Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump BEGS Judge to REMOVE Jack’s Smith’s “MEAN WORDS”

Episode Date: October 1, 2024

Thought Trump was going to try to immediately appeal and try to stop Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 300 page+ opus from being disclosed to the public in the DC Election Interference criminal case? Think again. Michael Popok gets into the weeds of the new Trump court filing and discovers that all he really wants is to call the DOJ mean, and their filing irregular, and urge the court to protect witnesses from intimidation and harassment —from Trump! Moink Box: Keep American farming going by signing up at https://MoinkBox.com/LEGALAF RIGHT NOW and listeners of this show get FREE Hot Rolls in your first box! Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/LegalAF Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is Michael Popak, Legal AF. We got a brand new filing by Donald Trump in the DC election interference case, and it's like a popped balloon. Donald Trump is losing steam in that case. It is arguments against special counsel Jack Smith doing exactly what Chief Justice John Roberts told the special counsel to do.

File all of your evidence, give all of your facts, make this a fact- specific analysis by the judge, Judge Chutkin, as to whether the new superseding indictment survives the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July. You can only do it by opening the Pandora's box and looking inside and comparing the facts. And special counsel Jack Smith heard the call and said, I know what I'll do.

I'll file 300 pages, including 30 pages of footnote single space with attached exhibits of grand jury material, grand jury secret testimony, witness statements, and the like, and other evidence we haven't heard about before against Donald Trump. That's not Jack Smith's fault. That's the chief justice's fault

in writing that immunity decision. How else did he think having chastised the trial judge, how else would they be able to come to get to the bottom of whether immunity applied to any of the acts in the indictment? There's only way you can do it. You can on one hand, if you're the chief judge or chief justice say to Chutkin, you did it wrong. You didn't look at the facts, the context around the facts and the evidence around the facts and the immunity decision. And then can then be heard to complain when Jack Smith files an entire tractor trailer

worth of evidence against Donald Trump right now before the election. It's not his fault. Donald Trump thinks it is, but all he's left with, this is where the popped balloon analogy comes in. Like, psst, all they're left with it is, but all he's left with, this is where the popped balloon analogy comes in, like psst, all they're left with now is judge. They didn't, when they put black tape over the names of the witnesses, they didn't take away their titles

and their positions and their names, and it's really easy to figure out. Oh, we know it's always easy to figure out if you follow things like on Legal AF. When Jack Smith's first indictment came out with the five unindicted co-conspirators, it took our team, I don't know, 20 seconds to figure out who each one was based on the description.

Looking at you, Rudy Giuliani, looking at you, John Eastman, looking at you, Boris Epstein, same thing here. Sure, they can cover up a few more identifiers as they try to anonymize, I love that word, anonymize the identities. But that's all Donald Trump really is complaining about. Now, when we heard that Jack Smith had filed on time his now 300 page opus is effectively

a special counsel report, final report, but being filed now, we don't normally see these things until the end of an investigation. But again, the Supreme Court forced the special counsel's hand and therefore Judge Chutkin's hand. And of course, Donald Trump doesn't like it.

But when they first filed, we said, oh, here we go. Here's what Donald Trump's gonna do as lawyers. They're gonna file an immediate appeal of Judge Chuckin to the DC Court of Appeals, the US Supreme Court, and they're arguing, no, this is not what you needed to do. Don't let the special counsel file 300 pages of evidence and try a mini trial against this right now. Don't do that.

We don't want the public to see that, especially before the election. Is that the October surprise? I mean, we are in October. We thought they were gonna take that appeal and say, Judge, Chetkin's got the process wrong. Judge, Chetkin's got the logistics wrong. There shouldn't be briefs.

She should just sit quietly in a room by herself with the indictment and just manifest exactly how the result should be. She's just commune apparently with pieces of paper by herself without any assistance by the special counsel or any reference to any case law or any evidence. That's not how this is gonna work. But this new piece of paper I'm gonna read to you from

is not gonna set up that kind of appeal because now this very shrunken argument is, please put more black tape over the complete names and identifiers for these witnesses, please. And please, pretty please, Judge, make them comply with the way that they provided. Judge, wait for it, Judge Cannon in Florida, Judge Cannon got it right, Judge, follow her lead. About, and make the Department of Justice be consistent. They're not being consistent. This is my whining artist rendering of Donald Trump

and his lawyers at this point. They're arguing that the Department of Justice is taking inconsistent positions. That down in Florida, they argued that we can't let all the sensitive material out because that'll blow the investigation and will intimidate future witnesses. It's a different argument here. We already have the superseding indictment.

