Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts REACT to midweek legal BOMBSHELLS - Legal AF 8/24/22

Episode Date: August 25, 2022

The Midweek Edition of the top-rated news 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. On this episode, co-anchors Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo discuss: the continued “Mar a Lago” scandal, Trump’s most recent “motion’ against the search warrant, and the upcoming ruling on whether any aspect of the search warrant supporting affidavit will be revealed to the public; an appellate court’s ruling to send the issue of whether Lindsey Graham has to testify before the Fulton County Special Grand Jury back to the trial judge; and recent cases concerning a woman’s right to choose in Louisiana and Florida in the post-Dobbs world. Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the midweek edition of Legal AF with your co-anchors, Michael Popock and Karen Friedman Agnifalo covering the most consequential stories in law and politics. At the midweek, today Karen and I are going to talk about all things Mar-a-Lago, our former ex-president who likes to continue to call himself president of the United States. The search warrant execution, the affidavit that's being considered by the Magistrate Judge, and a new judge has entered the fray because Trump has filed some sort of motion

that no one can really figure out, even the court, asking for some sort of relief that even the court can't figure out related to the documents that he now admits he retained when he left the presidency, basically admitting to the crimes that the Justice Department are investigating him about. We'll talk about that.

We'll also talk about an update in the Fulton County investigation and the special grand jury there, and particularly why hasn't Lindsey Graham gone in this week to testify, and what is the 11th circuit done in relation to his testimony. And then finally, we'll talk about the real world consequences of the post-Rovie Wade constitutional right for a woman to have an abortion having been ripped away.

And what does that mean, state by state and case by case, and we'll talk about it in two particular states, one in Louisiana, the woman who was diagnosed with carrying a not viable fetus that had all or most of its skull not intact. And in Florida, where a 16 year old went to her local judge to get permission rather than go to her parents,

for obvious reasons to get an abortion, why the judge denied that request and why the first circuit court of appeals, district court of appeals in Florida, sided with the trial court. And we'll talk about that as well. But first, let me greet my co-hanker, Karen. How are you?

You're in your library. You had much rather be where you are. Believe me. This could be fake. I told somebody on a live chat that I feel like I'm in one of those, who is that guy that had the famous painting show that was, oh, here's how you do. All right. Seagulls.

Yeah, my hair, which needs a haircut is getting into that realm. But yeah, I know this is a real background. This is where I'm residing temporarily till the summer's over. And I'm really excited about getting back to the fall and getting back to progress and all of the cases that you and I and Ben and I have been following for a year or almost two years because now all those chickens are coming home to roost. Let's let's talk about one big rooster Donald Trump. And why don't you kick it off with talking about what's going on with the magistrate judge, the affidavit that somebody's requested be revealed in its entirety, the one that Department of Justice used, that the court relied on to

actually issue the search warrant. Why don't you talk about that procedure, and then I'll pick up with what's going on with our new judge who's been assigned in Southern District of Florida to deal with what recently has been filed by Donald Trump. I have to say, this week is the most confusing week in terms of trying to figure out what's going on with Mar-a-Lago, the search warrant, and all the various court proceedings and hearings. Things happening at

the same time on the same day in different court, before different judges and federal court. So if I get something wrong, please correct me. But like I said, I found this very- I'm going to use my hand. There is a hand button, and I'm going to raise my hand if I think, but you probably won't get the hand raised because you're usually pretty good. Look, this is why people come to this pod, Karen, so that we sort this s out for them. I had to make a timeline because I really couldn't keep it straight. So just going very high level, as we all remember, back in January, Trump turned

over 15 boxes, right, but contained more than 150 classified documents. Then we have learned this week that in May, the archives, the National Archives sent a letter that they issued a subpoena for more documents. In fact, it was on May 10th that they sent this letter that they issued a subpoena for more documents. In fact, it was on May 10th that they sent this letter to one of Trump's attorneys. And in that letter, this was released by Trump himself and his attorneys through a conservative journalist, by the way, the fact that this letter even exists. And in it, it says that Trump took more than 700 pages of classified documents to Mar-a-Lago. So then, so this letter was released Tuesday of this week, which was yesterday.

