Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top Legal Experts REACT to most IMPORTANT legal news of the week - Legal AF 7/9/22

Episode Date: July 10, 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: 1. Pat Cipollone (former chief white house counsel)’s potential bombshell 9 hour video testimony to the Jan6 Committee. 2. The Fulton County (Atlanta) Georgia Special Grand Jury investigating Trump’s election interference and its decision to subpoena Giuliani, Senator Lindsey Graham, Jenna Ellis and others. 3. The start of the Bannon criminal contempt of congress trial on July 18th , and his last minute (and likely unsuccessful) efforts to have Trump provide him a defense. 4. The DC Circuit Appellate Court’s ruling concerning the House Oversight Committee’s 2-year long efforts to get it hands on the Trump Organization’s long time accountant/auditor’s records about his business dealings while in office. 5. State abortion rights in the aftermath of the elimination of the constitutional right, and the Biden Administration’s recent executive orders to protect the right through federal agency rule-making. 6. Musk’s effort to walk away from his contractual obligation to buy Twitter, and whether the Delaware Chancery Court will ultimately order him to close on the purchase. And so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: https://athleticgreens.com/LegalAF https://policygenius.com/LegalAF https://www.slotomania.com Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Zoomed In: https://pod.link/1580828633 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elon Musk attempts to terminate his deal with Twitter. Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs, reproductive rights groups are now filing lawsuits in states and invoking the state constitutional right for privacy. We will explore that and let you know the outcomes there so far. And President Biden recently signed an executive order on reproductive rights. We'll talk a little bit about that. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Trump's former accounting firm, Masons,

will have to give the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee five years of records on potential inaccuracies in Trump financial statements, as well as the dealings of Trump and his businesses with the federal government when he was president. Steve Bannon's criminal contempt trial starts this upcoming week. We will explore what's going on there. And of course, Steve Bannon's last minute, Chicanery, we will explain. Bolton County brand jury has issued

Sopena's for Lindsay Graham, Rudy Giuliani, and others in Trump's inner sanctum of MAGA in connection with Fonnie Willis' investigation of Trump's election interference, Popo Kani, both predict that there will be an indictment there, but we'll explain that special grand jury process, what they can do, which is a referral, what happens next, we will explore that here.

And we'll give you updates on the January 6th Committee hearings. We've learned that White House Council Pat Zipaloni testified on Friday by way of transcription and private deposition, although the video testimony can in fact be used, will it be used at the upcoming hearing on July 12th? And we've also learned that Sarah Matthews deputy press secretary for Trump, the former deputy

press secretary, she will be testifying publicly as well and she will likely be corroborating everything that Cassidy Hutchinson said and she knew Cassidy well as well as adding new information. Popak, no way of saying that Sarah Matthews was a just a low level employee that we don't know her. Don't know her. Never heard of her. She's unstable. I can tell from her handwriting.

I'll write it right now. That's what he's going to say. Popak, how are you doing? First of all, welcome back. We weren't on the last one. Karen Friedman, Agniphala, Lo took over for that podcast. Where are you jealous? No, no. I've worked very hard with Karen over the last 26 episodes to get her into a

position. So the three of us interchangeably could co-host legal a F and it worked, it worked right according to plan so I could take a holiday. three of us interchangeably could co-host legal AF. And it worked right according to plan, so I could take a holiday. But as most people know, I had a rough week in work, I had a rough week personally, which I'm just glad to be back in the saddle and in here with you again today.

Popak, it is great to have you here. This is always my favorite part of the week. And I know it is a favorite part of the week four, the legal a f listeners. I want to get right into it. But pop up I do also want to mention at the end, you know, one of the constant things that we see over and over again with MAGA is this gaslighting. You know, they can't really own what their views are. You know, we saw it recently with Marjorie Taylor Green, right? She went on her stupid podcast that she had and she talked about the horrific terrorist shooting that took place in Highland Park and she basically said that she thought that that was, you know, actors and she didn't think it was real and words to those

effect and then confronted with it by, you know, she called it a false flag or she said, what's a, is this a conspiracy? I don't, I'm not spreading a conspiracy. Now, when she was confronted with it, she basically denies that she says that and she blames the source that puts the information out and she goes, oh, well, that was patriot takes a left leaning political action committee that it's like, those are your words. The reason why I bring that up too is as we talk about the January 6th committee hearing, you know, it's these individuals, Pat Zipaloni, Trump's White House Council, right?

I'm Sarah Matthews is the deputy press secretary. Cassidy Hutchinson's was a top level person for Mark Meadows. So the constant gaslighting that everybody makes everything up. Judges have it wrong. Trump's staff has it wrong. The only person who actually knows all of the answers to every question is the cult leader. And we see that time and time again. And we need to wake the cult up to that fact that every single person is wrong, including this one person who's the biggest idiot and liar of them all. I used in a brief recently a that great philosopher, Groucho Marx, in a famous movie at the

Marx Brothers made called Dux Sue, Pat a great line. He says, who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes? And that's, that's theGA approach. Everybody don't look at the evidence. It doesn't matter if they're Republican, doesn't matter if they were in the closest one degree of separation from Trump. They're making it up and they're lying. And fortunately, the court system so far has completely rejected that approach to a defense. And I think the courts are going to completely reject the approach to the defense of Elon Musk as well because Elon Musk's approach to acquiring Twitter felt very mega-ish. There's a lot of people who I knew, Popaku, maybe didn't know much about Elon Musk. They knew about Tesla. They may have

had a Tesla. They read about Elon Musk. He was involved in PayPal and some other businesses that were successful. He kind of has this reputation as being this Tony Stark-esque kind of character. There's been a lot of red flags to basically say that's not the case. There's, we've talked about on legal AF, a number of like serious lawsuits for racial discrimination and harassment that have taken place in at Telsa, at Tesla. We've known about the mismanagement there. We've known that Elon Musk has been known to make these, you know, pronouncements that move stocks and directions that look and appear to be manipulation.

But I think people got a real good view of the real Elon Musk. And it isn't pretty with this transaction. Basically, beginning on April 25th, when he announces that he's going to be acquiring Twitter, he waived all due diligence before acquiring Twitter. And then shortly after he bought it for $54 and 20 cents a share because he thought that was trolley and funny to have 420 in it, which is a value of $44 billion, a substantial 38 to 39% premium above what the stock was trading at. So the board of Twitter basically approved it. They felt, you know, you could debate it, but they said, Hey, that's such a premium. How

could we not approve it? But he waived due diligence. They entered into a merger agreement. And then ever since entering into the merger agreement, he basically whined the whole time, right? He whined about this issue of Twitter's monetizable daily user accounts the MDAU data, which are the bots. But before he even entered this transaction, the reason he claimed he wanted to enter this transaction is that he wanted to save Twitter from bots. And then he enters into the merger agreement and complains about bots after waving due diligence from the outset. And so Pope, just very briefly, and I want to get your thoughts on it, but the normal way this process would work right is you really wouldn't wave due diligence from the outset. You

would ask for the data, get access to a data room, maybe enter into a letter of intent before entering into a definitive merger agreement. And then in the merger agreement, if there's indeed a material breach, there's ways to get out, but that's a very hard standard. Once you're actually in the merger agreement, where you waived due diligence before and you have Elon Musk's law firm, law firm that you work for, Popoq, when you first started practicing. law firm, law firm that you work for, Popeye, when you first started practicing. Yes, it's got scat and art. So your perspective here will be very helpful. They sent a letter and accused Twitter of engaging in material misrepresentations after the merger agreement and saying, look, Elon may have waived due diligence before, but that doesn't mean he

was not entitled to data during the actual merger talks. And Elon has all of these issues with the M.D.A.U. data, the bot issue, and you've lied to him about the bots. That's the claim. And why I made sure I prefaced this with Elon Musk attempts to terminate it. Twitter's response is we're going forward with the deal. You owe us $44 billion, and we're going to go to deal. You owe us 44 billion dollars. And we're going to go to the Delaware Chanceree report and tell you to pay us that money. Michael