We already know who the cooperating witnesses are. It's all been reported in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Midas Touch, Legal AF. Everybody knows that Mark Meadows is going to testify against Donald Trump. Vice President Pence is going to. Dan Scavino is going to, everybody in Donald Trump's inner circle, all of his lawyers, we all know that already. We didn't know it from the Jan six committee, we knew it from other reporting.

It's a different world now, it's a different weather. This isn't a year ago or two years ago, it's not even a month ago. And so they're not taking inconsistent positions. And I'm sure that the judge will see that. In addition, they make two fundamental errors in this new filing. It doesn't matter what the government says,

it doesn't matter what Donald Trump says. There's only one person, she wears a black robe, she is the district court judge, and she makes the decisions as the gatekeeper. It's her discretion as to what in balancing the competing interest in our criminal justice system between making sure that Donald Trump is presumed to be innocent, gets a fair and impartial trial and can pick a jury one day who's fair and impartial versus protecting the witnesses from witness intimidation and threats by the Department of Justice, which is what the special counsel cares about,

and the interest of the public and the press, yes, the press, including yours truly, to know what is in the filing, because we have a seat as members of the public on our First Amendment right of freedom of the press to know what's happening in our public justice system. That's why we call it a public criminal justice system. We don't do star chambers in this country.

We don't do secret tribunals. And this is why these are all the competing interests. There's only one person who rules on that. They act like the Department of Justice is always gonna get their way. Sure, they've had the more reasonable approach and recommendations about everything in the case so far. The judge usually sides with them,

but she makes her own independent decision. And the judge has already told them the argument you're raising in this new paper, which I'll read from in a moment, about they're not filing, they're not following the DOJ manual. Well, here on fire, oh, they're not following their own voluntary

aspirational manual. And she's like, I don't, that's with the Department of Justice. That's an internal, that's a housekeeping thing for them. I can't, that's not the federal district court judge, DC Court of Appeals, Supreme Court issue. I can't enforce that. I don't think you're right, but I can't enforce it either.

Let's read from it. And again, they always detract from their advocacy. And I'll speak now as a long time federal court advocate trial lawyer. They always detract from their credibility and their advocacy because they got to take ridiculous side shots like their client that have nothing to do with anything. And all it signals to the reader, to the judge

and the law clerks that assist the judge is they got nothing. They got nothing. When you got the law, you argue the law. When you got the facts, you argue the facts. And when you don't have either, you just argue. That's an old line, but it's true. Look how quickly in the first paragraph,

they attack the Department of Justice. And they tell the judge, you know, you should do, you should follow Judge Cannon, a judge who is out there on an island by herself making decisions that are against 250 years of precedent as a young judge down in Florida, who Judge Cannon has already schooled a number of times and said, yeah, we don't do that in this courtroom.

Not a 17 year trial judge, not a 14 year federal trial lawyer before that. That may work down in Florida, but it ain't gonna work here. She said that already a number of times, including when they raised Judge Cannon's name in a prior, in September 5th, during a status conference. And they said, judge, we're gonna be bringing a motion to get rid of Jack Smith because he's mean.

Oh, I'm sorry. Cause he's illegitimate. And he's, he wasn't properly appointed under the constitution and judge Cannon said so. And she said, well, this is my rendering of judge Chutkin. Well, that wasn't really well-reasoned, was it? But if you want to bring the motion, go ahead. But if you think I'm going to rely

on Aileen Cannon's precedent, good luck. Did you know that four companies control over 80% of the U.S. meat industry? I had no idea. These companies are using mobster-like tactics to crush American family farms. And with the additives they're putting into our food, Americans are stuck with sketchy meat.

And would it surprise you to know that 99% of the chicken, 95% of the pork, and 78% of cattle are raised in feedlot or confinement buildings? I was shocked. So what can we do about it? Let me tell you about a company that's coming up swinging on behalf of American Family Farms

and your family's food security, Moink. Their farmers are given an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, and they deliver meat straight to your doorstep at prices you can actually afford. Keep American Family Farms farming by joining the Moink movement today at moinkbox.com slash Legal AF.

Sign up today and get free hot rolls in your first order, the Moink Movement today at moinkbox.com slash legal af. Sign up today and get free hot rolls in your first order. Spelled M-O-I-N-K box.com slash legal af. Oink, oink, get moinked. Moinkbox.com slash legal af. Here's the motion. Defendant, President Donald J. Trump's opposition to the special counsel ceiling motion.

