Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts REACT to most important legal news of the week - Legal AF 7/16/22

Episode Date: July 17, 2022

Anchored by MT founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas and national trial lawyer and strategist, Michael Popok, the top-rated news analysis podcast LegalAF x MeidasTouch is back for another hard-hitting look in “real time” at this week’s most consequential developments at the intersection of law and politics. On this episode, Ben and Popok analyze & discuss: 1. New developments in the Fulton County (Atlanta) Georgia special grand jury probe including “target letters” going out to key State Republican Party leaders concerning their role in the fake electors scandal. 2. Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and others moving to dismiss Trump’s second attempt to properly plead a racketeering case against them in a Miami Federal Court arguing that all of the claims were filed too late and have no merit. 3. Twitter filing its suit against Musk in the Delaware Chancery Court to force him to close on the $44 billion dollar purchase, and to have a trial in 60 days on the issue. 4. January 6 hearing developments including the Secret Service erasing text evidence and Trump committing the crime of witness tampering. 5. Updates concerning abortion rights across the country, including Texas suing the Biden Administration to prevent the Federal Department of Health and Human Services from requiring abortion in cases of a medical emergency consistent with Federal law, and 6. Indiana’s right wing attorney general criminally pursuing the doctor who provide the abortion for the 10 year old Ohio girl who was the victim of rape. 7. The DOJ seeking enhancement of the sentence of convicted Insurrectionist Guy Reffitt and recommending a sentence of 15 years in prison. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: https://athleticgreens.com/LegalAF 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

The Fulton County District Attorney Fawney Willis sends target letters to top Georgia Republicans letting them know they could be indicted soon. And the rubber hits the road in Donald Trump's frivolous federal Rico lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and about 50 other co-defendants with Clinton and her co-defendants filing a motion to dismiss which just completely obliterates this trash lawsuit that Trump filed. We're also going to provide some updates, some developments since the horrific overturning of Roe v. Wade in the DOBS case by the Radical Right Wing Supreme Court.

What has been happening in the States? What is the federal government doing? We will break that down. And Steve Bannon's criminal trial for contempt of Congress is set to start on Monday, July 18th. We'll tell you what to look for there. Elon Musk is sued by Twitter and Delaware Chance Record. No surprise there, no surprise, as we told John Legal and previously that Twitter is going to go for the full $44 billion. And we have a new January 6th Committee updates with the hearing that took place this week and some Department of Justice updates. What is going on with this news about the Secret Service? We're hearing that the Secret

Service was possibly the leading text message that existed leading up to January 6th. We're also going to talk about the bombshell revelation by Liz Cheney at the end of the last January 6th Committee hearing that Trump has been engaged in witness tampering of January 6th. Witnesses, material, witnesses, and the Department of Justice has asked a federal judge in Washington, B.C. for a terrorist enhancement for the first January 6th insurrectionist who went to trial, meaning that it will be even a stiffer prison sentence if the judge upholds the terrorist in hand, but we will talk about that. The most consequential legal news of the week I am Ben Myceles. We are joined by my co-host Michael Popak and this is legal a a Michael Popock. How are you doing this weekend? Lots of big updates to discuss.

Just it's it's really amazing. I mean the new the political legal news that you and I cover sleeps for no podcast and certainly not this one. We we are on top of it. We if anybody wonders what happens pre-production you and I are developing these stories, following these stories, tracking these stories, talking about these stories to get to the final cut when we record. And this is it. This is the most consequential things that are happening and that our fans need to know about. Absolutely. A lot to discuss. So let's get right on into it. Fulton County District Attorney, Fawney Willis is leading the charge for justice, leading the charge for accountability.

In Georgia, we gave the update last week, how the grand jury out in Georgia, that's been in paddle to investigate Trump's election interference. Sipinad Lindsey Graham, Sipinad Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, that whole crew of people who were working with Trump to overturn the results of a free and fair election. And now we learn this week that the Fulton County District Attorney, Bonnie Willis has sent target letters to top Georgia Republicans and top Trump co conspirators,

letting them know that they could be indicted soon. And what these target letters relate to is that there was leading up to January 6th, a secret meeting that was held in the Georgia state capital building by these radical right Republicans where they presided over it as a secret meeting was presided over by, I think it was David Schaefer who presided over this meeting. And they treated this meeting, they pretended this cloak and dagger meeting though like it was a real elector meeting. They elected a fake slate of electors. So after the call by

Trump to find me the 11,000 plus votes, after everybody knew that Biden had won in Georgia, these radical right extremist insurrectionists, Georgia Republicans, meet in secret, they create a fake elector list. They send it to the National Archives for processing because this was all part of the broader plan, which was Trump telling Pence to reject the actual electors replace them with the fake slate of

electors. And when Pence would in play ball, Trump sent the mob at Pence, sent the mob at the capital with the goal of not counting the electors so that the fake electors representing not the will of the people, but the tyrannical attempts to overthrow our government would prevail in this unprecedented moment of history. So this all ties in with our January 6th updates, but Michael Popak, Fawney Willis is going to indict these people. I mean, the

target letter doesn't, isn't the indictment. I want to make that clear. But I think she's going to indict these people soon. And I believe she's going to indict Trump. She's going to invite potentially indict Lindsey Graham. She's not playing around. Popak. Let's talk about Fawney Willis who we love. Seems to be the most muscular prosecutor out there as it relates to Trump and his acolytes. So that the Fawney Willis investigation seems to at least be focusing on two major, two major thrusts. The first one we talked about in the prior podcast, which is the phone call by Donald Trump to Brad Rathansberger and his CEO trying to find the 11,000 plus votes and that being interference with George's election process, a criminal offense.

You also have a focusing on the role of Mark Meadows making similar phone calls, the role of Lindsey Graham in November, making phone calls, never he's a senator from South Carolina and on the judiciary committee at the time, making phone calls in to Georgia about absentee balloting and whether some of those could be thrown out in order to give the election over to Trump. He's been separately subpoenaed. We'll talk about him in a minute and what he's tried to do to quash that subpoena. And now she's let the most senior people of the Georgia Republican party, including its chairperson, including a person, as you said, Bert Jones running for lieutenant governor. And the others know that they are not just witnesses in this matter. They are targets of an investigation, which in the world of prosecution,

whether state or federal, has a tremendous amount of meaning. It means that you are potentially a criminal target, you better get counsel. And when you interact with my office as the prosecutor, do so knowing that you're in the crosshairs of the criminal investigation. So to escalate something up to, escalate a person up to a target is a very big deal. Now does every target become a criminal defendant? Not all of them.

Many of them turn state's evidence or become cooperating witnesses against the bigger fish. But the fact that she's told these people, Now, of course, the Republicans in Georgia are saying, well, even though we set up the fake electors and we sent it to the National Archive and we did it on the grounds of the state capital, funny well, it's just being political because we're Republicans and she's a Democrat and that's their defense. I mean, she didn't choose their plot or their conspiracy. She didn't choose how they were going to conduct it at the Capitol, that they were going to send in false electors into the National Archives in order to have them ready in case they're

to create this chaos. They chose to do that. If anybody made this political and the whole transition of power is by its very nature, political. So I don't see that as any way of a defense to these people. Well, all they're going to try to get mileage. Oh, look at this democratic county prosecutor coming after us. And you see Graham doing the same thing. So Graham, who's not part of the fake elector scandal or thrust of the investigation, but part of the phone calls of interference into the state. He first went to the chief judge of Fulton County to quash the subpoena. That was denied. And now as recently as Thursday or Friday, he filed a federal case because that's what these people do and argued to a federal judge that his subpoena

should be quashed. and he should not have to participate in this proceeding because he's a federal officer because he has sovereign immunity because of the speech and debate clause of the Constitution. I mean, he wasn't on the House floor or the Senate floor when he made these phone calls. So I don't quite get how that's going to apply and that he shouldn't be as he said in a tweet, dragged around the country by any county prosecutor whenever they feel like doing a prosecution. I mean, that's how he has so minimized what happened on Jansix, what happened in Trump's

attempt to conspire, to cling to power. It's just any old county prosecutor who wants, who's got to bug up their bonnet or be in their bonnet, it's going to go after me. I'm a sitting senator clutching his pearls. I shouldn't be subjected to all this. And we're going to see what this federal judge who's asked for hearing the next week's going to do, but that's a peanut. My gut is he's going to lose that. And he's going to have to on the grounds that he's alleged on the 13 page motion.

And he's going to ultimately going to have to testify whether he takes the fifth amendment. I don't know. Ben, do you think he's successful at the federal level at quashing his subpoena? He will not be successful. The question is is how long can he try to delay the inevitable out of Trump's playbook? We're going to be talking shortly about Trump's playbook when he affirmatively brings a lawsuit knowing that he's going to lose the lawsuit and then tries to drag out the lawsuit for numerous, numerous years before the inevitable loss takes place. But when Trump is hauled into court for his unlawfully legal conduct, appealing, obstructing, doing everything you can not to have to testify and hoping that

the political winds shift a new attorney general comes into power. Some other event happens that you could use as an excuse to try to diverge and deflect from having to testify. So what Lindsey Graham's strategy here is, in my view, is basically drag it out, try to prevent himself from coming in and just delay it and try to get something else to intervene and something else to happen there. And to your point, to your point, talk about the playbook.