Popeye. And they're going to get it. This is a losing defense by Elon Musk. And my prediction with you, which was dead on on April 27th, whenever we said this will never go forward. He'll always find a way to try to back out of the deal if he can. This isn't about the $1 billion break-up fee. This is now in the hands or it will be probably on Monday with the filing of a lawsuit by Twitter in the Delaware Chance Record for an emergency injunction and an order by a Delaware Chance Record judge to force Elon Musk to close on the deal. And in the history of the Delaware Chance Record, which handles 60% of the Fortune 500

companies are incorporated in Delaware. One half of all U.S. public companies are incorporated in Delaware. This is the business court of America. Only once in the history of the business court of America. Only once in the history of the business court of America, have they ever allowed a buyer like Elon Musk to walk from a merger and acquisition. And that was, and that was in 2018 when a pharmaceutical companies executives lied about approvals of drugs in the pipeline by the FDA and their profitability. That's the level you have to get to for the only time

in the history of the Delaware Cancer Record, for them to say, you know what, you don't have to go through with that merger. Every other time, and we're talking hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of decisions, they have found against the party like Elon Musk who tries to walk, and I'll give you credit, and our show credit.

This might be the only show that actually defined what an MDAU is as it relates to Twitter and the bots, and you're exactly right. You can't sign the merger agreement, not a letter of intent, a contract to acquire the company. Don't do any due diligence in advance like you would do on a letter of intent.

Put in some language about access to some financial information that you ask for. Try to act like that is the equivalent of the due diligence obligation, which it is not, or due diligence right. And then hope that you're going to find if you really want to walk what's called a material adverse event, an M-E-N-M-A-E, and say, oh, there's an M-A-E to walk from the deal. And if his MAE is the existence of bots on Twitter, which has been disclosed by them in their SEC filings that everybody knows it. And as you rightly pointed out then,

he said the reason he's acquiring it was to get rid of the bots. I don't think you can then stand there on the straight face in front of a Delaware and a chance for a judge and say, ah, material adverse event. There's bots on Twitter. We can't get to the bottom of it.

My prediction is, and this is going to go quick. People are our struggle out about how long things are taking in Trump world to get prosecutions. That ain't the Delaware Chancery Court. This is going to go on an emergency fast track, probably with a filing on Monday with a lawsuit by the Twitter board and their lawyers Wilson's on Seenie and Delaware Council that they retain although I think they have Delaware Council and office actually in Delaware these days and they're going to ask the judge within a month to issue a ruling on this case and the ruling they want issued is true that Elon Musk must close on the Twitter acquisition. And this judge, just so everybody knows, has the power to order that, has the power to over the $1 billion

break-up fee. And that's how powerful this particular judge is, whoever's assigned to it, will know that quickly. And as you said, Skaden and ARPs, my old law firm is on the Twitter side. And I'm sorry, I'm sorry on the Elon Musk side wrote the letter to Twitter, but they've also hired as you just to get inside baseball here. It looks like they've also hired another major law firm that you and I know well to be their co-counsel. I assume in Delaware to kind of go all no holds barred, scorched earth litigation. I got to tell you, I wasn't making it up. There's only been one time in the history of the Delaware Chance Record where somebody

like Elon Musk gets to walk away from a merger. I don't think this is going to be number two. The forum where cases are heard is very, very critical. This is a perfect example of that. And businesses will put forum selection clauses or specifically incorporate their businesses in Delaware because of the certainty of the body of business law that has been developed over time in Delaware through its chance to record systems over there. And those are no nonsense business courts that don't screw around with the games and gas

lighting of Elon Musk. If you want a perfect example of what's going to take place here, think about when Trump's gang of idiots, although here Elon Musk is not going to have a gang of idiots, he's going to have some of the top law firms because they feel a little better pursuing kind of frivolous business arguments than they do overturning democracy. But think about when Trump had to go into these courts and make these ridiculous election, you know, big lie arguments in a federal court. It's not going to be as drastic

as that when Elon Musk goes into the chance to record, but they're going to look at him and they're going to look at the tweets. They're going to look at that behavior. And there is a $1 billion breakup fee that's in the agreement. But Elon Musk, that may be a good day for Elon Musk. Oh, yeah. It's going to be well above that. As you stated, the damages will be way above that. And it is possible that the court orders, it's a form of relief called specific performance where they actually order you, or order a party to consummate a transaction, even if they don't want to or put up the money. Let me get one more, when you're done, I want to give one more comment about why the

chance record is going to probably rule against Musk. Yeah. And I also want people to think about the other cascading liability as well. Think about the liability that Elon now has incurred with his Tesla shareholders as he tried to leverage his holdings there. And the Tesla stock tanked as a result. Think about all the representations Elon made to the capital stack that he tried to build, the people who were giving him debt, the people who were giving him cash. There's a whole group of people now who Elon has also basically screwed over in this transaction who were pledging money to be a part of this team with Elon.

So there's a lot of people who are lawyer up right now. This is the equivalent of two massive armies in the litigation world, as we're recording this right now. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of associates and partners and paralegals in offices across the United States right now preparing this lawsuit and preparing all the paperwork. So to touch on what you just said, and to bring it forward, the reason why the Delaware

Chance Record is going to, I predict, and I think you do too, ultimately make him do the steal. Or broker, because they're, they're, this is a business court, they could also broker a side deal for some other, some other type of transaction is because the number one priority of the Delaware Chance Record is the protection of the shareholders. Business continuity, business reliability, yes, but the protection of the shareholders. And one of the data points it's going to be put on the board by the lawyers for Twitter is

going to be the gyrating stock price since April till now, which went never got up to 5420 was up to 51 at some point, because the market always had a discount because they they thought musk is not reliable. Let's put it put it, but it kindly now the stock is in the 30s and heading down not up and what's happened is investors big and small are in that gyration, right? And they're being hurt and crushed and damaged the way you and I described before. So separately from the class action lawsuits that will come against Elon Musk for manipulating the stock from walking away from the deal, potentially against Twitter, certainly against

Musk, the Delaware Chance Record is in a position to help protect the market because they're going to come away with, no, nah, no, this deal's got to go forward to protect the shareholders of Twitter at 5420 who made, who made business decisions based on that deal going forward with very little in the way of, way of, uh, must backing out. And the market since April till July that has been trading in the shadow of that transaction, the Delaware Chance Record has to protect that market as well. And they don't care about Elon Musk, boohoo, he's gonna buy a few more bots that he wanted. Popeyes, we'll keep everybody updated there. Wanna talk about what's been going on in state court houses?

As everybody knows, there's the federal system, the state system, and there's an interplay there. Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in Dobsverse, Jackson, Women's Health organization, there was obviously a right, there's a supremacy clause in our constitution, and there was a well-recognized precedent on top of precedent, superpressant and established in row, the weight of this right to privacy for women to be able to have abortions that was clarified in the Casey decision in the early 90s, basically making that constitutional right by drawing a line at viability.