First, they take issue with the name of the motion. Okay, good start when you got nothing. President Donald J. Trump respectfully submits, by the way, that's the last time he's respectful in this filing by saying he's respectful, to the quote, so-called motion for immunity determinations, which the Department of Justice have already restyled. What's their argument? Well, when they first raised the issue in September

about the paper they wanted to file, Judge, they called it the opening immunity brief, but now they're calling it the motion for immunity determination. I'm sorry. Because if this was my opponent, I'd be laughing already. We changed the name? Really? It's basically the same thing. Oh, they if this was my opponent, I'd be laughing already. Oh, we changed the name? Really?

It's basically the same thing. Oh, they've admitted it. They've, the title. It's always been the title. Let's continue. I'll try to take my tongue out, firmly implanted out of my cheek. All right.

Even though there is no basis judge, and they've made this argument before it's been rejected, in federal criminal procedure or the constitution for a filing that attempts to usurp control and presentation of a defendant's defense in a criminal case. Here's their argument. We needed to go first.

We wanna go first, not him. Let me translate. Normally, a defendant would file a motion to dismiss on immunity grounds. That's how we got here originally. And there's a new indictment. We call it the superseding indictment. And normally, a defendant would go first.

They would get one more. They would get the motion in the brief. The government would have the opposing brief in the middle. And Trump would have, the defendant would have another brief at the end. Two briefs for the defendant, one brief for the prosecution. But that's not how this worked. Because what I said at the beginning, the Pandora's box and the commands

of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in writing the immunity decision, put the burden on the government. In fact, he said the burden is on the government to defend their new superseding indictment or indictment against the immunity decision. To show the judge how the superseding indictment or indictment against the immunity decision to show the judge how the superseding indictment in this case survives what falls into absolute immunity

you're under the constitution what falls into immunity that's immune by presumption but can be rebutted and overcome by a showing by the government i.e. there needs to be a showing by the government to carry their burden and And what is prosecutable private conduct? How else to do it but the government going first? They have to go first and say, here is the immunity argument, here are the facts you need. Here, it's not their motion. They want to ignore that they won at the US Supreme Court, which has changed the posture and changed the order of operation.

Government now goes first to defend their indictment. Obviously, already I'm one paragraph in I'm already rolling my eyes. Okay. And I'm sure the judge will do. All right, now they now we get down to page two, the true motivation. Here comes lawfare weaponization alert. The true motivation, here comes lawfare weaponization alert. The true motivation driving the efforts by the special counsel's office to disseminate witness statements. This is the part that is keeping Donald Trump up at night. They have witness statements, both at the grand jury and that they obtained in their own investigation that we, some of which we've never heard before. Dan Scavino didn't testify to the Jan 6 committee.

The lawyers for Donald Trump in the White House counsel's office only testified half and half. Now full. Mike Pence didn't testify to the Jan 6 committee, but they got it now, and now they got the witness statements. So they were worried that when they had anonymized it, they put, uh, witness black, who is the black of the United States? I'll fill in, I'll take vice president, please, for a thousand.

They're worried about that. So they say the true motivation driving the efforts by the special counsel's office that disseminate the witness statements that they previously sought to lock down is obvious as it is inappropriate. The office wants their politically motivated manifesto to be public contrary to the justice manual

and longstanding DOJ norms in cases not involving Donald Trump in the final weeks of the 2024 presidential election while early voting has already happened. Don't do it judge. It's the weaponization. They're violating their own norms and handshake agreements about how to handle this case. No, the Supreme Court and its edict and remand directions has done that. They have required it to be done before the election. It's not the, it's just the Department of Justice playing the cards they've been dealt.

Come on now. Now I'm thinking, all right, this is gonna be good. Where are they gonna go with this? What do they really want? I thought it was gonna end with, and therefore you shouldn't allow any filings whatsoever. We're taking an appeal. Nope, this is the balloon now popped version.

On page two, they say after all that bluster, after all that friction, that heat and no light, this is what they say. President Trump has no objection to redacting the names of individuals who are not specifically identified in the superseding indictment. Okay. All right, so you're okay with that then. All right, good, good. We'll put you down for no objection to redacting the names of the witnesses. They just wanted to go further to get rid of the titles in the position.

All right, this is not what this case is about, but we'll go there for that. Then they're worried on page three, they say the special counsel's office also takes an inconsistent position with respect to materials that the office previously designated as sensitive pursuant to the protective order in this case,

which are summarized and quoted at length in the filing. These materials are grand jury testimony. Well, Trump doesn't want that out in the public. Materials obtained through sealed search warrants like Trump's Twitter account, transcripts and reports of witness interviews, like Mike Pence and Mark Meadows. They don't want that.

