Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Top legal experts REACT to this week’s radical Supreme Court decisions - Legal AF 6/25

Episode Date: June 26, 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 special Supreme Court episode we are joined by our co-anchor Karen Friedman Agnifilo and discuss and analyze: 1. The Supreme Court’s ripping away a woman’s Constitutional right to an abortion in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Alito. 2. The Supreme Court’s finding a Constitutional right to conceal carry guns in public in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Thomas. 3. The Supreme Court burning down the separation between Church and State in a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts. 4. Days 4 and 5 of the Jan6 Committee Hearings outlining Trump’s assault on his own Department of Justice, and on State election officials around the country as part of his coup to cling to power. And so much more. DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: https://athleticgreens.com/LegalAF https://feals.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

Three devastating rulings from the radical right extremist Supreme Court that have not just undermined the legitimacy of the court and our judicial system, but have moved our country into an apocalyptic theocratic nightmare. And that isn't hyperbole. The US seems to more resemble an ISIS caliphate today than a modern western democracy. First, Roe v Wade is overturned. The Supreme Court on Friday endops versus Jackson Women's Health eliminated the constitutional right to obtain an abortion after nearly 50 years of precedent that began with Roe B. Wade. Then a day before that on Thursday, June 23rd, the Supreme Court in

New York State rifle versus Bruin struck down New York's concealed carry law, which has been in place since the 1920s, essentially finding that states do not have the right to place practical limits on the possession of firearms of its own state citizens. Yes, guns, apparently, have more rights than women in the United States of America. And two days before that, on Tuesday, June 21st and Carson versus Macon, the Supreme Court held that if states give subsidies to private institutions that therefore must give the same subsidies to religious groups essentially eviscerating the separation of church and state.

A woman, essentially according to the Supreme Court, is a host body, and whether there is rape or incest or an ectopic pregnancy where a woman can die, has no choice over her body, based on this decision. Guns will be everywhere and states, apparently, that one common sense regulation will have no say in the separation of church and state. Well, I guess that't exist any more in the United States of America. How sick, how truly radical is that. Finally on this episode of the Legal AF podcast, we're going to be talking about the January 6th hearings, days four and days five. One took place last Tuesday, the other on Thursday.

Again, with almost all Republican witnesses. Arizona's Speaker of the House, Georgia's Secretary of State, we had Shay Moss, and then day five was top Republican DOJ officials. We know that Trump was directly involved in overthrowing the democracy. It's not even clear and convincing and beyond a reasonable doubt. In my view, there is no doubt whatsoever. The only doubt is whether our democracy will survive and whether the rule of law will survive. And before I introduce both, my legal AF guests, I want to leave you with a quote by Justice Sonia Sotomayor who gave a speech two weeks ago in Washington DC. And this is what she said, quote, there are days I get discouraged.

There are moments where I am deeply, deeply disappointed. And yes, there have been moments when I've stopped and said, is it even worth it anymore? And every time when I do that, I lick my wounds for a while. Sometimes I cry. And then I say, okay, let's fight. So let's fight. This has been my cellist from Legal AF. I'm proud to introduce two hosts today, Michael Popok and Karen Agnifolo. Of course, you know, Michael Popok and Karen

as the other co-hosts of Legal AF, Michael Popok and I do the weekend, but it's an honor to have Karen Agnipelo and for those weekend viewers who don't watch the midweek episode with Karen Friedman Agnipelo as we call her KFA, I think she calls herself KFA and so we go along, call her KFA as well. Let me tell you just a little bit

about Karen Friedman Agnipelo, although I like to believe that hosting Legal AF is a resume builder for Karen Friedman. It's probably not the most impressive thing she's done in her career. Karen previously served as the chief assistant district attorney of the Manhattan district attorney's office. And as the chief assistant DA, Karen was responsible for overseeing an office of approximately 500 lawyers, 700 support staff and roughly 80,000 cases per year. She was side-vancers number two deputy there, and in fact, prosecuted cases under New York's concealed hand gun law.

So to have that firsthand experience here is really, really important. Karen, I want to start with you on the DOBS case. Can you tell us about the ruling, the most important takeaways there, and then we'll throw it a pop-ok and see if he has anything he wants to say as well? Yeah, so, you know, you wonder, why are we all surprised? We saw the leaked opinion, and so we

sort of knew this was coming. Yet, I think it was still shocking for all of us that it came out the way the leaked opinion sort of showed in the beginning. And it it went further than just ruling on the Mississippi law that banned abortion starting at 15 weeks. It actually said an overruled rovers has weighed 50 years of precedent allowing women to have autonomy over their own bodies and over their own reproductive choices. So it's kind of the biggest case in my lifetime, I think, that's ever come down because it just with the strike of a pen made it so that there is no right anymore, a constitutional right for a woman to make a reproductive choice about her own body.

And it said that states can outlaw abortions, threw it back down to the states. And now every state can make their own decision about what's going to happen. It's just a terrible, a terrible time for women in this country. And, you know, the decision went through a bunch of mental gymnastics, sort of going through why it is they ruled, what they ruled. And they sort of analyze it from the context of history. They analyze it from the context of precedent. And they analyze it from the context of the constitution.

But it's clear that it was a result looking for an excuse and a way to get to it. And, you know, Clarence Thomas in his concurrence, which, you know, the concurrences and the dissents are sort of what's new and what came out. I think Clarence Thomas in his concurrence said, I agree, but he was, he basically said, it was very clear sort of what they're trying to do because what he said was, it was a quote, you know, when you read the decisions, you could, you could, some of you could say, well, okay, they just have a different definition of due process. They have a different definition of the 14th Amendment.

They have a different definition of precedent and starry decisis. So that this is a technical process rolling, not one looking for a certain result. And you know, you can sort of, they sort of try to make you see that. But when you look at Clarence Thomas' concurrence, he says, he talks about how substantive due process can be disastrous, you know, and that's the legal ruling that they they that abortion was sort of founded on and he talks about the Dred Scott decision where he says, you know, certainly Congress, you know, can't be powerless to emancipate, you know, because it ruined so many slaves' lives. Then he says, quote, after more than

63 million abortions have been performed, the cause, harm, the harm caused by this court is immeasurable. So it's clear that his position and the majority's position is that they view those 63 million abortions as lives lost and as harm that is caused. And so this was their way of basically imposing their view and creating this kind of procedural excuse for a ruling as to why Roe versus Wade should be overturned. And one thing I just want to point out that I think is really, really upsetting and disturbing

about this originalist kind of interpretation of the Constitution, which is what the majority and what Thomas kind of likes to talk about and what they sort of fundamentally go back to, which is, you know, the Constitution doesn't mention abortion, you know, it doesn't say anything about it. So, you know, look sort of read it literally and let's look at the original intent and let's look back to, you know, the 1780s, one, when it was first created and then the 1800s, when it was ratified by the amendments and let's sort of see what did the founders mean and did they, you know, what was their history that allows for abortion and did the founders intend to cover

things like this. But the thing that I think that the dissent, you know, points out and then I think it's really important is, is that history is a white male history. Those were women at the time that the Constitution was created and that these amendments were ratified didn't have equal rights or equal protections or a right to vote or have any part of a say in any of the language of the Constitution. So really what they're looking back to is a history of men. And it and it makes sense that these men weren't thinking about contraception and just sort of the right to have bodily autonomy. And so that's the history. And at one point, they even go back to the dark ages and the 13th century.