But now obviously with dobs, it's overturned Roe v. Wade, it's overturned Casey. And so states which had trigger laws, which basically banned abortion as soon as Roe v. Wade would be overturned. As long as Roe v. Wade was law of the land, states couldn't supersede based on the supremacy clause of the United States of Constitution. The federal right, the constitutional right to the abortion, but these trigger laws have started to go into effect, and these trigger laws are very, very harsh, very draconian, and they make the 15-week ban, which was already harsh and draconian, in places like Mississippi, where the dobs case arises out. Of these are cases and states that have trigger laws that also say that at conception, at conception, there's no right to an abortion in all cases,

including rape and incest and really no exceptions whatsoever. There have been lots of cases now in all of these states that have these trigger laws or that have laws that are now banning abortions to take place in their state, basically trying to invoke the state version of the privacy right within the state constitution and the argument goes, well, while the Supreme Court ruled that there is no privacy right in the United States Constitution based on the way the Supreme Court viewed the history. We've talked, Popak and I at length, and I spoke with Karen Friedman, and the last one that the Supreme Court on lots of these decisions to trample on our rights, the radical Supreme

Court justices, they've now kind of moved away from being strict textualists and focusing on the effect of things and they've looked at historical traditions where they've divined what our founders would have done if they were alive today. And as I explained on previously Gleyev's, how absurd that is, we went from focusing on real world events, what affects women, what affects people today, to what would people who were alive in the 18th century would have divine. We consult our legal system and law schools about consulting the oracle of what the founders would have done, and we have radical right extremists who have their own perverted view of what history

is anyway. And they cherry pick and they create these horrible rulings and horrible outcomes. So we have this state courts arguments from pro-choice groups, pro-women's reproductive rights groups that say, well, the federal court, the Supreme Court said that, but here in this state, here in Louisiana, here in Florida, here in whatever the states are, we view things differently. The Supreme Court said that this is an issue of the states. Here in our states, our Constitution does have a right of privacy, and that privacy should extend. So whereas Roe v Wade was a federal question and a federal issue over the

right of privacy, we're now seeing these argued in states. So Popeyes, maybe breakdown, what's happening in Louisiana, what's happening in Florida and other states with that context given. Yeah. So as you and I kind of in our pre-production started talking about, we're now in a situation where a 10-year-old, who's never had a worry about things like menstruation and otherwise, who has been raped, has to try to find a way to get out of her state and get to another state within six weeks, eight weeks,

15 weeks in order to have an abortion and find a state through a patchwork now of state regulations that are inconsistent and incoherent about a fundamental right that used to be in the Constitution until two weeks ago. And that's what we're left with. We're going to talk in this segment about what Biden is trying to do from the federal level to enhance the ability of people to exercise whatever state they're in or to get to another state in order to exercise that right. The problem is as we've, to put a can't put a finer point on it, since the Alito decision,

which is exactly what they wanted, that issue is state by state, a patchwork of states, some some bordering the other that aren't consistent right over the border you can get in a portion in your state you can't. And then you have those states in a mean-spirited attempt to federalize, nationalize their anti-abortion position. They're considering legislation to criminalize crossing the border to obtain that abortion, that exercise that right in the state that even allows it. And the Biden administration is going to have to step up

with the Department of Justice to do something about that and take cases to the Supreme Court on the right to travel, the Commerce Clause and those types of things. Right now, as it stands, 18 states, 18 ban abortion, eight severely restricted, including the state of Florida, that gives us 26 states out of our 50 where a woman or a girl cannot obtain a necessary abortion for really almost any reason, especially if she's out of time in this limited time period that you talked about.

That leaves us approximately 24 states, although some of those are still up for grabs, where it is presently legal. There's about 20 or so will it will always be legal. We're talking about the, you know, the states that make up the largest electoral votes in this country, New York, California, the entire West Coast, the entire East Coast, up until you get to North Carolina. But even states like Pennsylvania, which border Ohio's and Michigan's and Ohio and Ohio, you know, things like that, they They are getting kind of purpley on this issue of abortion. So we had two recent developments in Florida a

Tallahassee judge Initially ruled that the under the state Constitution now we have to devolve back to the states and see what their right of privacy is. Most of these states and Supreme courts have not had to address whether their state constitutions cover a right of a woman to choose because we've always had Roe v Wade for over 50 years. Now these state Supreme courts, which in many of the states that just identified are controlled by Republicans because their Legislatures were Republicans. They appointed Republicans like in Florida. They're now going to have to consider whether there is an amendment or

An or a some sort of unannumerated privacy right that's respected in the state Constitution that allows for abortion there now that the federal right is gone. So in Florida, the first judge, so look at the issue said there is a right in the state of Florida based on the right of privacy in the state constitution to have an abortion. Forget about the federal right and he issued that injunction. Of course, immediately the Santas appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. I think it'll go to the, I think it'll go to the District Court of Appeal first,

but that ultimately to the Supreme Court, and the problem with that is the Supreme Court is controlled by DeSantis and Scott, the former governor is appointees and it swings harshly right. So I'm not confident about that Florida Supreme Court finding ultimately a right to privacy interest in the state constitution. Louisiana was controlled completely by Republicans and the Republican Supreme Court members of that state Supreme Court has already ruled.

No, no, no, close down all the abortion clinics were done. We're out of the abortion business. There's no federal right and there's no state right, as, because I don't find on that right of privacy in the state of Louisiana. And this is what you and I are gonna be tracking over the next year as the progressives. Get off the mat from having been knocked out by the Roe v. Wade decision and try to figure out ways. Some of them using pages from the playbook of the other side

to find a way to get state judges, state Supreme Court judges that are pro abortion or pro women's right to choose onto these benches and then make the attack through amendments, moving for amendments and states to have the state constitution amended to allow for the right to choose. This is what's going to play out through the midterms and beyond, which is gonna be at the molecular state level to try to find a way to have a right to choose. Here's the thing, Popeyes, too.

You talk about the molecular state level and we have the Supreme Court doing two things at the same time, while they are destroying the federal governments, you know, powers and the federal governments authorities. They are also empowering state legislatures through the erosion of the Voting Rights Act at all levels of it to basically gerrymandor the crap out of their states in all different ways so that the will of the people is not effectuated both at a federal and at a state level. This is all part of the radical right extremist agenda here because if the will of the people

truly held, let's take a state like Florida. There's a reason why Ron DeSantis is not talking about abortion at all. He has his lawyers, you know, basically, you know, doing these cases to defend the 15-week abortion ban, but you don't see DeSantis out there. He's been noticeably quiet, goes back to the beginning of the podcast about these people who are incredibly hypocritical, because 56% of Floridians agree that women should have the right to abortion in all instances, in all cases. And so if the true will of the people held in Florida, you wouldn't even have a 15 week ban on abortion. You would have the right to choose

being a constitutional right that's between a woman and between her doctor and her family and her faith, whatever the decisions, you know, that she wants to make in her decision. And so the will of the people is really what's not being followed here at all levels as the court erodes that very basic feature. So we will follow more of that. And of course, I want to give the update on Biden's executive order. He signed an executive order on Friday protecting reproductive rights. Now, there are limits to what executive orders can do. They're not laws and say they have the effect of a law, but they're not like

Congress passing a law. It's based on existing authority granted to the president and the executive to do things with different agencies. And of course, we know one of the other areas, the radical right Supreme Court is trying to do is challenge what's called the delegation doctrine so that agencies aren't able to do things. But what the executive order does is direct agencies to do things and to focus on things. And really to the maximum extent possible here

of what the powers Biden had to do, he did. And so whether that's trying to set up mobile abortion clinics near the border, that's something that he wanted to invest resources into with this executive order, whether it's providing the necessary information through his agencies to women, whether it's providing the necessary information through his agencies to women, whether it's ensuring privacy rights

under federal law are protected like HIPAA, you know, at one of the fears, which is a real fear is that the radical right extremists will start looking at things like period tracking apps and other health records and going back to the beginning if there's a federal law and there's a supremacy clause exploring how the privacy rights of federal laws would prevent states from trying to get access to medical records. Now, of course, there are exceptions to HIPAA exceptions to HIPAA, exceptions to privacy rights for criminal conduct.

And so it's how do you, and now that states are defining an abortion as criminal conduct where a woman and the health provider can be arrested and in case a sentence to, you know, decades in prison for getting an abortion. But Biden did what I think he could do, but it's obviously not anything like you can't overturn dobs right now. There's one missing because I wasn't as thrilled with his, you don't sound thrilled, but I wasn't as thrilled with his executive orders. I think he still has more to do.

I think, yes, empowering HHS and what's been sort of a fecalist secretary there in Bacchera since he's been in power now giving him the major task of trying to find federal ways to protect a right to abortion state by state. The Department of Justice I think has more work to do and more lawsuits to bring when people are prosecuted inevitably for crossing the border to obtain an abortion. There's one that's missing and I want to get your opinion about it. I don't think we've talked about this before, but I think I've heard you talk about it on the other pods. Why not?

