Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts REACT to biggest legal news of the week | Legal AF 6/11/22

Episode Date: June 12, 2022

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF x MeidasTouch is back for another hard-hitting look in “real time” at this week’s most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics.  This week, Ben and Popok discuss and analyze: 1. The opening session of the Jan6 Special Select Committee’s indictment of Donald Trump and his seditions coup conspiracy. 2. Steve Bannon’s “revenge” subpoenas to the Jan6 Committee and other legislators, and whether they will be quashed for violating the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause. 3. The NYAG seeking further contempt orders against Trump for his destruction of documents concerning the 3-year long civil fraud investigation, and Trump and his children appealing the ruling requiring him to provide deposition testimony. 4. The DOJ obtaining a superseding indictment against the Proud Boys adding new seditious conspiracy criminal charges on the eve of the first Jan6 hearing session. 5. The US Supreme Court further restricting the creation of new civil actions against federal officers who cause injuries, siding with the Border Patrol who roughed up a bed and breakfast owner near the Canadian border. 6. A Republican candidate for Michigan Governor being arrested for his role in the Jan6 Insurrection, and why it has caused jealousy (?!?) among his fellow GQPrs. And so much more. Grab some Meidas Merch: https://store.meidastouch.com/ Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Zoomed In: https://pod.link/1580828633 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A Supreme Court ruling giving border agents complete immunity from excessive force claims could it mean that all federal officers will now be immune from constitutional violations Pope Akinai will break it down. A Michigan Republican candidate for governor Ryan Kelly is arrested for his role in the January 6th insurrection and he calls himself get this a political prisoner. Meanwhile New York attorney general Tish James continues to push forward with her investigation into Donald Trump and the Trump organization. Depositions of the Trumps are coming July 15th to be exact.

And Tisch James says that Donald Trump is still in contempt for not turning over documents. Of course Donald Trump is making his final plea to the highest court in New York saying, please don't depose, Tish James. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice files a super-seating indictment on the proud boy terrorists and reggae, Tariots, Joseph Biggs, and others charging them with seditious conspiracy. Meanwhile, Steve Bannon, Zipine is the January 6th Committee in members of Congress, which

is basically like his last ditch effort to try to derail the proceedings before his criminal case goes to trial next month before a federal judge. And then the January 6th Committee's historic blockbuster hearings took place this week. One of the most important nights, not just of the year, but probably in American history, and there are more hearings to come. We will break it all down here on Legal AF, the most consequential legal news of the week, Ben Myceles and Michael Popok.

And Michael Popok, it doesn't get more consequential than this week with those January 6th hearings. Am I right? I tweeted, you're so right, Ben. I tweeted this morning, I love the smell of democracy and accountability in the morning. And I really do. And I was so jazzed up, I mean, both of us had a big role in the Jan 6th Committee hearings that might have the mightest network, broadcasted, podcasted, and it was just got me so revved up for what, everything that you and I talked about doing a year and a half ago was all coming to a fruition now, and it just shows how important our work is and how it's resonating with our audience.

And you talk about those hearings with Benny Thompson's opening remarks, Liz Cheney's opening remarks, the witnesses, officer Caroline Edwards, and her just incredibly heartfelt remarks about swimming in people's blood as someone who was the daughter of a war veteran who was defending the United States Capitol each day and then you had the documentary filmmaker Nick quested and of course all of the bombshells that we'll talk about here on this edition of legal a F but I want to cover a wide spectrum of legal news that's going on in our country to give a broad perspective because these events don't just happen out of nowhere. The creep of fascism doesn't just happen out of nowhere. There are cases that are taking place across the country where our democracy, where our constitutional norms, where our right to be free. For example, in this one case I want to talk about from excessive force of federal government agents is on the line. And some of these cases are not being discussed, Popok, but have incredibly profound implications. And one of them is a case that was decided this week called

Egbert versus Ball, B-O-U-L-E, which basically decided that these border agents, federal border agents are immune from civil lawsuits being filed against them for excessive force. And this dates back to this precedent in a case called Bivens versus six unknown named agents in 1971. And in that case, it established an implied cause of action where federal law enforcement officers who violate the United States Constitution may be individually sued and may be required to compensate victims for their unlawful actions. Now, normally what happens is Congress has to pass a law for

is Congress has to pass a law for state agents, state officials to be sued in their official capacities. So you may be saying, well, wait a minute, aren't police officers sued all the time and law enforcement agents sued all the time? Well, yeah, there is what we always refer to as section 1983 actions actions which allow for state and local law enforcement, but there wasn't really a parallel law for federal agents and federal law enforcement when they engage in a lawful act. In this case, Bivens in 1971, basically said, of course, if these federal agents are doing unlawful things, they're violating the law and hurting people.

Of course, they should be held liable civilly. And that's what the Bivens case said, but in this Eagbert versus Ball case, the facts are a bit unusual. This person, Ball, ran what seems to be a very shady tavern close to the Canadian border in the state of Washington and was maybe operating as an informant, but was engaged in all this shady business, had a dispute with this federal border agent,

Egbert, alleges Egbert basically beat him up and then retaliated against him, sued Egbert. And here the Supreme Court said, ball, you don't have any claim against Egbert for beating you up here whatsoever, because Congress didn't specifically authorize any law where you can hold a border age and accountable. If Congress wanted to pass the law, there would be a law like section 1983, but none exists. And while this case and Popo, here's one of the things I want to talk about, too, clearly this Supreme Court took this case because ball, the guy who was suing the federal border agent was a really unflattering, horrible plaintiff, you know, because of all his unusual quirks. And apparently he was involved in human trafficking in Canada. So really they could like

just trash this bull guy. But what this decision really means, at least as it relates to border agents, is a border agent could have killed ball. A border agent could have showed up shot ball in the face and then said, well, we're not responsible. We're just, you know, there's no law that Congress passed. That's the implication of this with border agents, and the question is, is Bivens going to be overturned such that all federal agents could walk around, will they nearly do whatever the hell they want to do, shoot people, kill people, but Congress didn't

pass the law, so you won't be able to sue these people. Popo, what's going on? All right, let me unpack all that. Firstly, I totally agree with you that they purposefully, the Supreme Court, this is an example of the Supreme Court purposely taking up in caucus a case whose facts are really not favorable to the plaintiff to begin with. They took a plaintiff who's sort of a paper tiger in order to make a declaration about the restrictions and the continuing restrictions, this is now the 12th case over the last 10 years where the US Supreme Court has limited what you called and what you properly referred to as a Bivens-style suit, which is a constitutional violation that even though the Congress has not itself put on the books in a statute

courts have created a cause of action against federal officers and federal agents for Unconstitutional conductive behavior and remember this is a civil lawsuits We're gonna get back to your murder and shooting example in a minute and so what they've been chomping at the bit, the super majority, the six to three super majority here, led by and written by Thomas, to continue to dial back and to kill bivins as a doctrine to be used by federal courts to find civil liability where Congress hasn't expressly spoken. And this was their example. So they took a case where this guy, as you said, ran a bed and back bed and breakfast on the border of Canada. And on one hand, apparently, was being a confidential

informant for the border patrol. On the other hand, he was hosting housing illegal border crossings from Canada, not just Canadians who want to be American citizens, other people from other countries that use that porous border at the Canadian border that we don't talk about a lot because it's not where they're building the wall, it's not Mexico. It's Canada. It's case it was someone I think from Turkey who showed up at Canada and kind of tried to cross.

