Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts REACT to more horrible rulings from Supreme Court and Jan 6 Hearing

Episode Date: July 3, 2022

On today’s Legal AF Ben Meiselas is recording from Cocula, Jalisco and is joined by Karen Friedman Agnifolo with Popok on break. There may be chickens in the backyard where Ben is recording, and there are definitely chickens and radical right extremist fascists on the Supreme Court. Radical right extremism defines the MAGA movement as we’ve seen in the Jan 6 hearings and now defines the majority of the Trump MAGA Court and the decisions they are making.  First, Meiselas and Agnifolo discuss the most recent Jan 6 Emergency Hearing and Agnifolo (the former number 2 prosecutor in the Manhattan DA office) analyzes it from the perspective of a prosecutor and what charges can be brought against Trump.  Meiselas and Agnifolo go on to analyze decisions this week where the Supreme Court severely limited the separation of church and state, a decision where the Supreme Court struck down the ability of the EPA to fight climate change, and the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case about the independent state legislature doctrine with devastating implications. Shop Meidas Merch at: https://store.meidastouch.com Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The emergency January 6th, hearing with star witness former senior White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson and the fallout we will break it down. The Supreme Court vitiates the separation of church and state and a long standing Supreme Court precedent called the lemon test. We will break it down. The Supreme Court guts the ability of the EPA to address climate change, and basically the ability for agencies to function.

Generally, the Trump SPAC is subpoenaed by a federal brand jury in New York in connection with a criminal probe in the Supreme Court grants petition to hear a case involving what's called the independent state legislature, doctrine, a radical doctrine, but there is a radical right extremist Supreme Court, which can use this doctrine to allow radical right extremist Republicans to steal future elections.

This is no joke right here. We have a lot to discuss on this episode of Legal AF, Ben Myselis, and KFA. You know, or as KFA, the Karen Friedman Agnifalo former top prosecutor out of the Manhattan DA's office host of the midweek legal AF, Michael Popak is not here with us this weekend. We have a lot of cases to discuss. You know, I'm out right now in Cacula, Mexico. So if you hear birch chirping in the background and occasional chicken or even a goat, that's what that's what you hear in the background and occasional chicken or even a goat. That's what you hear in the background, but there's been so many important cases that I don't know how you could just not

do a legal AF this week with all of the information that needs to be discussed, Karen, so great to see on this weekend. Great to see you too. Before we discuss all these cases and kind of had depressing, the Supreme Court has become, we just mentioned one piece of incredible news, which the historic and momentous, the Katanji Brown Jackson is how it was sworn in as the first African-American woman Supreme Court justice in the history of the United States Supreme Court. And I just, I don't want the depressing news

of the week to overshadow that incredible news and what that means going forward. The perspective of a black woman on the court is something that has been much needed. And I really look forward to hearing what she has to say and her lens through which she brings the perspective that she that her lived experience has has given her as well as her incredible, incredible academic resume, you know, and professional experience. I mean, she's just the best of the best and I'm really excited to see what she has to say.

And I want to read her dissents because I'm sure she's going to be in the minority with this particular composition of the Supreme Court. But I just want to acknowledge that incredible news before we talk about the other issues. You know, elections have consequences, and we see how horrific it's been when Trump's been able to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, and how that's totally transformed the composition to a radical right extremist court,

and we talk about the Supreme Court appointments like Katanji Brown-Jackson versus who Trump appointed, and how that makes a big difference. But also what people don't discuss or what maybe our listeners and viewers don't necessarily consider although our legal efforts probably do but the public at large is that hundreds and hundreds of federal judges are appointed. They're nominated by the president and people who have this radical bent are appointed by Trump. People who are completely unqualified, in fact,

were appointed by Trump. I mean, there were so many times where an independent organization, the American Bar Association, ranked numerous judges as just unqualified, never had to trial, never took deposition, didn't know anything about the law. But if they had a radical agenda, Trump and Mitch McConnell would push these people through, particularly if they were very young, so that they could sit on the courts and make these radical decisions for the rest of their lives.

Meanwhile, on the side of Biden, these are qualified people, highly qualified people, the most qualified people who come from a diverse background. It's one of the great accomplishments of the Biden administration as appointing hundreds and hundreds of diverse judges from diverse backgrounds who have incredible qualifications. So I do want to kind of point that out. Let's talk about the emergency January 6th hearing this past week. Of course, everybody knows by now about this hearing the star witness was the senior aid to Mark Meadows,

senior aid in the executive office, Cassidy Hutchinson. And no, Karen, you looked at this testimony from the angle of a former prosecutor about what is the DOJ looking at now in terms of its potential prosecution of Donald Trump, Mark Meadows, and others. There have been some people who talked about, you know, with some of our testimony, hearsay, that some of it meet exceptions to hearsay. Can you break that down for us? Yeah, sure.