Every state has a federal, has many, many pieces of federal property, many. Some states are majority owned by the federal government. Wyoming is 70% owned by the federal government, the land. Every state has some sort of armed services base and Air Force, a Navy, a Coast Guard, an Army, you know, whatever. Why not allow for abortions at medical facilities

on Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard bases within states that do not allow abortion and take the fight directly to the court about the ability to do things on federal land that are not subject to state, state versus federal. Let's do it. Why not? I agree with you. I think that the considerations and concerns, if you will, would be making the federal government so directly involved.

Now, the federal government before has allowed the right, has supported the right, but to actually put them in the position, in essence, of becoming the medical provider is a little bit of a different role for them than to do what a government normally does, which is to defend the right, but in defending the right, if you came up with a system that basically says on this land, we will provide a bidding process and allow providers to come on and do what they want. I think the federal government's also consideration as well, and it's, to me, a serious one, but how do you balance this is when the providers go on there, you know, would you be putting a target on the providers back in these specific areas where these radical right extremists would potentially kill them?

And are you, is there a way to do it? If there's appropriate funding to help people get across the border in the right way, that alleviates the dangers perhaps of what it could look like by literally having an island within a state that is the United States government's abortion facility. That's why I like it on a military base. You got to go through a gate and you got to go into the military base. I mean, the the American Indian, the Native American who operate with their own tremendous amount of autonomy on the lands that they that they have and can do things that you can't do in most states, like not just gaming.

There's many things that they do on Indian property, Native American property that you can't do in other states. They could certainly step in and be a provider, but I like the federal, I like by doing something other than these executive orders to make available the ability to get an abortion. I agree with you, Pope Bach there, and we'll keep following that, but I do think the executive order is a good thing.

I think it is a step in the right direction. I want to talk about the subpoenas right now for Donald Trump's business records from the House Oversight Committee, what took place at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and order requiring Trump his accounting firm to turn over these records. This has been a long standing fight before doing so. I do want to talk about our sponsor Athletic Greens. This podcast is brought to you by Athletic Greens. They health and wellness company that makes comprehensive,

daily nutrition, really simple. And with so many stressors in life, it's difficult to maintain effective nutritional habits and give our bodies the nutrients it needs to thrive, whether it's busy schedules, poor sleep, exercise, the environment, work stress, are simply not eating enough of the right foods.

It can leave us deficient in key nutritional areas. But AG1 by Athletic Greens is the category leading superfood product that 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, and to help each of us be at our best athletic green simplifies the path to better nutrition by giving you the one thing with all the best things. Athletic greens was incredibly important. And is incredibly important for me before that.

I would go to the, would go to my local pharmacy store and I would get all the different vitamins that I thought were helpful from there and none of them were actually working. But with one tasty scoop of AG1, it has 75 vitamins, minerals, and whole food sourced ingredients, including multivitamin, multimineral,

probiotic, green superfoods. That gives me the boost, It leaves me feeling great. And it replaced all those multiple products and pills with this one healthy, delicious drink. I just do a scoop of the powder. I shake it up. I put water in it. I drink it. It is super simple and it accomplishes everything that I needed in its lifestyle, friendly. So whether you're keto, paleo or vegan or dairy free, this is for you. So please join the movement of legal A efforts like me and Michael Popeye athletes, life leads moms, dads, rookies,

first timers and everyone in between and take ownership of your daily health and focus on nutritional products that really work and that are super, super simple. That is essential nutrition. I'm gonna make it super easy for you. Athletic greens will give you an immune supporting free one year supply of item in D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. Just visit athletic greens dot com slash legal a f athletic greens dot com slash legal a f again athletic greens dot com legal a f polpock and I we negotiate these deals with these sponsors

that we love like athletic green. So I'm super proud to bring you a free one year supply of item. Indeed, and five free travel packs. And this podcast is also brought to you by policy genius in an unpredictable economy. Life insurance can offer peace of mind that anyone who relies on you financially, a child, a parent, or even a business partner will have a financial cushion if something happens to you. Life insurance typically gets more expensive as you age, so it's smart to get a policy sooner rather than later.

And by making it easy to compare your options from top companies, policy genius can help you make sure you are not paying a cent more than you have to for the coverage that you need. Policy Genius is an insurance comparison website that makes it easy to compare quotes from the top companies like AIG and Pretendial and Prudential in one place to find your lowest price. You could save 50% or more on life insurance by comparing quotes with policy genius, just head to policygenius.com slash legal AF. That's P O L I C Y G E N I U S dot com policy genius dot com slash legal AF to

get personalized quotes and minutes and find the right policy that fits your needs. The license agents at policy genius work for you, not in the insurance companies. They're on hand through the entire process to help you understand your options. It doesn't add extra fees. Your personal info is private. There are thousands of five star reviews for policy genius and then as options that offer coverage and as little as a week and avoid unnecessary medical exams. Policy genius has helped over 30 million people shop for insurance and placed over 150 billion billion dollars in coverage. Head to policygenius.com slash legal AF to get your free life insurance quotes and see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com slash legal a f michael popok tell me about what's going on with these subpoenas

that have been seemingly taking forever at the house oversight committee issued in twenty nineteen when trump was the president uh... the courts have ruled on it already they narrowed it what what happened just to remind everybody we're not talking about the Jan 6th committee. We're talking about the congressional, as you said, oversight committee and government reform committee whose whose mandate is to look backwards at historical facts and determine if in a forward looking basis, there should be changes in the way in new laws related to

the executive branch, the presidency or otherwise. And frankly, after you have a presidency like Trump, which pressure tested democracy at its very worst, there may be some new laws that may come out of that. So we don't have a future Trump, new guardrails that are put up to prevent the accidental knocking over of the democracy, as Jamie Raskin once said. And that's what this committee is responsible for, contrasting with the Jan 6th committee, which is looking into the root causes

of the leading up to and following Jan 6th and the attempted coup. As you said, there's been litigation going on related to measures, which was the long time 12, 14 year accounting firm that the Trump organization used for all things Trump. They're the ones people may recall we talked about six months ago, where they not only fired the client and said, we're no longer doing the Trump organization work. They took the extraordinary next step of saying, and everything that we did for the last 10 years, all of those financial statements are completely unreliable

because we can't vouch for them. We can't certify them any longer because of our own doubts about the Trump organization and its financial dealings. And extraordinary, you and I talked about it at the time, an extraordinary revelation and self-flagulation by the accounting firm. Now you take it up to a series of lawsuits that culminated in a Supreme Court decision, Trump versus Mazers in 2020, in which they said the oversight committee was,

it was okay for the oversight committee to get these documents, but they had to be as narrowly tailored, narrow subpoena as possible, as reasonably necessary was the standard in order for to protect Trump from an overreaching burdensome subpoena, but to give the oversight committee what they needed. And there's been litigation about what is reasonably necessary in terms of the subpoena, the length of time, the types of documents ever since. And we had a, a, a, a Met Meta, a judge we've talked about frequently, because he's been doing the right thing as it relates to the Gen 6 prosecutions. He made a decision like a year and a half ago about the subpoenas and said, I'm going to narrow the subpoena request to this based on the Supreme Court precedent

of Trump versus mazer. And the Trump said, no, that's not good enough on, I don't want the subpoena at all. I'm going to appeal. I'm going to appeal that judge. So they appealed it to a three judge panel. One of the judges was Kantanji Brown Jackson, who heard the argument, but did not issue the ruling this week, because of course, she's now got a better job on the US Supreme Court, leaving two judges left. One of them, you and I have talked about before, which is Sri, Sri Vannasan, who's probably on Biden shortlist, if he gets another Supreme Court pick before his term is over, his terms are over. And an Obama appoints each judge Rogers. So they were left and they voted