They already ran, Trump's ran this similar playbook in New York against the New York Attorney, State Attorney General. We know he ran to federal court in northern district, try to quash the penis, try to take jurisdiction away from state prosecutors and state courts. And that all failed. I think that'll fail similarly here. Lindsey Graham, he goes off and files his motion in front of a George W Bush senior status judge in South Carolina. He's old enough. I'm not even sure Lindsey Graham was a senator. So I'm not sure Lindsey Graham was involved with that guy's appointment to the bench because

the guy's been around for a long, long time. Similarly, the one you talked about, Bert Jones, who's running for Lieutenant Governor of the state of Georgia, he filed something right out of the Trump playbook. He filed a motion to disqualify Fawney Willis because she supports, she's a Democrat, and she supports his Democratic opponent for Lieutenant Governor. So it's all political. So the very thing is political. They try to overthrow the US government.

Of course it's going to be political. I don't think that's a defense. Yeah, you know, the whole framing the issue of election integrity. There's no group of people who harm the integrity of our free and fair elections than the radical right extremist Republicans and pro-democracy loving people need to be loud. We need to be proud and call out the BS of people like Lindsey Graham when he says, oh, you're hailing me, you're hauling me into court in Georgia. I shouldn't have to go. Lindsey Graham, there was a free and fair election in the state of Georgia. We know that for a number of reasons, just including the fact that the Republican Secretary of State, Brad Rafford's burger said, it was one of the most secure elections in history, that there was no fraud there that took place and certainly no fraud

there that took place would have any impact on the election results, that they counted, they do hand recounts, they got the electronic, the backups and all of that. And after all of those results, Lindsey Graham, you as a sitting senator, reach out to the Secretary of State on behalf of a losing president to try to overturn the results. And you're wondering why people want to ask you questions. It's the height of hypocrisy, the height of what is not election integrity and people like Lindsey Graham need to be held accountable and Fahni Willis is someone who is doing that. And when you see these Fahni Willis interviews, I want to switch gears and talk about this Hillary Clinton case now, but when you hear these interviews of Fahni Willis and she's asked,

well, what do you think they're saying that, you know, it's political, you know, are you worried about this? Are you worried about that? You know, her answer has always been very simple. I'm following the law. I'm doing my job. I don't listen to that noise period. That's the way it should be in Georgia, in every state, and within the Department of Justice as well. There shouldn't be political considerations. It's obvious this point. Trump committed not just a crime, multiple crimes and multiple of the most egregious crimes.

I don't care if he's a former sitting president. I don't care if he's an alien from outer space. I really don't care. You come into this country. You commit crimes law and order law and order. It's a democratic commit crimes, law and order, law and order. Democratic party, the law and order party. We're going to hold you accountable. Popeye, as we go to Clinton, I just have to make the observation, you know, you have

this incredible background, you know, but I don't think you thought through the heat because you're wiping. Oh, yeah, without without supposed to be done in production. No, salty was supposed to not show me because it's 90 degrees here. No, the other reason is I have a lot of people in my house and I had a fight is quiet place to podcast. So this was it. Well, Popeye, I do like the background.

And I do like Hillary Clinton's motion to dismiss Donald Trump's insane Rico. This is Donald Trump's insane lawsuit, but I got to give props to above the law. Above the law is a legal website and blog. It covers lawsuits, the legal community from the legal community's perspective lawyers, law students, like we love above the law.com. It's a very kind of funny and witty site and they kind of summarize these lawsuits and some of the happenings in just ways that are humorous, but also kind of show the seriousness

of the situation. So I can't do a better job than above the law with respect to their description of this lawsuit. Let me just say what they say about this lawsuit. Describing this Trump lawsuit as quote, total bullshit, and quote, would be an insult to bulls and shit, not to mention the very concept of totality. In short, Trump alleges that Clinton conspired with the DNC, the law firm Perkins, Koi, James Komi, Rod Rosenstein, and half of DC, Washington, DC, to Rico murder Trump and to make it look like he was in

Cahoots with Russia, thus sparking a federal investigation of his campaign. That's basically a apt and accurate description of what the lawsuit alleges. They previously referred to this lawsuit as an insane Rico LOL lawsuit, but I want to make this observation, Michael Popak, before breaking down Clinton's motion to dismiss. What Donald Trump banks on with these lawsuits, are that when he files them, the headline that's used by the mainstream media. He knows lazy, lazy mainstream media, lazy mainstream media. He knows, look at the headlines from the radical right extremist fascist news, which is called

Fox, but I call it fascist news and the OANs and the News Maxes and all those ridiculous absurd, fascist news network. It is doing a path. Which is, by the way, which by the way is an insult to both fascism and news. Parity, parity wouldn't do it. It would be parity if it wasn't so dangerous. But the way it's reported is Donald Trump files Rico lawsuit against Clinton in 20 co-defendants. And then Donald Trump uses the headline fund raises tens of millions of dollars. See, look what I filed. I'm holding the deep state accountable.

He uses that because the headline isn't Donald Trump files frivolous and sane lawsuit in desperate attempt to stay relevant or words. That's how the headlines should actually just no, which has no chance of success in a court of law. You know, and when Republicans, just like we talked about with the story of Fawney Willis, the mainstream media will just publish their quote because they go, oh, we do the Democrat quote, we got to publish the Republican quote. And so let's just show the balanced article versus saying, no, that's fascism. That's wrong. These people are traders. Let's call them out. That's our job where they don't cover it. Just ignore

it. Yeah, we're, we ignore it or call it out, but don't give it the same platform. And that's the situation here. So the rubber hits the road. Hillary Clinton and the co-defendants that are in this case, they have to be called that because that's just the framing of the lawsuit that was brought for some reason in Florida. They was brought in the Southern District of Florida, though, because Trump used some Florida cause of action for defamation or as invasion of pride lives in Mar-a-Lago allegedly.

Yeah, and that's where he said exactly. He wants to fight, file it in his backyard. He drew a very bad judge for him, which Michael Popak you'll talk about. But this is how the motion to dismiss starts. It's a very pithy, well-worded, 20-page, but packs a punch in every single sentence. And the motion to dismiss by Clinton starts with this quote, whatever the utility of plaintiffs complaint

as a fundraising tool, a press release, or a list of political grievances, it has no merit as a lawsuit and should be dismissed with prejudice, the emotion to dismiss then goes into claim. Plaintiffs claims are time-barred in the face of the complaint. In other words, Trump missed the statute of limitations. It's a very clear statute of limitations for Rico, say four year statute of limitations. Even if you accept the arguments as true in Trump's play, it's a very weird concept too, which I'll just legal a effort to know this, but we have lots of new listeners.

For purposes of analyzing a motion to dismiss, a judge has to accept the allegations of the complaint as true. It's not actually arguing the facts of whether you're telling the truth or not in the complaint. Now, what a defendant can do is bring in what's called judicially noticeable information. If there are public documents and public records that can be proven by just looking at the document. You can use those. If the complaint references a contract, you could try to bring in the contract. So there are some other things that you can bring in outside of the complaint, but you're supposed to accept the four corners of the complaint does true.

So when you make these arguments, you have to say, look, even if we accepted Donald Trump's bachelors crazy arguments as true, he still loses because he's timebart. He blew the statue of limitations by a significant period of time for all of his causes of action. And even if you accept his accusations as true, there is no Rico because there is no predicate act. In essence, there's nothing that he alleges that could give rise to the conspiracy because even if you accept his allegations as true, he is referring to a political campaign and he is being a crybaby that during a political campaign, political adversaries can call each other names, which is just the pot calling the kettle

in this situation, because Trump's the biggest purveyor of that, and the biggest purveyor of this info, and what we said wasn't even this info, it's true. So Michael Popack, what do you think? So, yeah, I like all that. So here's a story. He files the original complaint, they moved to dismiss it, as we talked about the prior

emotion to dismiss. Trump took one look at the motion to dismiss and said, all right, all right, I'll fix it. You get one bite, you get one more bite at the apple and federal procedural practice. So if I have another complaint, trying at least on paper to fix all of the defects that the at the defendants, the 15 or so defendants had pointed out for him. And he tried again, he filed 80 more pages of allegations. And the defendants here just to remind everybody in addition to Hillary Clinton includes John Podesta, Jake Sullivan, who's a national security team, Mark Elias, Michael Susman, the DNC, Michael Susman, who's Vanak guilty.

Right. Right. It was on knock guilty by the prosecutor established by Bill Bar. The DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and literally he had 15 law firms arrayed against him. And they filed 15 separate motions to dismiss because they're allowed to. And then Trump filed this, what you just talked about, the new complaint. And then in a very smart move, we like to talk about inside baseball stuff here. And Robbie Kaplan, one of the friends of the show, is one of the lawyers representing W. Wass, Schultz and the DNC.

