Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts REACT to midweek legal BOMBSHELLS - Legal AF 7/20/22

Episode Date: July 21, 2022

Karen Friedman Agnifilo is joined by Ben Meiselas for this midweek edition. The hosts talk about the 16 fake GOP electors in Georgia becoming targets in the Fulton County District Attorney investigation, the leaked May 2022 Merrick Garland DOJ Memo and its implications, the Secret Service “purge” of text messages from January 6, the Respect for Marriage Act, the Steve Bannon contempt of congress criminal trial, and the upcoming prime time January 6 Committee hearing. 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

16 Georgia fake electors say they are now targets in Fony Willis's investigation of Trump election interference out of Fulton County Georgia will discuss. were indeed deleted as part of a routine purge that just so happened to be right around January 6th of 2021. We'll talk about that. The Steve Bannon contempt of Congress trial is underway, a jury has been picked. Opening statements are now over and witnesses are being called, Karen Agnifalo and I will break that down. The respect for marriage act to codify the constitutional right to same-sex marriage and interracial marriage is introduced in the House of Representative, all Democrats

vote in favor. 157 Republicans vote against, and people like Marco Rubio are now coming out in the Senate saying they will be vociferously against voting for this bill. Karen and I will talk about the absurdity coming from the GQP, those radical fascists out there. And then we'll talk about speaking of radical fascist, the January 6th hearing exposing radical fascists coming up prime time this Thursday broadcast live right here on the Midas Media Network star witnesses Sarah Matthews, former deputy press secretary and Matt Pottinger, deputy national security

advisor. We will talk about what to expect in that hearing who will be leading that hearing Karen Friedman Agnipolo, fan my cellist on the midweek edition of legal AF Karen. I love when I get to fill in for Michael Popak, whether it's the midweek, whether you get to fill in for Michael Popak. I really enjoy doing the show with you. And I'm glad that we can do it today. I am too. It's so much fun. How are you? Like the hat. I am doing, I'm doing great. So let's just get right into it, huh? Let's talk about the Georgia fake electors. Sixteen of them we've talked on previous legal a.f.s. The secret meeting was held in the Georgia capital building, where this kind of cloak and dagger meeting was held

with the Republicans, despite knowing that Biden won in Georgia, despite it being certified, basically say, we appoint ourselves as the electors. They send their slate to the national archives because the overall conspiracy here, as has been exposed by the January 6th Committee and our coverage here as well on the Midas and Media Network, is that Trump wanted Pence to declare a doubt in the election and to have the fake electors replace the real electors

and appoint Trump emperor. And when Pence didn't do it, Trump called the mob to go into the capital to stop the counting of the real electors. So the fake electors could then be counted. And these fake electors out of Georgia now have been revealed to been targets of the investigation by Fawney Willis. As we know, there's a grand jury that's taking place. We'll talk a little bit more about that. And the way we know these fake electors have been called out as targets, as they filed a motion to quash the subpoena. This was a formal document in the superior court in Fulton County. And they said that we've been told

that we were targets. Karen, so what's going on here in Fulton County? So there was a motion yesterday, July 19th, that Fanny Willis filed. It was called the opposition to the motion to disqualify a prosecutor. And so I guess they had filed a motion trying to say that she's political and she shouldn't be able to conduct this investigation. And they basically asserted two reasons. One was that she donated money to they asserted two reasons. One was that she donated money to one of the 16 targets

who's running for office. She donated to the opposition and they were saying, therefore she has a conflict of interest. And that was sort of the main thrust of this. And so she said, look, that's not true. I don't have to recuse myself. And I just donating money

isn't, you know, doesn't disqualify somebody. And so, you know, she sort of spells out what the law is there to be recused and taken off the case. And that's sort of an extraordinary request, by the way, to remove a prosecutor from a prosecution. And it's called a disqualification or a recusal. And they would have had to put another prosecutor in place. But it just cleared to me that it's another delayed tactic

and another tactic that avoids talking about what's actually happening and just trying to fight the prosecutor. Because they don't like the fact that it's clear that she's got a real investigation here and it's heating up and it's clearly now getting to the higher echelons and it's getting closer and closer to Trump. I mean, I think that that's what's clear here, that that's what's happening. And, you know, they're making the usual arguments saying basically that, oh, we were just putting these electors in place just in case, you know, and, and, you know, that's sort of what their defense is.

But it's clear now, as you said, they're a target. And that, you know, I think that these individuals and Trump are getting closer and closer being guilty of criminal solicitation of an election fraud, which is a Georgia state penal code violation. And in that crime, they have to prove that, that you had an intent that another person commits a misdemeanor and then you solicit or cause

that person to engage in such misdemeanor conduct. And it's a one to three year statute, you know, you get one to three years in jail if that happens. You know, and that's that's sort of one of the charges. Of course, she also said she's looking at Rico and all these other, you know, these racketeering and other charges, but, you know, it's clear that that her investigation, you know, she's got this special grand jury that's supposed to write a report, but it's clear that she's also has this, she's very clearly also looking at bringing charges as well. So, so that's sort of what's happening there. And hopefully she'll bring charges and hopefully she'll bring charges quickly. It seems to be from what I can see, the only one who there,

where there's hope to bring charges against, anytime soon, and Trump, if he's elected, or any of his other sort of cronies are elected, federal, he can only pardon federal crimes. You can't pardon a state crime. Now, obviously, if there's a Republican governor, they could pardon him in Georgia. But I think that's, you know, that's hopefully she's moving forward on that and that will happen quickly. You mentioned there's a special grand jury that's been impeannaled in Fulton County. The process in Fulton County for those listening is that the special grand jury prepares a report and recommendation, and then another grand jury would actually be impaneled that would actually do the indictment. The special grand jury doesn't indict it prepares a recommendation and a report for the indictment to other developments out of the special grand jury, one involving Lindsey Graham. It's been misreported, though, that Lindsey Graham agreed to testify before the grand jury.