In June, they turned over to Trump and his people turned over more documents and the Department of Justice lawyers met with Trump attorneys at Mar-a-Lago to see where the basement was and talk about more documents that were going to be turned over. And on June 22nd, yet another subpoena was sent to Mar-a-Lago and Donald Trump for security footage, which they were reviewing to see who was in and out of the sensitive areas and Mar-a-Lago and Donald Trump for security footage, which they were reviewing to see who was in and out of the sensitive areas and Mar-a-Lago and who may have had access to these documents.

So not only were they assessing whether or not these documents existed, but how bad was the threat if other people had access to them or saw them because they had determined that many of these documents, and you've talked about it, we've talked about it on many pods, that they involved the most sensitive, the top secret, sensitive compartmental information, the highest of the highest of classified information. So they were not only assessing what was there, but how bad of a threat was it? Then On August 8th, we all know there was a search warrant and then on August 18th There was a hearing before magistrate judge Ryan Hart by

by news organizations wanting to unseal everything and at that hearing very interestingly so the parties to that hearing were news organizations and the Department of Justice because what they were saying was these news organizations is we want access to the affidavit, right? Well, again, we've talked about this on other podcasts that a search warrant is multiple documents. Department of Justice agreed to turn over some, but the one that has the meat and potatoes, all the information is the affidavit. It's the one that everyone wants because it could be hundreds of pages long and it has sworn information that describes all of the crimes, the probable cause, and what would

exist where in detail. So at that hearing between the news organizations and the Department of Justice, Trump's attorneys were present, they did not ask to be heard and they did not say anything. So then just a mere few days later on Monday, that's when we get to your question is what happened before Judge Reinhardt. Actually, I believe that was last week. And then on Monday, the judge issued an order. Is that right? Did I get that one right? Yeah, he issued an oral ruling from the bench on Thursday. Right? Last Thursday. And then on Monday. Yeah. And then, yeah, Thursday. And then on, then he issued a written order. And then the written order, I found interesting because it suggests that he, after giving the Department of Justice, the only other party in the room, he's certainly not going to

have the media take a look at the affidavit. That's, you know, right heart seeing it, right? Magistrate judges see it in an unreducted, no blackout format. He told the Department of Justice look, given the extraordinary times that we're living in and the extraordinary event of executing a search warrant on a former president, let's see if we can release as much as we can. I understand the sensitivities that you're talking about about revealing confidential sources and information and techniques. Take a shot at it, Department of Justice,

but in the writing, the written order, the judge said, I'm gonna take a look, but if there's so much reduction, like the old Pentagon papers, like one page of just black with like no text, I may conclude that it's not worth, it's not worth it, it'll actually cause more angst if I release such a heavily redacted document. But in good faith department of justice, take a shot. I'll take a look at it. And if there's enough there at the public can get the sense without revealing and compromising

your positions, I may allow it. But he's left open the door managing expectations that he may rev, not reverse course because he didn't rule that he would let it out, but that he may not let it out, depending upon what the reduction looks like. And your comment about the quote unquote lawyers and putting them in in brackets and quotation marks, representing Trump, one of which I can't for the life of me find out anything about her practice online. She's like a 10th year lawyer. I think she's done landlord tenant cases. She's not been with any major firm. I want to make this clear because I practice in Florida. There is a group of really fine, criminal and white collar defense lawyers that operate in Miami. And I've worked with a few of them and tried cases with a few of them. None

of these people that are coming before the courts in Florida on behalf of Trump fall into that category at all. All of those people have decided that their professional licenses and their ethics require that they don't take on a client like Donald Trump and these matters, and this is what he's left with. Those lawyers for the Reinhardt hearing, I, I, if the media reports are right, didn't even sit at council table where, where lawyers reside, right? We call it the bar because there's a bar in the courtroom.