So, you know, I watched it live on the Midas Media Network and with everybody else, but it wasn't until I relistened to it a second time with the lens of, okay, I'm a prosecutor. Let me hear what she has to say that could actually be admissible evidence in court, especially because as you point out, a lot of the naysayers after her testimony were saying, oh, but it's all here, say, it's all here, say. So I relistened to it with that perspective in mind. And I think the most significant thing from my perspective that she testified to, that really sinks Trump

and it's time to initiate a prosecution against him, is the conversation that she, Cassidy Hutchinson herself, heard Donald Trump have behind the stage on January 6th, before was going to go out and address the crowd. They were talking about the crowd in the context of the size of a crowd because Donald Trump's size matters. He cares a lot about the size of the crowd. And they were saying, well, we can't let the people in. It's a slow going in because they all have to go through magnetometers, you know, the metal detectors, because they all have weapons. And they were telling him they have spears and the spears on flag poles and guns strapped to their belts.

And they're all armed trying to come in. And it's taking time to get them through security. And I don't effing care throwing f-bombs around that they're armed, get rid of the effing magnetometers, let my people in, let the people in. And they're not here to hurt me. And we can march to the capital from here. So think about what he was saying in her presence.

I know they're armed. It's okay that they're armed. Let them in anyway. And we will all march to the capital together from here, armed. Okay? So that right there takes away any argument that he didn't know and that he didn't know what could happen and that was going to happen. And then he riles them up, you know, during that speech. Okay, he riles them up about marching to the capital armed and to go into the capital. And at that point, I think the DOJ, you know, any prosecution can sort of take away any notion of that he had no idea.

And frankly, those 187 minutes that he did nothing, when he literally did nothing except one tweet that that's what Cassidy Hutchinson said, disgusted her as an American, and that was unpatriotic when he tweeted in the middle of that right, knowing that they were armed and dangerous and had breached the Capitol and were chanting hang Mike Tents that he tweeted, you know, Trump's, Trump tweeted that Tents didn't have the guts

or whatever he said, didn't have what it takes. You know, essentially not only not calling them off, but Ryle and basically sending them a message, good job guys, go get tense, that's what that message was. So I really think Cassidy Hutchinson eliminated any question for the DOJ that he didn't know and what his intent was on that day. The other thing I think that she provided to the DOJ that significant is a roadmap of who they need to go after next, who they need to, they've been actively serving subpoenas

on people and we know that because it's been widely reported. You know, the inspector general of the Department of Justice was this last week served search warrants in subpoenas, and they served a search warrant on John Eastman for his phone and on Carter as well in his home. You know, they went in and kind of a pre-don raid. And so they're getting closer to the president. Well, she provided other people that I think will be next, which is Tony or not, oh, Mr.

Angle, Pat Cipollone, you know, those are people who, who a lot of what they testified to was even if it's, if it's a hearsay exception, if I'm the prosecutor, I still want direct evidence from them. I'd, I'd subpoena them and find out what they had to say. And try to get that direct evidence. And I'd put them in the grand jury under oath. They might take the fifth, which is what a lot of the people in Trump's orbit have been doing, to say, well, I'm not going to incriminate myself.

And you have a right to take the bit. But the Department of Justice can then immunize them from prosecution and compel their testimony. And I think that's what's going to happen next. And I think we all have to steal ourselves for that possibility because, you know, as prosecutors like to say, people who commit crimes don't always do it in front of priests and nuns. Well, I don't know if I would include priests in this category anymore, but in front of

nuns and school teachers, that they commit crimes with other criminals and in front of other criminals. And so to get to the head of an organization, sometimes you have to flip other criminals, so they'll testify. So a famous example of this was in a mafia prosecution, when they flipped Sammy the bull, Gervano, who I think killed what, over 20 people,

and he only got five years in prison because he brought down the mafia. And so we're gonna have to steal ourselves for the possibility that they're going to have to flip some really unsavory characters, like, for example, Mark Meadows. You know, I could imagine, you know, someone like him or even Giuliani, although he's such a clown at this point, I don't think, you know, he doesn't, he lacks the credibility that I think he once had to, you had to trust what he has to say. But I think they're going to have to flip some people that are close to the president