They're not just going back to the 17th and 1800s. They go back to history and the dark ages. And that's the history that they're saying controls about whether or not there should be a right to abortion. So it's really disturbing because they ignore the last 50 years. And that's the last 50 years, 50 years, 5.0, when since Roe and Casey, that's the history that this decision ignores and the history that, frankly, every woman today that's going to have an abortion,

you know, it doesn't apply to me because I'm of a certain age, but every woman who, who an abortion would, that choice would apply to today, was born in a time where they 100% could make that choice for themselves. And starting today, they no longer have that choice. And this is just a chilling, chilling state of where we are. Michael Popack, what's your reaction? Let me start with the descent. First time, one of the first times in constitutional history, the three people in descent, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan,

didn't just dissent, they dissented with sorrow. That's a phrase that, in its own way, is so poignant and yet points up the issue here. They actually wrote, it is with sorrow both for this court, but more importantly, for the fundamental rights of women that we dissent. And what Karen said earlier about the comparison

to Dred Scott, which is a slavery case, that has been the hallmark of the Federalist Society and their attempt over the last 50 years to overturn Roe versus Wade, it's that they morally compare abortion to slavery. They've set it from the beginning. We learned it in law school, but that was the Federalist Society position.

So as soon as they had the numbers, as they said in a number of the descents, we're going to be talking about today. As soon as the right wing radicals had the numbers, they were going to do exactly this. They were going to compare abortion to the black mark on the Supreme Court of finding that slavery was okay to reverse for the first time in constitutional history, a right that had been granted to a person, in this case women, to exercise bodily autonomy. And the key to the case, and one that we have to be sensitive to in the future because of what Karen pointed out in the Thomas concurrence is the use of the application of the 14th Amendment and its due process clause to now based on

this ruling to attack future rights, sorry rights that had already been established in the future particularly same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, and the use of contraception. And this is not, as you said in the beginning of this pen, some sort of apocalyptic landscape that we're just predicting in hyperbole. This has actually been said in Thomas's concurrence. He said, for the same reasoning that we have ripped away

the constitutional right to an abortion, because in their view, the majority view, it was wrong at the time it was decided in 1973, and they're just fixing a wrong and fixing an error. He said, there's other errors for the same reasoning that we will look at in the future, which we will reconsider all of this courts' substantive due process, meaning 14th Amendment, based precedence, including, and he names them, Griswalt, contraception, Obrichafel,

and all the other cases, why, and let me just let's do a quick tutorial for our legal A.F.ers. There are constitutional rights that are enumerated expressly in the U.S. Constitution. We're going to talk about two more of them today later in this later on the podcast, the first amendment and things related to a religious expression and freedom of expression, the Second Amendment and the right to carry arms or bear arms. Those are expressed in numerated rights. But everything that the lawyers on this podcast learned about in law school, about the privacy rights that are based on fundamental liberty interests, the penumbra of rights, which are not expressed in the Constitution, but by K-SLAW precedent, starry decisis, over the last 50 years, has established other rights under the

14th Amendment to process clause, fundamentally about the right to privacy, the right to bodily autonomy, especially about women, to give women the equality that is required under the law includes their ability not to have compelled to force pregnancy. All of those rights that are not expressed that have come through the 14th Amendment and the due process clause, including abortion, are now up for grabs, why? Because Thomas says they are. And he's now invited, he's now invited, not a dog whistle that nobody else can hear, an invitation that everybody can see

to have cases brought up from the lower courts to the Supreme Court, come and get it. I'm ringing the bell, bring the cases to us because we got the 63 majority and we're gonna to take these rights away. And then what they do is, in addition to the historical comparisons that are wrong between slavery and abortion, they also say, well, we're doing as federalists, is we're given it back to the states. This is a state states rights issue. As Kavanaugh said,

so underhandedly in his dissent, we're not outlawing abortion. We're just sending it back to the states where it belongs and every state can do whatever it wants. If they want to criminalize it, if they want to imprison women that try to get an abortion, that's up to each individual state.

So some women in some states will have rights to reproductive health and some women will. And that's just okay because the Constitution is scrupulously neutral, Kavanaugh's words, to abortion. It's blind. It doesn't care. You can have it or you can't have it. It's up to the individual states to which such a mayor and the others in dissent said, it's the opposite of being

scriptural. If you're going to rip the right away, the reason we have the right is because states, especially the right-wing religious conservative ones, are inclined to take that away from a woman. And that's not the world that we wanted to live in, at least I didn't think it was. So it is a, as Karen said, yes, the most powerful, impactful decision probably in my lifetime, because also of what Terclarans Thomas has said, they're going to do in the future about all the other things that we thought was settled law about people's rights and their most intimate sexual interests, family interests, and bodily interests.

They're now all up for grabs. What do you think, Ben? Aaron, you wanted to add some, too. Yes. Sorry. I just wanted to point out a couple of really quick things. First of all, every decision or every writing on this, whether it was the majority, the concurrences, and the dissent were written by men.

And that really bothered me. It felt, especially, why didn't Amy Coney Bar, have the balls, frankly, to write this decision? You know, if this is how she felt. And Thomas, you know, he wrote what he wrote because, as you said, Popo, he was inviting these other, inviting these other kind of cases to be brought before the court. Kavanaugh's concurrence, why I read that? I like to think of his why. You know, this just felt like a man's slaining kind of me too.

I agree. I didn't, there was nothing he said that I thought was any different. And why did he have to do that? And Roberts' concurrence, he just, to me, he sort of sounds like a little bit of a wet noodle. And clearly has lost control over his court. But the dissent, I like a little bit of a wet noodle and clearly has lost control over his court.

But the descent, I was a little taken aback that Sotomayor or Kagan didn't write that descent because really at the end of the day, it just feels like a bunch of men once again making all the decisions about women's bodies. And just, I think it was great for, you know, Briar's been a great judge and I think is wonderful. And I don't mean to criticize him. I just felt like at some point,

you know, these men have to step aside and stop regulating and legislating women's bodies. And the only other thing I just wanted to talk about and that I think we need to talk about and people need to know is that this is not the end. This is only the beginning. And it's not only going to just be half the states say yes and half the states say no.

This is going to have a huge impact on mainly people of color and people who don't have means. So I know that there's a lot of groups who are coming together to try to raise money so that they can have women travel from states that don't allow it to states that do. And that's going to, although that seems like an elegant solution, you're gonna see,

I predict you're gonna see states say that a fetus, you know, of somebody living, looks at me in Texas, is a Texas citizen. And if anyone takes the life of a Texas citizen, that they're guilty of murder. And you know, so I could see that. And you know, and so that they're not going to allow that to go to, you know, to allow people to travel without sort of risking being prosecuted for murder. You know, I know people are trying to think how to have telehealth and send abortion pills in the mail.

You know, I think that's even more problematic, but I know that there's a lot of people out there who are trying to figure out ways around this. And I am just very worried about where this is headed and how they're going to enforce these laws and whether doctors are now going to have to turn in patients, it's going to, women are going to avoid getting medical care and all of the other things that are going to come as secondary issues here. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt that. Oh, not at all. You know, it might as touch made and add produced

by the great Suzy Schuster called the GOP handmaid's tale, which was focused on that exact scenario, Karen. We made this about two years ago of someone crossing the border, a state like Texas, where a young girl was being pulled out of the car by the police. The mom was taking her across the border. And when we produce that ad produced by Susie that we have the privilege of distributing lots of people were saying, Oh, you're going too far. That can never happen. And what I would always say with people like Susie would say what you would always

say is when they tell you what they're going to do, believe them. They're telling you what they're going to do. And let me just, I thought you and Michael did an incredible job there covering, you know, all aspects of it. Let me try to add a few other points. So in the Dobbs versus Jackson woman's health case, that's this case that overturned Roe v. Wade. The question was really about Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortions.