That's not accurate. What Lindsey Graham agreed to do, he filed what's called a motion to quash or basically a quash to stop, a motion to stop or have a judge terminate the subpoena that he's been, that was issued to him to testify before the grand jury. And he filed that motion in the South Carolina federal court and what Fawney Willis are get is one the wrong court that should be filed in the Georgia federal court if if anywhere and number two Lindsey Graham really doesn't hasn't even been served yet with the subpoena.

So it's premature for him to even make this motion to quash in the first place until he's been served. A deal was worked out where Lindsey Graham agreed to accept service of the subpoena. All that basically means is he can challenge it in the Georgia federal court. It does not mean though that he's agreed to testify as some people who have been misreported,

but the process starts where he's now able to challenge it as opposed to delay it. And then some other news coming out of New York, you had Rudy Giuliani, who was served as subpoena out of New York, and there was an order to show cause out of the New York Supreme Court. It's weird, New York Supreme Court. We talk about on legal AF, the name Supreme Court,

you think it's the highest court, but in New York that's the court of appeal. The trial court's called the Supreme Court. But anyway, Rudy Giuliani just didn't show up today to today's hearing regarding the subpoena. So he was ordered by the New York judge to show up and to testify in the Georgia proceedings, but that also doesn't necessarily mean that he can't raise objections, meritless objections,

like attorney-client privilege or the other bogus objections, executive privilege, and the silly objections that they've tried to make. But nonetheless, it shows that Fawony Willis is proceeding very, very, aggressively. No, Karen Agniflo, for people who don't know, you were the number two in the Manhattan DA's office. You oversaw thousands of employees in the Manhattan DA's office. And so you have insight as a prosecutor.

So what is your view? How do you feel that Fony Willis is doing just as one prosecutor. So what is your view? How do you feel that Fony Willis is doing just as one prosecutor watching Fony Willis? I think she's doing great. I think she's moving forward. And I think it's clear that she's, you know, it's very tough. And I know this because I was there when

we were investigating Trump, it's very tough to investigate a former sitting president. There's a lot of pressure. There's a lot of outside people who have a lot of opinions about what you're doing. And there's a lot that the the Trump people are very aggressive, you know, and they have a playbook of delay and make arguments and push things long and hope that things either get better over time or hope that with time, it's time passes, you know, that the political wins will change. And you have to really stay focused and tune all of that out and really look at the evidence wherever it leads. And that's very clear that that's what Fannie Willis is doing. And you know,

she's a brand new DA. She hasn't been there that long. And so I think it's, I think she's doing a really good job. It's not easy to do what she's doing, but I think she's doing a great job. And she's moving quickly. And she's definitely, I I think she's doing a great job and she's moving quickly. She's definitely, I mean, it helps too that it's on tape, right? The phone call is recorded, right? That find the 12,000 votes. So that helps too, and that's fantastic. But I think she's doing a great job as a prosecutor, and I really have a lot of respect for what she's doing.

Oh, I couldn't agree more. I want to also talk about the secret service text messages that were ultimately deleted before talking though, about the secret service text message though. I do want to get your take Karen on the memo that was circulated by Merrick Garland. This memo that was circulated by Merrick Garland, that because it is an election year, any prosecutions that could be perceived as political, shall require approval of a supervisor, or

ultimately require the approval of the attorney general. This was revealed in Rachel Maddo and it was basically reported in a way as saying, oh, here's Merrick Garland saying that there's not going to be any prosecution of Trump or Trump's inner circle because this is 2022. This is Mueller all over again or even worse. Here you have, or people are saying, well, Merrick Garland is also following Bill Barr's lead and the bill, Barr memo.

And how could you follow Bill Barr's, you know, partisan memo? You know, and so this is horrible. You know, and I tweeted it out right away. I mean, I had to take a step back and I had to read the memo because I felt like I had seen this memo before. And I did. I mean, first off, this memo was dated May of 2022. It was like May 25th or May 22nd of 2022. So it was already out before these January 6th

committee hearings, number one, but number two, since that date, we've seen the ramping up, not the ramping down of DOJ activity with respect to the insurrectionists. I mean, we've seen them issue search warrants on John Eastman and of Jeff Clark, you know, people who were acting as Trump's closest advisors as Trump's lawyers. So it's not like they're shying away from getting, who could be closer to the person than the person's personal lawyers

and the person's representatives and the DOJ has issued search warrants there. So I think there actually has been a ratcheting up, but then when I looked at this, this is the same memo that circulated every year around election time. It references the previous AG at the time, each of them reference the previous dictate

by the previous AG, and then you just basically initial it at the top. But there was nothing here in this memo that to me, it was just a generic boilerplate memo saying, you should get the advice of a supervisor or at the highest level, the attorney general, if you're going to be doing any political prosecutions. As a prosecutor, isn't that just basically stating what the rules are anyway?

I mean, when you were at the prosecutor's office and you were siphances number two, could align DA just follow, could file a lawsuit against, you know, a top political person without getting approvals. I mean, isn't just saying, remember, you work in an organization which requires approvals. What was your take on that? So my, you know, at first I had the reaction that I think a lot of people had, which was, oh, great. Now that means they're not going to bring the case, right? But then, as you said, once you sort of think more about it, it's absolutely clear that it's just a reminder. I mean, don't forget, the Department of Justice has US Attorney's Offices all over the country. Every single state has at least one US Attorney's Office and some in New York we have four. And so there

are literally thousands of prosecutors all over the country who work with FBI, Secret Service and Homeland Security, all the various different agencies. And so there's a lot going on. And you don't want all of a sudden in an election year, some federal prosecutors, some office somewhere, bringing charges that could influence an election, certainly without the Department of Justice knowing about it and without the attorney general knowing about it. So it's just, I think clearly just a, as you said, said, right before an election, a management tool to manage this number of prosecutors and agents and people who are doing their job and who are looking at various scenarios.