Now it's represented by a wooden, you know, a wooden post, a wooden, uh, length of a railing. And if you are a member of the bar, you get to be on the side of the railing closest to the judge. And if you're not a member of the bar, you don't get to be there. They decided that they'd just be spectators, and they sat where the audience sits, where the spectator sits, not even on the other side of the bar in the well, in the well of the courtroom.

That shows you what they did. And didn't file anything, and haven't filed anything expeditiously. Is there more on the right-hart matter that you wanna share with the listeners? Just that the judge said that basically the First Amendment right of access is a presumption here and the government has to show the compelling interest

that is narrowly tailored. And so it's going to be interesting when the government uses, it kind of shows this and has this burden of why it should remain under seal. So we'll see what happens. I mean, there were certain things about it that I thought were interesting. Like one of the things you have to describe

in an affidavit is the particular areas that you want to search. And I can't imagine that Donald Trump wants the details of Mar-a-Lago. You know, there's this many bedrooms and that many bathrooms, and we want to search over here and not there, and you got to turn left and then turn right. You really have to describe. You know, you can't just go in because you have to be very specific about it. I don't think he's going to want that from security reasons, but who asserts that as

the Department of Justice assert that on his behalf. So it'll be interesting to see what they read that what they propose to redact or and what they don't. I don't know if you have a prediction, but I don't think Brian Hart's going to release it. That's my question. I totally agree with the former prosecutor in you. I don't think I think it's going to be That's my question. I totally agree with the former prosecutor in you. I don't think, I think it's gonna be so heavily redacted

that the juice is not gonna be worth the squeeze to release it to the public. It's gonna be worse. It'll just be like, oh, look, there's, you know, it's all blocked. No one can figure anything out. I think he'll air it on that side. So now let's turn to, this is where the,

kind of the confusion that we're gonna sort out on the podcast comes in. Trump files emotion. There are many things that you could file if you're representing Donald Trump to get an expeditious emergent resolution if you thought you really had a claim. The number one thing you could you could file is what we call a motion for temporary restraining order or injunction, which puts the case on a fast track and asks for emergency relief. I tell this to the listeners and followers because that's not what Trump filed. He did not file anything urging the court to move expeditiously or on a fast track. He filed what he's referred to as a motion for judicial oversight and other relief. Okay. Now, let's answer another question that's burning a hole in everybody's pocket. Is this in front of Judge Reinhardt,

the magistrate judge? It is not, although they may get transferred. It's before another judge, because when they filed this motion or the petition that went with the motion, the wheel spun, I guess they didn't check the box that said related case, and it ended up with a Trump appointee who I've not been before named Judge Cannon. Now Judge Cannon, Alene Cannon, is young, it's about, I don't know, 10 years at a law school or so, Federalist Society. But she runs a tight ship, considering she's only been a lawyer for a short amount of time, let alone a federal judge. And she's already done some things that have raised some eyebrows.

I'm sure in Trump world, one of them is the two lawyers that seem to have the most defense and white collar experience representing Trump now, not the woman identified earlier that does landlord den encases, but the I think the brains of the operation. They filed a motion to appear in her court because they're not members of the Florida bar or the Southern District of Florida. You and I do it all the time. It's called a motion for special appearance or motion for prohawk Vici application. They were denied because they screwed up their prohawk Vici papers, and the judge would not allow them to speak at the first hearing, which only left the local lawyer who doesn't have any background or experience, and I have seen her on television. She should not be speaking on behalf of the president, but that was the only lawyer that was empowered to speak at the first hearing. The second thing I liked about the first hearing with the judge and it's terrible for