It didn't really necessarily raise the question, should Roe be weighed in general, be overturned? That's how radical this Supreme Court is that they took a case where normal Supreme Court doctrine would be you answer the question before you. You don't go and answer questions that are not before you. And that was what John Roberts opinion was. John Roberts opinion was, look, I would vote that the Mississippi 15 week ban on abortion

that should stand, but I would not overturn Roe v Wade. I'm answering the question that's before me. And what Robert said is the viability standard established in KC after Roe v Wade, where states should regulate it viability or could regulate it viability. That that standard didn't make sense according to Robert. So he would allow the Mississippi law, but he said the Supreme Court went too far in overturning Roe v Wade. It's very rare for the court to answer questions that are not before it. It kind of violates all of the norms that were taught about what the Supreme Court should and shouldn't do, including the basic norm of overturning precedent.

So, also an incredibly scary thing, and it's worth highlighting here, because it goes into the next case that we're going to talk about this New York State rifle versus Bruin, when we talk about historical tradition and what a radical right extremist view of historical tradition means versus here we are living in a time where we've progressed as a society to value equal rights and to treat people with decency and when you look at the past, there are stains on the past that we've tried to correct and cure as a society. But when you look to those days of historical problems

and real serious things that happen, that's what they're using to justify now. These decisions, and when at the outset, I talked about the ISIS caliphate, these extremist radical governments and other countries that exist, it's the same logic that they use to justify the restoration of their extremist policies. They tried to go back to times hundreds of years ago,

or thousands of years ago, and they say this is the pure way to live in which you end up happening, is a society that looks like ISIS-Raka, where you have secret police going all around and cutting people's hands off and guns everywhere and women having no rights, whatsoever. And that's where we are going, if not already there now, that the Supreme Court has made these decisions, one right after each other. So I do want to go now to talk about this other

decision that was reached the day before Thursday, June 23rd, in the case of rifle versus New York State rifle versus brewing, which struck down New York's concealed carry law. I mentioned in my opening that the law has been around since the 1920s. In fact, there's some suggestion that the law may have been around even since as early as 1911. You know, interestingly, we talk about the case in that we just talked about overturning Roe v Wade, where you have people like Kavanaugh saying it's a state's rights issue. The states can do what they want. But yet here, we find in this New York rifle case, we have the Supreme Court saying, states can't even implement when it suits us as the radical right extreme Supreme Court.

States can't even implement common sense gun regulation over concealed carry laws. And so essentially in city places with popular cities like New York or Washington DC or places in California, the states can't say you can't walk around with guns in cities. People should be able to have guns. And what's that rooted in ultimately? It's rooted in the same concept of historical tradition. And that's what Clarence Thomas uses to justify this decision. He looks at history and he goes, look, the founders love guns, arms means any type

of gun. And I see great support for guns, guns everywhere. And so New York never had the right to, in any way, in fringe upon gun ownership. One, I just want to say this and I want to turn it over to Michael Popeye. And then I want to turn it over to you Karen after that to talk about the practical implications, because you prosecuted concealed carry gun cases. The history that these individuals on the radical right want to tell are not the real histories of it. They make up a history in their own mind that suits their radical extreme agenda to impose on our society these radical, radical policies. Michael Popak,

can you please break down this case? And then I want to go to Karen about the practical implications of someone who prosecuted these cases. I will. I'm probably the only person on this podcast as anchor that's actually had a concealed weapons permit. And people know my very nuanced view of gun ownership and the right to carry. But let's talk about the case itself. Prior to this ruling

this week, the second amendment appeared to allow reasonable restrictions on concealed carry, carrying a gun outside the home and otherwise. And time and time again, reasonable regulations like the one in New York, which required that a person not only apply for and do background check and done training and all the other things that go along with proper licensing and regulation, but also required that the person demonstrate to a licensing official a proper cause

that they needed the weapon for some reason independent from the general right to bear arms, particularly that they're in a dangerous profession that they've had people try to attack them. They're in the auto liquor store, they own a pawn shop, they're in a dangerous neighborhood and in an occupation of a certain type. And it was left to the licensing agent to make the decision about whether that was proper cause or not. And two people who

were the plaintiffs in the case, challenging the sex, this regulation, applied for a concealed weapons permit to carry a weapon outside the home and were denied by the licensing agent. And this is the first case in 10 years since Antony and Scalia has died, that the Supreme Court has addressed God rights.

And even Antony and Scalia, who is the Godfather intellectually of people like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Even he, in the case ten years ago, believed that there was proper regulation of the right to bear arms, was okay. And he gave a list of things, banning guns and sensitive places, banning the types of guns, and basically endorsed reasonable regulations. Apparently his acolytes, his students didn't get the message and have decided that there's basically an unfettered right to bear arms with very little in terms of regulation.

And just as Karen talked about in the abortion decision, that they love going back to history and tradition, these contextualists, these originalists, these federalists, that's their tool they use to bash a right out of existence or to promote a right above what is written in the Constitution. Here they point to the history and tradition of American gun ownership and they look at whether there's been prohibitions on public carry for self-defense and all of that. What they also destroyed in this case was

a two-part test that almost all courts adopted, which seemed appropriate at the time, but two-part test that almost every other court had adopted, was to look at whether the restriction, the regulation on gun ownership went to a core second amendment right, the right to bear arms. And if it did, did the restriction advance a significant public interest? And if it did advance a significant public interest, that regulation or restriction on gun ownership or use was upheld. Clarence Thomas said, stop using that test.

That test is wrong because it violates the Second Amendment. And here's your new test. This is what the Supreme Court has ruled in the Six to Three decision. Here is the new test going forward. If the regulation goes to the Second Amendment right, then the burden is on the government to demonstrate that there is a historical precedent for that regulation going back to the 1800s, the 1700s, and if there is not historical understanding, if our forebearers in the wild, wild west, in the 1700s, in the 1900s, with their social makeup, with their understanding of law and social mores, did not regulate a gun that way, you're not allowed to do it in 2022 and beyond. I mean, some people listening is podcast supposed to be thinking,

what are we, F and talking about? We're talking about we're being controlled from the grave by people who we have nothing in common with, who lived in primitive societies, be before technology, before advancements in weaponry, and they, from the grave and historical research and Blacks law dictionary are telling us what is appropriate for regulation of modern weaponry given the country is now 320 million people. That's what this case says. And the answer is yes, that's what this case says.

You go if the government trying to defend a licensed restriction, a restriction on the right to carry, can't come up with a historical precedent from the past, somewhere in America's past. And it'd better be more than one, because if it's just one random somewhere in Wyoming in 1911, there was a rule on the books, that's not going to be enough. It's got to be the weight of precedent.

You better come back and give me many, many regulations like this. And the reality is, there's only six states, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, a wide couple of others that had something similar to a proper cause requirement. Most states in this country, the vast majority of states in this country, have what's called must issue, which means if you go in, you pay your fee, you take a training course, you do a background check, including mental health, you're walking out with a permit and you get to conceal carry that weapon. And now that is going to be the new law of the land

based on the result of the brewing case. So I'm going to pass it over to Karen in a second, but to break that down, Popak. In other words, the Supreme Court has now created a test that by its very setup, a state can never actually meet to implement any common sense regulations because the prior test, which basically asked, is this a common sense regulation by the state?