And so I think it was just that kind of reminder. But there were a few, there were definitely a few things that are not, I wouldn't say concerning, but you know, look, politics should have no place in a prosecution ever. And prosecutors like to say that we go where the evidence leads without fear or favor. So you will prosecute your friends, your enemies, and anyone equally, if justice requires that, and if you committed a crime. And so, you know, I did think, you know, and just going back to the funny willous thing, you know, she shouldn't have donated probably to somebody's opponent, just because you have to also then be able to investigate that person

and not saying you wouldn't, but there could be the appearance of impropriety. And so I think as a prosecutor, you just have to be super careful, and that you never let politics, in fact, a investigation for exactly this reason, is you don't want it to look political. Justice is supposed to be blind, and it's supposed to be something that is meted out without fear or favor. So I do think this memo just reminds people of that, that just this is an election year. And you know, look, one of the most famous kind of,

I guess, violation of this is what Jim Comet did and what the effect it had on Hillary Clinton. And it's just complicated. What do you do? You have this information, do you say it? Do you not say it? Do you leave it alone until after the election? But then people will say, oh, you're treating them differently

because you like the person, or you're treating them differently because you don't like the person. So politics, either way, you're always gonna have someone criticizing you if the person happens to be a politician or a high level government person, because again, if it's somebody that you support,

they'll say you're treating them better or differently because you support them. And if it's the opponent or that someone you don't support, they'll say you're going after them, and it's a political witch hunt, which is what Trump likes to say. And so there's all these conspiracy theorists that said, oh, well, he issued it now. And then that'll make Trump declare sooner.

So that way, it'll trigger this memo. And I think people are reading too much into it. I think as you said, it's just business as usual reminder that, you know what, if we got a case and we're investigating a case against Trump or any of these people, that it's just, we need to make sure that that's the attorney general

and the people, you know, at the highest levels, A, know about it, and B, that things are coordinated. And, you know, you also don't want anyone stepping in each other's toes, right? You know, so like, what if two people are investigating the exact same thing? I mean, that would make no sense either. So I just think that for many, many, many reasons, this was a sound policy.

We should have a policy. And it doesn't mean anything one way or another. I think it's very clear that the investigation is ramping up and that the attorney general is very, very involved. And also Lisa Monaco, his number two, I think was speaking at another some other kind of public event yesterday and was asked by the reporters. And she confirmed that the investigations continuing and that they're going gonna follow the evidence wherever it leads. So I think this memo, people are making a lot of it

because I think that tensions are high and the January six committee is doing a fantastic job at showing the steps that would have to take, we'd take in for a prosecution. And I think people are waiting with baited breath for there to be a prosecution and so any little thing that that Marik Garland does even if it's business as usual people are going to try to read into it but I do think that's all that's happening with that memo.

Yeah to be clear it is a generic and as you said it's a generic boilerplate letter that sent every election year. And some people point out, well, the one thing that's different is that it mentioned Bill Barr. But here's the thing, your criticism of Bill Barr is that he ran the DOJ as a highly partisan entity to attack his political enemies.

So by your own logic, if you reference Bill Barr's destruction of the norms to go after political enemies, isn't that the very thing that you want, Merrick Garland to do? So by citing Bill Barr, isn't Merrick Garland basically saying, this guy abused it for the wrong reasons, but went after political enemies. So I should be able to use it for the right reason to go after. I mean, if you go to that logic, so that's where I don't understand. Well, he mentioned Bill Barr, but your criticism of Bill Barr was that he's too partisan. And then your criticism of Merrick Garland is that he's not going after Trump. And I genuinely do think Karen that the criticisms of Merrick, Ireland are overblown. I'd like it to go quicker, but I'd like a lot of things in life to go quicker.

Sometimes I don't want to wait for that great lasagna to cook for however long I want to just eat the lasagna right away. Sometimes I want to run a marathon in one minute. I don't want to have to do it in multiple hours. Sometimes it takes time to actually get the thing done. And when you're doing the most significant prosecution in the history of United States of America, it is going to take a little bit of time. And that's what's taking place.

And ultimately, if he doesn't do a prosecution of Trump. I will absolutely be disappointed, but the prosecution of Trump doesn't end in 2022. I mean, there is a statute of limitations that takes place, but we're not even close to any of the statute of limitations being blown while Merrick Arlen is climbing the ladder. But Karen, there are things that are frustrating this climbing of the ladder and it's most frustrating when it's people who wear supposed to trust the most Like the secret service. I mean this is something that really Shatters your trust in the heart of what's supposed to be important important institutions now

We've read a number of you know books and exposés that have come out in the past, you know, 10, 20 years on the Secret Service and the problems within the Secret Service, the corruption within the Secret Service. But to learn, we learn this from an Inspector General within the Department of Homeland Security who brought it to the attention of the House of Representatives and the inspector general's job is to do just that, to serve as the watch person for various entities and to report to the House oversight committees regarding things that are going wrong. He said, Inspector General, that the secret service deleted their messages

in January of 2021. And the secret service said, Oh, no, we gave you all of the records. Well, what about your text messages? Oh, we gave you everything. But the text messages. And what happened was we happened just to decide we were going to purge all of our systems right after January 6th, right around January 20th. We made the call purging all systems. Now, one of the things the Secret Service has tasked with carrying a cybersecurity. So there's no backups, there's no copies, they don't preserve their text messages, and then the Secret Service has played a major role in what the January 6th Committee has been discussing because we've heard the stories about

how the Secret Service approached Pence on January 6th and told Pence to come in the car and try to take him away from the Capitol Building and Pence is I'm not leaving the Capitol, but I don't know where you're gonna take me. You're gonna put me in Alaska, where am I gonna go so that you can do this, you know, Trump, a lector fraud scheme that Trump's trying to pull off to do is cool.