Trump is that she's basically questioning why am I here? Whenever a judge starts off with, what is the relief you're asking for? I don't get it from what you filed. A, how does an impact judge Reinhardt and what he's doing with the affidavit? That's Judge Cannon. And B, your papers are fleshed out enough, and I want the Department of Justice to weigh in here about this special master that you're looking for. What do you want? Why isn't the Taint Team, T-A-I-T-I-N-T that the Department of Justice and the FBI are using

to screen the documents already obtained? Why isn't that enough? Why do you need a special master to figure out which of your documents potentially do not represent the commission of a crime? The problem is in his papers, as you and I anticipated in the opening today, in his papers he admitted that he took the papers, that's one element of the crime, too, that he thinks he can assert some sort of executive privilege over the papers, which concedes, doesn't it, Karen, that these are government papers that he has wrongfully obtained or misused? I don't get the filing. I don't get how this helps him. Actually, I think it hurts him in the criminal case. What did you think? Well, I think this is clearly just more delay, delay, delay,

delay, right? And just... But how did it impact the criminal case? Is the revelations in the motion itself. So, you know, it's going to be complicated for him to argue on the one hand that he, that this was, you know, his defenses are basically someone else packed the boxes, you know, the GSA, the government services administration, he says, you know, they packed, they packed the boxes. Also in his motions, he says, over and over again, you know, he keeps telling people, I told you, if you wanted something else, let me know. Whatever you need, let me know. And that's going to be his ultimate defense. And that's what his papers showed was basically, he's going to say, I didn't intend to possess anything. I cooperated. You wanted

materials. I gave you 15 boxes. You wanted to know what else was there. I brought you to Mar-a-Lago and showed you the basement. I said, you tell me whatever you want. You take it. I didn't pack someone else packed for me. So it's going to go to his intent. He's going to keep saying, I gave you more stuff, anything you asked for, I gave you. You should have just asked for it. I voluntarily accepted the subpoena, which I don't even know what that means. He didn't comply with the subpoena, but he, yes, he agreed that someone could hand him the subpoena, but it's going to go to his. But he's got it backwards. Yeah, but he's got it backwards. It's not for the government to beg and plead and play. I'm thinking of a number with Donald Trump.

How many classified documents do you have? Tell me what they are. Everything that he generated, that he was seen, that he saw, that he was shown, that he created. Is it a government record? And that statute that applies has nothing to do with classified versus not classified It has to do with you shouldn't have packed any of the boxes and you've known Since January that you've been holding on to an additional See this is this is where the Justice Department really got excited And I mean that in a negative way because when they looked at what he gave them in January they found 150 I mean that in a negative way, because when they looked at what he gave them in January,

they found 150 classified documents. And just you doing the math and doing an audit, they figured if he's got another 11 boxes, he might have another 150, which he did, another 150 classified. Remember, the Department of Justice and the FBI is looking at documents right now. There's no judge order in place. And I don't think one's going to come out of the recent filing. That's going to stop the Department of Justice from looking at what's in the document. Now maybe down the road, there's a motion of suppress if there's ever a trial against

Donald Trump. I just don't buy this. I didn't pack the boxes. He's known since January that the National Archive and the Department of Justice has required the return of all these documents. And the fact that he's retained them, I think, shows intent. So I think you all will see. But I think what's going to, I think what we should look at is other times the Justice Department has been faced with

charging people for possession of classified or inadvertent documents such as this or intentional one. So for example, Patreus, right? You remember General Patreus, he was prosecuted for revealing classified information to I think it was his girlfriend or somebody who we've been- Yeah, we talked about it.

We would write that exactly. He gave a binder, he gave a binder to his girlfriend who put it in a book, Sandy Berger, but they were prosecuted under different statutes. But then they will say Hillary got a pass, right? That Hillary had classified documents on the servers on her on her on her servers that were in her home, you know, and I think and she and they will say Trump will say she got a pass by the Department of Justice. So and I think at the end of the day, whether you can prosecute someone is different than whether you will prosecute someone. And it looks to me that the Department of Justice, the line that they have drawn, is it willful?