Instead of filing 15 motions to dismiss, which they could have, these law firms, which they never do, agreed, 34 law firms, agreed to join together and file one 47 page motion, instead of 15 47 page motions, which is great, it's exactly what you wanna do when you're arguing that the other side has filed a shotgun pleating

that has dozens of paragraphs that have no meaning, just word salad, and shouldn't be in the pleating to begin with, the greatest way to contrast yourself with that on the other side is to file one elegant brief on behalf of 15 defendants and not ask for more pages, because you're allowed to ask for more pages from the judge. Just file it within the limits. So smart, such a smart move. And when the first thing out of the box is, all of the claims are time-bart, because Trump was tweeting about these things in 2016,

as late as maybe 2017, and you missed the four-year statute of limitations for RICO, the two-year statute of limitations for other claims. That is compelling on the face of the pleading done case dismissed. I think middle Brooks is our judge here has the cajonus, the power to dismiss this case once and for all now that he's given Trump's team two bites at the apple to get a pleading past the motion to dismiss stage. So I'm predicting that most of this case goes by the wayside on statute limitations. The fallback is what you talked about next, which is

even if judge any of these claims can survive being time-barred because they were filed on time, which they weren't on the face of the pleading. They don't state a claim under the very technical pleading requirements for each of the six or seven causes of action. So I think at the end, and the sad part is other than above the law, a couple of other places, nobody's covering the motion to dismiss the way the original quote unquote bombshell pleading, Trump versus Clinton was covered when it was first filed. That's exactly your point. That's why we on this show have to follow these things all the way to the end.

And then when Trump loses the lawsuit, which he inevitably does, you either get a blip. No one covers the loss or they cover his criticism of the loss. Trump rails against, you know, judge for inside job, whatever it is. They then buy the headline of him criticizing the judge and what Trump realizes and always realize and what the radical right extremist realize. And the more and more and more, we talk about what the problem is, it is squarely, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war,

the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, the war, Congress doing oh, I'll tell you what they're doing. They passed a bill to codify Roeby Wade. They passed the bill to codify Roeby Wade and Roeby Wade would be codified in its exact form. Even Manchin said if you give me just Roeby Wade and Casey and write it out. I will codify that so this past week, if you, if you, day ago, two days ago, Congress passed the bill codifying Roe v. Wade. Every Republican voted against it.

Every single Republican voted against it, right? What do the Democrats also do? They passed the bill that said, we are going to protect women who have to go to another state to get an abortion. We're going to protect women who have to go to another state to get an abortion. And that's called the ensuring access to abortion character, right? We want Democrats to take action. Every Republican but three, one of them was Adam Kinsinger, but every Republican but three voted against that.

And that will be filibustered in the Senate, which would be passed by Democrats, including Manchin and cinema would pass that. What do you want Biden to do? Well Biden did pretty much everything he could do. We talked previously about the executive order that Biden passed the executive order that Biden signed, putting the full force of the federal government behind women's reproductive rights. And then this past week, Biden gave strong guidance to pharmacies that you must provide. You must provide abortion related medication to women.

I don't care what the states say. This is federal law. You must provide. And Biden provided that same guidance to hospitals under our laws, a law that was created in 1986, which requires emergency care To be provided to patients who arrive at a hospital if a woman arrives at a hospital and She needs emergency care in the form of an abortion whether it's an ectopic pregnancy or another condition that could lead to her physical harm It's emergency condition. You must provide the abortion.

So the Democrat will talk about what, uh, what the Republican, it can pack st in sued by it and can pack st in sued by it and for that. Texas filed a lawsuit and said, we don't give a shit if a woman arrives at a hospital with an emergency condition and an abortion would save her life Which is a common occurrence. We don't care We as Republicans are okay with her dying. That's what it says read the lawsuit I'm slightly paraphrasing, but that's what the Texas A.G. lawsuit says. A woman who shows up at a house. What'd you say?

Way too we get to the 10-year-old crossing state lines and what that attorney general said. And with the right to a right to life movement said about what a 10-year-old must do to carry that baby to term. Yeah, you know, and they're not the right play. They're the right to be hypocritical fascist movement. That's who these despicable thug fascists are on the right wing. And so I talked a little bit out of order, though, about what Democrats and Biden have been

doing in terms of those national laws and the national measures, but they're doing what they can be doing within the system that exists. But the media is on to the next whatever. They're talking about Clocar dashing this week and just a bunch of dumb BS. And they're not writing these articles and framing it like what's really at stake. They're just buying the right wing.

Talk one. So I talked about what the Democrats have been doing at a national level with codifying row, protecting women who go across state, which every Republican voted against, Biden's executive order, Biden's guidance, Texas Texas then filing that lawsuit that I just mentioned Ken Paxton saying women who show up to seek emergency care Should still not have the right to an abortion That's pro life You kidding me? It's not pro life

Popoq why don't you talk about though? What's going on in individual state levels with Minnesota and Arizona. There's some developments there. And then let's talk about what the Indiana, A.G. that thug, that fascist disgusting thug. Just call these people out. Thug, let's talk about what they did after,

but let's go into Minnesota and ours. All right Let me just do one thing on Texas just so people so we can follow it better in the future So he filed Paxton files in Lubbock in the Northern District of Texas not sure which judge he gets But they'll all be favorable to the Republican position and this is gonna be a battle between as you said the emergency medical treatment And labor act, the MTARA versus the state having banning or about to ban abortion. And whether federal government by using their Medicare and Medicaid licensing regulations to take away provider regulations can force providers to give abortions for emergency bases in that state,

even if the state at the state level has banned abortion. And this is gonna be the battle. It's gonna start at the Eastern District of Texas Lubbock Division. It's gonna go to the fifth circuit, you and I've talked a lot about. It's gonna go to the Supreme's

with the headcount that we know is there. We'll follow this case. But all of the things that it's all coming to a head here, all of the 82 episodes of learning that we've taught is coming to a head, administrative law, federal versus state, and the power of an agency, and whether it's exceeded its power, in this case, health and human resources, or not, all going to come to fruition on that case in Texas. But I don't know who's more a dastardly the, uh, Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, or Todd Rokita, who has a 100% positive anti-abortion

voting record, according to every statistic available as the Attorney General of Indiana, which I'll remind everyone is a state that allows abortion. At present, they're going into special session at the legislature to probably change that, but they allow abortion. So when you hear the follow-up story about that Ben and I are going to talk about, keep that in mind. It's not one of the nine states where abortion is currently banned. We have a, I can't even say this, it's not one of the nine states where abortion is currently banned. We have a, I can't even say this, it's so heartbreaking without shedding a tear. We have a 10-year-old rape victim who first the Republicans denied existed until the government, until the press found the family in order to confirm it.

A 10-year-old rape victim in Ohio, where it's one of the nine states where abortion isn't allowed. Cross-state lines go to Indiana to go not to a back alley, but to a professional gynecologist, lecturer at Indiana University, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, who's very upfront about supporting a woman's right to choose and providing abortion services, even until it's criminalized, but certainly now when it's not. And she performed the procedure. She also filed all the forms that were required in the state of Indiana when you do an abortion. So Todd Roquita, not because he'll raise me. Crazy. I mean, Popeye, I mean, I just was to pause you there.

Yeah, you have to. So in Indiana, even though abortion is permitted, so the 10 year old girl who was raped, discovered that she was pregnant. That's six weeks and three days. And the Ohio law bans abortion after six weeks. So that's why she went to Indiana. Now Indiana permitted it, but just when I read too though,

I mean, I just wanted to reflect on that point that in Indiana when an abortion's performed, you have to fill out a termination of pregnancy form every time and submit it to the government is something that was permitted even when Roe v Wade and Casey was the law of the land. It's a form. It's not a stoppage from doing it. No, no, no, no, no.

I'm saying it's true, but it certainly is a way to try to intimidate. That's my point. So, so, so, Roquita, and then I'm going to read a quote from Mr. James Bop, who's one of the leaders, the leading chief lawyer and counsel for these right to life movements, and what he said about this 10 year old. Wait till you hear that. I'm going to save that for last. So you have Rokita, who's the Attorney General, anti-abortion, virulent anti-abortion

activist in his own way, who doesn't have general, anti-abortion, virulent, anti-abortion activist in his own way, who doesn't have a state law that criminalizes this, but wants to send a message of intimidation and defamation and wants to change policy from his bully pulpit. So he takes to a podium literally to press conference and says he's going to get to the bottom of what happened this 10-year year old who he never acknowledges never acknowledges what has happened to this 10 year old child who was raped and is carrying the rapist's baby.

Never acknowledges that at all. Focus is on the doctor and whether she filled out the right form. And if she didn't fill out the right form by God, I'm gonna go after her and prosecute her. And I'm gonna send records requests all over the state to see if she did it. By the way, it's already been discovered by the press that she did fill out the form. And there's a copy of it floating around on the internet.

So I don't know what the F is talking about. Other the fact he wanted a scintillating press conference to make some other point. The doctor, Godlover and her lawyers have sent a cease and desist letter back to Rikita and his gang telling them, you have defamed our client, you are to cease and desist your intimidation. She did nothing wrong. She followed the law to the T. abortion is allowed in this state and God help you, man. It's a 10-year-old who's carrying a rapist child. Where is your humanity?

And I wondered where that was until I got the following quote, listen to this one, Ben. This is from James Bob, who you and I have talked about because he's filed other briefs in the abortion matters, who had an interview with Politico. And in the interview about this 10-year-old child, victim. He said the following. He said the girl should have been forced to carry the pregnancy to term under his model legislation that he

introduced and that the let this is the quote, quote, she would have had the baby and as many women, listen to the word women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child. She wasn't a woman, she was a child herself who was raped. This is the natural consequence of the law that the Republicans have supported and take away a woman's right to choose. You have to call 10 year olds women as if they made a choice. That's when you see Ken Paxton in his press release about his case saying that the federal government is going to turn emergency rooms into abortion at will clinics.