And then we also heard about Trump, you know, attacking secret service members and secret service members leaked and said, Oh, that didn't happen. But then other capital police officers, no, no, we saw that happen. Well, here we have the opportunity just to know what happened. And there is obviously, I don't like to use the word cover up loosely, but there's a cover up going on. They covered up the Secret Service, what took place and their involvement in January 6th. And now there's almost where the January 6th committee, you know, had the hearings focused on these discrete issues, there's going to need to be hearings, subpoenas and investigations on what's going on with the Secret Service.

What do you think? You know, look, this is something that can be known, right? If somebody wants to investigate this, they can figure this out fairly quickly. Nothing happens fast in government. I can assure you of that. So they am saying we were migrating to a new system. That is something that would have had to have occurred over a long period of time they would have had to have chosen the system and probably put out a request for proposals to purchase the system and then they enter into contracting for the system

and then they go into a whole sort of migration schedule because the Secret Service, again, is all over the country. Why don't we do that? I mean, they really want to find out if this was accidental or not, this purging of these text messages. That's one of the easiest things you could figure out because, like I said, nothing happens fast in government

when it comes to things like this. So, you know, before I say whether or not I think this is fishy, I'd like to have the answers to that question and that is eminently knowable. But as you said, there have been some sort of strange, you know, like, there's been scandals in the Secret Service and the Secret Service, unfortunately, is their reputation is slightly tarnished.

And that makes me really disappointed because I've worked with the Secret Service and in addition to protecting the presidency and former presidents, you know, the Secret Service is has one of the most preeminent cyber crime and cyber investigation lab in all of law enforcement. I mean, they do all of the federal identity theft and federal cyber crime and it's what the work they do

is extraordinary. I mean, it's a really, really just respectable, excellent organization with fantastic service members. However, one of some of the things we're seeing like this is really disappointing. And even if the migration was planned, even if you are law enforcement, you are the secret service, you investigate things, and you know how important things like text messaging, WhatsApp, signal, and all those other ways that people communicate are because that's what you do for a living.

You know they knew that the January 6th insurrection, it's probably a single most significant crime in recent DOJ history with the thousands of people, or more than a thousand people who have been prosecuted at this point. They know how important those text messages are on January 5th and January 6th. And so I find it preposterous, that even if this was something

that was planned, that they wouldn't, somebody wouldn't have said, hey, you know what? This is a significant congressional and law enforcement investigation. We should take pains to preserve absolutely everything in during this migration, because that involves January 6 and the day is leading up to it. So that to me is suspect and frankly doesn't pass, you know, the smell test to me.

This is these are the cyber crime investigators that exist. They know better. And so I don't believe that somebody didn't didn't do something like that. And you know, one other thing is, didn't, doesn't, what's his name? Oh, Nourado Tony O'Nourado was he or not, he works for the Secret Service, right? Yeah. I mean, so that's another thing. He, that's the other thing I find very, very fishy, you know, Cassidy Hutchinson was talking all about

Tony or not, oh, and his involvement on January 6th. And, you know, he was a Secret Service agent. He's a public servant. And he crossed over and became a political appointee working for Trump and stayed with the Secret Service at the same time. I've never heard of such a thing. You know, you're one or the other.

Either you're a civilian, political appointee, or you're a government secret service agent who is a civil servant, and it shouldn't matter if the president is a Republican or a Democrat or an independent, your duty is the same to protect them and to work with them and protect the country. So which one is it? And so he kept his Secret Service status.

He was a political appointee, and then now he's back in the Secret Service. So I don't know. There's a bunch of weird things going there that going on there that I typically give law enforcement the benefit of the doubt, because as you said, I was in it for so long. And I have a very hard time criticizing law enforcement. It's not my nature.

It's not my first. And I find myself defending them a lot. I can't defend this. And I find it very tricky. And I, in fact, think this warrants more IG involvement in my opinion. Oh, absolutely. In addition to Karen being a former DA in the Manhattan DA's office and essentially leading the office as SIEVANCE is number two, I have the pleasure of working with Karen. We work at the same law firm, Gary Ghosts and Gary Ghosts. And the key advice

we would give to corporate clients is that when litigation is reasonably anticipated, you have to preserve your records, you have to preserve your documents, and also organizations need to keep absolutely need to make sure that they remain compliant with investigations, oversight, and not delete records, even where litigation is not reasonably anticipated. For example, with public companies or even private companies that are regulated in certain sectors. So, clearly, when January 6th, when an insurrection happens, when the first time in our history, something like that happens, the equivalent of is litigation reasonably to be likely

should be triggered for the secret service. A memo should be sent out with competent leadership that says everybody needs to preserve all records. This was an event that scarred our nation and we need to get to the bottom of it. Everyone needs to preserve their records period. And it shocks me that a letter like that didn't go out and not only did a letter and mandate like that didn't go out, but the opposite. Hey, we're going to just delete all of our text messages and purge and go to a new system January 6, 2021, not withstanding. But I'm with you. We'll see what happens, Karen. And we will keep our legal AF audience updated there. Let's talk about the banan contempt of Congress trial, which is underway, as I mentioned for the outset,

a jury has now been picked. Opening statements are now over and witnesses are being called. The theatrics of banan's fascist corruption and his all that BS, that's not really what this case is about. And the prosecutors made clear in their opening statement. At this case is about, we gave him a subpoena and he didn't show up. This is about a guy who didn't show up on a day he was supposed to show up to. And Bannon's only defense that he's allowed to present is that this subpoena was the start of a negotiation of when he should show up. As I described on the weekend edition of Legal AF,

that's like saying the speed limit on a highway is really not a limit, but it is a negotiation between the driver and the cop of how fast the driver actually wants to. It said 55, but I thought that was a negotiation. I was gonna go 105 miles per hour. And so really, this trial's pretty mundane when you think about it. I was going to go 105 miles per hour. And so really this trial is pretty mundane when you think about it.