Is it intentional? And that's why I think the facts here matter. It's not just, oh, he possessed it. So therefore, he's guilty it's this is a political question in calculation by the Department of Justice as much as it is a criminal justice does the do the facts meet the law. I mean, it's not and unfortunately, it's not, you know, if you were I were in the situation, the cuffs would be on us and we'd be in a federal holding facility somewhere and we would not see the light of day and no one would even think twice about it. But going and prosecuting a former president is something that this administration has already said, they're not taking that lightly. And so I think the intentionalness and willfulness of Donald Trump himself, not just his lawyers, not just people saying, oh well, we looked for him

is going to be the factor here that determines whether or not they bring a case against him under these statutes in this theory, as opposed to say Jan 6th or something else, right? I mean, so as we've talked about on many podcasts, there are at least three different grand juries going, you know, federally, but I just think that's where this is gonna turn,

is what proof do they have that this was intentional and willful by him and by Donald Trump himself? And that's all going to be spelled out in the affidavit. I would agree with you if it were the day after he moved out of the White House or even a month or two after, but given the National Archives consistent demands that were part of it was attempted to be broker by one of his lawyers, Phil Ben, when he was in the White House, and his continued refusal to turn over the documents. At some point, you have to say that there is intent in the beginning. Sure. But he's going to say, let me finish. Let me finish my point. And then

you can. My husband tells me the same thing. Well, no, I'm saying the fact you can do whatever you want. It's your podcast too, but I just want to get it out on the table so you understand what you're responding to. I want to be clear. I'm not taking the position that within a month or two, a technical violation of the Presidential Records Act or any of the three criminal statutes happened and the Justice Department flew into action.

And boy, did they, you know, oh boy, they didn't give him the pass they gave to Hillary Clinton, although I'm not sure she got a pass at all considering she lost the presidency over the email service. But be that as it may. We're talking about January, February, March, April, May, June, July, six months. At a some point, the criminal justice system has to say that the witness, I'm sorry, the target is not cooperating. And he's retaining, he's holding all the cards, and they're in his basement.

In the beginning, he might have said, oh, I didn't know that was all down there. But now he knows it's all down there. And he still continued to refuse. And not only did the two factors apparently that the that's been reported that motivated the Department of Justice to move quickly was one, they finished their review of the first hundred and the first 15 boxes and found 300 classified documents. Uh- oh. What does that mean for the compromise of national security around the world? And secondly, they had surveillance video out in front of a camera out in front of the door of that basement. I don't even know how we had a basement in Florida, but a basement in Florida holding the documents and saw people going in and

out of the room, including on moments before meetings that were scheduled with the FBI on the Department of Justice. So they were like, that's it. We're out. So they went in and got it. We'll see. Look, if this is this is where I'm going to draw the line in the sand. If this president, former president, acting the way he acted, doesn't trigger the, the prosecutions based on the facts that have already been adduced. I don't know what president would. I'm not know what president would. I'm not worried about this guy. This guy, even if he ran again, I think he loses and loses badly, even to Joe Biden for

the Trump trollers. However, worry about the next president who learns, this is the playbook for the next president. Look at how Trump got away with everything during his presidency and after his presidency. I'll do the same. That's the problem. The problem is not August of 2022. The problem is the future of our democracy. And that's where I think they got to put the pedal to the metal because if this guy hasn't committed these crimes, I don't know who has

Let's let's switch gears. Let's go to Funny Willis talking about another case. It's heating up against a target of Rudy Giuliani and who knows likely a target of President Trump I would think But what's happened with Lindsey Graham who who's the the district court judge Who was the same district court judge who allowed representative Jody Heiss to assert on a case-by-case basis his involvement with the fake electors scandal whether it involved the speech and debate immunity as a member of Congress. She was sympathetic to certain aspects of what he was doing was closely related to speech and debate, and she agreed to even maybe sit out in front of the grand

jury for him and answer questions on the fly. She did not give that same difference to Senator Graham, who the South Carolina Senator phoning back to Georgia to try to influence vote counting and absentee ballot and mail balloting She was hard pressed to find out how that connected to a speech and debate and sort of threw up her hands and denied the motion to quash the subpoena and also denied his motion to Stay her ruling until it appealed the 11th Circuit But the 11th Circuit is taking a look at it and what have they done? Karen. They gave him a partial win, I would say, or at least a temporary win, and they blocked it. And they said, sorry, we want to go back down to the judge, send it back down and flush out more information, basically, because the judge was saying, Judge May said, she would consider

a partial quasal. Have you heard the word quasal before? It's not a word that I quashed. Motion to quash, but I never heard quashal anyway. So she said she would consider a partial quashal, but that was not what they asked for. What Graham asked for, Graham asked for a full total rejection, not a partial one, but the 11th Circuit said, sorry, go consider the partial, and have further consideration. And do that. Well, let's explain that.