to get some of this direct testimony against him. And we're going to have to just be prepared for that. So you mentioned hearsay out of court statement used for the truth of the matter asserted. There are exceptions to hear say first even though it's not technically listed or delineated as an exception to hear say you viewed as an exception, which is a statement made by a party opponent because the party opponent, the defendant in a case is in court. They have the ability to testify about what they said and didn't say. So if you overheard or heard

something that a party opponent said, that's generally viewed as an exception to hearsay. So Cassidy Hutchinson hearing Trump saying that if there's a prosecution of Trump, that can come in. And then there are also other exceptions like statements against penal interest, excited utterances, and a number of others that would also come in. So there are these exceptions to the hearsay doctrine that I think would allow a lot of what Cassidy Hutchinson said would. There are some things when she heard that someone else heard something that's what's called hearsay within hearsay that likely couldn't come in, but then as Karen said, you would just subpoena those people

and get the testimony from them. No, there's also at the end of the hearing we learned about witness intimidation taking place, and it's just a cartoonish kind of witness intimidation, but nonetheless, incredibly serious and credibly threatening. It would be a bad Hollywood script to see the text messages and other messages that Liz Cheney put up at the end of this emergency hearing where people were approaching witnesses

that were speaking to the January 6th committee and saying things like, look, you're on Trump's team and Trump's gonna take care of you and we know you're gonna be a great witness for us and we wouldn't want you to do anything that would be harmful because we know that you're going to be a great witness for us, and we wouldn't want you to do anything that would be harmful, because we know that you're a team player. If you gave me a Hollywood script that said that,

or you gave that to me as like a law school hypothetical, I would say this is just some corny stuff. That's like, that people don't really say, but it turns out, and the more we're hearing about it from sources who are speaking to the media, and it does appear as either Mark Meadows directly or Mark Meadows agent who was saying things like that to Cassidy Hutchinson, basically saying,

we're gonna take care of you. We want you to be a team player here, and the implication being, if you don't help us out, you're gonna be hurt or you're gonna be harmed. And we know that one of the other tactics that have been used is that the Trump administration and the Trump campaign has used all that money that they've raised, defrauding donors to hire lawyers for people in the inner circle so that they could all be on message and not not tell the truth.

That's been another thing that's been kind of come out of this. And so horrific conduct there and also potential violations of 18 U.S. code 2001, deceiving, lying, falsifying statements to federal agents and federal prosecutors. Here, Tony or Nato, for example, who's been someone who headed up the secret service under Trump, you know, his statements or omissions about what took place in the SUV when Trump lunged at secret service agents. Many sources are now confirming Cassidy Hutchinson's version of events that what she heard is things that they were aware of as well. And did Tony or not, and other people tell that to the January 6th committee, have they been hiding and concealing that and can they be prosecuted for that?

In mafia prosecutions, you often see crimes of obstruction, you often see crimes of witness tampering crimes of materially false statements. And so we will see what becomes about. I do wanna switch gears right now and talk about the Supreme Court case involving the separation of church and state, or should I say, officiating the separation of church and state.

And it is in a case called Kennedy versus Bremerton school district. Now in Kennedy versus Bremerton you have a football coach in the school district up in Washington state. The coach would lead prayers after the game where he would start it off as he was doing personal prayers, but then other people would join and other students would join. And then other teams would join. And after the game, it kind of became this semi-formal thing where they would all pray together after the game. The school got a reputation for like this is what would take place after the game. And the school had certain concerns about the establishment clause, which is the separation of church and state, and they didn't end up renewing this coach's contract. And the coach said, basically,

you didn't renew my contract in a violation of the free exercise clause of the first amendment, both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause are both tenants of the first amendment. And the coach said, I have the right to freely exercise my religion. And this is the state saying that what I'm doing is a private prayer, you shouldn't be able to interfere with what I'm doing. And what the school said is, well,

we're okay with you praying on your own time. We're okay with this being private prayer. In fact, here are locations you can do it after the game. We are totally okay with it. The effect of what you're doing as a football coach for a school district,

doing it on the field like that, has the effect of looking like the school is promoting one particular religion over the other. And so we as a school are concerned that that violates the establishment clause. And so no, we can't renew your contract. He sued and went up to the Supreme Court. And in a six three decision, the same six three

that overturned Dobs, or that overturned Roby Wade in the Dobs decision, the same six three here said, no, it was a violation of the coach's free exercise plus. He had the right to do that. And in doing this, whether the Supreme Court did is they abolished a precedent, a longstanding precedent, which had been modified slightly over the years, but this precedent is the lemon test.