I mean, they call the witness being called by the prosecutor is a staff lawyer of the Jan 6th committee who's the one who literally just issued this subpoena. And the questions Karen are just like, did you issue this subpoena? Yes. Did it have a date on it?

Yes. Did he show up? No. Was it show up? No. Was it a negotiation? No. All right. Thank you very much. Like that's the, that is the direct examination. I just did it for, for you. That's what this case is. And Bannon wants to inject all this political stuff into it. The judges and having it. There was some drama outside of the courtroom yesterday. Where Bannon did the normal. This is a witch hunt pity me blah blah blah.

Prosecutors brought that to the attention of the judge. The judge's eyes is in a political trial. It's a trial about you not showing up for a subpoena. And yet you had to show up. That's what it's about. Period. What do you think is going on Karen? Do you think Steve Bannon will actually testify?

He has to test. His only defense would about it being a negotiation. He'd kind of have to testify. So what were you doing? Or his... So I have slightly... I actually think this is a tough case for the prosecution. I know that everybody else is saying this is an open and shut easy case. As you just said, it's, you know, you didn't show up and therefore, and therefore you're guilty. I think it's a tough case for the prosecution and this is why.

Every time, every single person who got a subpoena to testify for January 6th, but who then negotiated the terms of that, you know, I will give you these documents, but not those. I'll talk about the way Pat Sepoloni did. I'll talk about things that happen, but I won't tell you things that the president said,

because I think those are attorney clients. Or I'm not available on this date, but I can come that date, or I can't come this morning, I'll come this afternoon. Or all the different times that there are negotiations, posts, subpoena, and we all know they are. I mean, you can show us a peanut for a particular date and time if somebody says, it's, I'm not available, or whatever, then you do change it, or you try to accommodate them,

or you negotiate the terms. So if I were banning, thank God, I'm not, and I'm not representing him, but that's one of the things I would do. I would basically show that that's, first of all, it is a negotiation and they do it all the time. The second thing I would show is nobody ignored anything. Banan hired a lawyer, the lawyer wrote dozens and dozens of letters and motions and fought and fought and fought and fought in court

about whether it was an executive privilege, whether he had to go all those things. That's the opposite of ignoring, right? That's actually fighting it. So if I were ban and I would say the last thing I did was ignore this. In fact, I was doing everything I could to exercise my rights in court to try to fight it. And of course, he's saying now I will do it. I think, you know, don't forget, all he has to do is convince one person on that jury to go his way and then you have a hung jury, right?

You have to, in a criminal case, you have to convince all people on that jury. I assume this is a 12th person jury. You know, you have to convince them all to be on to reasonable doubt of the fact that he's in contempt of Congress. And so all he has to do is convince one and then he's got a hung jury, you know, that's, I think that's potentially what happens here because he can just, you know, it's beyond a reasonable doubt, and he can sew a tiny bit of doubt in there. You know, Judge Nippel, who's a Trump appointee,

largely, you know, cut the legs out from under him with the defenses, but he did leave him enough wiggle room, and they did say they're gonna, these letters that were written back and forth, they did say they're gonna put this into evidence and I think that's what they're gonna argue, that that's the opposite of ignoring a congressional subpoena.

So I do think this is less open and shut than I realized, I did some research this morning and nobody else is saying this but me, so I could be totally wrong on this and maybe my gut is totally wrong. But I, there's something about it that I just thought is, I just hope the prosecutor here is doesn't get too comfortable and doesn't make this overly, doesn't sort of say, oh, this is simple and this is open and shut, that they really sort of appreciate the fact that they still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

that he committed this crime. We'll see how it cuts. I hope this is one of the times I hope I'm 100% promise. I hope you're on too. And also, though, you know, Bannon would go on his podcast though and mock the committee and talk about not testifying and talk about how he was never going to show. And so I do think though Bannon's own words there, if they do want to introduce that, all of those kind of public statements.

That's true. I hope they do. Yeah. Would ultimately be used against him. You know, and at the end of the day though day, though, all of those efforts that were made, though, still, he was a, and this is where I disagree with you, though, because, you know, Bannon was ultimately adjudicated as being wrong. The fact that you file a bunch of bogus and BS motions where you lose, the fact that

your lawyer writes a lot of letters, unless the letters Karen talk about negotiating a date or negotiating carveouts for his testimony. I don't believe that's what the letters said. I believe all the negotiators were, he's not going to show up because of executive privilege and his challenges were executive privilege and the fact that he's a podcaster claiming executive privilege is a really absurd argument to make and so You can go back to the example that I gave which is about the the car that's speeding I go in 110 miles per hour and says that I believe the speed limit of 55 was the beginning of negotiation

I could have my lawyer send a ton of letters to the police officer giving all of my theories about why it was a negotiation or why I can go 110 miles per hour or that I was immunized by the governor because I'm a podcaster on legal AF and therefore I can go 110 miles per hour. I can write all the batch at crazy letters that I want to write, but unless I'm actually negotiating for my testimony and the carve outs that I think are appropriate, there is no actual negotiation.

