me in pre-production. You sent me the article in the Times, and I read it more closely after you sent it to me about, you know, whether Wilphal and Tennis being made out by the Jan 6th Committee. And there's a big quote shout out to my friend, Dan Zalenko,

who I just had lunch with last week, who's the head of Y.Colour, Crowley, and Moring, and also is a former SEC guy, former US attorney guy, and he had his own opinion, which I don't totally disagree with. He's just kind of laying out, he's laying out, and most of them are, he's laying out how the ski route, how the ski slope, where the poles are, you know, where the flags are to ski it. He's not saying whether you can ski it or not.

He's just saying, well, there's this problem, there's this problem, there's this problem, there's this problem, there's this problem. there's this problem, there's this problem. I got it. But this is why you and I get paid the no bucks because we get to say out loud, he should be prosecutor and there's enough evidence to do that. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,

no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no political and political context. We had a criminal president before Trump, at least one. His name was Richard Nixon. He was pardoned for all of his bad conduct, unindicted. On it, people forget it was unindicted. It could have been indicted. It was unindicted for everything that he did related to Watergate, the break-in of the Democratic National Committee. And the committee to re-elect the president,

all the money that was raised there, and his attempts to stay in office, and all the other criminal things that he did, including the missing 18 minutes of tape, and all of that. So, for the good of the country, the president, that could be Biden, just said, you know what, he is a criminal, but this isn't good to prosecute him, given the, you know, and he was same party, right? Because Gerald Ford was in the same party. He was the vice president of Nixon, Republican, Republican. We've got Biden, Democrat.

We've got an entire right now, Democratic executive branch, including the Department of Justice, Merrick Garland. And the question is, yes, we think he can prosecute him. But do you think he should prosecute Donald J Trump? Well, let me ask you a question. Do you think Nixon would have been pardoned if he said he was going to run again? You mean, if he wasn't going to go off into the wilderness and never be seen for 20 years until the David Frost, the David Frost interviews, that's a good question.

You know, I've never heard that positive. I don't think that before I'll go out on the limb, I think if Ford suspected that Nixon was going to make a political comeback, he would not have pardoned him. I think that era in the 70s, when you committed a crime as a president, you skulked off under the rock that you came out of. Of course. Never to be heard from again.

That does not happen in 2027. Correct. That to me is the question. So like on the one hand, he could run again, right? But on the other hand, there could be riots in the street. We saw what these people did January 6th, imagine if their president got prosecuted. I mean, I can't imagine that that's not on the mind

of Al the Bragg, Fani Willis, and Merrick Garland, right? It is. I think if there's enough evidence, yes, they have the prosecutorial discretion, not to prosecute him. But I think all things being equal, I think you have to disable the man by bringing a criminal case against him. If there's one to be made, I think the history books will not look kindly on giving him a pass on giving him a pass, given how much he tested the guardrails of democracy throughout his presidency, violated every law, whether it was the Hatch Act, or it was cataloging the gifts he was given

when he was a president, which wasn't done properly, how he treated presidential records, how he treated appointments, cabinet members. I mean, if you want to send the message, the wrong message, if you think Donald Trump was bad, there's another guy or woman worse than him. If you don't hold these people accountable, not just through Gen 6 committee, which is important, but through a criminal prosecution, if there's a case to be made, that's my opinion. Yeah, look, I mean, Marik Garland has to weigh what message are you sending on the one hand? You can't say that presidents are above the law, right?

And the law applies to everybody in this country, but the question is, you know, you have to weigh kind of what to do. And I'm sure. And let me turn and behold on let me turn it back to the federalists out there on our Supreme Court, who love to talk about what the founding fathers would do. Then what would the founding fathers do? who escaped tyranny of King George, who set up a constitutional republic, a constitutional democracy, with a separation of powers, with fear as George Washington said, as he left office in his farewell address,

that he was not going to stay to be a monarch or to be a king, but he was going to the first peaceful transition of power from George Washington and his farewell address. What would the founding fathers do if we could assume them and raise them in a say ons about what to do with Donald Trump or somebody like him? I'm sorry. I think they would say he's a despit. He's a criminal. We thought that could happen because of the way our country was you got you got a prostate unit, he's a criminal. We thought that could happen because of the way our country was, you got, you got a prostate unit if there's crimes to be had. That's why we have a Supreme Court and that's why we have a Department of Justice.