And the lemon test looks at the effect of conduct to see if it could be a violation of the separation of powers. And what the court said is, let's not look at the effect. Well, we should look at as historical tradition and how the Supreme Court views historical tradition. Now, the effect, test, effect, base tests for modern societies seem to be the right types of tests

in my view to apply. How does certain conduct affect certain society issues now? And we balance and weigh the interests. But increasingly in all of these cases, this is a commonality, this is a Supreme Court saying, let's not look at the effect. Let's just look at our version of what we believe history is. And when they go through that analysis,

you can pretty much justify anything, right? I mean, at the end of the day, when someone tells you, hey, this is what happened, this is my version of history. Their version of history is that the coach should be able to lead prayer. And you may be saying, well, what's so bad about this, just the coach, it's a private prayer. And it is a very sympathetic fact pattern.

I get it. That's why the Supreme Court selected this specific case so that they could eventually abolish though what's known as the lemon test so that in future cases that come before the court and other federal courts, the separation of church and state courts will just say, hey, we're not going to look at the effect. Let's look at tradition and they're going to allow all of this conduct to take place

in violation of the separation of powers. What do you think, Eric? So, I'm going to start by reading the First Amendment, because I think it's important to just remind ourselves of what it says. And the First Amendment has three sections all separated by semi-colon. It's okay. So, the first section separated by a semi-colon is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free

exercise there of semicolon. And it's that first clause. Then it talks about freedom of speech, semicolon, and then the freedom to pieceably assemble. So those are the three sections. And so they talk about that first section, right? And it's all sort of bundled together. And I think what you're talking about and the effect is really the key because think about it, you know, the first amendment allows me to say the word fire, right?

I can say that right now because it has no effect on anyone or anything. But if I ran into a crowded theater and, you know, that was filled with a thousand people and started screaming fire, you know, that I don't have a right to do that. And the Supreme Court has upheld that because the effect, it would cause panic and alarm. People could get hurt and it would run out. I don't have the right to do that because of the effect. And so I think that's 100% true. That's how the Supreme Court analyzes these issues.

But for some reason, when it comes to the first clause of the First Amendment, they sort of ignore that in this particular case. And Thomas made it very clear, I'm sure you noticed this when he said, you could take a knee for the national anthem, you should be able to take a knee for prayer. I thought that was a direct reference to Colin Kaepernick there. When I read the decision, I thought, what you just said, it's a sympathetic case, it's a private, he wants to do private prayer, what's the big deal?

A Muslim should be able to do their private prayer, whatever your religion says, go for it, do your thing. And that's a great tradition of this country and let it be private. But when you read the dissent in this case, just the gross misstatement of facts that the majority did in their opinion was just disgusting. It's just absolutely awful that you can't read a Supreme Court opinion anymore and really trust that they're at least stating the facts accurately.

And maybe we agreed to disagree on what legal standard you apply or what the Constitution means, but they absolutely mistated the facts here. They made it seem like it was just all, you know, when nothing to see here, I'm just privately kneeling, you know, not hurting anybody. That's not true. What he was doing was he was going on national television

and, you know, and saying that he doesn't have a right to prayer and people started storming the fields and, you know, joining him. And then say, Tannic groups were saying, we're saying, OK, then we're going to come. And if you're allowed to go on the field, we're going to come on the field, and we're going to do it too.

And suddenly, it's no longer a private football game. It's not a fun family football game where someone's doing a private prayer. Now, it's a referendum on religion and church and state, and very, very disruptive to what's happening at the school. And the majority just ignores all of that. And I just think it's kind of outrageous.

And now we'll see if they uphold it when other people, when Muslims and others want to do the same thing on their time. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see that you mentioned the satanic groups, there's the specific group, I think it's called the satanic temple, which really doesn't worship Satan, what they do is when a religious group

will try to eviscerate separation of church and state, the satanic group will come in and say, well, if you're doing it, then we're going to do this and we're going to be able to do it as well. And so it's more of kind of a trolle of the groups that try to appreciate separation of powers. But going back to a few other things

that you mentioned, like you mentioned, their recitation of history, like Clarence Thomas invoking Kaepernick or talking about a player, Ken Neal. Colin hasn't played since he took a knee, so I don't know what history he's referring to about Colin because this coach just got his job back and was permitted to sue, and it's a very different history than I think