Exactly. Exactly. So the whole incident and one last thing about our plaintiff here, and this is why Thomas hand picked this case, you know, he seems to be a little bit unsavory. His name of the end is the smuggler in just sort of like a FU to the border patrol. He drives around an SUV that has smuggler on the license plate. So he's always felt like he's been a target, maybe understandably. So, but this is an example where the Supreme Court takes a case where the facts are in their

favor in order to make what we consider to be bad law. Now, having said that, Thomas said that the ninth circuit where you sit, Ben, in California was mistaken in their Bivens analysis to provide this plaintiff with a civil action for what the boarder officer did to him, which is to rough him up, bounce him around, and injure him. And Thomas said, we are very circumscribing Bivens. You better find that there is no alternative remedial measure that he could have used. And Thomas particularly pointed to, well, there's the Federal Tort claims act that you could put

a administrative claim through the border patrol and they'll do their own investigation. So you had, not an equivalency, but you had somewhere to go, Mr. Plainiff. And so you're not going to be able, we're not going to give you a cause of action for this. Now, where I do think, I, the one place you and I probably may disagree from your introduction, is I don't think the border patrol can now shoot and kill you in your backyard on US soil and have immunity. First of all, there's criminal statutes that that would implicate, And I don't think anything that's being discussed by Thomas is going to change that. However, I do agree with you that on the civil side, and in terms of improper searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, you know, retaliation against somebody's First Amendment rights, the Border Patrol has just been

given a much broader, another federal officers in their duties have just been given a much, and other federal officers in their duties have just been given a wider path to do their job and not have to be subjected to civil liability. I totally agree with you on that. But this is, look, Gorsuch would have taken it further. Gorsuch and his disset, or I'm sorry, and his concurrence, in joining the six to three majority, said, and I'm sure it'll be cited where it's appropriate, said federal judges, you should almost never create a new bivin's action for civil liability where Congress hasn't spoken. You know, basically, if the nail is not in the coffins of a bivin's action, it's pretty darn close with this current three majority. And to that point, what that means is expanding this logic to other federal agents

and other federal departments, like the FBI, for example. And so Popak, I think it's definitely something we need to follow, definitely important that you point it out there though, that this does relate exclusively to civil liability, the ability of private individuals to file a lawsuit. And some people may remember the case, another case that was eroding bivines, this case Hernandez versus Mesa in 2020 where the Supreme Court held that a family of a Mexican child

cannot sue a Border Patrol agent who shot and killed their 15-year-old son. In this case, even if they could prove that the officer shot this child in cold blood and without provocation, and this case basically went beyond Hernandez versus Mesa from 2020. And basically, just said, you really can't sue Border Patrol agents at all because Congress did not authorize it. And what the implications are going to be to other federal agents is something we will follow. We've also been following a lot of developments going on in Michigan this past week, Ryan Kelly, who's running for governor, not just running for governor, Popak, but who's the

leading candidate. This Ryan Kelly figure, he's a real estate agent. He kind of rose to prominence by supporting the Confederate monuments that exist and having all of these organizing rallies to support Confederate monuments. He was there on January 6th in this indictment, this missing. And he's running to a place, a governor who was the subject of a kidnapping plot by other radicals, even though they were not ultimately convicted in that state. So this is a very strange state.

And when you have to even have a Republican candidate harboring those views before you tell the audience what happened next is just kind of crazy. Well, and you have the state that the government at the highest levels is running efficiently, the proactive measures they took during COVID and run by three incredible powerful women, two we've had on the show,

Jocelyn Benson, Secretary of State on the Midas Touch Podcast, Attorney General Nestle, who's on the Midas Touch Podcast before and who will be on the podcast again, Governor Whitmer, who's not yet been on the Midas Touch Podcast, although we'd love to certainly have her as a guest. There are undertones there, Popok, of what is going on in that state too, by these proud boys and male dominated militias, has a feel to it as well of attacking these incredibly competent, powerful women leaders who have done incredible things for the state. But you also just have one of the epicenters of all of the big lie accusations

by Trump and insurrectionist is in the state of Michigan. You have this guy, Ryan Kelly, who's the leading candidate for governor who was there on January, leading candidate for governor for Republicans. I should just clarify, who was there on January 6th, know, participating in the insurrection. In the indictment, we see that he was taping videos and encouraging it. One of the ways he was identified, he was wearing the same ridiculous outfit that, you know, they dress up, they cosplay the insurrection. So he was dressed in the same goofy outfit that he had previously worn before.

And someone said, wait a minute. What was that? What was the goofy outfit? Like a red blazer with a... Oh, yeah. I said wait a minute. What was that? What was the goofy outfit? Like a red blazer with a camouflage, big red blazer with big shoes. And some was a wait a minute. Isn't that the Ryan Kelly who was running for governor? They pieced it together on a lot of this video footage and he was charged with these

misdemeanor crimes. He called himself a political prisoner. His political opponents, though, are really nervous about this arrest by his Republican rivals are really nervous about this arrest because that in the Republican world now gives Ryan Kelly all this credibility. So one of the things that his opponents on the Republican side are basically, they're upset that like they didn't get arrested as well. Well, can we stop right there? This is so mad as a hatter.

I was wondering where you were going. I was wondering where you were going with that. So let me get this straight. The other Republicans are jealous that they have not been arrested for being an insurrectionist and try to overthrow the government because in their world, that's a badge of honor. Yes, that Ryan Kelly is now a political prisoner in the eyes of their base and they're very jealous of it and they're basically attacking the DOJ for arresting Ryan Kelly.