to zero. So a majority that basically the judge made his original decision on the narrowing of the subpoena was pretty good, pretty good, but they could do better. And they narrowed it even further. And so theyed it even further. And so they came up with, this is what you're going to need to turn over measures to the oversight committee. Two years related to the Trump hotel lease in Washington, five years of records related to the Trump organization and his business dealings. And basically one year of records, 2017 to 2018, about the Trump, or the Trump organization doing any business with any government official, state, local, foreign,

or otherwise, or federal. So that's the box of docs that the District Court of Appeals has said. But I want to get your opinion. Did you take a look at the two paragraph to set up, sorry, concurrence by Judge Rogers? Yeah, I did. Yeah, so she invited basically motion

for reconsideration or rehearing either of the entire court of appeals, what we call on bonk, or either side to come back with a less extreme position than she noted that both sides have been taken in litigation, taking in the litigation, come back with a motion to by the judge, one of the judges to just file another petition, more affidavits and a reconsideration. What'd you think about that? I think it's horrible. I think it's a strange, just decision. I think it, I don't, it doesn't make any sense to me. So you, I mean, I wonder if you want to know why it makes sense, but it doesn't particularly make sense because even if the intent is that, I don't know, maybe more records should be provided than what the opinion is originally, whatever it is, the more time you give Trump to delay

something, the more time Trump is not a good faith actor. So normally if you gave a decision like that with kind of two rational actors who are involved in a litigation who are represented by competent counsel, they may take that direction and say, you know what? Let's just cut a deal. Let's listen to what the court's saying. That does happen from time to time, you know, where a judge, even if it's in chambers, meaning kind of off the record, you know, a judge will take lawyers in the back. It's a, what are you doing?

Like, when you do those deals all the time after seeing a judge is ruling or a tentative ruling. But here, all that does is give Trump more time to come up with some more BS and delay this thing. If you give him an inch, he will take the full mile of your rights away. Right. And the only saving grace, I totally agree with you.

I don't know why she blew that whistle at the end. They'll do whatever they're gonna do. The judges have to tell what the rules of federal and appellate procedure are about what to do next. I don't know why she's inviting. It's almost like she's saying, I'm on the fence myself and there was only two of us. So if somebody will come back, maybe I'll reconsider. But you know, it is the oversight committee. So this was never going to be a criminal prosecution of Trump. This is just going to delay rulemaking,

but you're right that the lay is if there's a change in the in the majority at the midterms, buy by house oversight committee now in the control of the Republicans and buy by requests for the subpoena. It will, you know, so all she's done is given him, as you've said, enough time to tie this up through the midterms, hope they win the midterms. And then the oversight committee is now chaired by Republicans. And it's like, yeah, we don't need those documents. We're fine. It's why the work of the January 6th committee has been so great, you know, in kind of contrast, even to, you know, the oversight committee.

But they're, look, there are limitations to, and what the oversight committee, you know, Ken and can't do. I mean, it's a broader, it's a broader request as opposed to focusing on, you know, the January 6th is a mandate for just January 6th related, you know, documents and information. But it's why Trump and everyone is so terrified of January 6th, including Steve Bannon. And Steve Bannon, you all recall, Steve Ban was subpoenaed by the January 6th committee. They gave him the same opportunity they gave Cassidy Hutchinson, the same opportunity they gave Sarah Matthews, the same opportunity they gave Pat Sifaloni, all of these individuals. And Banan, who was a podcaster who hadn't worked in the Trump administration for years, years claimed that he was not

testifying because of executive privilege. He said, I'm not going to testify before Gen 6, because even though I'm a podcaster, even though I don't work at the White House, I believe that I should get executive privilege. Then he tried to blame it on his lawyer and said, well, my lawyer told me that I would have executive privilege. And he made that argument to the court because ultimately, what happened was that executive privilege argument was bogus in BS, the January 6th committee gave him an opportunity to appear. Steve Bannon was well within his rights to actually do what Mike Flynn,

what Jeff Clark, what Johnny Eastman did Fifth fifth fifth. I believe the fifth he didn't do that. He just said I'm not even showing up executive privilege so the January 6th committee no nonsense made the referral to the DOJ The since the January 6th committee is an investigative entity, they're not a prosecutorial entity. The DOJ, with that referral, took the referral and prosecuted. Bannon made the argument where he was charged rather with contempt of Congress for not showing up at the committee hearings, pursuant to the subpoena. And he made the argument

in federal court, which were rejected about executive privilege, about my lawyer gave me, my lawyer told me that based on some DOJ opinion that I didn't have to show up the excuse of relying on your lawyer, the judge said in contempt of Congress cases, that doesn't hold. So, Bannon's already thrown mud against the wall over and over and over again to see what sticks. But he's got his trial. It's coming up on next July 18th. It's a week from Monday. It was at the 18th, 16th, yeah, 18th.

So Bannon's trials coming up. And then we learn on Friday, some new spreads to the press. And the press just love to write whatever without even a critical lens of how stupid the information they're being fed is. That Trump is considering waving the executive privilege for banan.

Now, if the press wasn't a robotic entity that actually asked questions and could critically thought versus being co-opted as a fascist propaganda machine, they would have said, wait a minute. He didn't have executive privilege in the first place. So Trump is waving an imaginary thing that didn't exist. So who gives a shit? And they would have asked the question, well, what is ban and really trying to do here versus print a headline that left many people confused and saying Trump plans to wave

executive privilege. So ban and can testify. But by the way, if they did that, we'd be at a business. Like if they did, but we're, what we're about to do, if they did it in the article, you and I would be just talking once a week about whatever happened during our week. Let me explain what's going on. So ban and is not going to testify in front of the January 6th committee in Goodfay. At best, at best, he will either show up for a deposition and plead the fifth eventually, or he will show up and inject madness, conspiracy, shouting, and a circus-like environment.

That's perhaps at the best case. in a circus-like environment. That's perhaps at the best case. But what more likely is going on is that as Bannon gears up for his criminal trial, he basically got Trump to say, because the standard in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. What he's gonna argue is, look,

the president just waived executive privilege. So I had a reasonable doubt at the time because, look, if the president of the United States of America just waived the privilege, now I just learned that. And so my doubt was before he waived it, I didn't know whether he would waive it or not. And sure, maybe I was wrong about it, but I didn't know whether he would wave it or not. And sure, maybe I was wrong about it, but I didn't have a criminal. I didn't have, you know, really any, now we go back to whether intent is an element or not of this in general, though, Popeye, there. But I think what he's trying to set up is this defense that now that Trump has given me this out,

let me now, now I feel that I could do something. So it's a way to delay the trial. So two things. See, either argues that in the case itself, or now he runs to the judge and runs to the committee and said, well, now I feel that I could testify. But I think if he does testify, all he's gonna do is take the fifth, anyway, or not give useful answers to

try to delay and delay this more. What do you do with all of those things and I'll throw one more in there. Let me give you my my Pupakian predictions, which are consistent with your own thinking. This trial is not getting delayed. Judge Nichols is not going to delay the trial on the on the 18th of July because of two events when we haven't talked about yet. Consistent with this, I'm ready to tell the jury at the very least that now I'm ready to give my testimony to the Gen 6 committee because my president has released me from the bounds of the binds of executive privilege, which we're never applicable to begin with. And maybe as you said in terms of reasonable doubt, he hopes that one of the jurors,

one of the jurors in the District of Columbia buys this bullshit, is confused by this bullshit and this smoke screen and votes not to convict him of it, pointing to, well, look, the guy wants to testify now of the president's ultimate's okay. And then to continue this total charade, this whole kabuki theater that they've created as a misdirection play, Robert Castello,

one of his lead trial lawyers petitioned the court to be removed as a trial lawyer in the case because he wants to be a witness. A witness to what our listeners might be asking because the judge has already said in April, you're not going to be able to run the reliance of I relied on my counsel as a defense, which is sometimes a defense of certain types of crimes in this courtroom as a defense. You're not going to be able to run that.