what's occurred with Colin and the NFL, but it just shows their own skewed view of what history is. The example you give on the first amendment about the effect of fire. It's a very important point that you raise, screaming fire in a crowded theater, because what's something the Supreme Court is looking at now? Screaming racist epitaphs and saying spreading misinformation on social media. And the Supreme Court, if they take a historical view and not look at the effect of what it is to spread this disinformation on Twitter and social media, they could be having an analysis that actually allows that to

take place based on their own skewed view. And we see that that's actually a direction that they've indicated that they could be going in for next term and future terms to basically allow regulations of social media companies to permit people to say horrible things on social media platforms based on their own view of, let's not look at how this actually affects and impacts people. Let's just look at a historical view of speech

and our own view of it generally. And so I think those are important things. And then just one other point I wanna make there. It's like the Supreme Court half reads the, like they pick and choose now for people who claim to be originalist and textualist. On the first amendment you mentioned, you read it, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. This

Supreme Court's like, yeah, we don't really like the first part. Let's focus on the prohibiting its free exercise part and let's just use those words and let's give it all this meeting in the world, the prohibiting free exercise. And then saying, you know, there really is no separation. Where else do we see this? The second amendment, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of people to keep in bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's one sentence with a few commas, but it's a very clear sentence to me that it's about a well regulated militia. Yet this Supreme Court and six three decisions saysed decision says, yeah, that well-regulated militia part and being necessary part. Let's not read that. Just the right of people to keep in bear armor. Be consistent. Be consistent.

If it's going to be, looks, read what it says and it doesn't say abortion, fine, then be consistent. It says well-, regulated militia. And they just, if this or eight, kind of, I don't know, they just interpret it to say what they wanted to say, it's outrageous. Absolutely. Wanna talk about another outrageous ruling. And this is in a case involving West Virginia

versus the EPA, West Virginia versus EPA versus the EPA, West Virginia versus EPA involved really common sense regulations by the EPA to address climate change. And regulating carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants and setting caps on what these power plants could emit as moving and moving over to clean energy. That was the overall strategy by the EPA. And West Virginia and a number of special interest, very well-funded groups who don't realize that if there is no world, there is no business. If you are dead, you can't engage in business, but there's short-sightednesses.

We don't care about the environment. Don't look up. Let's just destroy the environment for kind of short-term profits. But they funded this legislation, this litigation went all the way up to the Supreme Court and with the Supreme Court ruled here. It was written by Justice Roberts for the court and Justice Roberts, you know, it's

a really cowardly opinion because he's like, what the EPA did made a lot of sense. It seems like a very common sense solution to address a major problem climate change, but the Congress didn't specifically delegate to the EPA, this specific authority, to regulate these coal-fired power plants and to allow and to reduce the carbon emissions from these power plants. So because Congress didn't use those magic words, it has such a major impact on the economy that Congress would have to very much specify word for word,

what it wanted if it was gonna have this major impact on the economy. And so they came up with this doctrine that's been discussed like they call it the major impact doctrine, or they made an important decision doctrine. You know, it just seems like these people are just making it just making stuff up. Even though it's like a second grader, right? Just like coming up with some excuse to their parents. That's like a

Supreme Court major issue doctrine major issue doctrine. Right? It's like it's crazy. So based on this doctrine that they've made up, they basically say, even though Congress gave the EPA the right to regulate in this area and to anticipate things in the future that no, no, no, they didn't specifically say it. But this has far reaching implications

on other agencies too. Because literally, it's not the Congress because it's a broken system based on other Supreme Court rulings. You know, they give dictates and kind of broad brushes and then the agencies implement to them. Congress doesn't specify point by point, bullet by bullet, what the agency has to do in each specific task

like they couldn't reach compromises if they had to do that. And that's now what the Supreme Court's telling Congress had to do. So, you know, securities and SEC regulations, and you go down the list of any agency, and likely those regulations will be deemed invalid unless Congress specifically gave word for word those areas as opposed to the broad delegations that Congress did in the past. It's a real problematic ruling for the environment and for all agencies and it just shows the Supreme Court stupidity. Yeah, I mean, it looks remind people sort of, you know, the three branches, we have the

three branches of government and, you know and the legislative branches who make laws, and but you also have the executive branch who has administrative agencies who carry out those laws, right? And so there is sort of a tension here between the executive branch who interprets the law of what the administrative, I'm sort of what the executive branch who interprets the law of what the administrative, I'm sorry, what the legislative branch,