Look at the language that they're using against what is really an immoral act, which is forcing a 10 year old child to take a pregnancy to term by a rapist. Yeah, because these men hate women and they want to control women. I mean, that's really what it was. Where are the women at the podium? There are no women legislators in these states. There are no women attorney generals. They're all gagged. They've been cancelled. It's all white men, sorry to say it, at every podium, making statements like this. And who are by and large leading the charts? I know.

I do want to say this too. So a spokesperson for the AG's office, Rakeet's office, his name is Kelly Stevenson, said they hadn't got, they had to review the letter. So this was their, they had to review the letter. Like any correspondence, the season to sister letter. Like any correspondence, it will be reviewed if and when it arrives, regardless, no false or misleading statements have been made.

And so I just want to point that out because they like, they double and triple down on the defamation. Right. So they did get the letter. So they just lie again. Like they got the letter. How do you know they got the letter? We can't find it. We can't find the letter. We can't find the letter. We can't. It's posted on social media everywhere. Here. But we we haven't looked at it. You know, we we just do press conference.

The biggest story right now in our state. But even though we got sent to us in the email and it's posted all over social media, we have it read it. So they have to lie about anything. And then no false or misleading statements have been made. Literally everything he said was false. He said that she had a history of not reporting false. He said that she failed to report this and that he shouldn't even have to make the statement because he's learning about it for the first time because the OBGYN didn't report false. False. False. There are public records. False. False. False. False. And she's

in a liar. She's an abortion activist. You know who's the activist? The guy with the 100% anti-abortion track record. They are pervayers of lies and disinfo. And this should not be. I was always say it, you know, which is why I like this platform of legal I.F. Like these are not political issues, you know, you say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, three four times five times ten times a hundred times your party just freaking lies to me every single day over and over again. You know, whether your whatever your political leanings are, how do you just take that? How do you take a statement like this? Like an correspondents will it will be reviewed when it arrives. Regardless, no false or misleading, Stightmoor Chav, been made.

It's just like, dude, fuck you. It's all well. And it's also, it's our well-being. Go back and read everything about our well. It's the, just one co-op thing of language. Truth, I just, and these are the same people, Popeye, the same people.

If this happened to someone in their life, they'd be the first person to go to Canada or Mexico or the next state and to absolutely absolute. Consec, Consec, Concierge abortion. Travel abortion is well known in the upper tier upper crust market. People have been going to Mexico, the Caribbean to get rid of unwanted pregnancies for like decades. And they come back and they tell people they went to some eating disorder clinic or a yoga studio or a yoga retreat. And all they really did was drop 10 grand or 20 grand and go get abortion. So their friends at the country club and the tennis academy would know about it. You know, can't do that a poor 10 year old, a poor brown, black or white person woman

in any of the states that we talk about. They don't have that luxury to do that. That's the point. That's why it needs to be a constitutional right. And thank God, I think we'll just touch on it for one second and move on, Ben. We've got some states, including Minnesota, who have found, even in the 1990s, that their state constitution has a robust right to privacy and protects the woman's right to choose, including abortion. And thank God we've got, that's why judge selections are so important even today because you

want the right judge and the right place, the right time when they get a case assigned to them to make the right ruling about that state's constitution. And so we have a good ruling by a Minnesota state court judge. You said, no, I got a Supreme Court decision in Minnesota from 1995 that says a woman's right to choose is embedded in the state constitution. I don't care what happens with Roe v. Wade, the federal constitution here in the state of Minnesota, a woman has a right to choose. And we're going to see that that's the attack now that the right to life, sorry, the right to choice movement, the plan, parenthood, all the advocates that are going, that's what we have to do. We have to do it at the state sorry, the right to choice movement, the um, plan parenthood, all the advocates that are going, that's what we have to do.

We got to do it at the state level, the state constitutional level to find that right of privacy. And then just, you know, and another update just what's going on in Arizona. So what the, you know, Arizona's led by Republicans now, an attorney general, Mark Bernovich's Republican. And with they after row, abortions by and large have all stopped in Arizona because there's this kind of patchwork of regulations and prohibitions on abortion and none of the providers actually know what the law is. And there was this 2021 personhood law that the Republican legislature passed, which, you know, defined essentially at, essentially at conception, the fetus as a person and with attendant rights as a person,

a federal court struck down that person hood law in 2021, but what's still being enforced is a 1901 law or provision that prohibits abortion in all instances at all times. Now, what's the important thing to know about the 1901 Arizona prohibition on abortion? For all instances that the Republican AG, Mark Bernevitch is attempting to enforce. Arizona was in a state until 1912. And so they're trying to enforce a 1901 pre-statehood provision as the ban on abortion. So I just want to, so after a federal court struck down the personhood 2021 law as being vague and ambiguous about what they're even trying to say,

because when you just read the law, the personhood law, it makes no sense. The Republicans in Arizona said, we don't care if Arizona was in a state. We're going to this 1901 territorial provision and that that ban on abortion is a ban that allows us to arrest any medical provider. So abortions have all stopped in the state of Arizona and we'll see what happens. We'll see what happens there. Popeye, any other comments you'd like to make about Arizona before you move on? I think we've done a deep dive into where we are with abortion as of this weekend. So want to talk about the Steve bad and trial. It's set for this upcoming Monday, July 18th. There was a hearing earlier this week where Steve Bannon's critical

defenses and things that he wanted to argue were struck down. Although he has one remaining argument that I want to get your take on Pope Pock, but his ability to rely on this DOJ memoranda claiming that he thought he had the right to claim executive privilege. The government filed a motion to eliminate that basically said that, you know, that that shouldn't even be brought in and has nothing to do with whether or not in this specific instance, you got a subpoena, you didn't show up, executive privilege doesn't apply here,

you're a podcaster, you got to show up, you got to show up to trial. So the judge said you can't introduce that. The judge basically said anything relating to you claiming that you thought you had executive privilege or that you were given advice by your lawyer or that you thought Trump told you you could testify or you couldn't testify. You can't bring that in. The one piece that the judge says that you can argue though, is you can argue that you didn't believe

that the deadline to respond to the subpoena was the real deadline, and that you believe that the deadline given to you by the January 6th committee was simply a negotiating framework to then allow you to testify in the future, which I it's not a good defense for baddened to basically say it'd be like arguing in trial. I Was going 105 miles per hour the speed limit was 105 miles per hour. The speed limit was 55 miles per hour. I thought I was going to go. She thought it was a, I thought it was a negotiation.

Um, so what you see, what, why I framed it that way is that banning can, if you're charged with speeding, you could make that argument. The judge is saying, I'm not going to exclude badden from making the argument that he thought the speed limit was 105 miles per hour and that 55 was a point of negotiation, but government, you can come in and point out that that's stupid and that deadlines and deadline limits a limit. Here's what I think. I like that a lot. I like that a lot. I thought it was a negotiation starting point with the state trooper over the difference between 55 and 105. Nichols, who's been a straight shooter,

Judge Nichols here as we hoped he would be, as we predicted he would be. The thing I like last week is that David Sean or Shine said in exasperation, when the judge struck almost all of their defenses. He said, Judge, you're leaving us with basically no defenses. How are we going to have a trial? And the judge responded, agreed. In other words, we shouldn't be having a trial over this. It's almost like the judge was saying the facts based on the law and the strict

liability, if you will, for your client's failure to having gone into the committee. Now, what's his end? He could have taken the Fifth Amendment. But the fact that he just thumbed his nose and refused to even go into the room and give testimony and respond to the subpoena for documents and for testimony, there really are very little if no defenses. I think Nichols sort of to give a little bit of a life preserver, but not much, knowing they stripped away really all of the other defenses that they were gonna raise

attacking the Jansick's committee, calling Nancy Pelosi and as a witness. All the things as bad and as podcaster would have loved said, I'll give you one, okay, here's the one. And basically I'm thinking if I'm the prosecutors, I'm rubbing you one. Okay, here's the one. And basically, I'm thinking, if I'm the prosecutors, I'm rubbing my hands in glee because, oh, I love that one, because then we really get to excoriate that and for even trying this one.

Go ahead, do it, do that defense. The defense is, I thought it was a negotiating point, but I never negotiated, let's play this out. To this date, I haven't offered except a last minute last gasp offer three days ago offered to ever go in and cure the problem. It's been months to do that. I stood on the steps of the courthouse on the day that I was brought out after my arrangement and I said, shaking my fist, this will be the Mr. Meanor from hell that in Pelosi and others are going to rue the day. I mean, all of that is bad faith.

All of that shows state of mind that this has been a game for Ben and since day one. They're going to play that in the, that opens the door, I believe, to many of the tweets, the podcasting that he's been doing out on bail for the last eight or nine months. I'm sure they are very adept at stitching together video, just like the Jan 6th Committee,

the prosecutors, and they're putting together all of the inconsistent statements or statements that are inconsistent with the very defense that they're raising. So if I'm the prosecutors, sure I'd be fighting against it because you want to leave them stripped bare naked with no defenses, but they're probably at, at their break on the way out. I'm sure they were high-fiving the prosecutors about, okay, this is the defense that's left. All right, great. Strauss starts on Monday, that jury is going to convict ban and the, he can run whatever he wants up the flagpole to see if anybody salutes, he's going to lose this case.

I'm not going to bet my podcasting license on it, but I believe he's going to lose this case. What do you think, Ben? I agree. He's going to lose. And he's, if he wants to introduce that defense, though, he's going to have to testify. That's right. How is he going to get it? How else are you gonna get it in?