Absolutely. That's me. Absolutely. Yeah. I actually completely agree with you. I think you got to do it. But let's see. And I think that these hearings, and I will say I was a little nervous about these hearings ahead of time wondering, are they going to be overproduced or are they going to seem political? Are they, what are they, what are they going to be? Because they are sort

of unusual, this sort of setup, right? This, they've already taken most of the testimony and they're kind of presenting information. I think they're doing a really good job at, you know, like some of the people are really boring. I mean, they look really authentic, you know, like this is what it really looks like when it's not overproduced. It's just these are real people. I'll tell you what helps. Everybody who's testifying, everybody has an R next to their name. Yeah, everybody. No, it's really is we haven't seen one Democrat. I mean, I don't know about Pock who is the Northern District of Georgia, US Attorney. I don't know his political leanings. They don't really matter. Everybody else from Fox News to Michael Ludwig, no more federalist judge.

He'd be on the Mount Rushmore of right wing conservative judges would be Michael Ludwig. He looked so mean. His testimony was so, I don't know if it was pain or just deliberate. What do you see the idiots? Are you in the chat with Ben and me off of the live for Saturday and all these trolls there were like,

Michael Ludicote is trope. I'm like, dude, first of all, you don't know what you're talking about. Second of all, Michael Ludic was a feeder program for the Federalist Society, Judges on the US Supreme Court for the last 30 years. If you've lost Michael Ludic as a party. Exactly. You're in big trouble. Big do do. Okay. So is the opposite of a glossy shiny polished operator. He was so painstakingly authentic, right? Just and deliberate in every word he said that it just I think that I think this the hearings are doing an excellent job at putting forth people, like you said, they're his people. They're Republicans. It's not like, you know, indignation and his family.

And his family. Yeah, now he can say whatever he wants in his tweets. Let's we only have a few minutes. Let's talk briefly about as a preview of what is the Georgia Arizona presentation for tomorrow. We've already talked about Brad Rafford's burger and the COO or CEO, the Secretary of State, we'll talk about the phone call and the efforts that were made by Trump. But talk about the Arizona speaker of the house who's also a Republican and the conversation or the email that he's going to talk about, which could be a bombshell. And the reason why somebody who's married to somebody is being asked to go testify before the Gen 6. Can we talk about that one?

Is, is, is, is Jenny Thomas actually going to test? I know she's being asked to testify. Well, start with the email exchange. You do. You talk, you talk about the email. So, so, so the other witness for tomorrow is the second, the speaker of the house at the time for the Arizona Senate. And he will testify that he got an email from Jenny Thomas in which he pushed him to basically swear in that fake electors bay sweep of Peter Navarro to certify these alternate like alternate universe electors that they would then send a fence because of course it all goes through a fence. This is like stranger things but like real monsters, not the ones in the underworld. They've all come out. This alternate universe that they've created. So he's going to be the first witness to talk about, think about this, a sitting Supreme Court justices wife, former member of a cult, current member of

a cult, if you really think about it. And the link between her and the big lie and Trump while her, while her, not just he's on there. Let's be clear. There are plenty of weird political marriages that don't make any sense. James Conway. James Conway, Mary to Kelly and really weird. James Carville married to Mary Matlin. Really weird. Bruce Willis and simple shepherd. Really weird. But this one, this one of Clarence Thomas, who has, who never recuses himself and always size with Trump, whatever he can, even if he's in the eight to two, eight to one, seven to two, it's always who's one of the two Clarence Thomas. When your wife is out there promoting the overthrow of the constitutional republic for what you've sworn in oath, you either have to recuse yourself, what she's never going

to do. Or, and she's all geeked up. She was on a right wing news program podcast during the hearing on day three and she heard that she was going to be subpoenaed or asked to testify and she said she'd be thrilled thrilled to do that. What are you. Let's let's end it with this way. What are the odds that Jenny Thomas actually appears at the JAN-6 committee? I'd say actually appears at the JAN-6 committee. I'd say almost zero. There's no way she shows up.