It's just a bunch of gas lighting at the end of the day. And as I see what his only negotiation would have been, if you want to call it that, was what he did recently, which he could have done earlier. And if someone wanted to be nefarious and if Bannon was smart, he could have done what he did now, which was actually offered to testify, but then throughout the process, make the negotiation so onerous on the committee as to really negate the offer to testify in the first place, but at the very least he could say I'm negotiating. So what that whole maneuver was about recently when ban and offered to testify was someone

who was a smart legal advisor, though, and a furious one who's trying to come up with a plot to try to get him off, says, wait a minute, we really didn't negotiate at all. We just objected and we lost. So now let's say we can do it. So we can then argue that we actually are negotiating. But as the court held and as the Department of Justice argued the conduct after the fact is not proof of the fact. We're in trial now. So what you're saying now doesn't cure the underlying crime, but I think that's where we have some disagreement,

but I definitely do. I don't disagree, in fact, I agree with you. I guess the only place where disagree is that this is a simple open and shut case where you just say, here was the date he didn't show up. I think if the prosecution does all the things you just said, I think you're right. You get over the hurdle. I just think you have to be a little more. I think there's just a little more than an open and shut prosecution here, which I'm

sure they know which I'm sure they know and I'm sure they're doing. I just don't see it as simple as everybody else. I do think you have to explain all of what exactly you just said. I think you just gave the prosecution summation and I think it gets it over across the finish line. But I do worry a little bit about it. That if because the opening statement was a little, they did to me simplify it a little bit.

That's what the only reason I was a little concerned, but maybe they'll get there. Anyway, that's just what I see as potentially a problem. Like I said, they really only have to convince one person when you're the defense. And so that's why it worries me a little bit. Because I could just see somebody buying into that. I could see somebody buying that argument

and then the jury hangs. Let's talk about the respect for Marriage Act that was introduced by the House of Representatives. It passed, although many, many, many Republicans voted against, and I want to dig into that. Before doing that, I want to remind everybody, please make sure if you are a legal AFR that you subscribe to legal AF, not just on YouTube,

but do me a favor right now before we hit these next two topics. Go and subscribe to legal a f wherever you get your audio. I want to make sure that the audio audience is as consistent as rockstar quality as the YouTube and the audio does great. I mean, we're usually, you know, in the top 50 for legal commentary, top 100 now for all news podcasts in the world. So it definitely does great, but I ask you, if you're a YouTube person, recommend this podcast to other people

who listen to podcasts or listen to YouTube, make sure you subscribe to YouTube, but please, please, please, subscribe to the audio on the audio channel. And just search for legal AF wherever you get podcasts. If you have an iPhone, just search the podcast app, go to legal AF, click subscribe, or if you have a Spotify or wherever you get it,

just subscribe and leave a five star review. Those five star reviews are super helpful. They help with the algorithm and subscribing helps with the algorithm as well. And make sure you visit store.mitustouch.com. store.mitustouch.com for all the best mightest touch merch and legal AF merch and gear. Let's also talk about this respect for marriage act to codify the constitutional right to same sex marriage in the abergofel

decision v Hodges 2015 decision. And Constitutional right to interracial marriage in the loving V. Virginia Supreme Court case in 1967. Why do we have to codify these rights? rights because in the decision in dobs versus the Mississippi, in the dobs, Mississippi health care case, which overturned Roe v Wade, the decision based its overturning on really the fact that this case grizz wall v. Connecticut, which allowed married couples to purchase contraception, which established this right of privacy. The Supreme Court really attacked

that foundational right of privacy because it was from Griswald v. Connecticut, which Roe v. Wade emanated from and it was from the Roe v. Wade emanating from Griswald. Again, the right to contraception at ultimately the right to same sex marriage in a burga fell developed. And really what this says is sure,

the United States Constitution doesn't use the word specifically that you have a constitutional right to privacy. What the Supreme Court basically said is that none of the other constitutional rights against government tyranny, against government intervention, the rights to protect people from that tyranny. None of it makes sense. If there isn't a fundamental right to privacy, how could that not exist in a reading of the Constitution? And so when you read the concurring opinions in the dobs decision by people like Clarence Thomas, he goes, no, Griswold should be overturned.

Mary couples shouldn't have a right to contraception. Oh, and by the way, a bargaphal, the Hodges, that was wrongly decided to we should look at all of our privacy cases and overturn all those federal privacy cases. And so in response to that, Congress said, well, we better codify these rights because if we don't codify the rights of Supreme Court is going to take those rights away. So we need as Congress to make a federal law. So the Supreme Court can't say, you know, there is no federal law, there is no constitutional right, and then take those rights away. So it was introduced in the House, all Democrats voted in favor of it. 157 Republicans voted

against codifying the right to same sex marriage and interracial marriage. And now we're also hearing from Senator Mark Rubio and other Republicans in the Senate that we're going to vote no. We're going to vote no because we think that this is just a show vote. We don't support those type of votes. I mean, how is 2022? How could spicable can you be? And this was absolutely the right move for Democrats to introduce this. I should also mention, which shouldn't just be mentioned in passing, the Democrat Congress

voted to codify Roe v Wade recently as well. And every Democrat voted for it, every Republican voted against it. And Democrats also introduced a bill that would allow women to cross the border and protect women who cross the border into a state that permits an abortion from a state that doesn't. And all but three Republicans voted against it. Real, real, real scary stuff, Karen. I mean, I'm glad these bills passed around the way to the Senate. It's likely impossible. The Senate's going to fill a buster.

These bills, but how scary, how frightening. Well, 47 Republicans actually did vote in favor of this bill in the House, which I found heartening a little bit, that maybe there's a chance if it was introduced in the Senate, maybe they can bring, this is no longer one of these things like abortion, where I think as a Republican,

they have to draw a line in the sand. I mean, I think a lot of people are realizing how, you know, how important this is. And, and I think it's becoming very slowly, slightly more bipartisan. really upset that the Senate said they're not sure whether they're going to put this to a vote before their recess. You know, honestly, my feeling at when I saw that was, what the, what the F cancel your vacation, you know, like, is there a more important thing that you can have that we can codify right now than to ensure the right to the same sex that anyone who falls in love and wants to get married can get married regardless of your gender. I mean, think about what that would do if it was overruled.