And materials obtained from other governmental entities. Oh, they certainly don't want that. And then they say it'll be, oh, it'll be prejudicial, pre-trial publicity. Oh my God, it'll blow the minds of the jury. Again, the judge in the black robe with the lifetime appointment makes the decision about what the public gets to see.

Sure, the New York Times, Washington Post, maybe Midas Touch and Legal AF are gonna go after as much as we can and rip as much of the tape off. But right now the government's position is, other than putting the tape over some of the names of people and their identifiers, everything else should be in the public, judge. Just protect the witnesses.

And Trump's like, don't let anything out. Are you mad? I'm just trying to also tell you whether from an appeal standpoint, this motion sets Donald Trump up for an appeal. And frankly, I don't think so. Here's how they conclude. It's a relatively short motion.

Page five, now that public disclosure serves their politically motivated mission. Again, enough, it's so hackneyed, it's so tiresome and I'm fatigued and so is the judge, I'm sure, by these comments about Jack Smith, who's about as apolitical as possible in this case, being politically motivated. Like he's taking marching orders every day from Joe Biden,

like Joe Biden's meeting over lunch at Subway with Jack Smith. Here's what you're going to do today, Jack. Does anybody believe that? Okay. The office believes that President Trump's constitutional rights to impartial jurors and fair proceedings to say nothing of witness privacy and even safety. Oh, now he's worried about witness privacy and safety? They need to be private and protected because of Donald Trump and his intimidation and witness tampering. Talk about gaslighting. All take a back seat to the office's political goals. Indeed, the office's implicit position is that all of these important considerations must give way to their objective of providing voters across the country immediate access

to an unprecedented filing. That's not what they're saying. They're also saying the judge decides. Okay, so now I go to the conclusion, which, you know, listen, I teach my lawyers when you go to court, you got an impatient judge. They only got three things on their mind. Why are you here?

What do you want? And do I have the power to do it? Go. So here's the conclusion. For the foregoing reasons the court should require the special counsel's office to Eileen did now for this one, make complete consistent redactions. Oh, this is about this is not going to office depot or staples and collating and stapling a document appropriately and using whiteout. All right. Two, and show cause why their proposed public disclosure of voluminous,

purportedly sensitive witness statements is consistent with the risk of witness safety, potential juror taint, and the integrity of the proceedings they have cited previously. Here and in Florida, Judge, don't forget about Florida. Why do they keep raising Judge Cannon? They know that that horse is dead. They keep beating and the judge has no respect for her based on prior rulings. The defense will probably meet and confer

with the office regarding any additional redactions consistent with the court's rulings. So they have punted. They have totally abandoned the argument that which we thought they were gonna make that would give them grounds for an immediate appeal because now they're not even asking for that. They haven't preserved the issue on appeal.

They don't even put in a footnote, you're doing it wrong, judge. There can't be briefing. There can't be 300 pages of evidence against me. Let's find out what Judge Chief Justice Roberts says. Gone, that appeal issue now gone based on this seven page filing. Good job, Todd Blanch and John Loro.

We're gonna continue to follow it just the way we do right here on Legal AF and on the Midas Touch Network. We're bursting with so much material, so much enthusiasm that Midas Touch and me, we had to form a new channel. We call it Legal AF MTN. Yes.

Yes. It's the byproduct of Midas Touch Network and Legal AF. I'll be curating the channel. It's up and running already. We already have 125,000 subscribers in our first two weeks. Help us build that ProDemocracy channel in collaboration with the Midas Touch Network and help us get to, wait for it, I don't know, 200,000 by Halloween. Boo. At least boo for Donald Trump. I'll sit at

that intersection of law and politics like I always have and like the content that you've come to expect. And we'll have a lot of contributors and commentators as well from the Midas universe, sort of like the Marvel universe, but coming over here, you know, superheroes without capes and new contributors that you haven't even heard from yet, but you'll find fascinating. And a new show, speaking of the Supreme Court, we're gonna be doing once a week, starting this week called Unprecedented,

where we're gonna evaluate and talk about and commentate about the United States Supreme Court in all of its iterations and forms and orders and things they don't take and things they take and their ethics and non-ethics, unprecedented, where? MTN, Legal AF MTN. So, free subscribe, help us get there. Until my next hot take,

till my Legal AF podcast, we've been my cellist and Karen Freeman at KnitFlo. This is Michael Popock and I'm reporting. In collaboration with the Midas Touch Network, we just launched the Legal AF YouTube channel. This is Michael Popok and I'm reporting.