But if she does show up, can you imagine the questioning? If I were asking questions, one of the things I would absolutely want to talk to her about is, you came up with these wacky crazy legal theories. Did you ask your husband for an advisory opinion? I mean, she's going to, obviously, invoke the Marital Privilege, which would be super fun. Who cares what the answer is? ask your husband for an advisory opinion? I mean, she's going to, you know, obviously invoke the marital privilege, which would be super fun. Who cares what the answer is? You've got to just

ask that question and show the absurdity of how ridiculous that is. There is no way on God's green earth. It's not showing that. Okay, could you imagine what's going on in the inner sanctum of the water cooler and espresso machine at the US Supreme Court between not just the clerks because Lord knows what they're talking about, but like John Roberts bumping into Claret's office, like, your wife's not testifying, right, at the Gen 6 committee for her role. I was trying to overthrow the election. I mean, are they going to say we subpoenaed her and that she didn't show up? I mean, they're gonna highlight it, right?

I think they're gonna, I don't think they're gonna do subpoena. Here's my prediction. I think they're gonna do request because I don't, I think even they, even Liz Cheney, doesn't want to be subpoenaing. And she's already on record as saying, she really doesn't want to bring in Ginny except now this guy Rusty, who is the speaker of the house is going to testify about her role. Well, we have to really reevaluate after I hear the complete testimony tomorrow. Look, and I'll, we'll leave it on this because I know what our legal efforts are really interested in is the last 18 Supreme Court

decisions that are coming out in the next two weeks, including Dobbs and the abortion decision. There is reporting as I, and you and Ben predicted, that John Roberts is working feverishly behind the scenes to try to preserve some constitutional right to an abortion the way he preserved Obamacare and he's trying to find the middle road. So I have not given up all hope yet. If anybody's going to do it, it's going to be the chief justice. The question is, can he get one vote between Amy Coney Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch? And this is gonna sound as weird as all get out,

but the only person I think he's got a shot at is Kavanaugh, it would not be ironic given his misogynist and women issues. But if you were doing PR, if this was wag the dog, right, with with with with Dustin Hoffman, people love what I mentioned this crap. If you were doing wag the dog and you were just worried about the PR campaign for Kavanaugh, wouldn't you be whispering in his ear? You want to you want to salvage your entire legacy and reputation? Find a way to support constitutional abortion and give

it to John Roberts. Holy shit. That would be like, I mean, right? You're right. You're absolute. You're absolutely right. This is your fantasy world of my own making. No, but you're absolutely right. That'd be awesome. You know, what else is good? Tell me, then we're going to wrap it up. No, no, I was just going to say, you know, that we are living in such strange times because I I'm watching these hearings and I find myself thinking Pence is a hero. I mean, so, you know, yeah, that's crazy. I was part of the calculator. By the way, of course, of course. Yeah, lutted through him a bone to make him a hero. But my point is maybe Brett Kavanaugh is going to turn out to be a women's right hero too. Like we're living in such upside down world.

I have daughter's daughter. He is married to a woman. You know, but that's it doesn't seem to have worked so far. Karen Friedman, Agnifalo, my favorite midweek anchor. And we're we've reached the end of another, this case, a special edition of Legal AF, and tune in, because Karen, me, Ben, my Salis and the others are doing running commentary,

both before each Gen 6 hearing day and after in either pop-ins, as we like to call them, or in, or full full panels depending upon how many people like Michael Cohen, politics girl, Texas Paul, Karen and me, Gabe and Tony, the Midas Brothers. I mean, it's, you know, we pack them in. It looks like Hollywood squares. Yeah, the Brother Brady Batch. It's not Batch. It's always been a pleasure. And so shout out to the LegalAppers and the Midas Mighty. We'll talk to you next week.