what they, when they pass laws, what they say. But when it comes to things like the environment, it's so clear that they have to keep it general because technology and things change so quickly that you don't want a law to become obsolete, because technology and things change so quickly that you don't want a law to become obsolete, which happens in situations like this. And so it was very clear that the law they referred to,

the Clean Air Act, from I think of the 1970s. And that's what they were sort of referring to is, what are you gonna do? They're gonna say this is the technology from the 70s that that's what they were referring to is what are you going to do? They're going to say this is the technology from the 70s that that's what you can use. No. Of course, that's what the EPA does. Is that agency sort of looks to what that law said and what they do is they make rules that are consistent with that. But what they basically said in this decision was there's been an explosive growth of the administrative state, and they just don't like it.

They don't like that what they call the administrative state. They think it's too big, it's big. This is a referendum against big government is really what they're doing here. And it's just a shame because this is probably the most important issue of our time is climate change. Without an earth to be on, we're not going to be here to have these important discussions or to live our lives. So this one is just, you know, confounding to me. Yeah, section 111 of the authorization for the EPA basically authorizes the EPA to quote, select the best system of emission reductions for power plants. And just as Kagan points that out on her dissent, she goes, what else do you want

Congress to say? And just as Kagan points that out on her dissent, she goes, what else do you want Congress to say? They provided that language come up with the best systems for emission reduction and power plants. And in this case, that's exactly what the EPA did by capping carbon dioxide emissions at a certain level and coal fire power plants. It's a word for word what they did. And the Supreme Court said, no, that's not enough. But to your point, Karen, that's what they want to do. They want to dismantle the federal government. They want to allow businesses to run unfettered and for states to do whatever states want to do, except when it comes to elections, at which case we should ignore state courts and governors and just focus on the legislature and what's called

the state. Yeah. Well, when you get to that, there we should ignore like this, we should view the state that when it comes to elections, as just the legislative branch of the state is this independent state legislative doctrine, which is so dangerous. I wanna talk briefly and give people some additional, we started off with, I think some good news

about the Gen 6 theory. I wanna just sharpen some good news here on the Trump SPAC being subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in New York, the special purpose acquisition company. I've explained to people what the SPAC is. The SPAC is a holding company that merges with a private company and brings that private company public. So it's almost like a marriage between a holding company and a private company to basically do what an IPO does. And an IPO, it takes a much longer time to do. And so this SPAC vehicle was utilized,

a ton under the Trump administration has become less utilized kind of recently, and it's been more scrutinized by the Biden administration and the SEC. But it's basically a quicker way to go IPO. And this group, this private group merged with this Trump media company, which didn't even exist at the time, digital world acquisition company is the name of the private entity.

At the time, truth social wasn't even a real thing. And so the question is, how did you merge into a thing that didn't really even exist in the first place? Because normally when there's a merger, there's a private company that has revenue and existed. And so what you're not allowed to do with the SPAC is have conversations before the SPAC is formed.

And one of the things the SEC is investigated, and I think the DOJ is investigating, is whether there was conversations that took place before the SPAC was formed, which is a violation of law. And I also think there's an investigation into insider trading taking place because the trading volumes and practices, when this was announced, were so unusual and it followed such a classic pattern of a pump and dump.

And then boy has it been dumped and boy was it pumped. But right now it was it's trading at, you know, I'll go check what it's trading at. But last time I checked it was trading in the 20s, they pumped it up to like 170 with all the things you're not supposed to do when it comes to a SPAC. All of the statements that Trump would make, all those public statements that were kind of put out in the market are exactly what you want to avoid. And there actually hasn't even been people don't realize this a formal merger yet. There was only the announcement of the merger which made the stock price of the SPAC kind of shoot up. But this really threatens whether there could be an actual merger that will end up taking place between the SPAC and truth social.

I don't think it's end of gonna day. It seems like there was a lot of unlawful conduct here. The moment this thing was announced, the day after I said, this smells beyond suspicious. And I thought it would go down this route and sure enough it is. What do you know about this, Karen?

Yeah, look, I think we learned about this because the SPAC had to do some public filing, right? And so we learned about this that they were served with different subpoenas, both the SEC and the DOJ, some of the District of New York, actually, in particular, which is the federal prosecutor in Manhattan. And so there is both an administrative, regulatory investigation, but clearly a criminal

investigation. And I think that makes sense with what you're saying could be and started trading. It could be, you know, something else, you know, it could be the pump and dump. Who knows what it's going to be, but I think the fact that the Southern District is is also doing this is is quite significant that there's a criminal prosecution or at least investigation into this. So it'll be interesting. It'll be interesting to watch this and see where it goes. Absolutely.