What would happen to all the thousands and thousands of hundreds of thousands of people who've been married and who rely on this and all the families that exist with children who have parents who are married. I mean, and also just, for me, the right to marry who you want, whether it's interracial or same sex is about the most fundamental right you can have

in this country. So I'm sorry, US senators, don't go on vacation, cancel your vacation, forget your stupid recess and put this to a vote. And I don't know, I think there's a chance that it won't, that it gets past the filibuster. I mean, like I said, 47 Republicans voted in favor of it in the House.

So maybe it's starting to cross over a little bit and maybe there's some people who will say, you know, like Liz Cheney, well, I have a sister or, you know, whatever. It upsets me that it takes you that you have to know someone to realize how important this is, but I really hope that they put this to a vote because, you know what, the midterms are right around the corner. And things might not ever be better than the fact than they are right now. The Democrats control both houses and the White House. And it might get worse. I hope it doesn't.

I hope it gets better, but it might get worse. And then we're totally screwed. So they have to do everything they can to make this happen right now, in my opinion. I mean, we already, as you said, we already lost dobs and the right to an abortion, which, you know, and all the other things are on the table, you know, Clarence Thomas, it wasn't even a dog whistle in his concurrence. He listed out all of the things that you mentioned, Ben, about bring us those cases, because we're going to overrule them. what more do we need to know than to say okay,

Lex codify these things ASAP and do absolutely everything we can and cancel your vacation, you know, I'm sorry. This is that's outrageous to me. I agree. I want to give this perspective, although I first of all, I agree with you. So I agree that I think that they should cancel the very idea of recess. Americans, someone on Twitter whose name is Alfred Fuente, he goes, I don't know him. But it's the tweet is one of the ones that just come up. Americans don't get recess. We barely get vacation. Meanwhile, the nation senators take the entire month of August off and every single holiday without fail plus lifetime health insurance,

their way of life has nothing to do with the way Americans live and work, which I agree with as an overall sentiment about, regardless of who's in control of the Senate. And I think our system has these fundamental problems where we need kind of new blood, passionate blood in the Senate, who really represent the people generally. It's never a both sides issue. We have a fascist Republican party though, and we have a pro-democracy Democrat party, and we have Democrats who are fighting for these rights

and Republicans who are fighting to take away these rights. So that is very, very important. It is also important to know that the recess would end in September. And so it is something they could vote on before the midterm elections. They could vote on it in September. And the Supreme Court is not going to be making any rulings from now until the time they could vote in September. And they have a number of other votes, one regarding semi-conductors, one involving health care, that's planned. And there's a lot of procedural machinations that take place that people don't realize with all these ridiculous parliamentary rules

to get a bill, even like a health care bill, through that immediately can, you know, be life or death to certain groups of people, that notwithstanding these laws, these codifying these laws is life or death to a lot of people. And, you know, respecting the dignity of people is critical and vital. And so if you extend your recess two more weeks

to make sure that these bills get a vote, and that's two weeks less of a vacation, but gives people who are in same-sex marriages, who will be in same-sex marriage, who are in interracial marriages, the peace of mind that my government's fighting for me. I think that's something you can take time away from your vacation for, but it's not like they're not going to vote on it. It's just they would vote on an in September before the midterms. And the Supreme Court is not convening again to make any rulings that would take away those rights

before then. But I agree. Why not? Why not pursue this car and with the degree of urgency in the first place? But that's what's that's what's going on there. Let's finally talk about the January 6th hearing that will be coming up. It's coming up on Thursday, July 21st, on prime time. We will be airing it here on the Midas media network. I'm so excited to have that broadcast here. I'm pumped for this hearing. The two star witnesses, Sarah Matthews, deputy press secretary, Matt Pottinger, deputy national security advisor, both high level people, you know, the highest level people who have really testified to date, arguably, both resigned after January 6th. Sarah Matthews was more vocal about it publicly than Matt Pottinger.

Um, but we'll be interesting to, you know, we'll be interesting to hear what they have to say. But what can you tell us about the hearing? Who's going to be asking the questions Karen and what are you looking forward to? So Benny Thompson is not going to be there. He has COVID, but he said the show must go on and proceed without me. And I think it's going to be a very interesting hearing. I think it was supposed to be the final, the final hearing, right? But I don't know that it's going to be the final hearing in now that more

and more people are cooperating, which happens, right? When people see, I think Cassidy Hutchinson was, was somebody who came forward and all the, and then Patsa Bologna finally agreed to come forward. And I think she was the impetus for that. So I think as more and more people come forward and more and more evidence presents itself, I suspect there might be another hearing after this. But what I'm going to be looking for in this hearing is I think I'm going to spend a lot of time putting together those 187 minutes of inaction

on the part of Donald Trump. And I think from a prosecution standpoint, that's really key. And that's a real significant piece of information that I think is important to both the two audiences for this hearing, the court of public opinion, but also the investigation of the criminal investigation

to sort of see what is possible. You know, I think it's interesting because I was actually doing some research for this podcast this morning and yesterday, and I read, I saw that there are people talking about whether or not Donald Trump could be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter, which I thought was a really interesting, really interesting question. So involuntary manslaughter is, you know, there's a federal, a federal version of this in 18 USC 1112. And it has to do with if there's a death on federal property and of course we know there were five deaths related to the January 6th insurrection.

And if it's accidental, that's what makes it manslaughter. So if it's accidental caused by negligence or recklessness, and here, if these five deaths that occurred on federal property were caused by Trump's failure to exercise due care, he actually, unlike the rest of us, has an affirmative duty of care. He has to faithfully execute the laws of this country.