Let's explain that, because I don't want to do too much shorthand with you and I know what we're talking about, but the listeners and followers look to us to help explain a little bit. So when you go up on appeal, the appellate court can either make a definitive ruling right there, or can send it back to the trial court for what's called further proceedings. It happens a lot. They can say, no, the record's not really complete for us on a appeal trial judge, hold another evidentiary hearing, focus on this aspect of the law,

develop this line of facts, and then come back to us. And that's what they've done here. They found the judge may sort of short-circuited the process about speech and debate, immunity application, and anything else he had wants a more fulsome hearing on the issue and record that then would come back to the 11th circuit on appeal, right? Exactly. So it's going to go down and then go back again. So nothing is going to, and then of course it could even get appealed further to the Supreme Court. So nothing is happening quickly.

Lindsey Graham is not going before Fulton County anytime in the near future. So Karen, let's move on to our final topic tonight for the pod. It's going to be the ramifications since the court in Dobbs took away a constitutional right for a woman to choose. And now that more than 20 states are in the process of banning or severely limiting a woman's right to choose and to have an abortion, even if medically necessary, even if the pregnancy is the result of a crime, incest or rape, and how the various states are doing

with playing lawyer and playing God on a case-by-case basis. And if we, these two recent examples, we're gonna talk about one in Alabama, I'm sorry, one in Louisiana, the other one in Florida, could be Alabama. Is any measure of what is going to happen? The Democrats better get their act together

and figure out how to influence the state houses or work to find a way to add a constitutional right to choose to the Constitution by way of amendment. It may not work, but it's worth the struggle. Let's start with Louisiana. We have a woman who's identified herself as Nancy Davis, who is 36 years old. She was in the 13th week of pregnancy. She went to a Louisiana hospital.

They determined that the fetus was missing a skull, basically did not have a skull. Therefore it was not viable. And under, I think any appropriate interpretation, even of the draconian Louisiana law, that hospital should have performed the abortion. But they did not. And they sent her on her way to carry this child that was going to be unfortunately dead on arrival. And so she hired rightly so, Ben Crump, a very well-known and successful civil rights lawyer representing the Floyd family and all of that. And also it's not just a lawsuit, it's a person with a timeline. So they got her to a state where up to the 20th week, she could obtain the abortion.

But he is bringing a civil rights case about the trauma and the violation of fundamental rights that happened to this woman. What was your take on it when you read about this terrible scenario in Louisiana? But this has just as much to do with what the law actually says as the real life ramifications that doctors and hospitals are not touching abortion with a 20-foot pole. They don't want to be, they don't want to risk making the wrong decisions. So even if, I think the author of the Louisiana bill said, oh, come on, even that author who drafted the bill

said that this counted, even though it's not specifically listed in the list of conditions that would allow abortion, and that's I think where they hung their hat on saying, well, it's not specifically listed in there. So we don't want to take the risk. Even even the author of the bill said this should have counted. But because the risk is too great to medical facilities and doctors, if they make the wrong call,

the real-life ramification is it impedes women's access to abortion. And this woman said, they're making me carry to berries, is the phrase she is, my child, you know, that this child, it's going to go to term. And she's going to have to go nine whole months knowing that she's carrying a fetus that will die within hours of birth. And just the trauma that she would have to face knowing that and going through that given the grave diagnosis that she received very early on. This isn't a late term scenario. I think she got the diagnosis at 10 weeks and that's when she started