All right, now let's talk about what I really wanna talk about. This independent state legislator, Dyson. This, I just wanna put a pin in this. I think this is the most single most dangerous of all the Supreme Court kind of decisions and all the things they've been chipping away at. This case has the potential, in my opinion, to be the single most dangerous thing this Supreme Court will have ever done. So, I just wanted to say that so that people really listen to what you're about to say. And so the Supreme Court granted cert, certiary, so which means they haven't made any ruling

on this independence, they legislated doctrine yet. But when they take the case, it means they have an interest in ruling on it. We know from past opinions that were rendered in Dicta, DICTA, meaning statements that kind of throw away statements that are made, but like, the reality is that who knows what Dicta even means anymore based on the Supreme Court? What Dicta, they taught us in law school what Dicta was, is like a statement that was in precedent,

but was something that the Supreme Court may say in like a throwaway line that was like, well, it shows you what they're thinking, but it's not like the underlying ruling, but at least shows you where their mind's at. But we know from what we've seen so far that you have Gorsuch, you have Clarence Thomas, you have Kavanaugh and you have Alito, who are all supportive in one way or another,

or believe the independent state legislative doctrine is important in a serious issue that deserves review, which usually means they want to uphold it. We don't know where Barrett stands because I think by the time that Dicta was written, she wasn't appointed yet, but I pretty much can guarantee as she stands with them. So that pretty much gives you five people to uphold this independent state legislature doctrine. But this is a case that's arising out of a challenge to Jerry mandering in North Carolina. and the state court and the court system reviews political gerrymandering, gerrymandering general, they're courts, they courts do a courts do,

they review whether the legislative branch violated the law and what the independent state legislature doctrine says is that no, the court system shouldn't even look at what we do. We as the independent state legislature, right? We get to make these calls on our own and nobody can second guess us. Nobody. We just get to do whatever we want to do.

It's such a radical and sane theory when you break it down. And North Carolina's Supreme Court, their highest court were like, no, that's not a real thing like, I'm sorry, like that makes no sense whatsoever. If that was the case, it would totally destroy all balance of powers. What would be the point of courts? Why would an independent, why would the legislature have no check on it? That literally makes no sense. But the United States Supreme Court said, let's hear this independent state legislator doctrine. And it all arises out of this election clause

in the Constitution. Let me read for everybody what the election clause says. Article one section four, clause 1 election clause. The time, place, and matter of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. So that's what it says. That's the language.

I laugh, but I laugh because it's so insane. I mean, what the clause basically says is that they can set the date, like they can set with a time of it, not that they become dictators and that the legislature doesn't have to listen to courts or that courts have no function. But where this has brought implication is yes, in the Jerry Mandarin arena, because you could have the legislatures, Jerry Mandarin, however they want, and then a state can't say that's a violation of the state constitutive of anything.

It's not a violation of law, like whether it's civil rights, whether it's partisan and inappropriate in the state. In the North Carolina case, what's so crazy too, is they gave, this is like a little nuance of it, they gave the court the legislature, gave the court the authority to review its partisan gerrymandering, and then when they didn't like the ruling, they said, independent state legislator doctrine. And that was in a state that allowed the court to even look at it. They said,

the court, you shouldn't look at it. But in other states, they're saying courts don't look at us. We're going to gerrymand our ever we want. And then it furl you take it a step further, but really not much further. If the independent legislator doctrine exists, then they can prescribe their own electors and do literally whatever they want and send whoever they want on January 6th,

not what the people vote on. And according to them, they can't be challenged at all by the courts in any way. Karen. I mean, the, you know, the reason I think this is the single most dangerous potential, potentially dangerous case that could be ruled on is if they do rule that that state legislators have the sole, the absolute sole final say on what's going to happen in federal elections. Given the fact that most state legislators, legislators are controlled in this country by Republicans, I can't, I think it was like 70%

that are- Do you represent a minority of the population by far, but- Correct. Correct. So currently the Republicans have complete control over state legislatures in 30 states, 30, whereas the Democrats control just 17. And as a result, I think what you're going to see if they will this way, that they're going to be able to do everything from, you know, put in their own slate of electors. They don't have to certify elections, you know.