Like they're not pouncing on it. My political rival was arrested. How could you trust this guy? They're attacking the DOJ for arresting Ryan. Me, me, me, pick me. I want to be arrested for insurrection. That is the state of the Republican Party. Popeye, that is what's going on there in Michigan.

You got it. You hit the nail on that is the state of the Republican Party in Michigan. We'll talk about Liz Cheney's prophetic comments at the end when we talk about Jens X. Meanwhile, you have also in Michigan the investigation by Jocelyn Benson, the Secretary of State,

who's referred this out to Attorney General Nestle about these radical right extremist Republicans who have been tampering with the voting equipment there. Basically, in these Republican areas, places where Trump won a pair in Michigan, they were giving away the voting equipment to third parties. There's a chain of custody of the voting equipment. So to try to, you know, I don't know, support these baseless and absurd conspiracies that have been rejected over and over again, these Republicans in these districts within Michigan have been giving the voting machines to random dudes and random people to touch and manipulate. And that could ruin the whole chain

of custody of it. Oh, so that is a criminal. So wait, wait, wait, wait on this one as we continue to pull everything through to our last segment on Jan 6th and the hearings. Did you see in the reporting on the in the Brookings Institute report that is sort of a guide to the Jan 6th hearings and other reporting that that Jeffrey Clark, hope, remember that name, we're going to talk about it in a lot at the end of the segment, who Trump almost put in as the acting attorney general in the waning days of his presidency hours of his presidency, wrote a memo to his bosses, the acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and a guy named Don A.U. and said with big red letters that he had credible evidence that a smart thermostat, like a honeywell internet linked thermostat, was

being used to flip votes in voting machines and that the DOJ should investigate this. You and I talked about the bamboo on the, I mean, this is the down the rabbit hole of QAnon that even at the highest levels, this is the dope that they're smoking. We have people who are leading it, like the Lauren Bobert who didn't graduate from high school and just try to get her high school degree after like four tries.

And you got people like Charlie Kirk who are the intellectual backbone behind this radical right movement. It's so crazy to say, you name it go to college. And look, you could be incredibly smart and not go to college, but these are not folks. And you have those people who have gone to college and have gone to law school and have high level degrees and no better. Who are now leaning in and relying on these people as the intellectual backbone who just don't know what they're talking about who are acting from their sheer racist impulses and racist views and their views to kind of overthrow the government. And smart people who know better have allowed themselves to be co-opted

because they want power. And they've leaned in in a way that's totally has perverted and destroyed our constitution and our country. But the hope I have, Michael, though, is that, and I say Michael, because this is serious. Hope, I'm talking about Michael now. I feel like I'm in trouble. No, is that I really do think after that first hearing, the dialogue is different, the discussions different. I mean, look, while at the one hand Fox News did not air any of it and went commercial free, which is horrible. You and I talked about though, editorials both in

the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post strongly condemning Donald. Which are Rupert Murdoch owned, just like Fox News is Rupert Murdoch owned. Yeah. and look, he shouldn't get credit for anything because Rupert Murdoch's probably the single worst force that exists in the world, you know, definitely what he's done to the United States makes it probably one of the worst people ever in the history of the United States. But he is a creature of power and recognizing that the sentiment of the American people after watching this presentation is going to be such that a tsunami of pro-democracy is going to wash over all of these corrupt officials out there and all of these corrupt politicians and this ultra-mega. He's trying to, when you read it, he's trying to be that, you know, when those people get destroyed and get taken out, he's trying to be that, you know, when those people get destroyed and

get taken out, he's trying to basically, well, I was, look what I did. So that just shows you though, the fear that they have on the radical right about what's about to go down. Well, I'm 1,000% of you and I were, my eyes popped open when Rupert Murdoch allows the editorial in the New York Post, the infamous New York Post, to say that Donald Trump calling for the hanging of Mike Pence in and of itself as a disqualifying event. He should never run for office again. And the Wall Street Journal also owned by Murdoch. Now, look, his main mega phone, mega horn, I just made a new word up, is Fox News. And he's allowing Tucker Carlson and the others to take over completely there and run a nefarious disinformation machine

and counter programming machine to what is right and patriotic in the Jan 6th Committee hearings. And that you're right for that. He'll go, he will always go down in history as to paraphrase Trump and enemy of the people. Moving from Michigan to the state of New York, a lot of developments there with the Tish James, civil investigation into the Trump organization. Why is July 15th a big date, Michael Popock?

Why is Trump trying to resist something going down on July 15th Michael popok? And why does Tish James still believe that Donald Trump is in contempt of court despite Donald Trump paying the 110,000 contempt fine Michael popok? I can down first. I will. First I thought you were going to ask me that I was going to say, well, January, July 15, there's three days before the ban and trial starts on July 18. But let's get even deeper to that. There's two major issues going on with the three-year-old, just to remind everybody who's playing at home, three-year-old civil investigation led by Attorney General Tish James. For those that think,

Merrick Garland is not moving quick enough with his 800 prosecutions and all of the grand juries that are in patent in DC. Tish James has been at this for three years. On basically one theory, which is loan inflation and deflation by Donald Trump, tipped off by Michael Cohen three years,

pardon me, three years ago in his testimony. But now we're coming down to press tax, which is and Trump and his children are running out of maneuvers and moves to avoid their depositions. Let me remind everybody what they've tried already and where they've lost. They brought a federal lawsuit

in the Northern District of New York against the entire investigation calling it corrupt and improper and it should be stopped by a federal judge and judge Sannis in the Northern District and Buffalo said no and So he lost there the trial level judge judge Ergoron in New York State Supreme the trial level court also Refused to dismiss the civil investigation and the intermediary court of appeals for Manhattan, the first department agreed with Judge

Ergaron. So now Trump and his new lawyer, Lena Haba, are O and three. They're soon to be O and four because they have a they have an agreement much like they did with the documents, but if you remember three months ago, that they would produce documents on a date certain, in this case, they will be deposed, allow themselves to be deposed on a date certain July 15. But they want the right to go file the appeal with the court of appeals, the highest level court in New York. And the, the, Tish Jam said, go knock yourself out, go file your appeal at least by the 13th of July. And otherwise you're sitting on the 15th. They filed about an hour later, a notice of appeal with the court of appeals.

That has to be set now for briefing on an expedited schedule. And let me just make a popaki in my salient prediction. Trump and his children are going to lose at the court of appeals, just like they lost in the federal court, just like they lost at the first department, a pellet court. He is going to sit for these depositions as well as children. We've already seen, we'll talk about the blockbuster scintillating one second clip of Ivanka. So you know Ivanka under oath is worth the price of admission and may not always go according to plan for for our father, Donald Trump.