He's gonna have to take the stand, he's gonna be cross-examined, and when he's cross-examined in a setting like that, where he doesn't have his podcast audience, where it's not just a forum for disinfo, where it's a controlled federal court environment, he's going to crumble. And like, by the way, I'm one thing to free move on.

You're right, he should testify, but you know, Castello, his lawyer, is trying to do that for him by stepping down as the trial lawyer and saying, oh, I'm the only one that can testify about the discussions with my client and with the Jan 6th committee. What do you think about that? By the way, Bannon's lawyers are getting paid by Trump's super back. It's just he's going to jail for, I mean, I don't know, and by the way, he may go to jail. It's up to a year for this misdemeanor.

You know, I think he goes to jail for the, almost the whole thing. If he's convicted. Yeah, I think you will. I think you should. I think he deserves it. And look, that is a big positive development though and the DOJ is pursuing that prosecution.

We will keep you updated. And next week's League of Legends, we will definitely bring that up and talk about what happened in the week. Now, we got to talk about the Elon Musk lawsuit. We got to talk about the January 6th committee updates. What's going on with the Secret Service? Spoliation or a deletion of text messages? What's going on there? We will talk aboutoliation or Deletion of Text Messages,

what's going on there? We will talk about all of that. I do want to tell everybody though, make sure you subscribe right now to the MidasTouch YouTube channel and make sure you subscribe to the audio channel, all of our YouTubers. I know there are,

well, 400, 1,000 subs as the time we're recording this, this usually gets close to 100,000 downloads per episode just on YouTube alone and each one rises. So I need you to do this for me YouTubers. Search, this is the one way you help the legal AF show out. I want you to search legal AF wherever you get audio podcasts and I want you subscribe. And I want you to play the audio when you get it on the audio podcast as well. It helps with the algorithm there. And I want to make sure that legal AF continues to be on the top 50 top 25 podcasts of all the commentary. And I want us to rise in the news. So please do me that favor and make sure we subscribe on the audio as well and audio listeners subscribe on YouTube. I want to also tell you about athletic greens. This episode

is brought to you by our partner Athletic Greens, the health and wellness company that makes comprehensive daily nutrition really simple with so many stressors in life. It's difficult to maintain effective nutritional habits and give our bodies the nutrients it needs to thrive. Busy schedules, poor sleep, exercise, the environment, work stress, or simply not eating enough of the right foods can leave us deficient in key nutritional areas. But AG1 by Athletic Greens, the category leading superfood product, brings comprehensive and convenient, daily nutrition to everybody.

Keeping up with the research, knowing what to do and taking a bunch of pills and capsules is hard on the stomach and hard to keep up with. So to help each of us be at our best, they simplify the path to better nutrition by giving one thing with all the best things, which is why I love it. Just before I took athletic greens, I was trying to do my own regimen of vitamins and I was doing the gummies and the pills and it was not working for me. I didn't have the energy.

It was not absorbing the way it should and I knew it wasn't giving me the results that I needed. But with one tasty scoop, A.G. One does the work for you, because it contains 75 minerals and whole food source ingredients, including multivitamin, multivitamin, all probiotic, green superfood, and blend in more, and one convenient, dally serving.

So literally all I do is I scoop it, I put it in water, I shake up the water, I drink it, I got all the vitamins I need for the day, I don't have to worry about it. It takes great. It's cheaper than your cold brew habit. This is a must for all legal a efforts. And it's lifestyle friendly.

If you eat keto, paleo vegan, dairy free, it's for you. So please join the movement of legal a efforts athletes, life, leap moms, dads, rookies, first timers and get the health nutrition, the daily health nutrition that you need in the simplest manner possible and get this to make it easy. Athletic greens is going to give you an immune supporting free one year supply of vitamin D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. Just visit athletic greens dot com slash legal f athletic greens.com slash legal a f again visit a th le t ic g r e e n s dot com slash legal a f athletic greens.com slash legal a f take

control over your health and give a g one a try popok. You've got the hat on that does not appear to be a sombrero. I do not have my sombrero. I have to get my sombrero. It's hot out here. I need it. I need it. I'm going to have to take out the sombrero. Popo, Popo, tell us about Elon Musk, the lawsuit.

We were right. I mean, we told everyone was saying, when we told you that Elon Musk was going to get sued, we told you when he was going to get sued, we told you when he was going to get sued We told you where he was going to get sued and the dollar were a chance to record and you know lots of people were talking about Oh, isn't there a one billion dollar penalty for Elon Musk not completing the deal isn't there like a kill fee in the deal And you and I said Elon Musk would be lucky if he got off with one billion dollars. We said Twitter is going to sue him for $44 billion. They're going to fight to make him consummate the transaction that he said he would. And the Twitter lawsuit lays it out in all its glory.

And to basically say that the Hillary Clinton motion to dismiss was a work of art. This Elon Musk Twitter lawsuit was the Mona Lisa because this lawsuit had all of his tweets posted on there. They showed the insanity. They showed, and this is going to a business court in Delaware. going to a business court in Delaware. And when you see the way they lay out all of these tweets in the complaint and just show Elon Musk's erratic, bizarre and die competitive, manipulative behavior. And as Twitter says in the lawsuit,

he's tried to wreak havoc on our company. He tried to destroy our company. Here's how he did it. And they methodically talk about it. And the funny thing is, the Twitter price stock after they filed the lawsuit went up. It went up because people believe the court's gonna order Elon Musk to pony up the money.

And look, the reality is the cause of actions called specific performance, which is to require somebody to perform. Now, perform a transaction. Someone who doesn't want to buy the house, you have to buy the house. Someone who doesn't want to buy the company, you have to buy the company.

Specific performance is often a difficult remedy to actually rule on because it forces someone to do something that they don't want to do. But here, but that they've contracted to do. But that they've contracted to. But here, it's actually, you got to pay in the money. What you want to do with Twitter after you've got it, good luck. Good luck.

But you come up with the after you've got it. Good luck. Good luck. Yeah. Would you come up with the money and pay for it? So this yeah. Yeah. I'm gonna get my hat. I go get your hat. So let me then we're gonna do a little primer on Delaware Chanceree Court, which is the business Court of America. 60% of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated there for a reason. And the judge here Ben is, is somebody I can say that I've actually met. I went to her investiture event in she had a little reception in New York

and she was a partner at one of the top five firms in Delaware, Young Conaway, and it's Kathleen St. Jude McCormick, who's 42 years old, the first woman chancellor of the Delaware Chance Record in its entire history. And the way Delaware works is, it's a very unique animal, it's very British in its approach, just like the British system has solicitors and barristers. There's a very similar, very well-mannered bar,

very well-mannered judicial system there. Things are done on briefs, things are done on oral argument. You don't yell and scream, you are methodical in your approach and you're respectful to the judge. And there's basically, we have a hat, we have a hat. Legal AF had hat edition, episode 82, if you're following at home. So there are Ben, as you know, because you've done work in Delaware, there are primarily five law firms that control Delaware practice. Young Conaway

is one where this judge was a partner. Potter Anderson is another. They're the law firm that's with lock tell who filed on behalf of Twitter. Morris Nichols, Richard's latent and scad Norbs. And there are seats on the Delaware chance to record, which are jokingly referred to as the seat for that law firm. So because there's always been a young Conway lawyer, a Morris Nichols lawyer, a Potter Anderson lawyer, and so on, sitting on the bench. That bench got expanded, talk about court packing. That bench in Delaware got expanded from seven to nine about three years ago, and Kathleen

St. Jude McCormick was one of the new judges. Now the first, the first chancellor of that, the specific performance thing that you talked about that is really important because it's practicing lawyers We sometimes argue under the case law that we're required to force the other side to do that thing They don't want to do to go through with that purchase or that sale because of the uniqueness of the property at stake We're entitled to what's called specific performance, but here. It's one degree even better in favor of Twitter Because the Simpson Fatcher which is a major law firm lawyers, along with Wilson Sincini, the other major firm representing them at the time, negotiated a very seller Twitter friendly sale agreement

with with musk, including a provision contractual of specific performance, not just under the common law, not under the case law, but a contract provision that if he didn't go through with the deal, that he would have to, he's willing to have a court order specific performance, that's a remedy that Twitter negotiated for themselves, also negotiated for themselves elimination of most of the things you and I call due diligence, meaning you're buying this as is. You're buying this company as is,

like you're buying a toaster in a pawn shop, you know? No warranties, no reps. You know, you wanna do due diligence, price goes up. You wanna buy it at $54.20? That's your tweet, That's your joke price. Great. You buy it on our terms and here's our terms. And that was the hard bargain that Twitter drove for itself. And that's what they're basing their entire suit on. They've not only, because you and I talked about it last week. They're not only asking for a specific performance,

but they're telling Judge St. Jude McCormick, we want a supremely fast trial. We want to go, pardon me, to trial in September of this year. This is July. We want to go trial in two months. Now, the law firm that's representing Twitter, I've actually worked with, it's Wachtel. And Wachtel uses Potter Anderson and the lawyer there is Kevin Shannon. I've used Kevin Shannon. Kevin Shannon is a remarkable Delaware advocate. Twitter's got the real deal. Like you said, one of the painters of the Mona Lisa here was Kevin Shannon, shout out to him. And their lawsuit, which is online, will put it on the legal AF community feed, is a masterpiece,

a masterstroke, as Ben said. It has, it's easy. When you have Musk on the other side who tweets things like poop emojis when he doesn't like something that Twitter has done during the course of this period between contract and closing. So when Twitter to try to keep their stock price where it should be and to get around all of Elon Musk's tweets of misinformation in order to try to tank the deal from the Twitterverse, came out and said, no, no, we do get around all of Elon Musk's tweets of misinformation in order to try to tank the deal from the Twitter verse,

came out and said, no, no, we do a tremendous sampling of millions and millions of accounts on a regular basis to eliminate bots. And here's our algorithm for doing that. Elon Musk tweets out a poop emoji, like that's all bullshit. Okay, this is while he's a contract buyer for the company that he's now trashing.