That's not a defense here. So Castello said all of the information my client got about his about his Gen 6 obligations came through me. So I can no longer be his trial lawyer because the ethics rules that bind lawyers, including Ben and me, say that if you're if you're likely to be a witness in the case for your client, you can be a lawyer, but you can't be the lead trial counsel or the co-le trial counsel. You got to kind of step back, you can take the stand, but you can't then go on the other side and become the lead trial counsel again, questioning witnesses because the jury gets too confused by that. So he's petitioned the court to be removed

as lead trial counsel so that he can testify as a witness for that. And that's step one of this two-step bullshit process to say, aha, I got all the information from Jan 6th and my client was so informed and my client had a belief based on our discussions and they're going to waive attorney client privilege related to all this. The one to punch of that is going to be aha. Now the president of the United States or the ex-president of the United States on some, the office of the former president, stationery says that he's waving executive privilege. And now my client is willing to go testify. So he shouldn't be found in contempt.

As you said, that's what's going on here. I think Nichol sees right through this. I think there's going to be a battle early next week with the lawyers about whether this letter from the president even comes into evidence, even if Bannon can even talk about it. Since it's after the fact, while he's on trial, having nothing to do with the original reasons, why he didn't testify, I think Nichols as 50-50 that even allows this to come in. What do you think then? Yeah, I think that he probably won't allow it to come in. What do you think then? Yeah, I think that he probably won't allow it to come in. This is what he's already ruled on applying DC Circuit precedent. He cited this case called

Lick of Olie versus United States, which said, quote, reliance upon the advice of counsel is no defense to a charge of refusing to answer a question. All that is needed is a deliberate intention to do the act. Advice of counsel does not immunize that simple intention. And so really what Bannon's trying to get around here is that deliberate intention and to now say, okay, advice of counsel doesn't work. What about, it's my view about what Trump said.

And some sort of presidential, advice of presidential counsel, and it just shows you how they move so corruptly and kind of going back to your question earlier about that concurring decision. You can't give Trump an inch and say, hey, work it out in good faith in a back room. There is many good faith clauses as we've learned. Our system can be unraveled so easily because we've relied on norms and traditions and kind of this gentle person conduct of, well, here's how we need to do things. And here's how it's always been done. And one of the problems is when you have an insurrection political party that wants to undo

and overthrow the system, they're not following the norms and traditions. And the things that we're supposed to protect and prevent a tyranny against a minority has been used to create a tyranny of the minority who have used the vehicles and the tyranny of the minority meaning the Republicans who consistently would lose in general elections and would lose, you know, even state elections if they were done without the gerrymandered, you know, processes. Isn if they were done without the Jerry Manderd, you know, processes. Isn't that why Biden is having so many problems, Ben? Because Biden is a traditionalist that believes in norms. Isn't that what of the problems he's been having in his presidency is going against

the party that's in a guerrilla tactics mode? You end, you know, I think Biden would be far more successful though in getting his agenda done. If you had, you know, and this is where we have to balance it, you know, a mansion in cinema, they're the ones when Biden tries to push through the agenda, he's always blocked by mansion in cinema, who have who cite the norms and traditions and the need for the consistent filibuster. But remember, if you had Biden on his own, let's be clear, filibuster would be abolished. Build back better would be completely passed.

There are 100% at this point. Roe v Wade would be codified. Biden would do those things. Biden's operating within a reality and a prism that he didn't create. He can't change the mind of mansion. People say, pack the courts. Biden may agree with that. But he also, and I don't like the term pack. I do like the idea of make the court consistent with the districts that exist, and the circuit courts that exist, which are more than nine, which

is why you had nine Supreme Court justices in the first place. So I'm for increasing the Supreme Court justices. I'm for making it far less political. And one of the ways you could do that is you could randomize the selection of justices who are picked to hear a certain case, but Biden is limited by those realities of those traditions and norms. And so he finds himself trying to then reach the compromises with the tradition of norm people

and then he's viewed as kind of a sellout to people who he actually is trying to help but can't be cost of that. So he's stuck in this balance. But I do want to say when you think about, and I think Biden's doing a great overall, internationally domestically, I think Biden is doing a great job. I think Merrick Garland is doing a great job. We have a normal functioning federal government who the radical right wing just tries to tear

the freak apart every single day. And when there's issues, when there's gas, I don't want to make this the political podcast, but if there's an international gas price, you know, issue, which doesn't affect the US, US gas prices are lower than they are almost anywhere internationally. But what does Biden do? Biden takes decisive action to try to lower the prices and then people who don't understand the way Strategic reserves work and understand the way our international oil markets work and how Biden's trying to bring the prices down go Oh, Biden sold our oil here in the United States to foreign countries Oh, what a trader and what a sellout and And the media buys that BS and doesn't realize that,

you know, the world is flat. There's an interconnectivity between our economic systems and to reduce oil prices here. You have to reduce them internationally. And so that's why you would sell oil here, a broad that go on an open market in an international system. You need to think, people need to critically think. And Biden is doing great. When people

start attacking Lilliz Cheney's, we're going to talk about the Jan 6th committee when they attack Adam Kinsinger. Go, let's have the debates over their policies after the Jan 6th committee is done, please. Because he's doing fine now. These individuals are standing up for our democracy. They're standing up in a big way and doing an incredible job. We need to have the democracy to have the debate. So let's save our freaking democracy. I digress and I can go into this forever.

Let's talk about the Fulton County, our prediction banan just before I go into Fulton County. Grand trial on week from Monday. trial. He's going to be found guilty. And it's going to be able to test. He's not going to be able to testify about this last minute, Chicanery by Donald Trump to release him from an executive privilege that never existed.

Fulton County grand jury has subpoena Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham, John Eastman, Jan Ellis, Jan Ellis, Cleed a Mitchell. I do like Simone Biles, like Jan Ellis was attacking Simone. All right. So I tweeted about it. So so Simone Biles had a great comeback. So so this is how dastardly and disgusting that party has become. The president issues the medal of freedom, right? It's the highest medal that the president can

give. And every year when Trump was around, most people didn't even want that, you know, he gave it to people like Ted Nugent, you know, like people, but, you know, the Biden's gotten back to the Kennedy Center and given out, you know, whatever these, these medals. So he decides to give it rightly so in the sports world to Megan Rapino, the captain, striker for the women's soccer team, you know, five time world champion, Olympic champion, and transgender, LGBTQ rights advocate, you know, openly gay herself, and Simone Biles, who except for the Olympics when she had a slight issue, is the greatest of all time in female gymnastics in terms of her success and having been a victim of Nasser and the sexual abuse scandal that for which

she was, you know, who came out later as a victim right around the time of the Olympics, both of them got the medals. Jenna Ellis, who's nobody ever heard of, except for when she sits next to Rudy Giuliani when he's got a gas problem. She says, leave it to leave it to loser Biden to give the award to other losers, Simone Simone and Megan to which Simone Biles came back, because I tweeted it, said, um, who is Jenna Ellis asking for everyone? Who is she? Yeah, she's 0 and 63 in every case that she handled for Donald Trump. And there were 63 of them where she's on the pleadings.

She's 0 and 63. That's who has a temerity to attack Joe Biden and his is picks for the metal of the metal of honor and metal of freedom. Yeah. You know, pop up these people, these maggots, these magas, they're freaking losers. Like they are losers. They are losers in their profession. They are loo. They don't even strive to be smart. They love, they love just being ignorant and hateful and stewing in that hate. And frankly, the most anti-American despicable people, they rush to defend Putin. They attack our military abroad. They attack our American heroes and Olympians.

I mean, no matter what, because our Olympians say that people should have equal rights. That's what they're saying. Because our Olympians are saying as representatives of America on an international stage that they say things like people should have equal rights, we should protect LGBTQ plus rights. That is why they are attacked by MAGA losers. And I just think we have to as the January 6th committee is exposing what losers, these MAGA people are, we need to call them freaking losers. We need to not, we need to call them freaking losers.

We need to treat them like losers. And we need the media to stop amplifying their bullshit like they did on the ban and stuff. And basically, say, ooh, Trump is a little executive, privileged, shut the freak up, you are wrong. And I'm trying not to curse so that this podcast doesn't get the explicit review.