So we can't wait for that. Now to answer a question in advance, will he take the fifth amendment? Yes, he's going to take the fifth amendment, as will the other two, just like the sun did to three or four hundred eric did to three or four hundred questions, but that can be used against him in a civil setting, which is this investigation. On the document side, we have the appearance of a new character in all of this pen. We have an executive assistant, a secretary for Donald Trump, who's going to now go down in history the way that Rose Mary Woods, the Secretary for Nixon, who erased the 18 minutes, or Betty Curry, the Secretary for Clinton, that had the knowledge about Monica Lewinsky. We now have

Ronograph, a 20 year executive assistant who retired in 2020, who, who the attorney general wants her, wants her affidavit and deposition and also wants the deposition and affidavits of people in various departments within the Trump organization in the legal department, the accounting department, the hotel department and the golf course department because Rona in one of her earlier deposition said the following, there is no centralized system for document retention in the Trump organization. We all know that's on purpose.

There is no document retention policy within the Trump organization at all. We know that's on purpose. And that all of these little departments within Trump are allowed to retain and keep or throw out any document, whether it's got Donald Trump's handwriting on it or not, at their discretion. So the attorney general said, aha, then that makes Donald Trump's own affidavit that he did a thorough search of his documents completely unreliable. And he should still be found and contempt.

And we should get affidavits from every department head and every person in all of these departments because this is the way he ran, we call it in the business document retention, but it's really document destruction within his organization. So just as expected, Tish James, the pit bull for the democracy that she is, is not letting up and not letting him get away with anything. I think at the end of the day, the judge is going to order all these affidavits and may continue to find Trump in contempt and maybe new contempt for having filed that affidavit, which now looks based on his executive assistant testimony to be completely fraudulent.

Let me just break it down though. So people understand too that what Trump's argument in his affidavit was was to basically throw his executive assistance under the bus and say, I don't really know what I do with the documents in my organization. That's something my executive assistance do. Now, naturally, why would that make any sense? Why would the executive assistance be responsible for running a billion dollar companies purportedly, data retention policy.

Is that something that an executive assistant would do? An executive assistant would maybe handle the ministerial tasks of, let me put this folder here or I'll give you these notes or let me check what's on your calendar, but they're not running the data retention policy in large corporations. Aren't I? So, you know, and Rona Graf, one of the things that she repeatedly used was the seaworth over and over again in her deposition. You know what the seaworth is, right?

Popak, it's clutter. It's clutter. And one of the things that she had said repeatedly was and you almost felt You can never feel bad for anyone in Trump's orbit But she would say in her deposition You know all I would know is that Donald Trump he just hated clutter He hated clutter so much and so he would just want to destroy the documents He would hate clutter just like the way Enron must have hated clutter as well

and Bernie made off hated clutter. Donald Trump is someone who truly hates clutter. That's why they're destroying and deleting all of it. It's the clutter to fit. But let me just, let me round out, let me square off that circle, having been in an organization. I totally agree with you.

If you're a legit, and I wanna reinforce this for any of the trolls that jump on our feed, Donald Trump did not run a legitimate organization, nor was it a corporation publicly traded or otherwise in the traditional sense. It was at best what is referred to in New York and throughout the hinterlands as a family office, literally run by executives at all at the same last name and DNA in Donald Trump and his children. And it was in an organizations like that, Ben, and I know my way around those family offices,

the executive assistants, whole tremendous power. These companies don't have employee handbooks. They don't have, if they're not, if they're not regulated industries like in gaming or in healthcare or in securities, they do not have to have a document retention policy. And so they don't. And they trash as much documentation as possible because no regulator requires them to do that. Now a civil investigator like civil investigator like Tish James's office can use that against a company and say, you don't have a document retention policy on purpose

because you are in the business of destroying evidence, which is another factor in a civil or criminal investigation as the willful blindness or knowledge, which is often at the root of an investigation. So some people might think, well, every company should do that. Just get rid of their documents on a daily basis. Regulated entities can't do that

because they're under a statutes that require them to maintain. And companies that like Donald Trump's family offices do it at their own risk because if they don't have a policy in place, then a Attorney General can point to it as an element of a crime or an element of a civil violation. And so, where you are in a regulated industry and you are a corporation, you have to follow the regulations of the data retention policies that are subject to the law for regulations.

If you're not in a regulated industry and you are a private business, there is kind of just a general Reasonableness test. There is kind of a caveat emptor buyer beware and these corporations hire Consultants who would supposed to guide them on what's an appropriate data retention policy? How long do you have to keep backups for what is your policy of keeping backups? Can you delete emails every 60 days, every 90 days? But it has to be a regular, systemized policy, rooted in some legitimate reasons. So you're not deleting emails all of the time.

And then even if you have a consultant who gives you that advice, and that's ever challenged one day, a federal court can still say, hey, that consultant gave you bad advice. And that's ever challenged one day. A federal court can still say, Hey, that consultant gave you bad advice. 60 days, deleting emails is way too soon. You should have saved it for 120 days. But these consultants look at the prevailing case law, the prevailing discussions in this area. You know, when e discovery was an electronic documents became a big thing. There were these conventions. I believe they're called the Sedona conventions and conferences

that talked about these e-discovery norms and would kind of set forth best practices for data retention policies. But one of their observations to make here, Popuck, as it relates to Trump and this Tish-Dames document issue, this is where the Trump lies and the repeated lies ultimately meets the rubber of truth because where Trump tries to claim that he's a legitimate big organization at the end of the day making that puffery in those false statements.

If you actually were a legitimate organization, you'd have a data retention policy. That's exactly my point. And you just made the point exactly perfect. Just try to make it a little more succinct than you, Pope. I'm just joking. I'm just joking. You made the point. We're 10 minutes on document retention.

Okay. Go ahead. 10 minutes on document retention. The people want to know about document retention. But the people want to know about is seditious conspiracy charges, Proudboy, Chairman, Enrique Tario, other co-defendants, Joseph Biggs, Dominic Pizzola. There are two other defendants,

I think in this most recent superseding in diamond, I think one guy is Ethan Nordin and Zachary Rell who have not yet, where they didn't enter their plea yet, they continued their plea. But Enrique Tario, Joseph Biggs, Dominic Pizzola, pled not guilty to seditious conspiracy. They were charged in the super seating indictment

by the Department of Justice for those listening to Legal AF, you'll recall those Legal AF long-term listeners rather, you'll recall those legal a f long term listeners rather you'll recall have we discussed about eleven members of the far right oath keepers including steward roads there leader the guy who wears the ipatch because he shot himself in the face and then he was we had steward road's family on one of the mightest touch broadcasts and they said basically he was so unsanitary that he wasn't able to basically keep the prosthetic eye in because he wouldn't wash it.