He's the commander in chief of the army, of the armed services. I mean, he actually has these duties. And so I think that there's 187 minutes of showing what did he know, what was he told? Where did people come in and say to him that they're being violent, that, you know, people, you know, whatever he's watching TV, he's on the news coverage, that people were saying, calling and saying, there's calls for help. You got to call the

National Guard, call on the Army, call them off, tweet, do anything. Do something they're listening to you. And Mr. Ayers, the guy who testified with, he was one of the civilian people who testified, who has been prosecuted by the Department of Justice for being an insurrectionist. He testified that he's like, look, Trump that Trump said come to Washington January 6th. So he came because his president told him so. And then he says, Trump said march to the Capitol.

So he says, so I did, because he told me so. And then he said, and when Trump finally tweeted and said time to leave, that's when we left. He, not that that excuses it, but that just shows you what was in the mind of the people who were there that day. They were there because Trump told him to go, told them to go, told them to march there. Trump knew they were armed and then left when Trump finally, finally tweeted 187 minutes later, time to go. So I think those 187 minutes about what Trump knew,

what was going on, and what he was saying, what was his state of mind? Are gonna be critical for both prosecuting them for this involuntary manslaughter, as well as what I think is more likely is for being an insurrectionist, and all the other charges that we've talked about on this show and in past shows that I think he, the conspiracy to the fragile election,

all the different charges we've talked about here. I think there's the involuntary manslaughter was the first time I've heard that or you even thought about that. And I think there's the involuntary manslaughter. It was the first time I've heard that or even thought about that. And I think it's sort of interesting. I think these 187 minutes are are going to be quite illustrative of what of what was in his mind and whether he can be charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, which is one of the charges or aiding or inciting the insurrection, which I think is another one they're looking at, or whether they're looking at obstruction of an official proceeding. That's

another charge. So I think these are the four charges that the Department of Justice are sort of thinking about if these are the Donald Trump, but I do think these 187 minutes, if they can piece it together, which is why things like the Secret Service text messages are things you'd want. What are they saying to each other? What are they saying? The ones that were protecting Trump,

if anything, about this to each other. They're gonna piece this together, hopefully, with as much detail as they can, which will come from both live testimony from people who will be testifying, but it will also be coming from phone records and text messages and other sort of sources, emails, I don't know, however,

however, these people communicate with each other, those are things that were communications in real time about what was happening. And of course, we know Trump doesn't doesn't use any, you know, he doesn't leave any footprints or if he does write something down, he then eats the piece of paper or flushes it down the toilet, right? Like other than that, he tries to not leave any kind of electronic or paper trail, But all the other people around him, you know, Cassidy Hutchinson, when she, what struck me about, about her testimony, was every time she went in to talk to Mark Meadows, she described him as, you know, looking down at his phone, you know, and the whole time she's talking about how all he's doing is looking down at his phone. Well, I want his phone. I want to know who's he texting with,

who's he emailing with, what's he doing? And you'll see in real time kind of what's happening and what was happening. So I'm going to be watching this hearing, you know, the fact that it's in prime time, I think this is going to be a good one. And I think it's going to be one not to miss for sure. Do not miss it. Watch day eight of the bombshell January 6th insurrection hearings live. Our coverage on the Midas Touch Network will begin Thursday, July 21st at 7 p.m. Eastern

4 p.m. Pacific. You will get to see the best panel in politics. We have everybody from Karen. We've got Texas Paul. We got politics girl, Lee McGowan. We got Bender. We got of course Tony Michaels and Gabe Sanchez, who hosts and produce it. Sometimes we get Michael Cohen to show up. You never know really who's going to show up on that panel, but it's an incredible panel. We really enjoy doing those live broadcasts. And they've been doing just as good as most of the mainstream broadcasts out there. It's pretty incredible. And people really seem to like the production quality. And we have our own cameras in there. And so we definitely appreciate all of your contributions when you provide a contribution to the fastest growing independent media company, the Midas Media Network on the YouTube chats that goes a long way to help us because we had to actually buy

additional time and additional cameras given that these hearings have fortunately been so successful and have extended longer than I think we all thought they were going to be But we're excited to continue that live coverage again Make sure you subscribe on both YouTube and on audio wherever you get your podcasts to legal a f Karen is great spending time with you here today. I guess we both gotta go back to work, I mean, when both of us are doing this, like when you do it with Popock, like one of us can be, you know, keep our eyes on the firm,

but when both of us are doing it, you know, I think we both gotta go back to work a little bit, but I really enjoy doing this with you. And we'll see, maybe Popock doesn't do it midweek, maybe it'll just be the Ben and Karen show, huh? Well, yeah, well, no, Popock, we need Popock, Popock with his very, you know, Popock is like a professor,

the way he explains things, you know, I always learn something from him. So, but you know, the one thing I will say Ben, if to all the people out there who are listening to the podcast, they're going to miss your hat, you know, this is, this is a quite a, I like the look. I like your new hat. Is this the new kind of podcast look or is this just a summer podcast look? No, this is, this is a new look, generally me wearing this sombrero. I'm not sure if you see there's an American flag Sombrero right there. Yeah, I was gonna ask you if that's something I was gonna say what's behind you I noticed it's a new something new from your

On your on your podcast background. I noticed that American flag sombrero one of the things I'm gonna do for the It looks like a McDonald's logo by the way this far away at least from where I'm sitting on on don't do don't do my subrero dirty like that Karen Friedman and Niflo we had a we had a great great great podcast and any event thank you everybody for watching the legal a f podcast with Ben Myceles and Karen Karen Friedman Agniflo, we will see you next time. Shout out to the Midas Mighty.