And as he trashes the management, as he forces them to fire people, even before it becomes the actual buyer before he closes, as he forces them to change policy, their stock price and their business model is gyrating in a bad way. Every time there's a gyration, there's a crushed shareholder. This is what Judge St. Jude McCormick, Chancellor of the St. Jude McCormick, is going to be very concerned about. How does she stop the bleeding in the marketplace?

How does she force him to do what he's required to do? And is there any out for him under due diligence? Now, the lawyers that he's hired, Elon Musk, I know those guys too. They're over at Quintimanule, a well-known super aggressive litigation firm. Alex Spiro, I've been against in a case. And Alex Spiro wrote,

Judge, we can't go to trial. And so I don't know why I'm using a Texas accent. Maybe it's my hat. We can't go to trial in September. We've got to do a deep dive into all the bots and all the fake accounts and it's statistical analysis and it's in its terabytes of data and forensic people and we can't go to trial till February. But at the end of the day, the bots don't matter because Twitter already inoculated this argument in their in their in their in their complaint. They said, how can you complain

about bots being the reason you're not buying when the reason you said you were buying the company, what's the take a private to get rid of the bots? You said this once before, a podcast bet. You said, how can you use the excuse that there's bots there when that was the very reason you said you were going to buy it publicly. Now the SEC has gotten involved because they don't go, you know, listen, there's no love loss between musk and the SEC. He's been sanctioned by them. He's been penalized by them. Everything he tweets has to be run by them under under a consent decree. And they don't like the fact that he tweeted that he thinks you can get out of this case, get out of the contract. And they don't think that's consistent with his regulatory filings related to it, which is the official announcement to the shareholders to the investing public about what his position

is. You can't just say, you know what, it was all a joke. I'm not going to buy the company. There are investors that are relying on this information to make investment decisions. So the SEC has opened up an investigation about why do why? What is your legal argument for believing that you can't be forced to close on this purchase and don't you have to update your regulatory filings to reveal that? So we got the SEC now involved.

This is going to go quick. The judge wants a hearing very, very quickly, Ben, to talk about the scheduling on the motion for expedited trial. So she's gonna rule on that quickly. She may not go with September, but I don't think she rolls this all the way out to February. I think it's gonna be, the trial's gonna be a fall of 2022 event.

What do you think, Ben? I agree. The trials coming soon, Twitter's going to win. The question is how much are they going to win? And you know, the SEC investigation, the SEC, I think in in June or so, sent a letter to Musk and Musk's lawyers responded on around that time where they said, this is when Musk was trying to looked like he could have been backing out of the deal and he put out a statement that he's not sure he can complete the transaction. And under one of the regulatory filings, the SEC sent a letter

to Musk and Musk's counsel saying, if you're saying this publicly, clarify that position because investors need to know if you actually are pulling out now. Because if you're saying this publicly, clarify that position because investors need to know if you actually are pulling out now, because if you are pulling out now, you need to file that. You can't just say, hey, I'm not going to do the transaction or not sure I can do it. And Musk's lawyer at the time, Scadden, they responded and said, no, no, he's, that's just the figure of speech. He's going to complete the transaction and then didn't.

So now when the SEC is coming back again, it's like you double-eyed and you put more disinformation on the market. And there are a lot of people who were saying, oh, $45 billion isn't a lot to billionaire, like Elon Musk, no, it's a lot to him. He struggled. People don't really understand what net worth means

and how that's calculated, because when Elon Musk is said to be worth $200 billion, that's based on the inflated share price and his holdings in Tesla. So if Tesla has a market valuation of a trillion plus dollars and Elon holds 20 to 30% of the company. That's how you compute his net worth. It doesn't mean he has $200 billion in cash sitting in a bank that he can go and pay people.

So when the stock price goes down on something like Tesla, his net worth decreases. And in fact, to your point, the complaint, which we'll post that was filed by a walktel in Wilson, Sonsini said, he's lost, Musk has lost $100 billion on paper since he started this bullshit between Twitter and Tesla's holdings. And that's the reason he wants to walk away from this, but that judge you cannot do or every is and this is and this is why you go to Delaware because what they're worried about is not Elon Musk. What the Delaware Chance Record is worried about is the precedent that is set for contracts

and contracting parties in the state of Delaware. Either it says what it says when a party negotiates a contract in the state of Delaware for Delaware law to apply or it does not. It is that security. It is that confidence in contracting under Delaware law that runs our business world. If that were to crater, people would have no confidence and everybody would be Elon Musk. I don't like to deal. Even though I have no confidence and everybody would be Elon Musk. I don't like to deal.

Even though I have no way out under the contract, I'll just tweet my way out of it. Everybody would do that. You think our economy is having difficulty getting its engine started now. Wait till we let Elon Musk through the world, the Masters of the Universe walk away from billion dollar transactions in public companies. And the high profile nature of it, it's exactly right, that the Delaware Chance Records going to come out hard against Elon Musk. Because if they don't, it delegitimizes the Delaware Chance Record.

So an invitation, everyone's going to be going there to retrain their deals. That's right. And basically say, oh, whether it's bots, just make up some other excuse, change the word bots to burgers or French fries or widgets or whatever it is. And then you'll say, I don't want to do the deal with you. Look, Elon, Elon got out and everyone would be citing this case. So no, Elon is going down. It's a matter of, you know, when, not if it's

just when is that going to take another question that's out there. As I saw it, you know, when I'm doing my research with you, people are thinking, well, there's maybe there could be a settlement. That's true. The parties could settle in the shadow of the trial setting. Once the judge sets a very fast trial setting, let's say she splits it and says, October, October sounds like a good time to do this. Delaware's lovely in October. I'll see all the judges. I'll see all the lawyers in my courtroom in October.

Okay, great. Well, now you got to speed up discovery and get whatever limited discovery that judge allows between then and October for this one week trial in her chambers, which will be public. In the meantime, the parties can now having set the trial, knowing there's a trial, you know, it must can say, well, I know you're not going to take a billion,

but I don't want to go to 44, will you take 17? And there's a negotiated process. But even if the parties reach an agreement, there are public shareholders that the Delaware Chance Record needs to protect. This judge still has to approve a settlement. I've been involved with cases, including with the law firms that are involved here, where the parties reach the settlement. We're all happy about it. Walked into a courtroom. It was Vice Chancellor Laster, not this particular judge. And he said,

no, I don't like it. I think you guys could all do better for the shareholders. This number needs to go up to here. And this number needs to go up to here and this number needs to go up to here and there needs to be a bottom-on-one set aside for these people. And you got to double this entire thing or I'm not going to approve it. That's the other role of the Delaware Chance Record is to improve it ultimately to improve the settlement position so that the public shareholder and investing market is protected. And just think about all the other lawsuits, so this is going to spawn because the capital stack of equity and debt, because Musk didn't have the cash to buy it. Musk couldn't write a check to Twitter.

So Musk went to various banks and sovereign funds and private equity and all these people who pledged the money. And if Elon's forced to consummate the transaction, he'll also be in breach of all of the funding deals he has with his capital stack of debt and equity. They're gonna come and sue him. And then it's not like, and if Elon tries to quickly liquidate his positions in Tesla and tries to dump it on the market. One, there are regulations against that.

Number one, because as the controlling shareholder, the amount you can sell, and when you can sell it, there are set times, and it's in a whole investor plan of what you can do. But if he starts dumping the stock on the market, the price of Tesla is going to completely crash. And so he is in a very precarious, difficult situation. I don't care that he's worth X hundreds of billions of dollars. This could tank Elon Musk. This is existential for him. This is an existential screw up.

Buy him to the biggest magnitude. So we will follow that. And an existential, not screw up, isn't the right word, but an existential threat to our democracy, Pope, God, to talk about the secret service story, the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General on Friday, which is the watchdog group, the inspector general, who kind of oversees and reports, in this case, to a number of House committees, and including very recently reported to the House Select Committee on January 6th, but reported to the Homeland Security Committee and other committees, said that the Secret Service, based on the investigation done by this Homeland Security

Inspector General, he said that, I've been asking them for these documents. Give me the text messages, give me the messages of your agents and your people around January 5th and the 6th because there's a lot of information about what were they conspiring with Trump, not all of them. I mean, was the group of people, were they helping out? What were they doing with pens? Were they going to try to whisk pens away and take them to an undone location? So the election results could be overturned.

What were they doing? And they've been given a lot of bad information. If you take the secret service and you give them the best possible interpretation, the secret service excuses this. We were migrating information over to a new system. And we've been providing all the information we had. But as we migrated from system A to system B, all of the January, fifth and sixth messages and others, but those specifically don't exist anymore, but we've turned over everything we had. It's a system issue.