So then he had to put the patch on because he got it infected after shooting himself in the face. Anyway, that's the leader of the Oathkeeper organization, rather. And so we talked about 11 members of the Oathkeepers being charged with hadigious conspiracy. Now these are the Proud Boys, the other, one of the other terrorist groups that were there on January 6th.

So this is an addition to those 11 members, and here this chairman and Rikai Tariot. Now a few things I wanna mention before tossing it over to you, Popak. This, the way in Riketario's relationship was, it is, to the Trump administration, the White House, the Republican Party, would basically be no similar to Timothy McVeigh from the Oklahoma City bombing, posing for pictures in the White House, posing for pictures with governors, because that is exactly what Enrique Tario did. Enrique Tario

bragged previously during the Trump administration about being invited to the White House and getting the VIP tour of the White House, the red carpet treatment, and Rika Tario was photographed with Abbott, all these proud boys, lots of these proud boys, photographed with Republican leaders. And these are terrorists who are trying to overthrow the United States government. How about this one? He bragged or lamented, is the better term that his merchandise market was not able to take advantage of Trump in the debate when asked about the proud boys saying

stand back and stand by Tario is like marketing opportunity and but but was lamenting in the documentary that we're going to talk about when we talk about the documentarian Testimony the chance six segment. He was lamenting that he wasn't able to take advantage of that exploit that you imagine Timothy McVey had a merchandise shop for the crazies that believe that was a false flag event the bombing of Oklahoma City the federal building the the Murth of Federal building or otherwise. I mean, this is where we, this is where Fox News has brought, and social media has brought this country in the last 25 years. We now celebrate terrorists. And because you mentioned, that's where Fox News has brought us. That's where the spin

off the OANs and the newsmax and all the right wing media brought us. But I don't want to give a pass to what the mainstream media has done and where the right wing media brought us, but I don't want to give a pass to what the mainstream media has done and where the mainstream media has brought us by not focusing appropriate attention and trying to both sides the issue of fascism, of treason, and of democracy. And I'll just give you one example, because I'm infuriated consistently by this individual's fact checks recently, you know, is the CNN's main story. If you went to the CNN website the day after the January 6th hearings, their main story

was a fact check by Daniel Dale, saying that when Joe Biden went on Jimmy Kimmel and said that the United States government was growing faster than other world economies and was the fastest growing economy that that was false and they continued to basically list gas prices and all of these other issues as the main page on CNN issues as the main page on CNN. Meanwhile, the root cause, as we know of those issues, was Trump's failed trade policies, the way Trump handled COVID, and completely

mishandled COVID, the way Trump had consistently done literally everything to destroy our sound and policies here. And Biden's come into fix that. But the point is, is that what should be on that CNN page if you're pro democracy every single day is what's gone on in January six because you literally have a situation here where an entire political party in the Republican party is trying to overthrow the American democracy and their fact checking whether Biden's temporal proximity of how he defines the growth, which the American economy is growing. Unemployment is at the lowest that's ever been.

More jobs have been created under Biden than any other president in American history period. And those are things that a president should talk about. That's what CNN is devoting their attention to. And I repeatedly think that when American people talk about. That's what CNN is devoting their attention to. And I repeatedly think that when American people are delivered the truth, and that's why this January 6th here, it was so important. And it was so important that it was broadcast on all of these networks, because finally, we take for granted

and just think people are following this stuff. And they're not. And when you turn on a mainstream media, they both sides it. But Popo, I just want to say, that's the reason why media networks like the Midas Media Network And they're not. And when you turn on a mainstream media, they both sides it. But pop up. I just want to say that's the reason why media networks like the Midas media network are growing so rapidly because people are sick and tired and fed up of the mainstream media both sides in this issue and devoting their resources to letting these issues go and allowing

people like Enrique Tarare, a free pass and then they just move on to the next topic. Well, I, I, I, you and I are in complete, uh, some pateco on that one. It is, there is no both sides of an insurrection. There is no both sides of a civil war. There's no both sides of Charlottesville, um, and the, the, the, the, the, the white, the white march that killed people. There's no two sides to Jan 6.

It wasn't a dust up as somebody in the NFL recently said. It was, and if you have a brain in your head, and you watched both the two hours on the first opening session of the hearings, and seven more to come with evidence with evidence and video evidence and testimonial evidence that this Jansick's committee has not leaked on purpose before the hearings that that are going to suck the air out of the room. And as you said earlier, Ben tonight reset the conversation completely. Look, we're never going to, we're never going to convert a troll

who's now, who's now deeply in the cult of Trump that, that something happened untoward, not just on Jan 6th, but in the entire 7th step conspiracy that Trump was at the heart of to, to have a coup to overthrow democracy and the Republic. They'll never believe that, but I'll tell you what what will happen. Not the Democrats. Democrats already know that something nefarious was a foot and that Trump is at the heart of it. And now we're hearing all the elements of it. Not the Republicans who are never going to vote for a Democrat, a never would, and just think this is, who are never going to vote for a Democrat and never would and just think this is, this is, as you said, cosplay, but by the Democrats and it's none of it's true. There's an independent group and that's, I don't know if it's 10% 15% or 20% of the American

population, an electorate that has not made their decision yet. That is one audience. Another audience is people like Rupert Murdoch that need to find cover now because there's going to be a case made over the next seven sessions that we have had our first seditious president at the heart of a conspiracy in 270 years of a democracy. Now whether he gets charged and convicted, that will talk about that when we get to the Gen 6. And whether that's a good thing or a bad thing for democracy, we'll talk about that when we get the Gen 6 segment. But you are so right that the that there is culpability and blood on the hands of what we referred to as mainstream media, even the New York Times, even the Washington Post, even CNN, even MSNBC is not doing enough and it's too focused on ratings and selling papers. Then, then

in doing their job as the, as the, as the protectors of the First Amendment and ultimately of the Republic by bringing forward information in real time to counter all of these rabbit hole theories. And thank God for the mightest mighty and the mightest touch network and all that. I would say like this Pope, too, Rupert Murdock has weaponized his platform for spreading disinformation. Meanwhile, the mainstream media has surrendered their platforms to both sideisms and corporate interests. And I do think as we talk about the January 6th hearing and the recap, I do think that final session will make the statement that Donald Trump engaged in seditious conspiracy

and that he was at the top. I mean, look, Bernie Thompson literally said in his opening, Donald Trump was at the center of the conspiracy. So he said it at the beginning. Someone who's also at the center of the conspiracy, I want to touch upon it briefly and then let's hit January 6th is Steve Bannon. His trial starts mid July for contempt of Congress, one of the last ditch efforts of Bannon to try to turn this federal case against

them into something it really isn't is by demanding documents and production and subpoenaing members of the January 6th committee. I guess this was also part of Rupert, rather of Donald Trump's and Steve Bannon's counter-programming plans. They thought this was going to make a big splash. Oh, Steve Bannon's subpoenaing the Jan 6th committee and subpoenaing people like Jamie Raskin, subpoenaing, Benny Thompson, subpoenaing all of, you know, all, all, all these committee members. At the end of the day, the speech and debate clause that exists in the Constitution makes