That test was eliminated in favor of, did the initial founders of the United States, were they able to predict in the future regulations that would regulate weaponry that they could never have predicted ever would exist in the first place, which therefore basically means they couldn't have predicted it. That test will never pass, and a state will never be able to implement a regulation that could meet the impossible test

that the Supreme Court created. I'm sorry Ben, good, I want to make one comment about a lead up. I was going to say, you know, I'm reminded by, you know, the history text, you know, and or the movies that you see, what kind of came into mind was the movie 300, but it's in history text as well like real life history, which I know 300 is based on it though, you know, where the Spartan warrior has to climb the mountain and he goes to the Oracle and the Oracle kind of divides based on history, what the outcome is going to be. And here, these radical right extreme Supreme courts have created this history where you have to

climb upon the mountain and ask them, please, divine, sir, what the forefathers would ever have imagined the future to be. And guess what they will always say? Whatever suits their radical right, extreme agenda. So for people who claim to be originalists and textualists, what we're hearing today, what we've seen, but what we're explaining to you and teaching you, is that they've created a test that's not based on originalist theory, is not based on textualist theory is actually based on their interpretation of what they believe history to be, which they can true as this incredibly radical dark dystopian vision. Michael, give you your comment and then go to Karen about practical implications. One last we've talked a lot about dissents, dissenting opinions, and we're going to continue

to do that. Alito took the opportunity to take a shot, no pun intended, at briar. It is one of his last decisions, because briar spent a considerable amount of time rightly so, describing not only gun violence in America, but recent statistics that gun violence is the number one cause of death in America having overtaken car accidents. Talking about the 270 plus mass shootings that happened in this country, of course, in capsule, you know, in, which also captures Buffalo and Uvalde. And in response, Alito said, that is the very reason that people need to be able to carry weapons because they're insecure

because of all the shootings. So listen to this theory. So therefore, everyone should be able to arm themselves. So in case they find themselves in a mass shooting situation, they can pull out a weapon. And so, Alito ended it with, since 1791, people have the right to defend themselves and bear arms in public. And we're just reestablishing that right in this decision. Karen, why don't you break down as someone who prosecuted concealed carry violations?

What is this opinion mean and maybe share your experience about prosecute in those cases? Yeah, so this has, this is mostly about licensing in New York. And that's sort of the more obvious kind of what does this mean? This just means more license are going to be issued for concealed carry in urban places like New York City, which was, before this was almost nearly impossible to get a permit to carry a gun. And, you know, anyone who hasn't been to Manhattan or New York City doesn't,

won't realize how incredibly densely populated it is and how many people there are. And there's about 30,000 New York City police officers as well. And prior to this decision, the police were pretty good when they arrive on the scene of any emergency or anywhere. If they see someone with a gun, they can pretty much assume it's a bad guy with a gun,

not a good guy with a gun. And it makes the lines very clear on how to respond and what to do and whether or not there's danger. I think this decision is going to have the practical effect of many, many, many, many more people who are a good, well-intended people who aren't out to do anything wrong to carry guns in this crowded urban environment. And so one practical impact is it could have a potentially really kind of dangerous effect on both these gun carriers, but all the other people around them, when a police officer can't determine in an emergency or in an instant,

is this someone with a license or not? And I do think that is unique to a place like New York City where most people aren't in their cars, etc. And the other thing is, you know, the 911 response time in New York City is seconds, you know, and a few minutes at most. It's not hours or long periods of time. So the need for self-defense and carrying gun is just very different here. So that's that's sort of one very practical effect

that this is going to have. It's just many more licenses and many more people carrying guns, carrying guns and many more people having access to guns where they could get stolen or used for other purposes. So, and one of the things that this decision pointed out was you think your gun laws keep you safer and they're so great, but, you know, 10 black people were shot in buffalo under your regime.

So the answer is more guns, not less guns. And so it's just very clear that this is what they're trying to do is to put more guns and people's hands. The more sort of nuanced kind of, I think, what does this mean for practically speaking is it's very complicated what this does to the prosecution for possession of a handgun that somebody possesses illegally. So say you don't have a permit and you are being prosecuted for carrying a gun. I'll be completely transparent that people are still analyzing what does it mean for that. And I think we're going to have, you know, as it gets, as we sort of think about this case and apply this case and decisions come down, I think it will shape, it will come into shape a little bit more crisply than what I'm about to say,

but this is what I think is going to happen and this is kind of my prediction of where it's going. So, you know, there is case law in New York in particular that has established these presumptions under the law, okay, and they're statutory presumptions and these presumptions of unlawful possession of a gun. So if you're just walking around carrying a gun and you don't have a permit for it, you know, it's presumed that that's unlawful and you get prosecuted for that. And I think what this case does is it

establishes a presumption that you're carrying it for self-defense. And if you're carrying it for self-defense, that kind of eviscerates the entire statutory scheme of carrying a weapon in New York. Or it certainly gives another issue that juries will have to consider. So that is one of the practical impacts that I think is going to come of this, is that you're going to have this new sort of presumption of carry for self-defense as opposed to unlawful carry.

And it's just going to make it harder to prosecute crimes and it's going to make it harder for prosecutors to bring these cases. So those are the, that's where it's going to have, I think, the more long-term impact. So, in that case, New York State rifle versus Bruin, the opinion was written by Justice Thomas, and then the previous case that we had mentioned, Dobbs, which overturned Roby Wayne, was written by Justice Alito, we're now going to turn to an opinion that was written by Justice John Roberts. This is Carson versus making and a case that essentially held that states that give subsidies to private institutions. If you're giving

any type of state benefit to other, for this case, private schools, you therefore have to give those same subsidies to religious groups and religious schools and church groups, even if the religious group or the church group holds views that are a nathema to common sense understandings of equality. And so where a religious group intentionally discriminates against LGBTQ, according to this ruling, and we'll break it down in a bit, according to this ruling, the state would have to fund this religious group. And as the descent points out, what this may actually having the impact of is that a state is given this very difficult

choice. Like, should the state even give subsidies to private individuals knowing that if they do so, they are therefore going to have to fund religious institutions which could therefore be discriminating against individuals who they're trying to help by the very nature of those subsidies. Before breaking down those cases though, in that case, and the January 6 hearings, I got to talk to you though about one of our partners. This podcast 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 and key nutritional areas. That was a big problem for me. I was trying to pick out my own vitamins and I would do the gummies and the pills and I would try to put this regimen together. I thought I was working it clearly wasn't. But then I discovered AG1 by athletic greens, the category leading superfood product that brings comprehensive and convenient daily nutrition to everybody, keeping up with the research, knowing what to do when taking a bunch of pills and capsules is hard on the stomach. And it's hard to keep up with. So to help each of us be at our best, let's simplify that path to better nutrition by giving one thing with all the best things. So with one tasty scoop of AG1, that's all that path to better nutrition by giving one thing with all the best things. So with one tasty scoop of AG one, that's all you do is you scoop this green powder,

you put it in a cup, you shake it up, you drink it, it contains 75 vitamins, minerals, and whole food sourced ingredients, including multivitamin, multimineral, probiotic green, superfood blend, and more and one convenient, dally serving, the special blend of high I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good

diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's a very good diet. I think it's one gram of sugar. And it's cheaper than that cold brew habit that you have. It's much cheaper than the cold brew habit, which is why I like it as well. There's also no nasty chemicals or artificial anything while keeping it tasting good. Join the movement of athletes, life fleets, moms, dads, rookies, first timers. And of course, legal efforts that make AG one the essential nutritional choice. And to make it easy, athletic greens is going to give you an immune supporting free one year supply of item in D and five free travel packs with your first purchase. Here's what you got to do. Visit athletic greens.com

slash legal AF today again, simply visit athletic greens.com slash legal AF and take control of your health and give AG1 a try. People often ask after I do these AG this stuff when you promote it. And I do really like it. I wouldn't promote it if I didn't. Go to athletic greens.com slash legal AF. And this program is also brought to you by Fields. I love Fields. And Fields is a CBD product. And so I'm going to do a lot of things. I'm going to do a lot of things.