They're going to be able to do whatever they want, gerrymandering, you know, will suddenly become a fake. Partisan Jerry Manjuring will be allowed. This doctrine has such potential far-reaching implications for future elections. And we see what happens in a presidential election. You have this doctrine, and then suddenly all the states that didn't like the way the way

the way the popular vote went, they can put in their own slate of electors potentially, you know, without any check whatsoever, any, and that just makes no sense. You know, the entire, our entire country was founded on a system of checks and balances that no one branch was supposed to have any more power than the rest. And this doctrine makes it seem like Congress, imagine a situation where Congress passes a law and I say, sorry Supreme Court, you can't rule on this law because you know what? The Constitution allows me to make a rule here. No, that's not the case.

And the President can't appoint certain people to cabinet positions without Senate confirmation. You know, I mean, there's checks and balances. appoint certain people to cabinet positions without Senate confirmation. I mean, there's checks and balances. And so to say that a state, that this one clause, that time, place, and manner, they're basically reading the word manner and making it seem like, well, that means anything goes, whatever they want, without any check, it just flies in the face

of the founding of this country, you know, and the separation of powers and checks and balances. And so to me, this could potentially have such far reaching implications. And they could suddenly, the both the electoral college and the popular vote means nothing. State legislators can kind of say say do whatever they want. And you see the implications of that, you see what happens. You then suddenly no longer do the people vote for the people that there's no longer representatives

who are coming into power that were voted on by the people. So I hope they do the right thing here because this one is dangerous beyond measure, without being an alarmist. I always hesitate to say things that sound alarmist or to go to the extreme, but this one when you take it to the, really impacts future presidents, future Supreme Court appointments, and future Senate and House races in ways that I don't mean to leave people on a note of something that's kind of scary, but it's just something that needs to be shared is that when you look at systems where they've established authoritarian regimes, they operate under the ages of a constitution

of systems, and they pretend that those systems have meaning. And so if you look at, you know, the way I ran and their Supreme Leadership Council rules, you know, for an example, like they have a body of judicial officers who make decisions. If you look at apartheid South Africa, it just so happened in apartheid South Africa. It just so happened in apartheid South Africa that the significantly small white minority

would always win elections, and they would control all the infrastructure when that was not actually what the will of the people wanted to be through the way this system was controlled there. And I think that the Republican party right now, the radical right extremist, Republican Party, I think they actually look at apartheid South Africa as an example and a model of something that they want to do here in the United States in which they're doing.

They see big dramatic demographic shifts and changes in the United States. And they say the majority of Americans don't support our radical agenda anymore. Currently, and especially as we look towards Gen Z and future generations, our radical extremist views are not what America wants. If you were to do a popular vote on all of these issues that are before the Supreme Court, if you were to actually do popular votes generally even within the states, you'd have Democrats win over and over again. So the only way Republicans win is if they cheat, is if they completely manipulate the system. And that's what they're trying to do with the Constitution, with doctrines like the state legislative doctrine, like coming

up with the major question doctrine when it comes to what the agencies can do. By the way, calling something a doctrine doesn't suddenly make it some special thing. Like I'm gonna, you know, this is our legal AF doctrine, you know, like just because I call it a doctrine doesn't make it so, but they make it sound so official. They just made that up by the way in this decision, the major questions doctrine.

Like, you know, but they make it seem like it's something that, you know, the founders intended, but they made it up. It's completely made up by them. You know, which is why, you know, on this weekend, particularly, you know, you know, Karen and I felt we had to do this legal AF because the solution is really you,

who is listening to it and becoming educated about these issues, sharing this information with other people, letting everybody know that we're on code, red, alert, and that we need to protect our democracy. There's far more of us than there are of the radical right extremists out there. But we see in other countries that small groups of radical extremists with a very complacent and non-shelon, I can't be bothered, majority that that radical extremist, smaller group is sometimes able to take power. And we can't let that happen here.

That's why we do this show each and every weekend and we appreciate your time. Karen, I appreciate you joining me here and going over all of these issues. Everybody can support the show also by checking out store.mitustouch.com, store.mitustouch.com for all the mitus touch gear. I appreciate everybody who's given contributions in the chat.

Make sure you subscribe on YouTube to the MidasTouch YouTube channel and make sure you subscribe on audio and leave a five star review. It helps with the algorithm. Thank you so much for listening to LegalAv. Karen, thanks for joining me. Great to see you. Boogie says goodbye. He wanted to join us today as well.

Have a great time in Mexico, Ben. Goodbye, Boogie. We'll see you next time on LegalAv. Shout out to the minus light. you