99% of the subpoena requests that Steve Bannon sent out, they're all going to be quashed pretty much sight on scene, meaning that the subpoenas are not going to be valid subpoenas. They're going to just, you know, stop right there. And look, let's just remind people what this is really all about. The January 6th committee, subpoenaed banan to show up and to give testimony. And rather than even take the fifth and rather than even just show up and invoke a privilege, and rather than even just show up and invoke a privilege, he just basically didn't even, you know, you know, just, yeah, didn't even show up.

Don't just do anything. And then later he claimed an executive privilege, right? He claims that he has a privilege because he's a, he was an informal advisor to the president, even though we had no role at the White House and he was a podcaster. Yeah, I'm going to invoke the pod, I'm going to invoke the podcaster privilege. Let me just round it out and we'll move on to what everybody's waiting for and you and I are chomping at the fifth to talk about, which is the Gen 6 first hearing, the first session of the Gen 6 hearings.

So article one, section six, clause one of the US Constitution, and we have talked about this in 60, in one of the 69 prior legal AFs, it provides members of Congress with complete immunity for any speech or debate. They shall not be questioned about that in any other place. That's literally the language of the Constitution, meaning members of Congress and the members of the Special Select Committee cannot be questioned somewhere else, i.e. the courthouse,

or by the executive branch, or be arrested as a result of this, a result of what they say on the House or the Senate floor in committee or otherwise, under any circumstances. Now, you said 99% of the 19, or sorry sorry 16 total subpoenas will likely be quashed. There's some elements of some of them, which may be the judge throws them a bone. For instance, he asked for marketing materials for Jamie Raskin's book deal. All right.

So Jamie Raskin has a book deal. I mean, we're not hiding. We're not running from that. And so does I think another one. The lawyer for bad is that, ah, they're interested in profit. And so they have a vested interest to try to sensationalize the JAN6 committee to make money on a book. I mean, maybe the judge gives them the marketing materials, but he's certainly not going to give them all of the deliberative materials. but he's certainly not going to give them all of the deliberative materials and the, and the 1000 interview notes and video clips and all of the internal memos that have been written and circulated with the JAN-6 committee for banan.

What does that have to do with banan having violated a order of Congress and is in contempt as a result that none of that goes to a likely defense. And the judges already ruled that and when he ruled against bandits motion to dismiss. So I don't think he's going to allow these subpoenas. I don't I think you're right. Maybe he gives him something out of it, but but that's it. There's a complete constitutional immunity for the work of the Jansick committee. It's been attacked time and time again by recipients of these subpoenas and time and time again federal courts, including Trump judges have ruled that the Jansick's committee is a legitimate entity. It is well within the scope of its investigative powers to do what it's doing. That argument is dead. And so too, she'll be these subpoenas in the near future.

Let's talk about the Jan 6th hearings. Let's talk about the first hearing, the opening statement that took place and the first witnesses that showed up that took place on June 9th on prime time, approximately 20 million people watched on TV that did not include the streaming audience. Of course, Midas Touch held on its YouTube channel. One of the largest streams out there. We had our own footage, our own cameras, actually in the hearing rooms. We licensed the footage ourselves, so we didn't rip anyone else's footage.

It was one of the kind of professional touches that I think is important about running a legitimate media organization is to have those kind of touches on it. We had a great coverage. You were a panelist, Popak. We had Michael Cohen as a panelist who was talking about what his knowledge of how Trump acts and how Ivanka acts and how Jared acts. I mean,

that was great commentary to have. And of course, Midas mighty favorites like Texas Paul and politics girl and KFA and a host of other Tony's. Tony's I's like, Tony. I got well, of course, which would go without saying that Tony Michaels was the host. He did an incredible job with Gabe Sanchez. They really laid it out perfectly. But let's get into the hearing itself. Let me tell you my takeaways from it

and then I'll turn it to you, Popak. From the very beginning, the chairman of the committee, the co-chairman, Benny Thompson's opening statement, starting off right away by saying Donald Trump was at the center of this conspiracy, leaving no doubt for where the committee would be going and setting a tone from the outset. One of the most important points, both in Benny Thompson's presentation and in Liz Cheney's presentation, was to me Trump's state of mind was Trump aware of the criminality that was taking place. And obviously for us, it seems like a pretty common sense

proposition that Trump was aware, but that's an element that needs to be proven in making a criminal case against Donald Trump. And the way they laid that out there was Benny Thompson said, you don't believe me? Literally said that. Roll the tape. And you have Bill Barr saying that he spoke to Donald Trump and told them that all of these claims of election fraud are pure and utter to quote Bill Barr bull shit. What he said.

And then they went to Trump's other advisor, Jason Miller, who gave a deposition testimony. And Jason Miller said that he spoke with the technical folks who were tasked with analyzing whether or not there was election fraud. And Jason Miller in his capacity, as a Trump advisor said, no, there was no fraud that could possibly change this, you know, the trajectory of the election at all. And then who they go to next, just to kind of rub it in there, Ivanka Trump. And they had, it was a very short clip of Ivanka Trump, but she said, look, I, and in her capacity as a senior advisor to the president's kind of be careful what you wish for Donald you want to use

Nepotism to put your daughter in that position. Well, they didn't say Trump's daughter They said this is what a senior advisor to the president said and she said I believed bill bar that there was no election for another senior advisor Another big takeaway the cabinet of Trump discussed invoking the 25th amendment, removing Donald Trump from office. So did Sean Hannity over at Fox News and Kayleigh McAnany, the press secretary discussed that that's a great idea potentially in booking the 25th amendment. We also learned, again, we've heard the leaks before, but that Trump said that Pence, quote, deserved it

in relation to being hanged. We learned that Republican members of Congress sought pardons from Donald Trump. We learned that Jared Kushner was too busy to really deal as as a senior advisor, as people were telling him Trump was violating the law. He was too busy to deal with it and thought they were whining because he was dealing with focused on giving out pardons and what seems to be a pardons scam and scheme, a pay for place situation, if you will. And then they reinforce that a federal judge,