I'm going to do a lot of things. I'm going to do a lot of things. I'm going to do a lot of things. I'm going to do a lot of things. Athletic Greens dot com slash legal AF and this program is all also brought to you by Fields. I love fields and fields is a CBD product and CBD isn't about what you feel It's about what you don't feel what you don't feel when you take fields is stress anxiety and pain feels is a premium CBD that will help keep your head clear and make you feel your best. It's hassle free delivered directly to your door. And what I like about it is it reduces my stress and there's no hangover or addiction when I take feels. All you do

is you place a few drops of feels under your tongue and you'll feel the difference within minutes. The thing to remember about CBD is that finding your right dose is important and everyone's dose is different. And feels they have a CBD hotline that will guide your personal experience. Start feeling better with feels today. Become a member today. Please go to feels, f-e-a-l-s.com slash legal AF

and get this, you'll get 50% off your first order with free shipping. That's f e a ls dot com slash legal a f feels dot com slash legal a f become a member and get 50% automatically taken off your first order with free shipping feels dot com slash legal a f and then I'm also asked how do you get these great deals been for us. I negotiate them myself. I use the negotiating that I do as a lawyer and I get you these great, great discounts. So going back though now to the case I was talking about Carson versus Macon, we told you about it. Let me tell you a little bit about the dissent here that's written by Sotomayor. And so Tamiyaura wrote, quote, this court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the

framers fought to build. In just a few years, the court has upended constitutional doctrine, shifting from a rule that permits states to decline to fund religious organizations to one that require states in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with tax payer dollars. And that's exactly what this opinion did. And in this main case, Maine was providing a subsidy to private schools. There were certain people who lived in an area where there wasn't access to public schools. And so what Maine said is, look, we're gonna help this population out. We're gonna provide a subsidy to go to a private school

or a charter school in the area. And then what happened? Religious schools then sued, and a school associated with a church and that had views in this case that were discriminatory of certain populations, the LGBTQ plus population, said, well, if you're gonna give to that private institution, we should get our subsidies also as the church. You state need to fund church. Literally what the

Constitution says should not take place. But what was relied on in this case in the first amendment, let's read the first amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. And as we've seen with these radical right extreme Supreme Court justices, they like to read the portions that they like in the different amendments and just say, hey, all those other portions of the amendment were just, that's not what they really meant, even though they claim to be textualist, right? We see this with the second amendment.

Let's just ignore the part of the second amendment, according to the Radical Right Extreme Court, that talks about the well-regulated militia. Let's regulate it, militia. Let's just read the part that says the right to bear arms. Let's not even address in the second amendment the common sense that if a militia needs to be well-regulated, if an army needs to be well-regulated, why wouldn't an individual need to be well-regulated? The army should be regulated, but any 18-year-old should be able to pick up a weapon of war without any training or instruction.

That's how the Supreme Court interprets the Second Amendment in here. Let's not read the part that talks about Congress. I'll make no law respecting the establishment of religion. But what we should really focus on here is the free exercise thereof and that by main not giving subsidies or states not giving subsidies to the religious institutions, you are prohibiting the free exercise of religion according to this Supreme Court,

and that's why we see in the dissent, the people who are tethered to reality, there's only three that remain tethered to reality, say that's a violation of church's state, Karen, or or Michael Pope, I'll let either of you take this Pope. Yeah, let's talk about this. So the nation did a very good summary of where we are with the cases, including the one that Sotemoyar touched on when she when she sounded the alarm five years ago in the Trinity Lutheran versus Comer case. That's the starting point for her to get really concerned.

In that case, which is also the growing religious right on the court got control of this issue and decided that a program that subsidized playground safety, surfacing for playgrounds, had to allow a church to participate in that program to resurface their playgrounds because non-denominational and secular schools and programs were allowed to participate. That's a direct funding. A church got state money to resurface their playgrounds. And what this court has come to the conclusion, unfortunately, is that individual choice by parents sending their kids to school, parents using a playground is not going to be found to be government establishment of religion at all. And so the nation did a very good summary of where we are

coming to the case that you just talked about Carson versus Macon. So to the question, can a business run by religious people? Deny health care to women? Yes, at the question, can a business run by religious people, deny health care to women? Yes, at the Supreme Court in Burwell versus Hobby Lobby stores. Can religious schools use public funds to upgrade their school playgrounds? As I just mentioned, yes, at the Court in Trinity Lutheran versus Comer. Can the states be forced to give scholarship aid to students attending religious education? Yes, according to the case cited by Roberts in the decision of Esponosa versus Montana, Department of Revenue.

Can religious organizations get state funds to discriminate against LGBTQ couples in adoption services? Yes, says the Supreme Court in Fulton versus City of Philadelphia and can houses of worship ignore occupancy restrictions during COVID or during a pandemic. Yes, says this court in Roman Catholic diocese of Brooklyn versus Cuomo. So nothing surprises so to my or nor the legal aephers having heard that rundown of cases for the complete destruction of the separation of church and state.

And it's exactly the way that Ben, that you put it. If they find that there's individual choice and the state has made a decision to benefit a group of people, either by tuition assistance programs, in this case, the tap programs, or giving funding for some sort of education or making funds available to one type of school or program, and then they're in for a penny, and for a pound, says the

Supreme Court, then you got to open the door, and you got to let every organization, no matter what flag they're flying, no matter what flag they're flying, no matter what religion they're representing, or no religion they're representing, get those funds and we are not gonna find that to be a violation of church and state. And so, to my or as you mentioned, did an intellectual forehead slap and said, oh, what a difference five years has made. I worried in the case of the playgrounds that this was where that the court was moving in the direction. Now the court has taken the extreme view that not only is church and state not to be separated,

but it is a constitutional violation if a law separates church and state. That is where Sotomayor and the liberals and the Thinking people as you said then on the Supreme Court think we are now and that's where we are based on the decision of Carson versus Makeum and Justice Sotomayor concludes her dissent quote with growing concern for where this court will lead us next I respectfully dissent and concern for where this court will lead us next, I respectfully dissent. And those words while they may seem to those listening as well, that sounds respectful. I respectfully

dissent in the way that's framed to the legal eye is basically putting everybody on kind of code red alert for where this is going. How about I sorrowfully dissent? You ever see, we talked about it on the abortion case. You ever say, with sorrow, we dissent. I've never seen that in the history of the Supreme Court. We'll have to do more research. Yeah, I have never seen that either.