the procedure to try or the process, I should say, to try to receive the procedure. So I think that the real life ramifications that we keep hearing about state by state, that we're hearing, it's not one of these scenarios where people were saying, oh, the sky is falling, you're just making it up. This isn't, all the worstcase scenarios aren't actually true. This is showing that it is true, that this is really what's happening in reality, even if there are these carve-outs in the law. It's not, the minute you start putting the law in the place of a doctor and a woman making a choice about what's best

medically for them. I think you're seeing what the impact is. We saw that 10-year-old girl in Ohio who was raped and impregnated and had to travel to Indiana to terminate. And at first they were saying, well, is it even true? And we know that a man was charged with raping her and confessed to it. And a 10-year-old couldn't get an abortion. I mean, you're just seeing these horrible stories all over the country.

And as you said, there's also a woman or a girl, a young girl, a 16-year-old in Florida who is blocked from having an abortion. So that was my take. It's just that it's not so much about the law and what these laws say. It really places this limit and this chilling effect on access to abortion across the country. So the Florida case, which started in a Scambia County, most states have a judicial bypass procedure that even if they require some sort of parental involvement at some level in the decision of a minor to have an abortion, that

there's a judge that the that the minor along with her counsel, that somebody helping her with an application and a petition, can actually get a judge to bypass the parents and order the can actually get a judge to bypass the parents and order the abortion to happen. And those bypass procedures exist even in the states that, well, not the ones that totally ban abortion, but the ones that have some strict limitations on it,

still sort of have this throwback to a different era allowing the judge to be involved. Florida, where this woman, sorry, this girl resided, had one of the most onerous requirements or parent requirements, as you would expect it, especially with DeSantis. Not only does the minor have to get her parents permission, she has to get it on a notarized piece of paper from her parents in order to obtain an abortion. And then on the bypass procedure, it makes it very difficult for the child to convince

a judge on what the standard is, which is clear and convincing evidence that in the standard in Florida, as in most states, is that she has the sufficient maturity to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Well, let's stop right there. The girl is pregnant. So now she's going to stand in front of probably an old white judge. Let's call it what it is. And convince this guy that she does not, even though she's been a pregnant,

she's carrying a child, that she doesn't have the maturity to make the decision, she has to convince the judge, she has the maturity to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy. In an Escambia County, a female judge ruled, based on what she heard, although she was open to have other hearings

despite the clock ticking on the pregnancy. This isn't like a normal trial process. You've got a living, you know, being inside of somebody else. You know, the time is not on their side. But she said, as of what I've heard right now, I don't think this girl can make this decision. But what is the real, as you said, real world ramifications? So the girl is mature enough and capable enough to carry a baby to term and be a mother,

but she's not capable and mature enough to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy. What upside down world to paraphrase the judge that we talked about on the weekend podcast from Stranger Things. What upside down world do we operate in? Where a girl is mature enough to be a mother but not mature enough to make the decision not to carry a fetus to term? Yeah, it's it's pretty outrageous. I mean, you know, so what are they gonna say if she if they forced her to to have a baby and then she says I want to put it up for adoption. Are they going to say she's not mature enough to make that decision either but so you're going to force her to raise this child.

I mean, honestly, like, where does it stop and and it's just not it's it makes no sense and it's really sad. I felt really bad for this for this young girl who said her her father was unavailable. I think is what she said. It's just sort of a euphemism that the father is not supportive. Yeah. So it was really sad. We're living in a world of forced, compelled pregnancy to term. And with a Republican party, just to talk politics for a minute, that does not equally support the social safety net required to support women, unwed mothers in this case could be

unwed minor children mothers in the right way. They say, oh well, they're so great about getting everybody off of welfare unwed minor children mothers in the right way. They say, oh, well, they're so great about getting everybody off of welfare. And this is a capitalist system in society and they should go to work. But there's a special cruelty of forcing a child or anyone to carry a baby and then not be there for them

as the government in support and in programs and in aid and in counseling and in other programs necessary. There's a special cruelty built into that where it's easy for them to say as the Supreme Court and Amy Coney Barrett said in oral argument, well, there's places you can just drop the baby off like at the firehouse and there's no, just do that. Okay, that solves our problem of pregnancies in this country and monitor pregnancies in this country to drop out of the fire department. Then what?