Judge Carter, who we've talked about on this podcast, has consistently held now twice the two rulings that it was more likely than not that Trump engaged in a criminal conduct in conspiracy. The committee interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses, it accumulated more than 1,000 witnesses, accumulated more than 140,000 documents. Has a staff of 45 employees called as its first guest officer, Caroline Edwards, and documentary filmmaker Nick Quested. And that's my takeaway, Popok, from it. Those are my key

highlights. What did you glean from this historic blockbuster evening? I liked so many of the things that you just said. So let me give you some of the observations that I made both in real time at the end of the panel the other night and just since now that I've had a lot more time to think about it. The poignancy of Benny Thompson as the representative from Mississippi, a black representative from Mississippi, at the very beginning of the opening session, talking about, as and Cheney picked it up later, the oath of office to defend the Constitution against all terrorists, domestic or foreign, was very, very pointed. And when he talks, when a black representative talks about post-civil war changes to that

oath, done for a reason, it has a special resonance for me that I didn't even anticipate until he delivered that. Cheney then picks up everything about the importance of the Constitution, allegiance to it, not to a man, not to a party, but to a document in the Constitution, which is another justification for why she's on the panel and why she's co-chair. She then said in response to what you mentioned about Jared Kirschner and the whining, the whining that he was complaining about was Pat Chipeloni, who is a counsel in the White House, threatening to resign if Donald Trump implemented one of the seven steps of his conspiracy plan to remove members of the Department of Justice, senior members of the Department of Justice in order to have the Department of Justice

Do his bidding to argue to the American people that there was fraud in the election when there was not and patch of Alonie saying if that happens if those things happen me and my team and our credibility being here in the White House are going out the door we're going to resign and being here in the White House are going out the door. We're going to resign. And Kushner said, I just took that as like the standard whining. It then cut to Cheney who said, looked at the camera and said, whining. What he referred to as whining is somebody upholding their constitutional oath to defend the constitution. That's not whining. Now, the seven-part plan, which on purpose, chaining outlines, but didn't give all the steps of basically a cliffhanger inviting people to

come back to hear, what are the seven steps? We sort of know what the seven steps are. And frankly, you and I and Karen have talked about almost all of these seven steps, but to have it sequenced and to have it all in order so that people understand and they can, it's a framework to hang the conspiracy on was very, very powerful for me. So we've talked about it. You've got the, the first step is spreading even before the election, before the election, Trump spreading false and fraudulent information about that there's gonna be a steal of the election.

That if he loses, something fraudulent must have happened. Just as Trump did when he lost the primary in Iowa to cruise and he threatened, he said the cruise had committed fraud in that or he can or when he lost the primary, he always said there was fraud involved. So he starts spreading the false information, creating the big lie from even before the election. He then in a conspiracy likely with Jeffrey Clark conspires to corruptly replace the acting attorney general, Jeff Rosen, to replace

him in the last hours of the Trump administration with Jeffrey Clark, a lower level environmental lawyer in the Department of Justice, because he found somebody that was going to do what he wanted, which was to have the Department of Justice declared that there was fraud in the election in order to keep this entire conspiracy going. You have a second conspiracy, the third step of the seven steps in which you're trying to corruptly influence Mike Pence to throw the election over to the House of Representatives by finding that the slate of electors are false or to recognize the other slate of electors. So to corruptly influence the vice president in Mike Pence, you've got the fourth leg, which is to corruptly pressure state legislators and state officials,

like we've seen in Georgia, to get them to declare that there was election fraud. When that failed, you then use fake electors and a slate effect electors scheme and put that together. When that fails, you use these 60 lawsuits where he's O and 60 claiming that there was fraud in the election. And finally, when you're in your last ditch effort to cling to power, when everything else in your coup conspiracy has failed, what does Donald Trump do? He mobilizes a mob by tweeting that you should come.

It's going to be wild. There's been fraud come on Jan 6th. And then he does nothing to quell the violence, hides in the Oval Office, hides in the dining room, destroys evidence by not having the phone logs kept. And you have all of that in the seven-park conspiracy. And the number one thing they have to prove is his knowledge that what he was saying was a lie. And he, they used the Ivanka for that. They used Bill Barr for that. And there're because they're leaning into what you and I referred to earlier as willful blindness You can't bury your head in the sand and put your fingers in your ears and act like you won the election when every

Person in your administration that matters every senior advisor every bit of evidence that you're presented Tells you the exact opposite that's criminal. And that was the first framework of that for the Jan 6th first hearing, the first session that we just had the other day. What do you think about the witnesses and how they performed? Carolyn Edwards, the Capitol Police Officer who was knocked out by the insurrectionists

was the carnage of the insurrection, right? Well, let me ask you a question first. I'll follow your question with a question. You have, you're the Jan 6th committee put aside that they had a former ABC news producer, who cares? Every show on television needs a producer, even the mightest touch. I mean, even we have salty. Okay, so putting that aside for a minute, I don't care about that. You have to pick for the American people and 20 million people, you have to pick your best beginning arguments to then bring them through the other seven or eight sessions.

You have, as you said, 100,000 pieces of evidence, you have 800 witness testimony and bits of video. Why do you think they chose to end the session with her testimony about the carnage on the capital steps of Jan 6th that day and the proud boys documentarian who was embedded? Why do you think they did it?

Well, I think you have a police officer who, to Americans, it would make a sympathetic witness. It's a nonpartisan witness. So it is someone who they think as a January 6th committee, the American people would relate to. She's the granddaughter of a war veteran. She made a great presentation. She, both speakers were kind of very well spoken

and they definitely had vetted them to make sure that they were gonna perform well under the lights and cameras and the attention that that would garner. And she was someone who represents, I think, ideals that are at the core of what it means to be an American. Someone inspired to go into law enforcement to protect our heart of democracy,

the biggest symbol of democracy, which is our capital building. And for her to experience that to be injured, I think they thought that Americans would look at Carolyn Edwards and go, I relate to her. She's not someone who's trying to turn on Trump or convince me of an argument or is a political person.