Oh, you could, that's why. I dropped the platform before I went on vacation. It's okay. I think it's okay sometimes, but I'm trying to, trying not to get the podcast. But anyway, so to talk about Fulton County, Fony Willis doing an incredible job. She's the Fulton County DA. We've talked about on this podcast before, how you and I are both confident that there will be criminal charges brought against Donald Trump out of the Fulton County DA's investigation. Here's what's happened. She assembled a special grand jury. There's a interesting process that takes place out in Fulton County where this special grand jury makes a referral.

And they can make a criminal referral, which then would go to an actual grand jury and the grand jury, that grand jury would then be the grand jury to indict. So why does Fonywelles go through all of these steps? And number one, procedurally, the subpoena power, the ability to conduct the investigation and to get the information. I mean, look, we have a lot of it on tape. We have the calls between Brad Raffinsberger and Trump and Trump saying, find me the 11,000 votes. We played the full tape, Popok, is on the Midest Touch YouTube channel.

I would tell people to go and find it and watch it and listen to it. It may make you vomit a few times, but it's worth listening to vomit, not with standing because listening to what an idiot loser Trump is on this phone call is just something. In a full hour, you just get a better sense of like literally a, it's an offense to second graders, you know, what the way this man communicates. Like he is a second year mafia so want to be freaking loser and you hear all of that on the you hear all of that on on the audio, but that's the special grand jury process. We know she's already spoken to Brad Raffinsberger and now she's subpoena Lindsey Graham Lindsey Graham reached out to Raffensberger

and said you know and also tried to get him to overturn the election and told him to reconsider It's just ridiculous stuff. That's what Lindsey Graham did. Of course, Rujuliani, Jenna Alice, you know, all of that. Let's go through each of those. So Graham in November of 2020, and while he was the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, calls up Georgia to try to get them to throw out lawfully cast absentee ballots in order to turn the election. He was the first phone call. All the other phone calls that we've talked about, including the one that Trump made in December was later. The advanced team for Trump's fraud

was Lindsey Graham making that first phone call. So you got the calling Brad Raffitz-Perger and others as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee ostensibly. Then you, so that he made two phone calls to Raffitz-Perger. or you then have Jenna Ellis Rudy Giuliani and Eastman putting on that phony hearing inviting some Republican and other Georgia legislators to where they're going to make a presentation. This is the one that you and your brothers mercilessly, mercilessly, lampped a Giuliani for where he passed gas on Jenna Ellis who was sitting next to him during the presentation. So and John Eastman, Johnny Eastman was there again.

So they all have to do with this phony presentation. Ken Cheesebro was in charge of trying to make Georgia into a fake elector scandal by having them, uh, nominate fake electors, Cleed a Mitchell, who was a partner at a law firm. I also was at when I was a younger lawyer, Folly Lardner, no longer there. She was actually on the phone call with Donald Trump and Brad Raffinsberger and Mark Meadows and all of that. So she's a witness to that issue. And Fannie Willis also over the weekend,

also test of also in a news show said, it's likely or possible that Donald Trump could be called before the grand jury. So what's the next step? The next step is if you don't like your subpoena, you can go to the chief judge and move to quash the subpoena, but it's very, very difficult. It's not going to be what Lindsey Graham's lawyers released on Friday, his statement, which is, well, he was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee as the right to call up individuals in Georgia to ask them about the fairness of the election. That's not what he did. The testimony has been that he tried to get them to throw out absentee ballots in order to turn the tide of the election. I think they'll move to quash. They'll do it this week. Others may as well and join in. It'll be the chief judge because that's the one that ultimately issues the subpoenas

under Fonney Willis's power. She's under the chief judge of that of that district. And if they lose on their motion to quash, which I think they're going to, I'll, I'll, I'm going to get your opinion, then they'll have to go into the grand jury and testify, however, they'll preserve their fifth amendment right to take the fifth against questions that are asked. So I think my prediction, they'll lose on the motions to quash, they'll have to go into the grand jury and most of them will take the fifth amendment. What do you think? Oh, I tend to agree with you. They're going to try to drag this out though in a PLM, but Fonnie's not going to let them. I think that they will. I think they will take the fifth. Most of them will take the fifth. I wonder what

Lindsey Graham, you know, will do. Yeah. It'll be politically that looks bad, but yes. Politically it looks bad for the chairman of the judiciary committee to take the fifth amendment against criminal implication in a grand jury trying to get to the bottom of whether there was election interference. You know, and I've heard people say, look what Fonney's doing and comparing that with Merrick Garland. And there are some comparisons there that I think are kind of apt and appropriate. And it should not take anything away from Fony Willis, who is a badass

prosecutor who is crushing it, who is diligent and just doing an incredible job out there in Fulton County. The task before Merrick Garland is what Fony Willis is doing times about 10,000 because it is prosecuting everybody who was involved in Jan 6th on the day itself of the insurrection, on the interference, not just in Georgia, but as well in all the other states with the fake electors. And so it's a nationwide investigation. And ultimately there, where Sfony has that, you know, the charge, that one specific phone call and the other potential phone calls on recording, which by the way, can be used by the Department of Justice

in the work that they're doing in their future potential prosecutions. They're focused on an incredibly broad range of conspiracy, and we've seen the work that they've done, starting at the low level, you know, the clowns and the wannabes and the kind of cultist soldiers and the shamans and all the idiots. All of them, climbing a level, climbing a level, climbing a level, getting to the leaders of the terrorist groups like the oath keepers and the proud boys, winning prosecutions at a very high level. Five of. And then the next piece of it is then connecting with the White House itself. And we've seen those connections with the

January 6th committee. We'll see more of that. And I think what a lot of these hearings are going to be focusing on as well, Popeye. I also prediction, I think there may be an additional hearing. I think that there's room for more, especially after we hear from Sarah Matthews. But we'll see if I'm right or wrong about that. But also who we haven't heard from yet asking the questions, Jamie Raskin. Raskin hasn't has hid day, his day yet, which he's been one of the most vocal. That he's the closer.

Don't you think he's the closer? One of the things I think hell focus on is going to be the connections between the White House and the Proud Boys and the proud boys and the oath keepers. And we know that the top levels of those oath keeper, proud boy terrorists were actually in the White House, right? That Enrique Tario, terrorist was in the White House in December, right around Christmas time before the insurrection. It'd be like Timothy McVey being invited into the White House before the Oklahoma City bombing. I mean, it's that we're invited into the federal building in Oklahoma City.

Yeah, you have Enrique Tario terrorist invited taking selfies and photos. Just think about that. That's the United States of America under Trump. How sick and disgusting is that I want to talk briefly about January 6th committee, though, I do want to give a special shout out to slot omania. You'll have endless excitements at your fingertips with 170 free to play slot games, huge jackpots, an interactive community and a million free coins. It is the perfect escape from your daily routine. And I've been playing the heck out of this slot of Mania Popak. It's fun. You get to play all these slot machines. They give you when you start a million free coins so you can, you can use it whenever you want to use it. And I mean, to me, it's just kind of the entertainment that I just enjoy playing

on my phone, you know, just during break sometimes or if I'm sitting in the passenger seat of the car going somewhere. Or while I'm talking during the podcast. Yeah, it gives you that rush you feel with a big jackpot win and getting a little me time to relax each day. Just a fun mix of casino gaming and casual gaming anytime. And there's nothing more exhilarating than the huge jackpots. The special prizes, the free coin rewards every single day. And there's hundreds of original Vegas style video slot machines ready to play wherever and whenever you want to and wherever you are.

It's kind of like a Vegas vacation without the luggage. Some would say interact with fellow players and form cooperative slot O clans. Popo. I know you are in the popo key in slot O clan or you will be a format. A popo in slot O clan with some of your friends or enter into electrifying live tournaments when your day is feeling stale just ask what will today spend if you're 21 or older you can join millions of players around the world. Download slot Omania S L O T O MI-A, the number one free slot game on the App Store, Google Play Store, get one million free coins. Go to the Google Store, the App Store, wherever you get your apps and download Slotomania.