The point that I made, though, before I think is worth, you know, if bear is repeating now, that the purpose of these subsidies is to help vulnerable populations. And ultimately, what the choice that a state may be confronted with, is that if they want to help a vulnerable population with the subsidy, well-funded church groups that actually don't need the subsidy are going to

swoop in and demand the same subsidy, so that potentially they with their own doctrine can discriminate against the vulnerable population. And, you know, there's nothing saying with our first amendment that the church can't teach what it wants to teach. We could certainly disagree that a curriculum and disagree forcefully, that a curriculum that teaches these horrible things, they shouldn't teach that, but they still have a first amendment right to teach it based on the free exercise closets

as it was traditionally understood. We couldn't tell the church you can't teach that doctrine. But now to affirmatively tell the church, we're going to fund you. The state has to fund you is something that is completely radical and completely new. Michael Popack, I want to thank you for joining us on League of Legends. We still have more to talk about right now with myself and KF, a Michael Popeye, has got a catch of flight as we told you. We are practicing lawyers and Michael Popeye has to catch a flight off to his next deposition. Karen, I want to switch gears and talk about the January 6th hearings that took place last week,

which were blockbuster. I mean, these captured the attention of the nation. According to polling, have moved the nation in a direction where supermajority of Americans believed that Donald Trump should be criminally charged. They are getting great ratings, both in the initial views, and in the later replays of them, we see that across cable news, and even on our Midas touch stream, we're getting hundreds and thousands of people who have watched the various hearings. And so I want to break down what took place these past two days and it's these day four and day five. And it's impact and where we go from here. It does feel a little bit like the January 6th hearings are a footnote if you will on the week based on the shock that took place on Friday. But nonetheless, these were blockbuster hearings, but as we talk through these various cases,

and then we talk through what this new right is what they're calling himself, this radical right extremist, no longer conservative. I don't even think they called themselves conservative. The new right, this extremist version, this ultra-magga group, who are trying to overthrow the government in various ways. I mean, obviously through the Supreme Court, through actual insurrection and mob violence. And we saw that on stark display with Republican DOJ officials, Republican DOJ officials, top people recounting what Trump was trying to do

to force the DOJ to become his own personal law firm and to declare the 2020 election as corrupt and fraud like a banana republic demanding that his department of justice declare the election fraudulent and to replace the electors based on the actual vote with fraudulent Trump electors. That's what we learned on day five. And then before that, on day four, we heard from the Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensberger, we heard from Gabe Sterling, the Georgia COO, who works for the Secretary of State. We heard from the Arizona Republican Speaker of the House, Rusty Bowers. These were all Trump people. They all supported the guy. And in each and every one of them said that what Trump was trying to

make and do was completely, completely unlawful and that they wouldn't go along with it. So I want to break that down, Karen. And before doing it, I do want to tell everyone about our last sponsor of the day. I want to tell everyone about a sponsor that I really, really enjoy. They're called slot O mania. And let me tell you about slot O mania, life's too short for a day without fun. Get a thrill wherever you need it with slot O need it with the world's number one free slots game. You'll have endless

excitement at your fingertips with 170 free to play slot games huge jackpots, pots and interactive community and a million free coins. It's the perfect escape from your daily routine. It is a unique gaming experience with beautiful graphics, huge progressive jackpots, fun freebies and many games. There's something new every day for endless variety.

And there's nothing more exhilarating than getting these huge jackpots and special prizes and free coin rewards every single day, hundreds of original Vegas style and video slot machines ready to play wherever you are. It's like a Vegas vacation without the luggage. And you can interact with fellow players and form cooperative Slato Clans with new friends or enter electrifying live tournaments and become a VIP member to get your own personal account manager. I play the Slato, Slato Mania. It's actually a really fun game. Um, I have it on my phone. It's completely free. When you sign up, they give you a million free coins. Um,

and it, it's just basically playing a slot machine for free. And so, you know, when I'm just sitting around and I'm, you know, waiting for something you play it and it's fun. And you, you collect the coins. And I've really enjoyed my experience playing it. I think you'll get a kick out of it. I think you'll have a lot of a lot of fun playing it. And so when your day is feeling stale, just ask what will today's spin? If you're 21 or older, you can join millions of players around the world. Download Slotomania, the number one free slots game on the App Store or Google Play Store

and get one million free coins. That's slot Omania on the app store or Google Play for one million free coins. It'll get your mind off things just for a little bit. Play the game. And I think you will enjoy it. That's slot Omania S L O T O M A N I A-O-M-A-N-I-A slot O media. All right, Karen, tell us about these hearings. We could start with day five, day four, your overall views. Well, all I can say is I need something to take my mind off of what's going on in the world right now. A lot of media, Karen. A lot of media. That in the scene, I'm like, C-P-D, you know, I got to get them like, you know, the fields and A.G. One and Slot of Mania, I'm like, you know, I really, I actually really enjoy, I, and people want us to talk

about the lot, but I actually really enjoy the game. And I, so there are people know, like, I really do play the thing. And it is fun. Karen, let's talk about January 6th. I'm talking about Slotomania. I'm talking about Jensik. No, it's like, you know, we need it. So, you know, January 6th, the hearings are continue to just really deliver. You know, I have to say, you know, when they were first announcing that they're going to be doing these hearings, part of me was, I had a little bit of fatigue, you know, like, really, what are you going to show that's new and can't we just move on as a country? And you know, I was a little bit concerned that that's what was going to happen. And instead, I think it's the opposite. I think that they have just

done such a phenomenal job at presenting authentic, authentic testimony. And I think almost everyone who's testified, by by the way is a Republican which is sort of interesting you know that this is not a kind of witch hunt the way the Republicans like to say this is coming from the Republicans of what happened and what's going on and you know they're just doing a fantastic job at doing two things, I think. Number one, changing the hearts and minds of the country to show that there really is, that this was an insurrection and that this is very dangerous at what happened. And two, that Trump really needs to be prosecuted.

The time has come. And I really think these hearings have become a roadmap for prosecution. And the prosecutors are listening. The FBI is listening, the DOJ is listening, and the local prosecutors who could possibly, who could possibly prosecute are listening. And they're really doing a good job of breaking it down by crime, by, you know, and by sort of what the, what would be and by sort of what the, what would be admissible evidence of what the charges could be?

And these are the witnesses, and this is what it could be, and they're spoon fading, the public. So I think it once, I predict that charges will be brought, and these are a great roadmap for the American people to understand not only why they're gonna be brought, but the importance of how they're gonna be brought. And, you. And if you want, I can take you through what I think

the likely charges are going to be, but that's what I think these ultimately are just sort of taking a zoom out. I think this is a roadmap to prosecution of this is what the evidence is, and this is what the proof is, and the time has come to do it. You know, we had Adam Schiff, who was a prosecutor on day four, who, you know, did the questioning and I found that it was very prosecutorial in the way he went about the questioning. You know, I thought the prior days, testimonies, days two and three, was impactful, but to me, days two and three had kind of looked more like a presentation and a traditional hearing with a direct examination.

And I found the questionings by Schiff and Kinzinger to resemble more of a direct exam with kind of probing questions and witnesses, you know, live who really kind of broke down everything. So, so why don't you, why don't we do zoom in a little bit because I know people have watched our coverage. They've probably heard us talk about it on Midas Touch, but the perspective, I think, they want from the Galef is what are these criminal charges that they can glean, that you can glean from as they, especially from the perspective of a prosecutor, Karen, which you are a prosecutor for more than two decades, explain what you're seeing as a prosecutor and what charges you think will be brought.

So, I'm seeing a combination of both state charges and federal charges. The state charges and sort of the one that I think is the most kind of straightforward and easiest case to bring is in Georgia. And it has to do with, you know, find me, they, whatever, 12,000 votes. And we saw that, I think, was it day four, day five, I can't keep track of the day anymore, but when Secretary of State,affin's burger testified, and that's really where you saw that evidence of that particular charge.

And I think Fannie Willis in Fulton County, who has an investigation pending, I think that is sort of the most kind of straightforward state court charge that could be brought. I know there's also state, there are other state court possibilities, but I think that's the one that's most likely,

but federally speaking, and that's where I think this is going. I think this is gonna be the Department of Justice bringing federal charges against Trump and his cronies. And I think there's really three charges bringing federal charges against Trump and his cronies. And I think there's really three charges that I think are most likely. One is conspiracy to defraud the United States, which is also known as a client conspiracy.