It's this intentional lack of thought. I'm purpose about what is the impact on this child's life and on society overall in making their rulings or as Samolito said, the real world ramifications on paraphrasing of our decision here in Dobs is not our concern, really? It isn't, well whose concern is it? Well, certainly the concern of this podcast. It's Karen's concern. Really? It isn't, well, whose concern is it? Well, certainly the concern of this podcast.

It's it's Karen's concern, it's Ben's concern, it's my concern. And we're gonna have to find a better alignment of our values, our morals, our law, and our politicians than currently exists outside the Democratic Party. I was driving the other day and outside was a woman who was clearly in the midst of a significant mental health event or some kind of drug event. She was clearly homeless and she was clearly pregnant and she was panhandling and walking in and out of traffic and engaged in very dangerous

behavior. It was so sad to me, so sad. And all I could think of was, what's going to happen to that baby? Because of all the things you just said, that this woman will, the baby will be born and will probably be either addicted to drugs or mentally ill or didn't receive the vitamins and the support and all the things, right, but what's going to happen to that child and for the rest of that child's life is not going to be given all of the resources that you just talked about and it's not going to be given a chance and will probably potentially end up incarcerated or some other I I mean, it just makes no sense and it's almost more cruel, I think, than they make it seem like they're these heroes

who are rescuing all these babies. But when you see the lives because of the lack of social safety nets that you said, it's just really sad. Babies that they have no intention in supporting once they're alive. They're saving them for some unknown reason when parents or children can't raise them. I mean, I would love for my right-wing Republican counterparts to when they see a homeless person, when they see

somebody as you said exhibiting mental health, a mental health person, when they see somebody, as you said, exhibiting mental health, a mental health breakdown, if they could have the benefit of running the movie or the video in reverse to find out how that person got to that moment in time and all of the terrible things that happened to them may be starting at birth forward, then they would understand what they're really deciding. I had my own incident, not with a pregnant person last night, but with a mentally ill, homeless person, who, you know, sort of, we were dining outside, and this is his neighborhood.

So he decided he wanted to be heard at that moment. And it was, you know, a little bit unsettling for the people around him for what he was doing and saying. But I also had tremendous empathy and sympathy for him, because I'm thinking of him not as a 40-year-old man in distress, but I'm thinking of him as a child, as a toddler, as a student, as something that society has, unfortunately, failed. And that's what's... And all we're doing, and all the Republicans are doing by saving the babies is just creating, is perpetuating the cycle. And then, of course, they'll blame the Democrats for being supportive of social welfare. Well, right, because who's going to raise the children that you've just created

by your laws and your cruel rules? What? Who's going to do that? My hope. So Republicans, Republicans, we're right wing Republicans, save the babies, but the Democrats are the ones that actually make sure that they're protected. My hope, Popoq, is that this abortion issue is the inflection point that the midterms will really impact people's voting. I mean, last night in New York, we had our our primaries as Florida did as well as you know, and and there were primary elections and I think a special election and there was a big upset in upstate New York, where, and that was a little known primary race

that was being watched because the issue, the central issue, was abortion, and a Democrat one. So hopefully that will keep happening around the country. I think it was Kansas where that also happened, where the voters came out and said, uh, you're not, this is a bridge too far. So hopefully this is the issue that will finally make people wake up

and and and realize what's happening around this country. Yeah. Karen always a pleasure. We merged into a little bit more of the politics than usual, but frankly, it's okay. Might as touch brothers often up into a lot of law, and don't leave it to legal AF, so we certainly can give our well-considered and seasoned opinions about things that sit at the intersection of law and politics. Always my pleasure, midweek to do it with you, Karen,

and shout out to the Midas mighty, and we'll see everybody next week for the next midweek edition of Legal AF. We'll see everybody next week for the next midweek edition of Legal I Have.