If you're the radical right wing, you can't, I mean, you can do everything because you're horrible people. It's very hard to attack Caroline Edwards for what she experienced number one. I think, oh, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt your number two. Go ahead. Number two, you have Nick Questead. He's someone who was previously embedded in war zones and the footage that they

wanted to play, how they got this footage to try to dispel any claims that this footage comes from partisan sources or partisan information over the next, you know, two weeks, they're going to be showing photographs and footage. And so they wanted to show how are we getting this footage? Shit, the proud boys and the terrorists invited the filmmakers to take these things and to take footage of these things. And so that's why I think I think there's going to be far more blockbuster and compelling witnesses than these individuals by far. I don't think that these witnesses possess the knowledge that's gonna be like the blockbuster stuff the knowledge that's going to be like the blockbuster stuff that's going to drop as you start getting other critical and key internal people, pensions, chief of staff as you call Brad Raffensberger up as

you start calling all these critical people. But they were part of the showmanship of the event, of the showmanship of the event, of just reflecting, hey, this is a threat to all Americans. This is nonpartisan. And this is, you know, these are real, these are real people who just experienced the worst, the one of the worst. Just to show you that this is no dress rehearsal. We do this pod. I'm officially getting rained on while I'm doing the podcast, but we continue. I agree with all what you said.

The reason I think they ended with the actual attack on the Capitol, the carnage of Jan 6, as portrayed by that officer, was for a reason. They could have ended it with anything. They could have ended it with this clip or that clip. They could have done it with more attorneys talking about the conspiracy that was happening in the Department of Justice. They wanted to bring home to the American people and the Trump people and President Trump who was going to tweet the next day or social truth the next day, whatever he does, that

this attack on the Capitol was not first amendment speech. This was not orally. This was not, I want to hug everybody. And I love all of you, which is what Trump said. This was a war zone created by right wing extremists led by the president of the United States in an attempt on the seventh step to cling to power and to stop the peaceful transfer of power and the bloodshed and the deaths and the fighting, the equivalent of a war zone that needed to be portrayed again. We had seen it in the impeachment hearings with all that testimony of all the police,

but they wanted to end that hearing on that low note. So stop Trump the next day from doing what he did, which is trying to counter program against that event. You know, and one of the things that Trump tweeted right after, or truth or whatever the freak he calls it, he said that, you know, he made all his stupid remarks, the unselecting little blah blah, but he says what happened after the presentation what he tweeted was that this represented the greatest movement in the history of our country to make America great again, further incriminating himself further going down that rabbit hole of incrimination.

When are the next hearings people want to know? Well on Monday, June 13th at 10 a.m. Eastern is the next hearing. Next this week is Wednesday, June 15th at 10 a.m. Eastern. And then this week Thursday, June 16th at 1 p.m. Eastern, all of the hearings will be live streamed on the Midas Touch YouTube channel with commentary. After and before we play the hearings directly through no commentary during the hearings themselves so you can watch it yourselves. Make sure you let friends, family, colleagues, whoever know where they can get these streams on the Midas Touch stream.

It's already up the live in terms of, you know, the waiting rooms already up, but we will see at the Midas Touch YouTube channel on Monday, June 13th at 10 a.m. Eastern. Everybody should also go to store. MidasTouch.com. Make sure you go to store. MidasTouch.com. We have great legal AF gear. We've got great Midas merch You could use the promo code justice JUST ICE for 10% off all the Midas gear So go to store dot mightestouch dot

Come and then I think it's worth I'll plug I'll plug me and I'll plug Popok. We're practicing lawyers. We handle civil cases and lawsuits. And so if you've been injured or have someone who's been injured, we handle sexual harassment, sex assault, big kind of catastrophic personal injury cases, wrongful death cases, big business dispute cases, you could reach out to Michael Popak and I directly to see if you have a case in someone from our firm will get back to you. Reach out to me at Ben at MidasTouch.com, Ben at MidasTouch.com. Reach out to Michael Popak at M, Popak M, P-O-P-O-K, at zplaw.com, M Popak, at zp law dot com. Thank you everybody who watched the live stream of the

Midas touch broadcast of January 6th. You need to be the difference maker here. You need to go out tell everybody to watch these hearings. Make sure that the news from these hearings is spread across this great country. We need you on the front line supporting and fighting for our democracy. Michael Popak coming back from a rainy, rainy New Jersey taking shelter inside his house. Michael Popak, that's why this is shot live. That's what happens sometimes. But I know I know you get bad lightning sometimes out there in Jersey in New York

So I'm glad you're safe right now any final words Michael Popeye as we head into this week where there will be three more hearings and I'm sure what other blockbuster news will cover next week. I am so I am so proud To be a part of the Midas Network and that you asked me a year ago, a year and a half ago, to do this with you. We could never anticipate what would have happened with this president or what would happen with an insurrection right before our very eyes, but the fact that you and I get to do what we do every week and multiple times a week on behalf of our audience is a special joy and a special honor that you and I take so so seriously. So thank you back in the day when you asked me to do this with you because I really feel like even even in a small part,

even if we're reaching whatever audience we're reaching, which is pretty substantial, that we're doing something for democracy in America. Well, Popeye, when we had 200 followers, I still remember the text message that you sent me. You said, this is a rocket ship. And I was like, um, if you say so, if the power of positive thinking, but I'm glad we can create an unapologetically pro democracy media company with the support of all of our listeners and all of the viewers to really occupy a niche that shouldn't be a niche. It should be the whole ish. It shouldn't be a niche. It should be the ish.

Media needs to promote pro-democracy content. This is an existential fight and it is a honor to be on the front lines of delivering that content with great programs like the Midas Touch podcast, like legal AF and like others. Make sure you subscribe to our YouTube channel. Make sure you subscribe where you listen to podcasts. I always say, do me this favor at the end of the show. If you're watching this on YouTube

because I know this YouTube audience is massive, here's how you can help go over to the Midas Touch audio podcast channels, whether that's Apple or Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts, Google, whatever, subscribe. And if it allows you to leave a five star review, please give a five star review that's helpful to the algorithm. And for those listening on the audio version of this podcast, go over to the Midas Touch YouTube channel, subscribe there. We have such incredible content coming out of the YouTube channel with the whole Midas group, all of the different incredibly profound speakers and individuals representing the diversity of the United States of America, all all different perspectives but all unapologetically

Pro-democracy we'll see you next time on legal a f breaking down the most Consequential news and one thing I can guarantee you is that next weekend Legal a f will have significantly Consequential news on our democracy. I'm Ben Mycelas, there's Michael Popok, we'll see you next time on Legal AF. Shout out to the Midas Mighty.