I know you'll have fun. You can DM me, tell me about if you're enjoying Slotomania. It's not a gambling app. It's not a gambling game. You don't get cash. You don't play to win real money It's just a fun way kind of mindless fun entertainment, but like you'll really really enjoyed it So download Slot of Mania right now and send me a message. Tell me if you enjoy it. I enjoyed a ton pop up January

6th So exciting. Many tell us about Pat Sipalone, Sarah Matthews, New Hearing coming up July 12th. The hearing, the committee's just been bueno. Crushing it. Committee's crushing it. So Pat Pat Zipalone and I think Jordy did a really cool video drop on the Midas Touch Twitter feed today on it is really an amazing, connective witness, not only corroborating for many things that

Cassidy Hutchinson said, notwithstanding people said, oh, she didn't know. It's here to say, okay, Well, as you have a roadmap witness, which is what we would call Cassidy Hutchinson with credibility and dignity and courage, you then fill it in with other people that were actually in the room for certain of the events that she's a witness to. One of them is the chief White House counsel.

Is it not like low level people? Like this guy was a janitor, he used to clean up the waste paper basket to the White House and he saw something. We're talking about the upper, upper echelon. If they didn't have the top job, they had the deputy job right under the top job for everything that mattered to the White House and the levers of power right through Jan 6th and behind. Pat Chipeloni, an honorable man in the Republican circles as a lawyer, and I was standing as a career threatening decision to work for this president. He gave in four months ago, he gave informal testimony to the committee, So he cooperated. And now on Friday, he gave eight hours or nine hours

of videotape testimony. And where is he fit in? Well, Cassidy Hutchinson says he was in the dining room with the White House when the hang Mike Pence comment got made by Mark Meadows to the president, and the president said, well, that's a good idea. And Chip Aloni was in the room for that says Cassidy Hutchinson. He was also in the room when the proposal to have Jeff Clark, a low-level environmental lawyer, replace Rosen as the acting attorney general in order to do Trump's bidding to have the DOJ issue a letter and a formal announcement that they're investigating possible fraud in order to enhance Trump's conspiracy plan. He was in the room and along with Rosen in front of Trump told Clark, you're basically,

you stick to being an environmental lawyer, you're not qualified to take that position. And if the prior testimony of other witnesses is correct, Chipeloni is quoted as saying that if you issue that letter by the Department of Justice, claiming that there was fraud when there wasn't any in the Jan 6th, 7th period, that is a murder suicide pact, Pat Chippellone's words. Anybody that touches that letter is going to jail or is going to ruin or wreck their career. And I never want to hear about that letter ever again.

That's Pat Chippellone. Kershner, Kershner testified, and it's been shown in video clip, that Pat Chippellone threatened to take himself and all of his lawyers out of the White House when certain things were being proposed by Trump and some of these crazy lawyers like Jenna Ellis, Sydney Powell, Eastman, Giuliani, Cleedda Mitchell, such as let's do a fake collector. Let's have fake alternate slate of electors in every state. Chippellone said, I'm leaving. Let's do let's march of electors in every state. Chipelone said I'm leaving.

Let's do, let's march on the Capitol. This is what Cassidy Hutchinson testified to. And Chipelone, according to Hutchinson, hopefully confirmed in his own testimony, told her we cannot allow the president to march to the Capitol. It would be, it would be a criminal jeopardy for everybody involved in that decision and we can't let it happen. So we've got patch of Palone, almost like the Zellig,

is in so many historical rooms at the right moments to history to testify about these things. And according to one of the Jan 6 committee members who testified on one of the national news programs after the testimony on Friday, she said that Pat Chippellone did not contradict any testimony previously given. Meaning, let's read between the lines that he basically supported everything that Cassidy Hutchinson said, she being so far, the key witness that may bring Trump and the others to justice. So they videotape that then that was Friday, Tuesday's the next hearing plenty of time for that group to work overtime to get an amazing set of clips to support because they know, look, they read the papers, the Jan 6th committee, they read the media reports.

They know that Cassidy Hutchinson took a little bit of a hit about the lunging president Trump on the wheel of the of the of the secret service in the in the official vehicle to try to force his way. You know, everybody reported that. As you said, mindlessly reported that as the headline. And so everything else you testified to was fine, but that one, oh, that was wrong. Secret service isn't going to corroborate that. I think they think they want to bolster and reinforce Cassidy Hutchinson could come as early as Tuesday with some clips from Pat Chipelone. What do you think?

Watch day seven of the pop up. You said everything. I mean, you know, I could just re-repeat what you said. Look, how, what would it take for the media to finally say, oh, I'm being fed information by Trump. Maybe I shouldn't report it until I verify it. Like, what would that take? And I think the answer is, you know, when the money dries out, you know, when unfortunately, you said, you said this earlier, unfortunately, the media is into two camps.

You have just a fascist, propagandist, anti-American media, like Fox News, like OAN, they drape themselves in the flag, but they spread conspiracy, hate, and propaganda to prop up fascism in the United States of America. On the other hand, you have corporate controlled media that both sides every issue and treats a fascist argument and a truthful pro-democratic argument on the same platform as having the same ability to compete as one versus one, whereas the media should be calling out and exposing anti-democracy profacism in a very strong and robust way. And what you had happened is NBC news reporters and others took the lies that Trump's inner

circle said to them about Cassidy Hutchinson, not knowing the facts, but were actually corroborated by other secret service who knew what happened. And that mediation manipulation was, as you described it, you know, there was a brief moment where they were like, oh, like this was it. This was the January 6th committee not to its homework here or what happened, you know, which lasted a few hours until the right news got out. But it was actually media that's supposed to be, it's not Fox News. I mean, that one came from an NBC reporter, you know, that did harm to an organization, to the committee that was bringing out the truth in all of

its form. And at the same time, that NBC style media being distant intellectually dishonest and not really reporting on January 6th, with the full force of its efforts to call out the fascism that's taking place and truly educate its viewers and what's going on. And as you said, well, if that existed, it would put us out of business. Sure, you know, there's sometimes where, you know, I say even as a lawyer, I'd rather be put out of business than have, you know, if that meant as a civil rights lawyer, everybody's civil rights were protected. I'll find something else to do.

We've had to find this niche and build the mightest media network and build out shows like this within the network because of the existence of a broken media. And so I do want to say watch day seven of the bombshell January 6th insurrection hearings live on the Midas Touch YouTube channel. Our coverage will begin Tuesday, July 12th at 9 a.m. Eastern 6 a.m. Pacific the live broadcast production is brought to you by the Tony Michaels podcast. We have the best panelist, the best group of panelists out there, including Michael Popak, Karen Friedman, Agniphello. We have David Bender and Texas Paul and politics girl. And we have Jessica Denson and

Michael Cohen giving us. And we try. We try. But an incredible panel. Make sure you check it out again. Subscribe to the Midas Touch YouTube channel. I do want to give a special shout out to all of our sponsors today. Athletic Greens, policy genius and slot. Oh, mania, make sure you check them out by supporting them. You support our show. Check out Midas Touch merch at store.

MidasTouch.com store. MidasTouch.com rock all of the best Midas Touch and legal AF gear, whether you're a popokian or a Midas Mighty, we have the best gear for you at the Midas Touch merch store. Go and check that out. Now Michael Popeye, great to have you back. I'm glad we covered all of these topics. We missed you. Any final words for Popak before we go? No, I'm just thrilled to be back. We've got a busy, busy summer. And you know, what you and I have built with your brothers for legal AF

Is just the perfect framework for analysis For Jan 6 and beyond through the midterms and beyond I'm just so so as you know, I'm so humbled to be a part of it The most consequential legal news of the week and of our time might as touched legal podcast legal AF. Ben, my cellist, Michael Popock wishing you all, well we'll see you next time on Legal AF. Shout out to the Midas Mighty.