If you listen to the inspector general, they've been making every excuse. This is their latest excuse that they've made not to turn over, but we thought they were going to turn over. Then they asked for extensions and then they said they don't exist. Now they say it's migrated to a new system. Smells a little fishy here, Popeyes, and that is probably a big understatement. And perhaps not even for you who's by the water probably smells a whole lot fishier than the water behind you.

But Popeye, what is going on here with these text messages and why are they so critical to the January 6th Committee? Well, let's start with the importance of the Secret Service to the Jan 6th Committee investigation and criminal prosecutions. We have Cassidy Hutchinson saying that there was an incident inside of the black limo SUV, whatever it was, in which there was a struggle for control of the vehicle or otherwise to take Trump

on his demand to the Capitol. And there's testimony about that. We now have corroborating testimony, not from the Secret Service, which seems to have developed a case of the blue flu and have decided not to testify against this president. We'll talk about that in a minute. But the Capitol police were also involved in conjunction with the secretary the Secret Service, and apparently they're willing to testify with some information that corroborates

much of what Cassidy Hutchinson said about what transpired in that vehicle Everything else she said has been corroborated by people like Pat Sipalone or whatever But you know for people that want to hold that. Oh, she she didn't know the thing. She got a wrong inside the car Now we got a capital police officers doing is doing his duty and testifying in favor of it But we have a problem here used and we have a problem with the second with the secret service But we have a problem here, used in we have a problem with the secret service. They report to the homeland security. But oftentimes because of their close proximity to the White House and to the president, the first family, they get really close with that president. And many of them, it's already been public, were very much in favor of Donald Trump against Joe Biden. They were

Trumpers, including some of the people that were in the West Wing, Ornato, who was the deputy chief of staff under Meadows, former Secret Service, who was in charge of security detail and being liaison with Secret Service. So there's a couple of facts here. Many of the Secret Service, especially the ones of the presidential detail, were trumpers. They want to, they want to continue to protect this president, even though he's no longer the president. And they don't want to help in any way the Jan 6th committee if they don't have to. So they already sent out a signal several weeks ago

that they weren't going to support Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony about what happened in the car. And then, of course, when you want to look for corroborating evidence on their cell phones, as we know how they text each other for January 5 and January 6. To talk about that, talk about what happened on the ellipse, the magnetometers,

and all the other things secret services evolved with. Oh, suddenly, they decided in January, after Jan 6, to have all of the personnel reset their phones to a factory setting. Even so, the fight that's going on in the media between the office of inspector general, here back to the names of people Ben, you and I would love not to know the name of, but now we do. Joe Caffari, who is the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security, who is responsible for internal Department of Homeland Security, who's responsible

for internal investigation of the Secret Service. He's come out and said they knew about the Gen 6 Committee to man for documents, including the text messages, at the time that they did this purported factory reset of all their phones. And their response was, no, no, no, that did that request didn't come until February. We did the factory reset in January, to which I say, why should you do the factory reset at all? In our world of litigation, you have an obligation to preserve evidence and not to spoliate it, which is different than spoil it. It's a different word, spoliate the evidence by destroying it, not allowing for its retrieval.

When you know or should know that it's going to be the subject of litigation, you don't know that the that the attempted coup and overthrow of the federal government may be subjected to a congressional investigation or two. Come on. So I don't buy that they needed to get a formal invite from the JAN-6 committee before they preserve properly all of their documents and communication devices at all. Neither does their inspector general, who now they are publicly feuding with. And now, of course, the Gen 6 committee has woken up and said, you know what? Some of those things that have been erased might be able to be recovered. And I want to, and we want to get to the bottom of why they were erased. So we're going to subpoena all of those phones and all of those people that were involved with the deletion of that data. And now you've got the crime and the cover up, right?

We're investigating the crime of the conspiracy and the cover up that the Secret Service has done. You know, I just, one of my summer reading books is a book called Zero, Zero Failure about the history of the Secret Service. I did that even before I knew they were going to delete texts and how this very proud body has really fallen into complete disrepute over the years. They just can't be trusted, let alone to protect our presidents of their first family and others, whether they're going off to get, you know, drunken orgies in houses of prostitution when they're off duty or they just got sent home, one secret service member just got sent out. That was in Brazil, that was in Brazil.

That was in Colombia in Cartagena. Another secret service just got sent home two days ago from Europe because they also did something and got it to a fist fight while they were on the ground with a security detail. This organization is not covering itself with glory and what's gonna come out of it is a separate investigation of the secret service,

how it's been co-opted by people like Trump. And there's going to have to be a house cleaning involved there, which I hope will happen very, very soon. But they're protecting Donald Trump every way that they can. And I think the story in Columbia, you know, I had Carol Lennon, the author was a guest. Oh, I love that book. I love to use a guest on the Midas Touch Podcast. Everyone could go back to that episode with her where we had kind of talked about it.

I think I recall too, in the story in Columbia, the issue wasn't just that they even went to kind of a prostitute place location, but the prostitute then, I think, developed a relationship with one of the agents and then was extorting the agent and trying to use information against the United States government. And you put yourself in a position like that when you're a secret service agent and you do things like that.

But it goes fundamentally to this point and I think it's being highlighted by the January 6th committee, does law and order mean anything? When you say law and order, it's not just a slogan, right? Like law and order means that we trust the secret service to do the most basic things. And if they're the ones destroying records, what message does that send to the general population, not to mention what it does for accountability? I'll give you one more point on that. You and I have talked about.

Sunshine is the best antiseptic. And there's another reason. People are going, oh, this is just a distraction because Biden's presidency is failing. And he doesn't know how to run a bicycle. That's not what the Jansik's committee is about. It's about, we're talking to history here at this point. You can't have a constitutional democracy or constitutional republic without having accountability. You have

to bring these things into the sunshine because look what we've learned now about the secret service as an attendant issue while we're investigating Jan6x. We know it's like when you were a kid, you lifted up that rock in the backyard and all these little bugs and things rolled out from underneath it. They're all under there, all those warts and horrible defects that we're learning about in the institutions that we're supposed to be relying on that are being brought into the sunshine by this committee and as a byproduct,, very good and healthy byproduct of the Jansick's committee and its hearings.

Absolutely. And, you know, just to, you know, and I know you were using, you were speaking in the form of a radical right, oh, it's Biden's presidency failing. It is not. And Democrats need to be proud about the accomplishments that have taken place. Maybe you want a TikTok president who does a little dance move for you or maybe you want someone who tweets or maybe you want a democratic version of Trump who will break the law and do things that are violentive of the Constitution to prove that we can break the law and do things that are, you know, violative of the Constitution to prove

that we can break the law better than they can break the law. That's not what we are as a party, okay? We are the true party of law and order. We are the true party of patriotism and we have to be loud and we have to be proud that those values are not slogans and they are actions. And being patriotic means supporting the country and supporting people and trying to deliver

healthcare to people and supporting all people in this country, no matter who they are, whether you're straight, whether you're gay, LGBTQ plus, we treat humans like human beings in the United States. That is patriotism. Patriotism, Michael Popak, is when our troops overseas get cancer from burn pits that when they come back, we give them health care, which mostly all Republicans voted

against a bill this week that would deliver VA benefits and a presumption in favor of our troops that if they were exposed to a burn pit that the cancer related to their service. Republicans voted against that. So you don't get to drape yourself in pay. Republicans also, Pope, I don't know if you know this, voted against the bill that would create an amber alert system in the event of a mass shooting to notify parents in the community that a mass shooting takes place. And they're saying that they are the party of law and order. Are you kidding me? And what Biden's done is he's consistently, whether it's on jobs, whether it's foreign

policy, whether it's doing things to lower the price of oil, when international oil markets rise. He takes every step that he can, and if you want him to TikTok, if you want him to dance, if that's fundamentally what's important to you, then you need to figure out what your priorities are, and we need a rally behind what the Democrats are doing.

Could they be doing more sure? But do you want the fascist in power? You better believe that's what's gonna happen if we don't rally behind the Democrats soon One one good thing on history Because I know people are seeing the polls, you know, I have eyes and I know that that Biden is polling poorly He's in the 30% he's actually lower than Trump was at certain points However, I'll remind everybody that a little guy that you may remember, named Bill Clinton, was also polling at 30% around this time at his presidency. And he got reelected to a second term.

Things change. The war in Ukraine will one day be over. The oil prices will be back under control. Well, we did the right thing morally in the protection there. The inflation issue will be brought under control by the Fed and by the treasury and by the market forces. That will be brought under control by the Fed and by the Treasury and by the market forces. That will be resolved. The economy will be very stable.

And then the abortion issue, of course, will be front and center. Give this president time. He inherited a mess with COVID, inherited a war without having to be on a war footing, but having to do everything related to it and the economy impact. And, Paul, at that point, can we just talk about, you know, again, this is the legal show, but can we talk about like Democrats are afraid to talk about what a successful and incredibly courageous move it was to withdraw from Afghanistan? Like, I mean, no president had the, including Obama was willing to make what was the right

move for our troops and to take our troops out of harm way. And then when the troops come back, we wanna give them healthcare, we wanna give them all of the benefits and Republicans are voting against that but I can digress, Popeye. I don't want this to turn into the brother political podcast. So let's just talk about another legal issue. Witness tampering, witness tampering, Michael Popeye.