And there you have to prove that Trump conspired to defeat Congress through fraud, deceived, or chicanaery. And as long as there you know, there's evidence that he was told it was a lie, then there's enough evidence to get to a jury. And that's what they're doing by painstakingly showing that he was told over and over and over again by what's 60 different courts.

So you have judges telling him that this isn't true and that this isn't justified. And then you have all these people who came in a testify that we went in there and told him, you know, there's nothing here. This is not a fraud, this is not a big lie. And you know, that you have no kind of, that you knew you didn't have a leg to stand on.

The second sort of charge that I think is possible is, you know, the obstruction of an official proceeding, or I think it might be called tampering with a witness, that's 18 USC 1512, I think C. And that, you know, that doesn't require fraud to see it or should cannery, but it requires that you act corruptly, okay? And, you know, corruptly, like, sort of is defined in various Supreme Court cases, you know, Arthur Anderson and Aguilar, that it requires sort of that you act

with a bad purpose. And I think that's another kind of possible charge that, again, a lot of these witnesses that are bringing together this evidence of knowledge and that he knew that this wasn't, you know, that he acknowledged that he couldn't do this and that it was wrong. They didn't actually believe that he won the election. You know, that's why they're going through the exercise of bringing this evidence out,

witnessed by witness document, by document, email by email, so that you can see that that evidence exists. And the third, I think most, this is why I think they're going to bring also kind of the easiest to bring, but that's just my opinion, is the charge that they're bringing against the, what is it now, against the, the close to 800 insurrectionists, which is, you know, eating or inciting an insurrection,

because even if, because it looks like, you know, even if he believed you won, which I don't think you could possibly make any rational argument anymore that he believed that, given the January 6 hearings, but even if he believed, even if you can't prove that, I mean, you know, in his crazy delusional mind, that even if he believed that he won,

you still can't allow people to, you know, point them in the direction and kind of cause an insurrection, you know, you can't kind of assist, you know, in this sort of rebellion or insurrection, or give aid or comfort there too. And that's where he where you trip him up, you know, I think there's an argument to say that, you know, he he brought all these people to to January 6th to Washington. He riled them up, you know, that's loading the gun and and cocking it, you know, and pointed them in the direction of the Capitol. And he's going to say, well, I didn't know what they were gonna do. I didn't tell them to, I said peacefully, you know what I,

that's a sort of, he's gonna say, I didn't tell them to do that. But the bottom line is you can't give aid or comfort there too. And that's what he did during those 187 minutes that he did not stop them, right? And so that's what any prosecutor's gonna do. Any prosecutor's going to deliberately put together the 187 minutes, minute by minute, second by second.

What was he doing? Was he watching TV? Did he see them going in? Did he, or people telling them how violent they were being? And he did nothing. And that's when they're going to be able to prove that an omission is actionable, you know, under the law. And that's the charge he's going to be brought under eye predict because he had a duty

at that point to stop them and he's going to be charged with that crime. That's what I think is going to happen. I think that's in great take. And what's interesting to me as well is that while it's called the January 6th Committee, and while we're heavily focused on what happened on January 6th, what took place on January 6th was just the final plan after every one of the other plans

which were unlawful, as part of this overall scheme to obstruct, did not go his way because while these Republicans were willing to go very, very far in going as close to violating the law as they possibly could for Trump. Ultimately, the people were not willing to go so far based on their own self-preservation.

If they could get away with it, they probably would try to get away with it for Donald Trump. These are not heroes, a lot of the people who have been testifying far from it. They tried to explore every possible way to overturn the election, but then recognizing that they would become the Jeffrey Clark or the Johnny Eastman or the Giuliani. Lots of these individuals who were testifying ultimately did not go the furthest extent as

those individuals who I just mentioned. And that's what we really highlighted, right? Because we, what we see from the day four of the hearings, for example, you know, is this timeline of all these things taking place in December with the state legislatures. Like we see Trump relentlessly calling directly or through his conduits, people like Rusty Bowers, the Arizona House Speaker, people like Brad Raffinsberger, find me the 11,780 votes. We have the full hour and a half clip of Trump's conversation with Brad Raffinsberger

posted on the Midas Touch YouTube. Suggest everybody subscribe now to the Midas Touch YouTube channel and make sure you listen to that full. The guy sounds like a deranged criminal when you listen to him for the hour. You know, and basically when he doesn't get his way, he basically will always go back to after trying to get him to violate the law. He basically will go to this tactic. Just do it.

Just do it for me. I'll deal with it and the Republican members of Congress. Just freaking do it. Do it. That's why I think that's why I think that's the best case. She's got to bring that case. You know, and we don't just see it there, though. I mean, we saw what he was telling Rusty Bowers and his conversation with Rusty Bowers in Arizona. She needs to bring, but she needs to bring the case. But to me, a case could be brought in Arizona, to me, a case could be brought in all these various states where he was reaching out to, to try to overturn the election. And then, you know, so we learned about Trump dealing with the state legislatures that way and trying to pressure them to change the votes, you know, directly and through his conduits. And then we learned about,

you know, him pressuring the DOJ. And in fact, there's one person in the DOJ who we learned about his name is Jeff Clark. He worked in the Civil Division in the environmental section, a very low level person in the DOJ, probably the only person Trump could find in the DOJ to basically support these crazy conspiracy theories. When I say crazy conspiracy theories, they're crazy. I mean, they would literally find a youth. This was true testimony that the top DOJ officials who testified talked about. And we had the former acting AG, Jeff Rosen and the former acting deputy AG, Richard Donahue, and then Steve Angle, the former assistant AG for the Office of Legal Counsel. And they would talk about how the Trump team would find a random YouTube video of a conspiracy theorist who had previously been jailed by the Italian government, who would rant on YouTube

about how Italian satellites were switching votes during the election. And based on that, Trump wanted the DOJ to investigate that. The DOJ watched this YouTube video and said, that's really crazy stuff that you're having us look at. But then it turns out that Trump had the Department of Defense look into Italy and speak with the Atache in Italy about this thing and to look into it as a major issue. That's how he was using the levers of government. And Trump's response was, I know the internet better than you.

And I look at the internet better. That's what Trump would say about these things. And the DOJ officials would say each and every one of these conspiracy theories of these statements that Trump would make about this in this state, this in this state, we tracked them all down, they were all false. And we told Trump that all of the stuff he was saying, all of those claims about fraud, we looked into. And it was false.

There was that one moment where they talked about, they had Bill Barr, Bill Barr said, look, one of the reasons I looked into it, you know, whether this is actually true or not, but I think it still is an important point was because if I didn't look into it at the DOJ, Trump would say, look, the DOJ didn't look into it. And Bill Barr said, if the DOJ didn't look into it, these fake allegations of fraud, we probably would not have had a transition of power. Trump would still be in power because he would have declared the DOJ, the DOJ failed to even look into it. And then one of the plots that they had was the Trump administration was going to appoint this Jeffrey Clark, this low level guy. And as the top level people

who actually testified, they said, this Jeffrey Clark guy, he had never even conducted a criminal investigation in his life. He had never appeared before a grand jury, yet alone a trial jury. And Trump was going to appoint Jeffrey Clark to become the head of the entire. They said everyone was going to resign if he did, right? Yeah. And then all the other DOJ officials said, we would resign if you're going to put this guy. Yeah.

Because Trump wanted the DOJ to write a letter to the states that they got this Jeffrey Clark guy to write or Jeff Rick Rott on his own that basically said the 2020 election was corrupt and that you need to change your electors, which, you know, which Trump wanted that policy in place. And that's why I said, Karen, only after all of those things failed, was it finally Jan 6th. So now let's go to mob violence and hang mic pence. But all the other illegal conduct was going on.

The coup was, all the coup was going on before, too. And then you finally have January 6th, where it was, let's incite the mob, let's incite the terrorists. And you remember this this Karen, do you remember right around Christmas of going into 2021 Christmas of 2020, guess who was in the White House, the proud boys, they were inviting the proud boy terrorists into the White House. And Rique Tariya was taking photos about big meetings and big

plans. And so that was just one of the plans they had was mob violence. And that's what we're going to hear about on the future Jan 6th hearings. Karen, final thoughts on the Jan 6th hearing so far? You know, it's just, I just think that there is no perfect case as a prosecutor, and you got it at some point, pulled the trigger, and for the better, for the good of our country, we, somebody has to pull the trigger. I mean, we are now only seeing the full impact of the danger of Donald Trump and the far reach that he's had everywhere, including the Supreme Court of the United States. And this hearing, these hearings have done an extraordinary job

at showing in detail how dangerous this actually is. And we need to pull the trigger, bring a case, prosecute this man, this dangerous criminal, and continue to protect our democracy. And really, Ben, what you and the mightest mighty and the mightest touch network are doing to highlight and bring these issues to the American people is really like nobody else.

And I just want to personally thank you for all that you guys are doing, you and your brothers, and for letting me join you today. It was really an honor to be here and to be here with you and to get to talk about these really important issues during this really historic week that we've had. Well, it's an honor to have you here, Karen. You know, I wanted to make sure at the beginning of the podcast as well. I mean, everyone who knows you and watches legal AF and who's been exposed to you on might as touch knows that you're brilliant, but I wanted to highlight your background

as well because, you know, for those watching Karen Friedman, Agnifalo has probably the most outstanding reputation in New York as a prosecutor as a lawyer. And so it's an honor that on this show, we can even have someone like Karen to share her perspective with you as a prosecutor who's been in the trenches of the trenches. And I do want to mention this as well for everyone saying, well, what's Merrick Garland doing? As I said, Merrick Garland has, in my view,

been building this case brick by brick, starting with the low level, moving to the top level. We've now seen the seditious conspiracy charges brought against the terrorist organizations. Now we're finding the links between the seditious conspiracy, the conspiracists terrorist group and the White House. That's the next link that ultimately is going to be made. What we saw happen last week as well, midweek, was that Jeffrey Clark, who I mentioned. His place was rated by the FBI and documents were seized.

So Jeffrey Clark is being looked into obviously. And there's more to, you know, there's going to be more there. But obviously, that's a big development that the FBI is investigating Jeffrey Clark did do a raid of Jeffrey Clark. And I think we'll highlight more of that on legal AF to come. And so I guess if there is some silver lining to this episode, it's that, you know, it is that the work of the January 6th committee exposing what took place, the fact that people like Jeffrey Clark, like Giuliani, like Eastman, like Trump are being exposed. But now it's up to the American people. You know, I reflect as we close out this episode of legal AF

on the 2016 election. And even now, you know, there were so many Democrats, independents, pro-democracy people, people who supported love and freedom, who for whatever reason thought that Hillary Clinton wasn't the perfect candidate and didn't vote. Hillary Clinton warned us about each and everything that was going to happen. How Trump was going to be not just a disaster, but a disaster of the highest magnitude. She explained how Roe would be overturned. Everyone was saying, oh, no, that was not going to happen. Hillary, what about the emails and what about this or that? And all of that BS. And to some extent, before a row, I've

been seeing it with Biden as well. Biden, we need a full relief of student debt. And we're not going to vote if you only give a partial relief of student debt. And I think that the giving student debt relief is a critical issue. I do, giving student debt relief is a critical issue. I do believe that student debt relief should be given in the, to the greatest extent possible. To me, if you're bailing out big billionaire corporations all of the time, you

know, we should focus on helping individuals and students and people with actual needs. But that isn't a reason why you should invoke. To get upset that a Democratic president can't give you the perfect, but can give you the realities within a poll, complicated political system, but is fighting every day to try to accomplish the goals, but may not be moving fast enough. Why would you sacrifice though your rights to allow fascist, Republican, religious, the ocratic extremists to have the government control and the power to take away your rights? I hope we all know now what is at stake.

And I wish it didn't take this to be a wake up call to the nation. But if this isn't a wake up call to the nation, then do we deserve this democracy? Do we deserve this republic? If this isn't going to motivate you to vote, if this isn't going to motivate you to get out there, this isn't going to motivate the country to do something, then what? But I think we have the enthusiasm. I think we have the courage. I think we have the strength of a nation to do something. And I want to leave you with, and I'll

give you the final word, Karen. But I want to leave everyone with a statement written by Michelle Obama yesterday. And there was a portion of her statement that I found particularly poignant and something I wanna share with all of our listeners. And she wrote, Michelle Obama wrote this, when we don't understand our history,

we are doomed to repeat its mistakes. In this country, our futures are tied together in a delicate tapestry that we each have a hand in making. Too often, cynicism or indifference makes us feel like we don't have a say in weaving it, but that couldn't be further from the truth. The more we allow pessimism to push us further into helplessness, the less we will be empowered to help create the kind of country we want to live in. Karen, I'll give you the last word and then I want to tell everyone what I'm doing out in Dallas. My only last word is not as eloquent as what you just said, but I read somewhere on some

meme on the internet, but it really stuck with me that when you're trying to decide who to vote for, think of it as you're trying to decide what train you're going to catch on mass transit. It might not be the perfect train. It might not get you to your exact destination. You want to pick the one that gets you as close to the destination that you're trying to get to at the fastest time. And that's how you pick your candidates. It's not a love affair. It's not a marriage. You don't need to pick the person that you agree with absolutely everything that they say, but you want to pick the one that takes

you closest to where you believe the fastest you can get there. Excellent. And so I'm out in Dallas. That's why I'm wearing the beddo shirt. I'm going to go start knocking on some doors right now and be the change. Go out and do something. You know, I'm doing the podcast this morning. I'm going to start knocking on doors. We got a group out here in Texas who's who's ready to canvas. I wrote about we did our group did about 300 or so postcards yesterday to voters. We had a fun night, we did postcards, had a little bit of sushi, then I prepared for legal

AF and you could do the same. Please, do the same. Go out, do postcards, do something. We really, really need you in this fight. Make sure you're subscribed to the MidasTouch YouTube channel. Make sure you're subscribed to the Legal AF audio podcast channel. So search Legal AF right now on wherever you get podcasts. And please subscribe to Legal AF now to support the podcast as well. If you're listening to this on audio, go to MidasTouch YouTube and make sure you subscribe to MidasTouch YouTube.

I want to give a special thanks to our sponsors, Athletic Greens, Fields and Slot-O, Mania. I appreciate all of our sponsors going support those sponsors. It's important to us to keep the show going. And I want to thank everybody here. It's been a difficult week I know, but we do need to fight. And I direct you back to what I did in the Michelle Obama quota, even the Justice, so to my or quote I read at the beginning, you know, which is it's okay to be sad. It's okay to be upset. It's okay to feel beaten down. I mean, those are natural feelings and response to this. But we have to fight, we have to fight. And together we will.

Thank you for listening to this edition of Legal AF, Ben Myselis and KFA, Michael Pope. Michael Pope, we appreciate you joining us KFA for this edition. And we'll see everybody next time. Special shout out to the Midas Mike.