At the end of the January 6th committee here, Liz Cheney with the bombshell revelation that Donald Trump was reaching out to at least one individual and telling the individual, well, trying to get in touch with the individual. We don't know if the call was recorded, if the call was picked up, I believe the call wasn't picked up,

that there was just a call that was made to a pivotal witness who was announced by all descriptions of who the witness was. It was a corroborating witness, when a relatively high level position within the White House. It seems like Sarah Matthews, the deputy press secretary. We don't know that who hasn't testified yet. If I were a betting person, that's the one he calls. It's likely the deputy press secretary

Sarah Matthews, but sometimes here, you know, as with mafia prosecutions and we've compared this to mafia prosecutions, the mafia clamps up protects the mafia boss, pleads the fifth, you get what you see with that and mark meadows, all of this going on right now, but they often get charged. Tax crimes, witness tampering, obstruction. And for Trump to reach out and to call the witness directly, as Michael Cohen said on a recent CNN interview, he said that shows that actually Trump spiraling. And that's as desperate as you get, because Cohen said, I've never known Trump to actually make the call

Himself although he made the call to Georgia. Yeah, he made the call to Georgia Yeah, he's running out of hench people to do is bidding that are that are saying I mean Giuliani and Powell and Lin Wood and Flynn Flynn who was on the podcast yesterday and said the entire US Constitution It comes from the Bible. I mean, you know, they're all spiraling out of control here. So in this one, Liz Cheney in two sessions, six and seven, we got number eight, maybe

the final one, Tuesday at 8 p.m. prime time. But in the six and seven sessions, Liz Cheney said in both of them that there's been witness tampering by this president, that they were taking it seriously and we're reporting it over to the Department of Justice. Cassidy Hutchinson talked about contacts that were made by intermediaries for Trump against her. It's the reason why we know now she was kept under wraps and then we got that last minute. Tomorrow there's going to be an emergency hearing with a new witness. That's why because they feared for her safety. They feared for her life. Once it was disclosed that it was her, and we know that that Trump's intermediary contacted her to try to get her to quote unquote, do the right thing. Now we know from Liz Cheney that a witness that has not yet appeared

in front of the Gen 6 committee or at the hearing. They've they've appeared at the at the hearing, they've appeared at the committee level, but not at the hearing level. And I assume we'll be shown on Tuesday nights, wrap up episode, if you will. Has got a direct contact by Donald Trump in which people, he said, I'm watching, I know what's happening, do the right thing, and you'll always be in my good graces. Or words to that effect. And people at home might be thinking, you're listening, you're watching us might be thinking, isn't that a crime? The answer to that is it is. And if you look at 18 USC 1512, both B and C subsections of the penal code, it says that if that it's witness tampering, if you attempt to interfere or obstruct a congressional proceeding or another proceeding by using intimidation or threats to corruptly persuade a person

or influence that person's testimony, whether it's in a congressional proceeding or it's with the Department of Justice or both and it's punishable as a crime. And so that's the referral, I believe that Liz Cheney is saying that she, Gen 6 committee has, or will make a referral, but they don't have to make a referral. Department of Justice is watching closely these hearings and knows what he's done and should be opening up their own investigation as to whether there's been a presidential level witness tampering

because he's trying to influence testimony. Now, the defense to witness tampering is always, you're allowed to make a phone call to the potential witness. That alone, that contact, hey, how you doing? How's the kids? That's not enough to find that you committed a crime. If you try to change the testimony,

if you're encouraging the person, I know you're going tomorrow for the Jansok's Committee, just tell the truth. The truth will set me free. You set you free. I'm just encouraging you. Just tell the truth. That's different than do the right thing.

You'll be in my good graces. You'll be benefited. Quit pro quo. Wink, wink. You know what to say here. That's intimidation. That's trying to shape the testimony, not encourage truthful testimony. So that's what the Department of Justice, that's why it's not often prosecuted.

But when it is, it's because they got somebody like Donald Trump picking up the phone and calling the witness and said, do the right thing. They'll always be in my good graces. In other words, it'll be a job for you in the next administration. If you just kind of tweak and edit your testimony, can't do that. Everybody would do that if you could do that and and edit your testimony, can't do that. Everybody would do that if you could do that and it wasn't a crime. So now we have, we have that. And I love the fact that Jan 6th Committee is, you know, to a bully, you have to be a bigger

bully. And they're coming back and saying, you know what, Donald Trump? I know you're listening to our hearings. We're watching what you're doing, too. And our witnesses are telling us what you're doing. And you're just, you're going to buy yourself another crime. I think I talked about this on the brother podcast, and I think it bears repeating here. Actually, it comes from my friend Anthony Scaramucci, who was talking to me about the psychology

of what the January 6th committee has done. And I thought it was a brilliant observation and how the January 6th committee used important psychological tactics to get other witnesses to feel comfortable to testify. And had they started or tried to get, let's say, a Sarah Matthews or a Cassidy Hutchinson's to testify first, that probably would have been not effective. And you probably wouldn't have even got Pat Sipaloni to testify. But by starting the way they did with the Capitol Police Officer and the documentary filmmaker kind of growing and getting vice-penses,

vice-president Pence is Chief Lawyer and whoever that crew was there moving up to like the judge and Raffensberger and kind of keeping it going and growing, you ended up building the courage of other people to come forward, which is why you get the testimony of Cipolloni, which is critical. And so why you're going to get. Especially on your point, especially the 25 year olds that thought this was their dream position to set them up for life on a trajectory of working in Republican politics. Remember Cassie Hutchinson, Republican, she was a right-winger on her campus in college.

This was her dream job to be the number two to mark meadows in the White House. And then, and then, Poeback, I have to discuss, I have to go on and, and talk about though. Lastly, the Justice Department, um, this terrorist enhancement on this terrorist, three percent who was found guilty, Guy Reffett. The guy Reffett was the first of the capital terrorist defendants to go to trial. And he was convicted fairly quickly, convicted right away. And just so people remember some of the things that were shown, he was wearing body armor,

he was carrying a handgun that was under his coat. He was one of the people who were overwhelming and attacking the police to breach the Capitol. And he went to trial, lost, and they are seeking the department of justice as seeking a terrorist enhancement because the conduct was terrorism. This is under a 1996 Bill, the Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which is that anyone convicted of a federal crime of terrorism, not just international terrorism,

can receive an upward departure of their criminal sentence, and the Department of Justice is appropriately treating insurrectionists as terrorists right now. They are terrorists. They will get the terrorist treatment. So he can serve upwards of 15 years in prison. And we'll see what the judge does, but I think he's going to get a very stiff sentence around 15 years. And we'll follow up with everybody, but that should send a message to all

those other terrorist groups out there, the proud boys, the Enrique Tariots of the world, they're all watching that, Popoac with a keen eye and they're saying, that's gonna happen to you. That's where this is going. And trust me, the Department of Justice is telling them, you don't wanna cooperate all good. This is your future, guy, ref it, your future. And they're definitely, definitely, definitely going to pursue similar penalties

against these other terrorists. But I think it's an important that we let people know that step. The Department of Justice taking Pope, like any comments got there. No, I think we'll see what happens at the sentencing for guy. Ref. The Pope, you've gone through at this point. You know, I just want to point out the many phases of Pope, I feel like as You've gone through it this point, you know, I just want to point out the many phases of popuck. I feel like as we've done through my new memoir title, the many phases of

popuck. I think as we've gone through this episode, I want people to know. So you started off no hat in squarching heat. What was it? Like 95 over there. You sweat. It's hot here. for the first time. So, you know, I'm going to get there. It was a four-minute pop-up. So, a pop-up, though, toughs out, toughs it out through the rain.

He sticks there as he's getting rained on. And a bumblebee goes to attack pop-up. He saw the bee. And he's like, you know, you know,

you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know,

you know, you know, you know, you know, though, toughs out, toughs it out through the rain. He sticks there as he's getting rained on. Man, a bumblebee goes to attack. Popo. You saw the bee. I saw the bee. Everyone saw the bee. The bee went to attack you and try to sting you in the face. I got hot again. I feel like we've really, you know, we've brought people through a lot of experiences here. Michael Popeye, the best experience, though, of my week is spending this time with you going through all of the issues that we've discussed and making sure people know the import of these cases,

but also breaking it down in ways that they can understand because the stakes couldn't be higher right now. The stakes couldn't be higher right now. The stakes couldn't be higher right now and fundamentally to improve our civic engagement and our understanding, we have to understand the way our legal system works. And you'll have a radical right extremist Supreme Court who are going to make these horrific and horrible decisions. It's horrible that we have to report on them, but it's at least critical and vital that you know the framework, that you know the system, you know the prism through which they're being analyzed, deconstructed, and how we can fight and try to preserve our democracy.

Try to fight for what freedom means. Fight for what real patriotism means. So Michael Popeye, thank you again for joining. Thank you. One question, Ben, before we depart. Hats next week or no hats. I think we'll leave that on a poll right now on the chat. People can leave their comments as well. Hats. Hats. Hats or no hats. We appreciate everybody for watching this episode of Legal AF.

Everybody check out store.mitustouch.com. Go to store.mitustouch.com for all the best, MidasTouch and Legal AF gear. Remember, give us a five star review and subscribe to this podcast on YouTube, subscribe to this podcast on audio. Make sure you subscribe and leave those reviews now. Thank you so much. We'll see you next time on Legal AF.

Shout out to the Midas Mighty. Smiley.